HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: request for council action/subdivision Date of Application: 2/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
60-day limit: 4/17/99
120-day subdivision limit: 6/17/99
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: May 21, 1999
Item No.:
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Zoning
Name: Michael P.Gaffron
Title: Senior Planning Coordinator
Item Description: #2466 James Renckens and John Winston, 3020 Watertown Road-Preliminary
Plat Application-Reconsideration of Council Action of April 12
List of Exhibits
A- Council Minutes 4-12-99
B - Preliminary Plat Drawing
C - Letters submitted by Applicants
D - Staff Sketches -Access and Area Road Layout Possibilities
E-Memo and Selected Exhibits of April 9, 1999
F - Selected Minutes and Exhibits of Application#1457 - Crystal Creek Plat
G- Submittals by Alan Carlson Dated 5-19-99
H - Fire Marshal Submittal re: Long Driveways
On April 12 Council voted 2-1 to approve this preliminary plat application subject to requiring
platting of the 50' road outlot along the north boundary of the property, but granting a variance to
the'back lot'ordinance standards by allowing the creation of a'flag lot'(Council chose to not require
the 30' driveway corridor to Watertown to be platted as an outlot,which then allows applicants area
credit for that corridor). Staff was implicitly directed to draft a preliminary plat resolution for
adoption.
Applicants subsequently submitted a number of letters outlining their position regarding the
northerly Road Outlot requirement, and requested that Council move to reconsider the action of
April 12. On May 11, 1999 Council voted 3-0 to reconsider the action of April 12, and tabled
further discussion until the interested parties to the application could be notified. Notice was mailed
to the property owner list on Wednesday, May 13.
Applicants have indicated they are willing to access the north lot from the Crystal Creek Road
cul-de-sac,and will work with the Crystal Creek homeowners association . Mr.Renckens has
indicated he would,however,still wish to preserve the 30' access corridor to Watertown Road
for potential future subdivision access.
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 2
Summary of Applicants' Concerns
The applicants are in opposition to the creation of a 50' road outlot along the north property
boundary for reasons stated in their letter of April 2, 1999:
1. Makes it more likely a street will be developed;
2. Street would eliminate existing privacy,thereby lowering desirability and value;
3. City street provides undesired access to property;
4. Makes surrounding properties more accessible, thus
-increasing traffic
-loss of privacy
-loss of safety and security;
5. Issues of fairness and public interest:
-neighborhoods to west and east are opposed to creation of access street
-City made it clear to Alan Carlson that he is solely responsible for getting
access to Outlot B
-Carlson can get such access from other directions, i.e. from properties to the
east;
6. Loss of acreage - 50' Outlot would use 0.52 acres, making future subdivision via
backlots more difficult(same issue as loss of area with 30' driveway outlot);
7. Loss of septic sites that would either be used initially or be needed for a future
subdivision;
8. Taking of roadway falls under two exceptions in subdivision code:
a. Related to topographic restrictions
b. Not necessary or desirable for coordination of the layout of this subdivision;
9. Road will encourage through traffic, and is not in keeping with "Minimum number
of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access";
10. The taking of a road outlot is a condemnation because it is not related to to this
subdivision, and lack of compensation makes it an unconstitutional taking.
STAFF REVIEW OF ISSUES
Clash of Philosophical Viewpoints
Staff believes this issue stems in part from a philosophical difference between the point of view of
the City attempting to accomplish its mandate to protect the general public health, safety and
welfare; and that of the resident attempting to create a neighborhood that is private, quiet, and safe
for the individual homeowner. While one might expect these two points of view to be in concert,
in fact they can and do conflict when we are discussing road system design.
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 3
The City's goal (and obligation)is to establish a local road system that provides access to property,
is adequate to allow for the expected and required levels of general and emergency services, and is
efficient to maintain. Orono accomplishes this in its Rural area primarily via private roads, and
provides corridors for future connections between private roads in order to establish a system that
can be easily maintained and that will provide alternate means of access in times of emergency. The
City also sets minimum design standards for private roads and long driveways in order to ensure that
the required access by service, maintenance and emergency vehicles is feasible.
The property owners'goal is a safe,private environment for families. To accomplish this,the typical
property owner would prefer dead-end roads rather than connecting roads, and in many cases would
prefer long driveways rather than home placement near the road.
Topography, wetlands,parcel shapes and sizes, availability of septic sites, minimum lot standards
established by code, impact on(or of) surrounding development, and many other factors must all be
taken into account when designing a rural subdivision to create homesites. Balancing all these
factors against the potentially conflicting goals of the City and the property owner is sometimes
difficult.
Zoning/Subdivision Code Excerpts
Staff believes the zoning/subdivision code supports the position that a 50'private road outlot should
be platted along the north boundary:
1. Council has the authority to require completion of improvements, including the creation of
public and private roads and the granting of road and utility easements for Class II and III
subdivisions per Section 11.10, Subd. 21.
2. In Section 11.3 1, Subd. 1 "Lot Arrangement"the code states "The lot arrangement shall be
such that there will be no foreseeable difficulties, for reasons of topography or other
conditions, in securing building permits to build on all lots in compliance with the Zoning
Chapter of the City Code and in providing driveway access to buildings on such lots from
an approved street." The Fire Marshal has provided State Fire Code standards for fire
department access roads that exceed 150' in length. A driveway from Watertown R o a d
serving Renckens' proposed house location would be approximately 800' in length, it
would require a 40'radius loop driveway turnaround, a 20' wide x 14' high clear area for its
entire length, and be built to 9-ton standards for fire truck access. Are these unreasonable
standards?Ask the family on West Farm Road whose million dollar home was a total loss
because the FD couldn't access it through their 350' driveway. The newly proposed access
to Crystal Creek Road is a positive revision to this application. A future subdivision creating
a lot that would use the 30' corridor to Watertown Road would likely have a 400-500'
driveway.
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 4
3. Section 11.31 Subd.2, "Lot Dimensions"states in part that"Where lots are more than double
the minimum required area for the zoning district, the City may require that such lots be
arranged so as to allow further subdivision and the opening of future streets where they
would be necessary to serve such potential lots...". The current plat does not allow for further
subdivision except by'stacking'back lots,with long driveways and more difficult emergency
and service vehicle access. .
4. Section 11.31 Subd. 5, "Double Frontage Lots,Access to Lots and Front/back Lot Divisions"
in Subd. 5(C), "Front/back Lot Subdivisions" states that" 'Flag lots'and'easement back lots'
as defined in this Chapter shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed
only in conjunction with the creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the
public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the
back of front lots." Subd. 5(C)(1a) states "Front/back lot divisions may be used when
existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a
side by side split (that's not the case here, the property is 460' in width, could easily yield
two 200'+ lots), but acreage is adequate to provide a front lot and a back lot without
requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded."
