No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-83 CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1983 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Grohoski at 7:00 P.M. in the Lakeville Council Chambers. Roll call: Members present were Grohoski, Johnson, Miller, Geisness, Heald and Rice. 83.31 Motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February l7, 1983 was made by Rice, seconded by Geisness. Ayes:: Grohoski,. Miller Geisness and Heald. Abstain: Johnson. Mr. Steve Michaud, the Lakeville Park Director, was present for a general discussion with the Planning Commission. The first item discussed was development of lands for the Jacquard Avenue Park. Mr. Michaud indicated that the tentative plans were to grade and seed the park this spring and possibly put in the parking lot. If enough money were available, he also indicated the play area could qo in. Mr. Michaud briefed the Commission on park philosophy, the Comprehen- sive Park Plan,. the duties and responsibilities of the Park Committee and recommendations of the Park Committee. He indicated that it would be advis- able to have a sub-committee .with two members from the Park Committee and two members from the Planning Commission to liaison on identifying park land in the v cinity of 185th Street, .east of Highway 50. The Planning Commission indicated the Mr. JoPu~ on-and Mr. Miller wauld be their representatives to that sub-committee. Mr. Geisness questioned the completeness in the Park and Recreation Committee :minutes and indicated the desire to know the background on how they reach their decisions. Mr. Johnson was. concerned that parks_& dark acces-> ses were i_nher_e_ntly a part of_good planning and the committees had to coop- erate. Mr. .Johnson stressed the importance of identifying possible park land sites now, Mr. Michaud indicated that when there was only one day lapsing. between the time the Park and Recreation Committee met. and the Planning Com- mission met, that it does cause a problem. Steve. indicated that when that happens., he will. at least give them a memorandum, if they don't have the. full minutes. Mr. Michaud reported that the trail system in Lakeville has no money for development. There is only 7/10 of a mile that has been developed, and there is nothing in the immediate future for development. Mr. Michaud then discussed the Dakota Heights Park and .emphasized that it was designed to serve a one mile area and that it is in existence now. Mr, Geisness asked if .the park development funds, were used in areas from which they came. Steve indicated that the philosophy was that it would be used in the. neighborhood from which they came and that generally held true, except for Jacquard Avenue Park. In that case, it was obtained against his recommendation and it wiped out the fund. Mr. .Grohoski indicated that he thought the. search committee Planning Commission Minutes. March 3, 1983 -2- was a good idea and also possibly that the comprehensive. park plan needs an update, since it has been about five years. Steve indicated that the Park Committee, and of course himself, definitely do not not like drainways as park land. There are two or three cases where that was accepted, way back in the past.- Their current philosophy. is that they would like seven to ten acre parks serving about a one mile area. In the case of Lakeridge Park, development is severely limited because of the topography.. Mr, Grohoski indicated that he ~feit it was important where there is a difference of philosophy that exists between the Planning Commission and the Park Committee, as refers to philosophy, that it is only right that the committees should point out .those differences . , The Commission thanked Mr. Michaud for his attendance and update at their meeting and felt that it would have a good effect in the future. The next item of business was a review of the proposed replatting pro- cedures. Mr. Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants gave a synopsis. of the report,. dated February 1, 1983 and appended hereto. Mr. Michaud was asked how he felt about this. His response was that he can see the need for updating some of the older plats and his only concern was that fairly recent • plats such as Cedar Highlands would not be affected.. The attorney indicated that it did not affect those types of plats. Mr. Michaud had no further con- cern on that matter. Mr. Dick Lorentson of Lakeville Realty was present in the audience and expressed the opinion that substantial work and expense is always required in trying to upgrade areas where. the old plats were and that he agrees .with the report and thinks it should be adhered to. His feeling is positive. Mr. Glenn Klotz, a Lakeville resident, owns Orchard Lake land currently ...platted with sixty lots on ten .acres., indicated his land is really useless as it is, although it is a paper plat it is useless and he would like to update come of that to modern standards. He also agrees that the findings of the report should be approved.: Mr. George Warweq owns land on Lake Marion and was present and commented that his land has sewer and water. It needs to be replatted because of the small lots, which is an expense. He is in favor of replatting and cleaning up the mess-and .indicated that he is favor of the findings of the report. Mr, Geisness asked the Lakeville Realty representative what would happen in three to four years if it is approved. The answer is that it would encourage good development on land that will otherwise sit idle and remain in a messy fashion. Ms. Heald .indicated that she thought it was a good step. Mr. Miller • agreed. Mr. Johnson expressed