7.1. SR 08-20-2012 1
E1kk REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 7.1
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Public Hearings August 20, 2012 Jeremy Barnhart,Planning Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Resolution of Denial for Patrick Kasper Lot Split, Case No. Cal Portner, City Administrator
LS 12-01 REVIEWED BY
ACTION REQUESTED
1. Allow additional public comment on this item.
2. Adopt resolution denying the Lot Split as proposed by Patrick Kasper.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At the July 16,2012,meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the lot split
proposed by Patrick Kasper.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
• City Council packet dated July 16,2012.
• Draft resolution for denial
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
r----1 RE 6 N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\LS\LS 12-01 Kasper-1st Storage of ER\LS 12-01 Kasper
lot split SR to CC 8-15-12.docx
FILE
Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 7.4
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Public Hearings July 16,2012 Jeremy Barnhart,Planning Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Patrick Kasper Lot Split, Case No. LS 12-01 Cal Portner,City Administrator
REVIEWED BY
ACTION REQUESTED
The applicant requests approval to split his 2.85 acre into two lots,a 1.85 acre lot and a 1 acre lot.
Staff does not support the proposal, and recommends the Council direct staff to draft a resolution of
denial for consideration at a future Council meeting.
Should the Council wish to approve the lot subdivision, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The existing fence will need to be removed from Parcel A and located on Parcel B.
2. The entrance off of Highway 10 shown via grading contours shall be removed as
dictated by MnDOT.
3. Access control along Highway 10 shall be dedicated to MnDOT.
4. There can be no net increase of storm water runoff from the development to the
Highway 10 right-of-way
5. An easement shall be recorded providing access through Parcel A to Parcel B.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Patrick Kasper recently purchased Lot 2,Block 1 of Sunrise Park addition,a 2.85 acre parcel generally
south of 170th Avenue and west of Highway 10/169. The property has housed two mini storage
buildings for a number of years.
The applicant desires to split the lot,to create a one acre parcel(the minimum required by ordinance)to
construct an advertising sign (billboard). Advertising signs are permitted in the C-3 zoning district,
provided they are the principal use,located 100-feet away from an intersection,and 1,200-feet from
another advertising sign on the same side of the right-of-way.
The review of subdivisions in the city is governed by Chapter 30,.Article V of the City Code. Section 30-
375 of this Article identifies the findings necessary to approve a subdivision request. A copy of Section
30-375 is attached. In May,staff completed.review of the subdivision proposal and prepared a number of
comments which are also attached.
Findings for subdivision approval. In summary,staff does not believe the subdivision satisfies the
necessary findings,as listed in the attachment.
[POWERED IT
N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\LS\LS 12-01 Kasper-1st Storage of ER\LS 12-01 Kasper NATURE.
LS SR to CC 7-16.12.docx
The proposed lot split does not meet finding 2,as the proposed lot split is not consistent with all
applicable general and specialized city,county, and regional plans,in particular the 2010 Focused Area
Study Plan. The Focused Area Study Plan identifies the need for a connection of the drive serving the
businesses on the west side of Highway 10 to the public street to the north. This proposed lot split
would make this connection unlikely, to the detriment of the businesses in the area that rely on vehicular
access.
The proposed lot split does not meet finding 3 because it creates a lot that provides less than 3,000
square feet of buildable land,well under the minimum size for C-3 zoning lots,and well below the
minimum buildable area for the type and density of development and uses contemplated in the C-3
zoning district.
The proposed lot split does not meet finding 7 because it would have an adverse impact on the adjacent
parcels by making the connection of roads unlikely,therefore hampering the development and use of the
lots on the west side of Highway 10.
Lastly, the lot configuration also appears to be inconsistent with Section 30-477 of the City Code,which
requires that lot remnants be attached to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels.
Lot remnants are lots that house storm water features and offer no buildable site. Historically,the city
has required these to be attached to a buildable lot,to avoid a situation where the property owner neglects
the parcel requiring the city to acquire the property in a tax forfeiture situation to preserve the storm
water features.