The primary reason applicants wanted to avoid creating a 30'driveway outlot extending from
Watertown Road was this loss of creditable area,not for the current subdivision,but because
without it a future subdivision would need a lot area variance. It seems to staff that creation
of a back lot for this site is basically in conflict with the intent of this ordinance.
Furthermore, Subd. 5(C)(1b) states that"Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual
'lot splits'but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation
of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site
factors." When does a'convenience' change into a'unique supporting site factor'? Is lack
of the adequate lot area to meet all code requirements a unique factor, or simply an
inconvenience?Is the location of septic sites a unique factor? When septic sites are limited
by topography,does that become a unique factor? Is the need to provide stormwater ponding
which can't be credited toward lot area, a unique factor?
Part of the problem is that this property likely can ultimately support three lots, and the City
risks 'piece-meal development' when the front-lot/back-lot ordinance is varied from,
especially where future development of a back lot may be possible.
Note also that based on applicants'request that the 50'road outlot be omitted,then a lot width
variance is technically required for the north lot,which will have only 50'of width on Crystal
Creek Road and 30' on Watertown Road where 200' is required. Which road frontage will
define the front lot line?
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 5
5. Applicants cite Section 11.32, Sub. 2(B)(4) which states "Roadways shall be laid out to
conform as much as possible to the topography, to discourage use by through traffic, to
permit efficient drainage and utility systems, and to require the minimum number of
roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property." Applicants believe
that the 50' corridor along the boundary will encourage through traffic. However,through
traffic is not traffic generated by or within the neighborhood, but traffic using the
neighborhood road as a shortcut. This is hardly the case where a horseshoe shaped road is
anticipated, but might be the case if connections to Old Crystal Bay Road are made.
However, convenient and safe access to property is best provided by roads that have
more than one outlet, not by long cul-de-sacs (1400' in the case of Crystal Creek, or 140%
of the City's maximum cul-de-sac length standard of 1000' per Section 11.33 Subd. 4)nor
by extremely long private driveways.
6. Applicants cite Section 11.32 Subd. 2(B)(6) which states in full " Cul-de-sacs shall be
discouraged;proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be
subdivided(exactly what was done with Crystal Creek), unless prevented by topography or
other physical conditions(the 6-12%slope directly east of Crystal Creek's cul-de-sac poses
no engineering problems for extending Crystal Creek Road,although it may not be what the
applicant envisions as appropriate), or unless in the opinion of the City such extension is not
necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the the
existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts".
In staff s opinion this entire code section is very relevant and applicable to the Renckens
proposal. This section provides the City with the basis for making logical sense of road
systems between and through adjacent subdivisions.
7. Section 11.32 Subd. 6(H) "Construction of Roads and Dead-end Roads" is key to this
discussion. It states:
"1. Construction of Roads. The arrangement of streets shall provide for the
continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation
is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection,for
efficient provision of utilities, and where such continuation is in accordance
with the City Comprehensive Municipal Plan. If the adjacent property is
undeveloped and the street must be a dead-end street temporarily, the right
of way shall be extended to the property line. The City may limit the length
of temporary dead-end streets in accordance with the design standards of this
Chapter.
#2466 Renckens& Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 6
2. Dead-end Roads(Permanent). Where a road does not extend to the boundary
of the subdivision and its continuation is not required by the City for access
to adjoining property, its terminus shall normally not be nearer to such
boundary than fifty(50)feet. However, the City may require the reservation
of an appropriate easement to accommodate drainage facilities,pedestrian
traffic, or utilities. A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent
dead-end street in accordance with the City's construction standards and
specifications. For greater convenience to traffic and more effective police
and fire protection, permanent dead-end streets shall, in general, be
discouraged and where allowed be limited in length in accordance with the
design standards of this Chapter.
Crystal Creek Road was not intended to be a permanent dead-end street. This is evidenced
by:
- the fact that its length greatly exceeds the 1000' standard
- the fact that it was platted to the property boundary rather than stopping short
of it
- the fact that no cul-de-sac was platted, but merely an easement granted for a
temporary cul-de-sac
- the fact that the March 19, 1991 staff memo clearly indicates this is consistent
with the City's planning to connect to a roadway system to the east
- the fact that,as Carlson points out,the owners of lots in Crystal Creek had fair
warning via their covenants that Crystal Creek Road could potentially be
extended to adjacent properties
Crystal Creek Road should,based on all of the above code sections,be platted through the Renckens
property to the next property to the east,just as Council decided on April 12.
Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
The Transportion element of the Orono Community Management Plan also supports the creation of
a 50' road outlot based on the following:
BASIC TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES, P.7-2:
"The basic responsibility of the City is the protection of its citizens'health, safety and
welfare".
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 7
IBID., P. 7-7:
"Roadway maintenance concerns are perhaps the most significant factor in long-range
transportation planning for Orono... the planning concerns for new roadways include not
only the initial cost-benefit question, but also the worry about spreading future maintenance
capability beyond the reach of limited crews or limited budgets." From a Public Works
perspective,maintenance of through streets is less costly and more efficient than maintenance
of cul-de-sacs.
RURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES,NO. 4, P. 7-12:
"Rural residential developments will utilize private road feeders to supplement the
existing public road grid Because of topographical limitations, the historic shape of rural
land divisions, and the low density of rural land use, most residential lots are best preserved
(sic) by short dead-end roads running off the existing street system. The low number of
dwellings on each road, the dead-end configuration and the scattered road locations make
public roadway maintenance excessively costly compared to any public benefit. Therefore,
most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways.
New public streets will be accepted where a 'through' configuration provides a general
public benefit and/or where the number of residences justies public maintenance expense."
RURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES NO. 5, P. 7-12:
"Private rural roadways will be constructed to rural design standards....The length of dead-
end roads will be limited for public safety purposes." Crystal Creek Road was allowed to
exceed the City's length standard because it was intended to connect through to the east in
the future.
RURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES NO. 7, P. 7-13:
"Driveway locations and rural street or private road intersections will be limited for
traffic safety. Rural traffic speed is generally faster than that in urban neighborhoods
requiring greater sight distances and a lesser number of intersection conflicts for the
same degree of traffic safety. Joint use of carefully located private roads will generally be
preferred over direct access onto public highways from separate properties." The
subdivision as proposed ultimately would result in an additional access point onto Watertown
Road where only one now exists.