the opinion that perhaps there should be a small park fee. Mr, Michaud indicated that he did not think it would have a major impact on parks. Mr. Grohoski asked the attorney if they would be exempt Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1983 -3- i from storm sewer assessments.. The attorney replied that they were only deferring the fees and that these could be part of taxing districts later. Mr. Johnson indicated he agreed with the findings of the report. Mr. Geisness asked how many lots could be created the answer was probably Less than 200. Mr. Geisness indicated he favored passing it. Mr. Grohoski wanted to be sure, primarily from the attorney that these lots must meet modern standards. .The Commission reviewed the actual ordinance with the attorney and the attorney made changes on the actual ordinance, appended as part of these minutes, as to what their recommended changes were. 83.32 Motion to approve the amended replotting ordinance was made by Rice, seconded by .Miller. Motion passed unanimously. The Community Development Director briefed the Commission do the status of the Cedar/70 plat, the question having been raised at the last meeting on why two building permits had been issued and the plat had not been filed. It was indicated that this was a Planned Unit Develogment conditional use and that it_was appropriate that the two building permits had been issued by the Administrator and there was no problem with getting some easements indicated on the hard. shells, however, that would be resolved shortly and the plat approved. The attorney indicated that he also agreed. that 'there was nothing particularly wrong with .the procedure.. Chairman Grohoski briefed the Commission on the work that the sign com- mittee was. doing. He indicated that the committee would beholding a public hearing. late in March. Chairman Grohoski asked what future agenda items there were. Mr. .Robinette indicated that a public hearing would be required on the Comprehensive Plan change for the Barrett Plat. He also indicated that the building inspector had indicated that perhaps there were a couple of ordinances .that were unenforceable or causing problems that he felt needed to be changed. Mr. Robinette indicated the same thing, Everyone agreed it was probably a good idea that the attorney, the planner and the staff should get together and take a look at these ordinances at least on an annual basis and then recommend some changes as a package. 83.33 Motion to adjourn was made by Rice, .seconded by Miller. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully .submitted, Dennis Miller, Secr tary ATTEST: even Gro os i, Charma `~J~, ~ .n , ,,NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. i MEMORANDUM T0: Lakeville Planning. Commission. FROM:..... Aian 8rixus DATE: 1 February I983_ RE: Lakeville Replotting Procedures FILE N0: 3:36.00 (83.01) _ BACKGROUND -.The City of Lakeville is currently investigating the assessment procedures -for park dedication fees and. storm sewer assessments on the subdivision of land that has previously been platted and recorded with the County. Amend- ing the park dedication fees and the storm sewer assessment application procedures for replotted subdivisions will apply to ali replats, however, it will also provide an incentive to replat substandard subdivisions. The existance of older substandard subdivisions within Lakeville present a • number of detrimental development concerns that. can be eliminated through. replotting these areas to meet current City Zoning and Subdivision standards.. The reduction of park dedication fees and storm sewer assessments offers one. _ `possible incentive alternative to promote and encourage the replotting of existing substandard subdivisions. DEFINITION In order to provide a better understanding of the app]ication of a revised park dedication fee and storm sewer assessment. to replotted land, it is necessary to define the term "replat", The City Attorney composed the following definition: Replat: The subdivision of land which has previously been platted and which is filed of record with the County pursuant to Minn. Statutes Chapter 505.. Through this definition alb legally recorded plats under ~1inn. Statutes Chapter 505 will be included in any replotting procedures for existing subdivisions in the City°af Lakeville. • 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 - 612/925-9420 ,.r,, ` . _ h b~ Lakeville Planning Commission 1 February 1983 Page Two PAST POLICY Under Sections 10-4-8, Park Land Dedication Requirements and Section 10-5-5, Storm Sewer Assessment of the Lakeville Subdivision Ordinance, a subdivider as a prerequisite to plat approval must dedicate parkland or make a cash contribution to the City park fund and pay storm sewer improvement charges. These City assessments are applied to all new subdivisions. On replats where these required assessments have been paid on the original subdivision, these -costs are not required on the replat unless the replat increases the number of lots, In this case the assessments are only charged on the newly added. lots.. Lakeville contains several areas of older subdivisions that were platted prior to the effective date of the current Subdivision.Ordinan~e.. These subdivisions were not required to pay these City fees. In 1980, the city of Lakeville conducted a redevelopment study which identified various community problems which required attention. One of the more prominent concerns is the existance of old substandard subdivisions in areas adjacent to Orchard Lake and.Lake Marion (see Exhibit A and B)~. • Much of the area around Orchard Lake and. Lake Marion was platted during the 192O's, prior to modern land use controls regulating the subdivision of property. Since the time of .these early plats, LakeviT.le's land use controls have evolved, establishing various land use districts, increased lot sizes, and development and environment. protection standards. Asa result of this stun- tion, a major number of the originally recorded plats are grossly substandard. Lots 50 feet and less in width are not~vnco?