Park dedication. The comment letter mentions a park dedication requirement. Park dedication is not
required per section 30-327 (d) of the City Code.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
• Location Map
• Applicants Narrative
• Staff Comment Letter Dated May 21,2012
• City Code Section 30-375,Required Findings for Subdivision Approval
• Subdivision Proposal
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
` u'4s' r '" i Z
''M xN.. 3;�..'S�•'. <E;.ac:s:-, 'z ..- _ m?x rxi
x•'�.;H+i,' t V.-.r.'.":'.1r.4.! -` 0;i,"R.. �',•x••,;1 w -k 4∎,� f+,v4,. 4:Fi`� : °#�,t>•
F` .'4110'"•� r: .. ;: .,:' . r"fi 7„
'14-,1 Awx :• :r„' kz'4.cF :< " 1 me. M F+x aisrei•,{E (•fi '. s. .: y.s. Lsy, --/,.5 E, .Y Y Yf ix q P i .1','.'
) '
i ; w7i �h 't5+ r a
R S` te'
WV Ll..
E S :s..` s:: '„y,4t,'•: : .„ xry mil.
�' G "�`x�. .s,� aY:...'� �t4 �i�`h%�{[ �� ,�f'��tw , �- ik � iR� Z '' `S
y k,: :,�:..;,�.. Vi i`.4•.� 1., 7 i-: ' r, L v)
,..•.`ia ..!K.4 r ti. ... 'iK `. I': ;T;T *
,.r '' �'iy� 'l' , 3 V')• s 11•wV' ^� '°i S�y
1. >5�snwvr:ti.e•.`^�i:-::ice"_-�.':�;.;+:� �'S.,;,;: .•! ,��. ,: _ _
i LIJ
l ,fY, ,�:sRj £” . �A•• `�t •r .S Ci. £
s
!
!RR. fe g
r
cd1•;ice• • 4
..-
, • ” tik'.i.x^_,�� ..,� L ....•� + .,y tt'.t' C-s h { r.•'�x�,Yf.ue'`'1�� 6!` : ,�a+ E
{v)
� �'� 0
0. �" ' s } ' ,i! : "w.,;.,. ...,..4, : R,
e y o' er ��' d�.n+'xt}G.tS p" c �'a sessols
✓✓ wiE i1 M
..C:.s EK�' Vii srsxn J
K . .1 =
f ^,
�A)'r_ .n.,'„.*IF V.`'''''',..4 ti4,,,,,
•�� �rs •: yr.:•::.... �^ r
.. ,.•! ,_.;..;;;;;C;:'ECX'+r. _:1', 4'•• xw'.-.,. ib:.4..:..:11 ,' .!..i.,„1,-:,r_ "
,... _ •'..i.1 g Y:y` M 5 :IL ,
' '1ir Rk
To whom it concerns:
The owners of First Storage of Elk River LLC located at 16888 HWY NW are looking to get a lot split
approved by the city council for the purposed of having an acre of single use land dedicated to the
placement of a billboard.We're looking to get approximately an acre split from are 2.84 acre parcel.
We plan on erecting a sign on the eastern portion of land that directly faces Hwy 10.We plan on
meeting any and all city ordinances including but not limited to setbacks, mono pole construction,sign
size,and other required distances and spacing.We will hire a professional outdoor advertising company
to construct the sign and simply lease the land back to them.
The reason that I'm proposing this is because we have prime Hwy 10 frontage that is not being put to
use. I have an acre that 1 can split from my existing parcel and we're zoned C3 which are requirements
set forth by the city which we do/will meet.The parcel that we're trying to split is simply not being put
to its highest and best use. From the research that I have done there is serious demand for advertising in
the area that I'm proposing this sign.This proposal will help generate income for our business as well as
generate income for Elk River.
There are no structures being moved in order to construct this billboard. I don't believe that there are
any variances needed to complete his project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Patrick Kasper
First Storage LLC
763-441-3566
May 21,2012
Patrick Kasper VIA EMAIL
1851 St John's Drive p.kasper9 @comcast.net
Woodbury MN 55129
Dear Mr. Kasper:
The City Code allows for approval of a lot subdivision through an expedited procedure,but only in
those limited cases where strict adherence to the standard platting process is not required.The
administrative subdivision by simple plat and lot split procedures are not intended to be substitutes
for the standard platting process set forth in the Code.Under these criteria,you have applied for a
lot split,pursuant to Section 30-391 of the City Code. I provide the City Council with a
recommendation of an application,based on a careful review of the applicable ordinances.
Following is the results of my review.
In order to approve a subdivision,including a lot split,the City Council must make the following
findings under Section 30-375 of the City Code:
Sec.30-375. Required findings.