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 8
ORONO'S ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (Excerpts from descriptions of
various types of roadways) P. 7-16, 7-17:
Private Road:
Maximum Service: Approximately 10 residential properties
Dead-end: Length will be limited by public safety considerations
Private Drivewav
Maximum Service: 1 residence typical;joint driveways allowed with maximum three
residents per driveway in rural areas; more users require private road
standards
Driveway width: Will be regulated where more than one user is involved or for
public safety purposes where there is excessive length between the residence
and the public road
In the opinion of staff, the above CMP excerpts strongly support the premise that Crystal Creek
Road should be continued eastward to eventually connect with other area roads, for public safety
purposes as well as for future efficiency of maintenance if the private road is someday converted to
a public road.
Whether or not the 50' outlot is required, access for the north lot should come from Crystal Creek
Road(as now proposed)to avoid the need for an excessively long driveway. Further, staff strongly
urges that the flag portion of the back lot be platted as a 30'outlot corridor for the following reasons:
1. Preserves the integrity of the back-lot/front-lot ordinance.
2. Preserves the appropriate setbacks for the north lot(i.e. the south east-west line of the north
lot becomes a front lot line as the code intended)
In staffs opinion the loss of acreage to a code-required 30' driveway outlot is not a hardship.
Further, if the north lot is served from a 50'road to the north,there will be ample acreage to do a lot
split with both lots having 200 feet of frontage on that road. The problem here is that Renckens'
vision of future development of the north lot is to place the initial residence in a location making a
side-by-side split impossible,and ultimately splitting off the south half of the north lot as a flag lot
using the 30' corridor to Watertown for access (but needing a lot area variance to do so).
Access to Outlot B, Crystal Creek
Alan Carlson,original developer of the adjacent Crystal Creek subdivision, owns Outlot B, Crystal
Creek,which does not abut any public or private roadway. The City has no apparent legal obligation
#2466 Renckens & Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 9
to Carlson to provide access to Outlot B. Carlson acknowledged to the Planning Commission in
1991 (see minutes of March 18, 1991)that he accepts all responsibility for providing it access. The
plat approval resolution also makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the developer to acquire
access to Outlot B.
Applicants have suggested to staff that one of the reasons that Crystal Creek Road was platted
ending at the Renckens property rather than continuing eastward within the plat of Crystal Creek,
was that the tested drainfield sites within Lot 7 adjacent to Outlot B, would have been obliterated.
It is a fact that those sites would have been rendered useless by a 50' outlot along the south end of
Lot 7. It is not known whether other sites exist in Lot 7. This topic does not appear to be
documented in City files.
Mr. Carlson has provided a letter and a number of attachments included in this packet as Exhibit F,
supporting the creation of the 50' outlot.
Staff has provided 2 sketches showing how access might be provided to Outlot B. The first is a
schematic for how Crystal Creek Road could connect in a horseshoe shape to Wear Lane North and
back down to Watertown Road. The second is one of the many schemes that might be drawn up for
development(or redevelopment)of the properties between Crystal Creek and Old Crystal Bay Road,
showing that access to Outlot B might be provided via methods other than an extension of Crystal
Creek Road. However, it is not known when/if these properties might further develop.
Neighborhood Development, Privacy, Safety
The issues brought up by the applicants are typical of those raised by every rural residential
development where the City must balance the residents' desires for privacy against the City's
responsibility to provide a safe, cost-efficient, emergency-accessible road system. Orono has
consistently required that road connections between subdivisions be platted, but has taken the
position that those connections are for future use,and likely won't be constructed until such time that
the residents demand them.
Staff doesn't buy the idea that a horseshoe road system creates more traffic and is less safe than a cul-
de-sac. The vast majority of traffic will be from the neighborhood, since this wouldn't be a shortcut
to anywhere. A majority of residents are not likely to take the long way around the horseshoe to get
in or out. And if non-neighborhood traffic enters the horseshoe, it's going to travel past a given
house one time, not twice.
A strong public safety case can be made for roads with two outlets as compared to cul-de-sacs. If
a disaster strikes and the cul-de-sac is blocked near the entrance, nobody gets in or out, including
emergency vehicles. A road with two outlets will still provide access to nearly the entire area.
#2466 Renckens& Winston
May 21, 1999
Page 10
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review all information submittted and reach a conclusion whether the 50' private road outlot along
the north property boundary should be required. Reach a conclusion as to whether Council's
previous action to grant a variance to allow creation of a flag lot will stand. Determine whether it
is appropriate that a flag lot connecting to Watertown Road will not use Watertown Road as an
access,but is being created solely to serve a future subdivision which will need a lot area variance.
1p-
_t
744 ' wuo we' rw tao
RFs ry u
r
-a T
yi: .au R
_ tr, a
0
_ f
ti
�I' 1T"
e s '
� I n
o
V.(fF 1]-. LP L•
Yb 9 r,u,
57
m
TIL Tfc fT O T
I ,w o•os l o.[..
O
aft:."_. �_� .-- c _. I..• q. �...
764Z5.6,-, l 1 ;,,�, _�• �. _ -
--- sok
�i Y
s kf
'^ „urn R N3A115) Ri YV o� — p .
,. , W.,
1�!' �•_. SIR 9;'29! .._ •T�RIZ.APu[.. • Uu
I,
C
j }
l a a n
I' O •�� o Vr
a
I E
y �E JML'
I. v
I �,.r.r f, tiP •`R (N Y yy3M C
Y O O a
L IN- 4 �� 1•�' ' 'fit � j
T
N k
fY 1
1�
I h�• a { N• :. A r
Itz
e ) /
/ r '
�1�. aryl !.a / o __ _ •..
I �=N O U T L O TN. B �iw iri 6` =" . •`. j ��1
a IN
I
VIA
I`�.. •I r 1 t w o 1,�4�t��y r4t''+^.,d.r` n� �• �„p �.n..r. ".I,
740
.j' 2—
Date of Application: 2/17/99
Date Complete:2/17/99
6o day limit:4/17/99
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE:
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Liz Van Zomeren Zoning
Title City Planner
Item Description: ##2466 James R. Renckens and John B. Winston
3020 Watertown Road
Two Lot Preliminary Plat Subdivision
Zoning District: RR-113 One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres)
Lot Area: 11.94 acres total, 10.1 dry acres
Application: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 11.94 acre parcel into two lots. The
rear lot, Lot 1, is considered a flag lot and is subject to backlot standards that require 150% of
the lot area, front, rear, and side yard setbacks.
There are several issues with the application as follows:
1. The dedication of right-of-way for Watertown Road;
2. The lot design for Lot 1 to have 30' of frontage on Watertown Road instead
of a platted outlot;
3. The temporary cul-de-sac in the Crystal Creek to the west and the expectation that
Crystal Creek Road, a private road, would be extended by platting a 50' outlot to the east
in order for a connection to Wear Lane (public road) or another road to be created in the
future. Lot 7 in Crystal Creek has a 15' easement over Lot 6 from the temporary
cul-de-sac.
