The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10D - Resolution 99-142 - Protection of Final Plats MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 20, 1999 10D JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ) V C CONSIDER APPROVAL RESOLUTION 99-W(DENYING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE PROTECTI<ffl OF FINAL PLATS FROM A CHANGE IN ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES ~462.358, SUBD. 3C History: On March 2, 1998, the Council approved Resolution 98-30, approving the final plat and developer's contract for Red Oaks 2nd Addition. This final plat consisted of 2.42 acres subdivided into 3 lots for single family dwellings, one with an existing dwelling and two new lots. The property is located on the south side of Prior Lake, at the northerly end of Breezy Point Road. To the best of our knowledge, as of this date none of the lots have been sold. In addition, the developer has not applied for the permits necessary to complete the developer improvements required by the development contract, including service lines for sewer and water and grading. On November 15, 1999 the Planning staff received a letter from Bryce Huemoeller, representing the developer, Michael Benedict, requesting a one year extension, to March 2, 2001, ofthe protection from zoning ordinance amendments established by Minnesota Statutes 9462.358, Subd. 3c. Current Circumstances: Minnesota Statutes 9462.358, Subd. 3c, states "for one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and municipality agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to 162b\19f~gi'29c~~i~'At~~as~E?~~~fl:~H?Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fa:(61~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving vlanned and staged develovment. a municipality mav by resolution grant the rights referred to herein for such veriods of time longer than two veal'S which it determines to be reasonable and avpropriate." [emphasis added] Section 1003.400 of the City Subdivision Ordinance basically restates this language. Red Oaks 2nd Addition does not involve a staged development. The purpose of this language is to protect the investment made by the developer in a new development from any new changes to the official controls. The time limit is in place to protect the interests of the City when new controls are deemed necessary. For example, there were many incomplete subdivision plats in the City of Prior Lake for several years that did not meet the current zoning requirements. In 1997, the City Council amended the Subdivision Ordinance to include Section 1003.401, providing the developers of these plats one year to either submit a final plat in conformance with the original approved preliminary plat, or to submit a staging plan for approval by the City Council. After that year expired, any new development must be consistent with the current regulations. This particular plat was affected by the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. When Red Oaks 2nd Addition was approved, the required lakeshore setback was 50' from the Ordinary High Water elevation. With the adoption of the new ordinance on May 1, 1999, the setback changed to 75' from the OHW. Because of the statutory protection afforded by 462.358, this ordinance change will not affect Red Oaks 2nd Addition until March 2,2000. The developer is requesting this date be extended to March 2,2001. The Issues: The purpose of the statutory language is to protect the interests of both the developer and the City. It is the staffs view that the two year period is an adequate transition period to complete a subdivision consisting of two lots. The developer actually has until March 2, 2000 to obtain a building permit for these lots. To date, the developer has made no attempt to complete the developer improvements, so there has been no substantial financial investment. The developer is essentially requesting the Council grant a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which will be applicable after I: \99files\99subdiv\99final\redoak2\extend.doc Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: March 2, 2000. The Planning Commission is the appropriate body to consider and approve variances. It could be argued the developer is requesting a variance to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 1009.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the Council to grant a variance "upon receiving a report from the Planning Commission in any particular case where the subdivider can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other physical conditions that strict compliance with these regulations would cause exceptional and undue hardship, provided such relief may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose of these regulations." The Planning Commission has not reviewed this request. Conclusion: The statute is intended to provide adequate time to the two lots. The developer still has two months to receive building permits for these lots. An extension does not seem necessary. Furthermore, the extension is not consistent with the intent of the ordinance to protect the City's interests as well as the developer's interest. At best, this request should be referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to City Council action. Budget Impact: There is no budget impact involved in this request. The City Council has two alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the request to extend the application deadline until March 2,2001, as requested. 2. Refer this item to the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to City Council action. The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 99-XX, denying this request for an extension is appropriate. I: \99files\99subdiv\99final\redoak2\extend.doc Page 3 /12- RESOLUTION 99-)lf. RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE PROTECTION OF A FINAL PLAT FROM A CHANGE IN ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES ~462.358, SUBD. 3C MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake City Council adopted Resolution #98-30 on March 2, 1998, approving the final plat and development contract for Red Oaks 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS: Minnesota Statutes S462.358, Subd. 3c, states a final plat shall not be affected by a change in the City's official controls for a period of two years following final plat approval; and WHEREAS: Section 1003.400 of the City Subdivision Ordinance restates the statutory language; and WHEREAS: the protection period for this final plat expires on March 2, 2000; and WHEREAS: the Prior Lake City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance effective on May 1, 1999; and WHEREAS: the Developer has submitted a request to further extend the "protection period" to; March 2,2001; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the extension of this deadline is inconsistent with the intent of the provisions of Section 1003.400 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby denies the request to extend the "protection period" for Red Oaks 2nd Addition until March 2, 2001, on the basis it is inconsistent with the intent of Minnesota Statutes ~462.358, Subd. 3c, and Section 1003.400 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. ...l:\99fi1~\99S\lbdiY\99f}nal\redoa1<2\rs99~xcc.doc P AOE I 16200 cagle ueeK Ave. ~.c., Pnor LaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW , \\ r2-@ lli U ~ . Il.~ . __._ : :1"-- ji:( NOV I 5 lOG, , ~l . I~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER November 12, 1999 TpIDph~"J :r 12) 117 :1 J 1-- Telecorier (612) 447 -5628 Ms. Jane A. Kansier Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Red Oaks Second Addition Dear Ms. Kansier: I am writing on behalf of Michael S. Benedict to request a one year extension to March 2, 2001, of the protection from zoning ordinance amendments established by Minn. Stat. ~462.358, Subd. 3c. Subdivision 3c expressly authorizes the municipality to extend the initial two year period of protection "by agreement with the subdivider" . Red Oaks Second Addition is located on a peninsula. Although all of the lots substantially exceed the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement, Lots 1 and 3 cannot comply with the current 75 foot setback from the OHW of Prior Lake because of their unique peninsula location and shape. \Ve would ask that this request be scheduled before the City Council at its first meeting in December. Sincerely yours, ~{~\~ Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:dw . cc: Michael Benedict