~anon in these lake areas. Other plats in these lake areas contain lots as small as 20 feet. in width and 2,000 ..square feet in area. It is difficult to believe that such a lot could ever have been. considered buildable. It is likely that the original intent in creating. such small lots was that a prospective buyer could buy as many or few as he needed or could .afford. As stated in the Lakeville Policy Plan/pevelop- ment Framework, "while most of the development in these areas has involved the assembly of several lots to form a l ogal parcel, the gross inconsistencies between platting and current standards introduces the possibility of substandard development." The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the lots or groups of lots have no practical means of access. tJhile they. may. front on a "paper street", some of these streets could never be developed due to severe topographic or soil constraints. :The City cannotsimply vacate the un- developable streets since from a legal standpoint they could be landlocking someone`s land, even though as a practical matter. it may already be landlocked. • . Lakeville Planning Commission ' 1 February 1983 Page Three • To get an accurate perspective on the problem of substandard lots, a study of the Dakota County Assessor`s records was conducted to determine the ownership pattern of the land within the lake areas. The results of this study are shown on Exhibit C and D." The heavy lines overlaying the base map indicate contiguous groupings of lots under separate ownership. The shaded lines represent developed public streets. Compared to the number of individually platted lots the group- ings serve to simplify any plans for resubdivision which might be for the de- veloped area, Obviously the fewer property owners to deal with, the easier such a project wi13 be to implement. Furthermore, what .could not. be shown on the map was that .certain land owners control more than one of the lot groupings. Since these are not contiguous they must be counted separately. It would be to the City'sadvantage to haue these areas replatted to meet current City zoning standards to eliminate possible development problems. In. the past when developers have replatted ofd substandard subdivisions such as Lake Villa Golf Estates or Orchard Lake Estates, the. park dedication fees and storm sewer assessments were required to be paid in full upon approval of the 'replat, ince the previous subdivisions were not charged. with these required assessments, In recent repiat proposals of the substandard subdivisions, the required City park dedication fees and. storm sewer assessments were noted as economic obstacles to replatting these. areas. The reduction or elimination of current park dedication fees and storm sewer assessments would. provide an economic incentive for developers to~replat these substandard areas. PROPOSED ZONIP~G AMENDMENT The following Subdivision Ordinance amendments. were prepared by the City Attorney revising the parkland dedications and storm .sewer assessment require- menu and their application to replatted subdivisions. 10-4-8,.Park Land Dedication. Requirements Property being replatted with the same number of lots steal-l be exempt from .gall parkland dedication requirements. If the number of lots is increased or if land .outside the previously recorded plat is added,-then the parkland dedication shall be based on the additional lots and on the additional land being added to the plat.. If the additional land does not create additional lots, then each 1/3 acre added shall be considered a new lot for purposes of calculating the dedication requirements. 10-5-5-1, Storm Sewer Assessment Property being replatted shall be exempt from the storm sewer charge require- menu. If-land outside the previously recorded plat is added, then the. charge steall be calculated based onthe land being added to the plat. Lakeville Planning .Commission. ' 1 February 1983 Page Four The reduction or elimination of these City subdivision fees provides an economic incentive for developers to replat the substandard subdivision. This is supported by the.policies outlined in Lakeville's Lake Area Re- development Pi an (CARP}, The Lake Area Redevelopment Plan also outlines another alternative far the redevelopment of the lake area. .CARP suggests.. that the City's NRA should acquire substandard lots and combine them .into buildable parcels. A write-down of expenses would occur in the resale of property in order to make redevelopment of parcels economically feasible for new construction. The acquisition of land and subsequent write-down would be financed through the tax increment process. The second alternative requires more City involvement and expense in the redevelopment process, The reduc- tion of park dedication fees and storm sewer assessments an replat is an .incentive for the private sector to undertake the redevelopment of these substandard areas, The City should lank to utilize bath alternatives to insure that. these attractive natural-.lake areas are developed with fu]7 regard and attention to City development and environmental. protection standards. cc: City Council Patrick McGarvey Jim Robinette. Frank Kriz Roger Knutson _ ,