4. The location of a stormwater management pond in the Crystal Creek subdivision that
impacts the proposed location for a septic site on the front lot, Lot 2. An administrative
variance from the septic rules may be needed.
5. The need for a stormwater management pond to be located north of the larger wetland.
Date of Application: 2/17/99
Date Complete:2/17/99
60 day limit.4/17/99
6. The possiblity of future subdivision of the larger lot, Lot 2, and possible access
from the temporary cul-de-sac vs. a platted 50' outlot.
7. The amount of land required to be dedicated or used for ponding:
Watertown Road 15,183.63 sq. ft.
Access Outlot 10,680 sq. ft
Stormwater Pond 8,713 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 57,329.13 sq. ft. (1.3 acres)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended that the subdivider provide a 50' outlot across the rear
property line of Lot 2 and also provide a 30' outlot for Lot 2 instead of a flag lot design, subject
to City staff granting an administrative variance for the location of a septic site on Lot 1.
The subdivider has prepared a response to the Planning Commission's recommendation in Exhibit
B.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To review the proposed subdivision and subdivider's response and provide direction to the
subdivider regarding the requested outlots from Watertown Road and from Crystal Creek Road.
No resolution has been prepared as the subdivider did not agree with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Attachments
A Proposed Plat with PC recommendations
B Letter from applicant
C Notice of Planning Commission action
D Staff letter to applicant
E City Engineer's letter
F
Planning Commission staff report
#2466 Renckens
3020 Watertown Rd.
CC 4112199
Filename: Lizlca2466
cn CO u-)
PRELIMINARY PLAT U W'�
a co
Ucl<o:
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION -FOR
W�<x
JAMES R. RENCKENS �z
IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 33-118-23 Wo
=�
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA
a
<
co
axc-
R 1 i i ;A, 'r`, q ,L rl -,.;�••.,i: . r _
`i i;is- 1 ;:j '.,, :-t r •. tl - A r\ �
\ l.-L_i! V`�- 'f --. .'-t�_ L.�r :� �`i. #�'!{j �(/-{/i` :� !-i j L_ A: 1. I 1�w
I I i( #[''"Z't �1 Fl s'T: '-. r ..i J':—`a..i Lam? i-\L 1 j %j T j l..)f\ 33 z
I
_ n
--------------
co
23Y
78t /// / J(//�1/�n/i / /� / . > � or°sw�"v4ri"s:�-as I
,� ,fid;;,�:., ..•.�:. �- - -y-- ---f- r- --t-,=----�--•— � r % / � :, n� "• _ .� 33
Is
f___ b
ti� ```-� Z 0
cl
V Z
L_i-Y •n ;001 —98.43+ �-ocra Lola✓/ / / / �� 1 // I a / V / f Ld
I. /
/ 7.30+- 0c / /i3(' /
/// i \LOT 900$- o
// ,L _ C` '�J/ -'1 I 53f4# oer" tot / !(• I 'L = _ 3 L
_43
+r� ��I j 1 4 al 73\ < & / * ��
1 \ )b. ) '� �\ / `/( �� / i / 11281 t oc ? \`Jj 1 �0 5' -' oc""� Ltl
tJ m ! I _ / //� Y -7f2\ \ \ / / \ 1 - •{ IO --J I� m r- 1 m o O
100
� 7 moi'"° �\ ^ l ` \ �:� / ! o ; // �/ �� J/,'`i
` .� ` ,I/ / v x& \\ ` .� °\\• fx ' i i / /_ �81 j ISI ' �� �° rd�50
0.
— / � �--�",�--- -4eo- � \\ �� �;\ saw• 3 ��.�/ : /I �, / � �� j � �s �
50
F.fitl
cn
Ld
� /- /• r�� � /r ���---__y=.+�-`..— __-'\—.�-•a" roe 11.1.�3 C I '�./• � �i \
`N-00'00'30" W r h7.oLIX \�\\ \ \ -.L __\ \ r ) �_.:.� 0 a t < N
t r _ 7
- ; ; ; t 1 I S i O co
L.J ISL s 111 \\\ i ; J j Q. 0.
f e'
0 50 100 200 '
SCALE IN FEET
r
t
r
K
IC: •.
JAMES R. RENCIaNs
C� C
.. 4680 Forestview Lane
PIymouth,Minnesota 55442
(612)559-2380
April 2, 1999
Elizabeth Van Zomeren
City Planner/Zoning Administrator
Orono City Hall
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono,MN 55356
Re: James R.Renckens
Class III Preliminary Plat Subdivision
Zoning File No. 2466
Dear Ms.Van Zomeren:
On March 15, 1999, the Orono Planning Commission recommended approval of the
preliminary plat proposed by my wife and me. The Commission's approval was made subject to
three conditions. Those conditions, and our responses to each,are as follows.
1. Provide 50' Outlot across north property line.
We have chosen not to incorporate the recommended change into the preliminary plat that
will be proposed to the City Council on April 12. We have a number of reasons for objecting to the
50' Outlot requirement. Please bear with us as we try to explain.
First,creating a 50' Outlot along the entire Northerly property line makes it much more likely
that a street will be constructed within the Outlot area. The construction of a street along the North
property line would deprive our property of the privacy it now enjoys,and,for that reason alone,the
property is less desirable and thus less valuable.
Apart from value considerations,there are issues of safety and security.These considerations
are adversely affected by the creation of a city street, which,-in addition to providing undesired
access to our property,would serve as its primary purpose to make other properties situated to the
North and East more accessible. With that increase in accessibility also comes more traffic and the
resulting loss of privacy,safety and security.
Creation of the 50' Outlot also raises issues with respect to fairness and the public interest.
The neiehbors to our East in the Wear Lane neighborhood,as well as our neighbors to the West in
the Crystal Creek neighborhood,are strongly opposed to the creation of such an access street. With
respect to providing access to the North,the City could not have been'clearer in stating its written
condition to the developer of the Crystal Creek subdivision when it declared in Resolution No.3 896
dated Mav 12, 1997 approving the Crystal Creek subdivision:
Ms.Elizabeth Van Zomeren
April 2, 1999
Page 2..
7. Outlot B may be residentially developed in the future. . . . The subdivider shall
be responsible for providing legal access to the property. . . .
The subdivider,in accepting the City's plat approval,also-accepted the above-stated condition,and
is reasonably and legally bound to honor it now. Furthermore,there remains ample opportunity for
the subdivider to acquire land to the East,and thereby obtain access to his property from Old Crystal
Bay Road. That task is his responsibility, as stated in Resolution No. 3896, not the City's, and
certainly not ours.
If land is to be taken from any property to serve the subdivider's Outlot B,it should be taken
from the subdividees own subdivision,which,in this case,would be Lots 6 and 7 of Block 1, Crystal
Creek. That Nvould be eminently more fair than taking the land from us, especially since the
subdivider profited from the creation of those Lots 6 and 7. The subdivider has caused his own
problem, and should be responsible for its solution. Please do not make us solve it.
Our next objection is based on the loss of acreage that we would suffer from the taking of
the Outlot. The creation of a 50' Outlot across the Northerly boundary of our property results in a
loss of 22,752.5 square feet of land,or somewhat more than one-half acre. That loss of acreage,not
to mention the loss of acreage resulting from other Planning Commission suggestions, makes it
much less likely that the Northerly lot could be subdivided into two lots in the future,especially in
view of the City's 150%requirements for back lots. Zoning District RR-1B standards require two
acres of dry buildable area. Therefore,the minimum area for each such lot would need to be 150%
of that acreage, or three dry acres. With the taking of the Outlot, there is barely enough land to
accommodate two lots of three acres each,and this situation is exacerbated because we cannot divide
the property on an equal 50150 basis because of the topography and existing natural conditions.
This is truly a significant problem for us. When we purchased the property we expected,and
we think reasonably so, that we would have several subdivision alternatives for it in view of the
acreage. However, after consulting -Nith different surveyors, a land planner,the septic designer,as
well as our architect and builder,we have concluded that,as a result of terrain and wetlands,there
are just two building sites in the Northern part of the property. All other alternatives would require
the removal of the precious stand of pine trees,as well as substantial clearing and considerable,and
expensive, alteration of the natural amenities.
Another significant reason for our opposition to the 50' Outlot is that its creation takes away
critical septic sites in the Northeast comer of the property. While these septic sites are not shown
on our proposed subdivision, they are shown on an earlier application proposed by John Vogt and
dike Hilbelink.The City's taking of the 50'Outlot and the septic sites located there prevents us from
situating our house in that area,which is our first and best choice for the location of our home.
A further reason we oppose the Outlot is that there does not seem to be any good reason to
require it in the first place,except,as I have heard, and to quote one of the members of the Planning
Commission, "it would be nice to have". To quote another member of the Planning Commission,
"if we don't take this opportunity to get the Outlot,we may never have another opportunity."
Nis.Elizabeth Van Zomeren
April 2,4999
Page 3
The taking of the Outlot,or the imposition of the Outlot requirement on this plat, is
apparently based on that part of the City's Ordinances found in Section 11.32, Subdivision 2.B.6., .
where the following language is found:
. . . proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be
subdivided. . . .
However, the foregoing language is qualified by two exceptions; one exception applying where
topography or other physical conditions mitigate against the extension of the roadway,and another
exception allowing the City to snake a judgment call that the extension is not,'necessary or desirable
for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision. . . ." Both exceptioas-t-applicable in this
instance, fact-prevented-by physical conditions,in this case trees
and topography,and the layout is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of this
subdivision with adjoining subdivisions. Moreover,no roadway whatsoever is proposed with respect
to this subdivision. While a driveway could be located off of Crystal Creek Road, and while a
driveway location is proposed from Watertown Road next to the proposed Lot 2,no"roadway"is
proposed. That being the case,paragraph 6 of the Ordinance is not applicable.
Instead,paragraph 4 of the same Subdivision 2 is applicable,which reads as follows:
Roadways shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to the topography..
to discourage use by through traffic,to permit efficient drainage and utility
systems, and to require the minimum number of roadways necessary to provide
convenient and safe access to property. (Emphasis added.)
In view of our objections to the Outlot, and since both the Wear Lane and Crystal Creek
neighborhoods also oppose creation of the Outlot,the City Council's focus should be on the language
of the above-quoted paragraph 4, and particularly the words"to discourage use by through traffic".
Our final reason for opposing the creation of the Outlot is that the City's taking of this Outlot
acreage amounts to a condemnation thereof because the taking is unrelated to the two-lot subdivision
of the tract. While the taking may accommodate future public works with respect to properties to
the West, North and East, and while the property to the North would surely benefit from and be
enriched by access over the Outlot,none of that is related to the two-lot subdivision that we propose.
In view of the taking of the Outlot,and because no compensation for the taking is proposed,
the constitutionality of the Planning Commission's recommendation must be challenged.. The
sanctity of private property is well recognized under our laws. While private property may be taken
for a governmental purpose,just compensation must be paid. The only justifiable reason that this
property is being taken is for perceived municipal uses at some future date, which municipal uses
have nothing whatsoever to do with the two-lot subdivision proposed by us at this time.
Accordingly, our final reason for opposing the taking of the Outlot is that it would be
unconstitutional to do so.
Ms.Elizabeth Van Zomeren
April 2, 1999
Page 4
2. Provide 30'access Outlot for back lot instead of"flag lot" design.
We alsooppose the 30'Outlot suggested by the Planning Commission for reasons similar to
those noted in our opposition to the Northerly Outlot.
We oppose the creation of this Outlot because it removes critical acreage that could be
credited to a subsequent division of Lot 1 to the North. The loss of area that results from the creation
of this Outlot would be 10,680 square feet,or approximately one-quarter acre. Notwithstanding the
size of the lot,in the event of a further subdivision we run up against the three-acre minimum and
site limitations previously mentioned. Thus,we need every square foot we can muster to satisfy the
required acreage minimums.
Another reason we oppose the creation of this Outlot is that there does not appear to be good
reason to require it. Our understanding from conversations with City Staff is that historically this
type of flag lot was opposed only when lakeshore was involved. However,that is not the case here. .
Further,with the potential for access to Lot 1 at its Northwest corner by way of an easement
over Crystal Creek Road,there was even some question in Staffs mind,as expressed at the Planning
Commission hearing, as to whether an Outlot should be recommended in this situation.
Therefore, because the historic reason for opposing a flag lot is not present here,because
there does not appear to be clear direction from Staff requiring the establishment of an Outlot,and
because creation of an Outlot adversely affects subsequent acreage computations with respect to a
possible subdivision of the rear lot,the creation of this meaningless Outlot at the front is opposed.
3. City Staff to grant administrative variances for septic location. if appropriate.
This requirement of the Planning Commission is not opposed. The requirement is
advantageous to us, and is accepted. We will work with Staff to address this matter.
Thank you for this additional opportunity to address these matters.
Sincerely.
L�
Jim and Debra Renckens
JRR/ldd
WINSTON LAW OFFICE G �Z
April 14, 1999
Richard N. Flint
Gray Plant Mooty Mooty Bennett,P.A.
33 South Sixth Street, #3400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3796
RE: James R. Renckens Subdivision Application
Dear Dick:
Jim Renckens and I wish to thank you for giving us a sympathetic ear on
Monday evening. While you ultimately voted against us on the rear outlot issue, it
was clear to us that you were making every effort to understand and be sympathetic
`vith our position. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that, had Charlie Kelly not spoken
so adamantly against us,we would have been able to proceed without the outlot.
Now, with the rear outlot requirement imposed, I am not sure that Jim Renckens will
buy the property, and I would hate to lose him as a neighbor and resident of the City
of Orono. I hope to talk to Charlie Kelly in the near future. I have known Charlie
for a number of vears and he is a friend. I was somewhat taken aback that he spoke
so adamantly against us.
In any event, thank you for giving us a fair hearing on Monday night. I am
sorry your vote supported the imposition of the outlot. In view of the outcome, I
have some concern that I did not effectively advocate my client's position, a position
which I support, being a resident of the same neighborhood myself.
We are not opposed to working cooperatively with the City where public
works are for the benefit of the community or the particular neighborhood in
question. Here, we feel strongly that the creation of a street would be of great
detriment to the neighborhood and of no real benefit to the City. The creation of the
outlot along the Northerly edge of the Stubbs/Renckens property devalues the same,
and has immediate adverse impacts on the Crystal Creek neighborhood,and
particularly Lots 6 and 7. The thought that this outlot might at some future date be
linked to the street in front of my house, and that the street in front of my house
might be linked to a street serving properties to my West and North is of such alarm
and concern to me that I have been distressed ever since I walked out of City Hall
Monday night.
This has not been a good week. I am deeply concerned that Mr. Renckens will
no-%v not purchase the property, and I wanted to have him as a neighbor and as a
resident of the City of Orono. I am as distressed about the possible future loss of
safety, security and privacy with the possible linkage of Wear Lane to other roads to
4420 IDS Center, SO South 8th Street, Minneapolis,MN 55402 Tel:612/341-9800 Fax:6121338-6351
April -1'4, 1999
Page 2
my North and West. With three small children at home who use the cul-de-sac in
front-of our.home as a playground; I am already alarmed by the driving of the son of.
one of my neighbors. I see that many times compounded should other lots and the .
teenage sons of their owners have similar access to the road in front of my house.
These are real concerns, as I try to flag down the offending driver, and yell at
him to slow down. My concerns have nothing to do with snow removal concerns or
"good city planning", but they are a great deal more important to me and my family
than convenience to a snow plow operator.
I have gone on too long, and I have made this more a personal diatribe than I
had wanted. Accordingly, I close by again thanking you for hearing us out Monday
night.
Sincerely,
John B. Winston
JBW/krm
cc: James R. Renckens
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
Charles Kelly
Robert Sansevere
WINSTON LAW OFFICE
April 14, 1999
Council Member Robert Sansevere
Orono City Hall
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
RE: James R. Renckens Subdivision Application
Dear Bob:
Thank you for hearing us out the other night and reacting favorably to our
subdivision proposal. Both Jim Renckens and I are appreciative of your effort to
listen to and understand our arguments against the outlots recommended by the
Planning Commission. It was clear to us from your questions that you cared about
our position and were willing to vote in favor of it, notwithstanding Charlie Kelly's
strong support of the rear outlot.
In that regard, I have known Charlie for many years and he is a friend. I was
surprised that he spoke so adamantly against us. My intention is to address a letter
to him as well, and to invite a meeting at which I or Jim Renckens and I can further
express our concern, not only with respect to the outlot required by the Council at
Monday evening's hearing, but also the possible connection to Wear Lane. My
neighbors and I strongly oppose that connection, and do not see how City interests
are advanced when the residents of the community most affected by the road
connection are all opposed to the same. It seems to me that whenever possible the
"City's interests" should be adapted and adjusted to fit the interests of the City's
residents. It was clear to me and Jim that you were sympathetic to that position, and
we most appreciate your speaking out on Monday evening in our favor.
Keep up the good work. We are happy to see you on the Orono City Council.
Sincerely,
John B. Winsto
JBW/krm
cc: James R. Renckens
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
Charles Kelly
Richard Flint
4420 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, NIN 55402 Tel: 612/341-9800 Fax: 612/338-6351
WINSTON LAW OFFICE
April 14, 1999
Charles Kelly
Compass Capital.Management....
706 Second Avenue South, #400
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: James R. Renckens Subdivision Application
Dear Charlie:
I am writing to you, as you might have anticipated, to discuss with you further
the James R. Renckens Subdivision Application and the outlot requirement imposed
Monday night. The Council's decision has been troubling to my client and me ever
since the vote`vent against us on the 50-foot outlot at the rear of the property.
While I have appeared before the Orono City Council enough times to know
the process, and while I have participated in the process, I always come away
dissatisfied that a City Council hearing is not a good place to engage in a meaningful
dialog with respect to the issues that the Council may face on any particular evening.
I would much rather sit down with Council members in a less formal environment
with proponents and opponents alike and try to talk things out around a conference
room table. That setting was not afforded us Monday night by reason of the process,
and I understand the legal requirements that you are up against. Thus, let me take
this opportunity to commence a less formal dialog.
The rear outlot is a disaster for the property. You have heard our expressions
of concern with respect to privacy, safety and security. You will also see copies of my
letters to the other Council members, and particularly my letter to Mr. Flint where I
again state my concern as a neighbor of the property.
Further concerns involve our now having to leave the rear 50 feet untouched,
as this area is to be a separate outlot, and cannot be developed. That situation is
exacerbated by our having to compute setbacks from the Southerly line of the outlot.
Further, with this being a rear lot, my understanding is that the setback becomes
150% of-the normal setback, and that, in this case, that would amount to 75 feet. In
effect, the City's taking of the 50 feet for outlot purposes creates a 125-foot wide no
man's land at the rear of the subject property.
But it is not just the loss of 125 feet or the resulting loss of use of the acreage
involved. What I would like you to do is to go back to Mr. Renckens' letter that is
part of the City's record. Jim's April 2 letter, copied herewith, well sets forth the
arguments against the outlot. I would like you to focus on those aspects of the letter
4420 IDS" Center,80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis,NIN 55402 Tel: 612.341.9800 Fax: 612.338.6331
April 14, 1999
Page 2
and on those aspects of our position which emphasize the community's opposition to
the outlot requirement imposed by the City Council. I would like to believe that the
interests of the community affected are consistent with the interests of the City,'and,
should the community be opposed to the imposition of the outlot, the City should
conform its position to that of the community.
When none of us wants a through street, and when none of us sees any benefit
in a through street, I would hope that the City could see it within its power and
discretion to avoid the through street.
Charlie, I know you are sincere in your belief, and I know that you work hard
for the City. My hope is that there is still some way that your sincerity and hard
work and my own can coincide with respect to this issue. Thank you for further
considering this matter.
I will try to reach you by telephone to raise these matters again, but I wanted
you to have this introduction in advance.
Sincerely,
John B. Winston
JBW/krm
Enclosure
cc: James R. Renckens
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
Richard N. Flint
Robert Sansevere
JAMES R. RENCKENS
4680 Forestview Lane
Plymouth,Minnesota 55442
(612)559-2380
April 23, 1999
Ron Moorse AP? 2 6 1199
Orono City Administrator avcy vr,
Orono City Hall
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Re: - James R. Renckens
Class III Preliminary Plat Subdivision Application
Zoning File No. 2466
Dear Mr. Moorse:
On April 12, 1999, the Orono City Council recommended approval of the preliminary plat
proposed by my wife and me with respect to the property at 3020 Watertown Road. The
Council's approval, however, was made subject to the condition that an Outlot be platted along
the northerly boundary of our property. After much reevaluation, we have determined that such
condition presents overwhelming problems for us.
We respectfully request, therefore, that the Council's hearing on our application for
preliminary subdivision be reopened.
Our request is made due to the foregoing reason, because certain material information
presented at the April 12t`meeting was factually incorrect, and because the full City Council did
not have the opportunity to hear the matter. We also have new information to present to the
Council that may be helpful in its deliberations. Further, I can confirm that we are now the fee
owners of the property having closed on the purchase from the Stubbs family as we committed.
We request that this matter be addressed by the City Council at its meeting on Monday,
May 10, 1999. In so doing, we understand that at least one member of the Council who voted on
this matter the evening of April 12'h must move to reopen the hearing. Therefore, we will contact
Council members Kelly, Flint and Sansevere in advance of that date to discuss our request.
Thank you for placing this item on the Council agenda for further consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim and Debra Renckens
JRR/ldd
Bcnestroo,Rosene•Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employe<�l
BonestrooPr nopals:Otto G.Bonestroo.PE.•Joseph C.Anderlik.PE.•Marvin L.Sorvala,PE.-
R,cnard E.Turner.PE.•Glenn R.Cook,PE.-Robert G.Schunicht.P.E.- JerryA.Bourdon.PE.
RoseneRobert W.Rosene.PE.and Susan M.Eberlm.C.P.A..Senior Consultants 1lrr
Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford.PE.•Keith A.Gordon,PE.•Robert R.Pfefferle.P.E.
Anderlik & • (v/
R:cnard W.Faster,RE.•David O.Loskota,P.E.•Robert C.Russek.A.I.A.•Mark A.Hanson.P.E.• �—
Micnael T Rautr^ann,PE.•Ted K.Field.P.E.•Kenneth P Anderson,PE.•Mark R.Rolfs.PE.
Associates Sidney P Williamson.P.E..L.S.•Robert F Kotsmith•Agnes M.Ring•Michael P.Rau.PE.
Adan Rick Schmid.PE.
Engineers & Architects Of.`ces:St.Paul Rochester.Willmar and St.Cloud.MN•Milwaukee.WI
March 8, 1999 veosite:wwwbonestroo.com
Elizabeth VanZomeren 11
City Planner/Zoning Administrator P r>cl �tppra�t , �,ZO Ar—City of Orono J
Post Office Box 66 Q�
Crystal Bay,MN 55323
Re: Renckens Subdivision
File No. 139-2466
Dear Liz:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed two-lot Renckens subdivision. The site is located east of Crystal
Creek Road, west of Wear Lane and north of Watertown Road in the southwest quarter of Section 33. We have the
following comments in regards to engineering matters.
1. Access: Access to Lot 1 is off of Watertown Road along a 30-foot wide corridor. The driveway to serve Lot 1
would be approximately 700 feet long. The City should review the proposed access to Lot 1 and determine whether
the 30-foot corridor and driveway length is appropriate. The southerly 33 feet of Lot 2 should be dedicated as
Watertown Road right-of-way. An Outlot should be platted across the northerly 50-feet of Lot 1 to provide for a
future extension of Crystal Creek Road and allow access to Outlot B and Lot 7, Block lin the Crystal Creek
subdivision.
2. Grading: The location of the proposed westerly septic site on Lot 2 may be too close to the proposed driveway to
serve Lot 1 and to the existing wetland in Crystal Creek. A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site
should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading. Additional
erosion control will be needed during construction of the homes and septic systems.
3. Drainage: The site lies within the Lake Classen drainage district as shown in the draft version of the City's Surface
Water Management Plan(SWMP). The southerly wetland on the property is identified as LC-P 15 and classified
as a moderately susceptible wetland in the City's SWMP. We recommend constructing a water quality pond north
of this wetland to treat runoff from the site and protect the wetland.
A drainage area map,drainage and
ponding calculations should be submitted for review. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District for their review.
4. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet
wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across ponding areas,wetlands and
drainage ways.
5. Financial Guarantee:When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site
improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required.
Please contact me at 651-604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES,INC.
Tom Kellogg
Cc: Greg Gappa,City of Orono
2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311
Date of Application/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99 �+
120 day limit: 6/17/99
TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator
DATE: March 2, 1999
RE: #2466 John B. Winston/James R. Renckens, having an interest in
3020 Watertown Road
Class II Subdivision--Two Lot Preliminary Subdivision
Exhibits:
Al Application AA Notice to previous applicants
A2 Legal Description AC Septic Report
A3 Applicant's lette AD Previous Proposed Plat
B Proposed Plat Survey BA Historical Information
C Area Map Ca Road and Topo for Crystal Creek
C 1 Plat Map Cb Res. #2948
C2 &3 Mailing List Cc Exhibit A for Res. #2498
Cd Staff Report for Crystal Creek
Ce Engineer's letter
Cf Res. #3896
Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District(2 acres)
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Service/Rural Residential District
Lot Area: 11.94 acres total, 10.1 dry acres
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--1
Date of Applicationll7/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
120 day limit: 6/17/99
Proposed Lots:
Lot Total acreage Total dry acreage
Lot 1 8.43 acres 7.30 acres
Lot 2 3.51 acres 2.73 acres
Application:
The applicants are proposing to subdivide an 11.94 acre parcel into two lots. Lot 1 is considered a
flag lot, subject to back lot standards. Lot 2 is a front lot. Both lots 1 and 2 are proposed to have
access onto Watertown Road.
RR-1B Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Side Yard
Adjacent to
Street
2 acres dry 200' 50' 50' 30' 50'
buildable
Back Lot Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Side Yard
Adjacent to
Street
3 acres 200' 75 75' 45' 75'
The proposed subdivision is located in the RR1-B zoning district. The minimum lot area for the
zoning district is 2 acres. Backlots require a minimum of 3 acres. Lot 1 is a flag lot back lot. Lot
1 is required to meet the above back lot standards which are 150%of the requirements for the RR-
1 B district for lot area, front, rear and side yards.
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--2
Date of Application/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
120 day limit: 6/17/99
The subdivision ordinance states that front/back lot subdivisions shall not be created. In Section
11.3 1, Subd. 5, it states "Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and"easement back lots" shall not
be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an
outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be
allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lots shall adhere to the
following standards:
a. Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow
and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split,but acreage
is adequate to provide a front lot and back lot without requiring an area variance
when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded.
The area to be subdivided is 11.94 acres with 1.91 acres wet. There is sufficient
land area for 5 building sites in the 2 acre zoning district. The parcel, however, does
not have 1,000 ft. of frontage for 5 lots to meet the minimum lot width on a public
street. The depth of the parcel is 1,170 ft. which would provide adequate lot
width if the lots were platted in an east/west orientation. However, a new private
north/south road platted at 50'right-of-way would be required along the east or
west boundary line. The amount of lot area dedicated to a private road would
reduce the total number of building sites and would cause either the lots in
either Crystal Creek or along Wear Lane to technically become through lots.
There are also not enough adequate primary and secondary septic sites to
accommodate such a platting arrangement.
b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual lot splits, but may not be used
when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely
a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors.
The topography and location of the wetlands reduces the likelihood of a three or
four lot subdivision laid out along a north/south private road. A back lot/front
lot for this parcel maybe accomplished without lot area variances. Lot 2 cannot be
further subdivided. Lot I could be further subdivided if adequate septic sites
and access is provided in accordance with City codes.
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--3
Date of Application/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
120 day limit: 6/17/99
Accessory Structures
Lot 2 would be platted to have the existing five accessory buildings. The maximum total square
footage for a 3.51 acre lot is 3, 200 sq. ft. The five accessory structures total 3,208 square feet of
lot coverage as calculated by staff. The actual total structural coverage of the accessory structures
needs to be verified. If the lot coverage exceeds 3,200 sq. ft., either one of the buildings needs to
be removed to meet the requirement or a variance will be needed.
One building measures approximately 32' x 44' (1,408 sq. ft.). and is considered an oversized
accessory structure. Oversized accessory structures are subject to setback requirements that are
required to be filed in a covenant in the chain of title. The plat as proposed would not comply with
the side yard adjacent to street (45') setback if the 30' flag lot is replatted as a 30' access outlot, as
required by the subdivision ordinance.
Historical Building
The April 1997 inventory from the Minnesota State Historical Office notes a barn at 3020
Watertown Road listed as HE-ORC-029 in the standing structure inventory. The state information
is included in Exhibit BA.
Septic Systems
Steve Weckman has evaluated the proposed septic locations. His report is in Exhibit G. In the
report he notes that the location of a stormwater pond in Crystal Creek results in a septic site for Lot
I(formerly Lot 3) on Watertown Road being located only 58 feet from the pond where 75 feet is
required. A variance for the location of the drainfield will be required.
Park Dedication Fee
The Park Commission has reviewed this proposed subdivision and has recommended accepting a
park dedication fee in lieu of land. The Hennepin County Assessor has been asked to review the
proposal and determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land.
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--4
Date of Application/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
120 day limit: 6/17/99
Engineering Issues
The City Engineer has provided a letter addressing several engineering issues such as access,
stormwater management,grading and drainage for the previous 3 lot subdivision. He is reviewing
the two-lot proposal.
Dedication of Right-of-way
Access to both lots is from Watertown Road. The south 33' of the parcel should be dedicated as
right-of-way on the final plat.
Access
The City's subdivision ordinance limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet and the number of
units to be served at 10. Crystal Creek Road was built with a temporary cul-de-sac to serve 11
properties at a length of 1,400 feet. Therefore, this parcel cannot gain access from Crystal Creek
Road. Both lots are proposed to have frontage and access from Watertown Road. The Code requires
that the 30'portion of the back lot, Lot 1, be platted as an outlot, 30' wide,with a driveway at least
10' from either lot line. The side yard adjacent to an access lot standard is 45' rather than 30'.
Future access to an additional lot created from the back lot would also be required to be provided
from the access outlot. No access from Crystal Creek Road shall be allowed.
Cul-de-sacs
The subdivision ordinance states that cul-de-sacs shall be discouraged. (Section 11.32, Subd. 2, B.
6). Proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided, unless
prevented by topography or other physical conditions or unless in the opinion of the City such
extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the
existing layout or the most advantageous future development of future tracts.
This parcel is adjacent to the cul-de-sac for Crystal Creek In considering this two lot subdivision,
the Planning Commission and City Council should address whether a 50'outlot shall be required
across the rear of Lot 1 in order to coordinate the layout of adjacent subdivisions.
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--5
Date of Application/17/99
Date Complete: 2/17/99
120 day limit: 6/17/99
Construction of Roads
The subdivision ordinance states that the arrangement of streets shall provide for continuation of
streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement
of traffic,effective fire protection,for efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If the adjacent property is undeveloped and the street
must be a dead-end street temporarily,the right-of-way shall be extended to the property line. The
City may limit the length of temporary dead-end streets in accordance with the design standards.
It was anticipated that Crystal Creek Road would eventually be connected to Wear Lane, according
to a recent discussion with Jeanne Mabusth,former Zoning Administrator/Building Official. (See
Crystal Creek packet for staff reports and resolutions).
Stormwater Management
The City Engineer is reviewing the subdivision for stormwater management concerns.
Drainage and Utility Easements
The City will require the subdivider to provide standard utility and drainage easements along the
internal and external lot lines. Drainage and flowage easements will also be required for wetland
protection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission needs to discuss the following issues:
1. Whether to accept platting of a back lot given the width of the parcel, wetlands,
topography, and access
2. The proposed access to the back lot via a flag lot configuration vs.the Code requirement for
a 30' access outlot
3. Future possible subdivision of Lot 1 and future access to the lot
4. The Code's requirement to consider the adjacent subdivisions and the need to
create a 50' outlot across the rear of Lot 1
#2466 Winston/Renckens
3020 Watertown Road
PC--3/15/99
page--6