The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final
plat shall be as follows:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning regulations (article
VI of this chapter) and conforms in all respects with all requirements of this
Code,including the zoning regulations and this article.
(2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable general and
specialized city, county,and regional plans,including,but not limited to, the
city's comprehensive development plan.
(3) The physical characteristics of the site,including but not limited to
topography, soils,vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation,
susceptibility to flooding,and drainage are suitable for the type and density
of development and uses contemplated.
(4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage transportation,erosion control and all other services,
facilities and improvements otherwise required in this article.
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage.
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record or with
easements established by judgment of a court.
(7) The proposed subdivision will not have an undue and adverse impact on the
reasonable development of neighboring land.
1. Following review of your application, staff does not believe that all of the required findings can
be made with respect to your proposed lot split, for the following reasons:
(1) Your lot configuration appears to be inconsistent with Section 30-477,which requires
that lot remnants are attached to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable
parcels. Lot remnants are lots that house storm-water features and offer no buildable
site.
(2) The proposed lot split is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
subject parcel is part of the 2010 Focused Area Study plan,which is part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Focused Area Study Plan identifies the need for a
connection of the drive serving the businesses on the west side of Highway 10 to the
public street to the north. This proposed lot split would make this connection unlikely,
to the detriment of the businesses in the area that rely on vehicular access.
(3) The proposed lot split does not meet finding (3)because it creates a lot that provides
less than 3,000 square feet of buildable land,well under the minimum size for C-3
zoning lots,and well below the minimum buildable area for the type and density of
development and uses contemplated in the C-3 zoning district.
(7) The proposed lot split does not meet finding(7)because it would have an adverse
impact on the adjacent parcels,by making connection of roads unlikely,hampering the
development and use of the lots on the west side of Highway 10.
2. In addition,the proposed lot split would create a new lot principally occupied by a pond which
would make up approximately 85% of the land area of the new lot. It is staffs opinion that the
pond would be the principle use of the new lot. Therefore,a billboard could not be built on the
new lot
3. The Minnesota Department of Transportation reviews all lot subdivisions adjacent to MnDOT
Right of Way. Their comment letter is attached,but in summary:
Remove the entrance drive that appears based on the contours.
Dedicate access control along Highway 1.0.
No net increase in storm water runoff from the development to Highway 10.
4. Finally,pursuant to Section 30-322 of the City Code,the purpose of the subdivision code is to
provide for and guide the orderly,economic and safe development of land and urban services and
facilities.... The proposed lot split does not support that purpose,with the flag shaped lot,limited
use options, and impacts to the neighboring properties.
Therefore, staff will be recommending against approval of the proposed lot split.If the lot split were
to be approved, staff will recommend the following conditions:
The existing fence will need to be removed from Parcel A and located on Parcel B.
Park dedication in the amount of$7,444 will need to be provided. (Assuming the Park
Commission,in the review of the proposal in June,recommends a cash donation in lieu of
land dedication)
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 763/ 6.35-1034.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Barnhart,AICP
Planning Manager
Page lotl
vluziumde -P �-
Sec. 30-375. - Required findings.
The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat shall be as follows:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning regulations (article VI of this chapter) and
conforms in all respects with all requirements of this Code, including the zoning regulations and this
article.
(2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable general and specialized city, county, and
regional p\aUs, including, but not limited to, the city's comprehensive development plan.
(3) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation,
susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and drainage are suitable for the type and
density of development and uses contemplated.
(4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage
transportation, erosion control and all other services, facilities and improvements otherwise required in
this article.
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage.
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record or with easements established by
'udornentofa court.
_
(7) The proposed subdivision will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable development of
neighboring land.
(8) The proposed subdivision is not premature.A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists:
o' Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d'
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
(Code 1Q82§1808.08(1)(D))
07/12/2012 htbn 34Z/���il»�tmeqoesz=znzpro3a;�2z»�2z/ oreuyaounic -
1 ..
■:, 1 ti
ll
g I El I i
• . s. .=.
• .. .
I t, ...1i. ''' (*.v..zziorn
., a,,,,,,,,set.st•LON ________.,'L
_______ .-• es. ■
' l'42".3
SOCOH.291.,II MSC I
,
-F-- ...,---or------
.-----F-----' -
--/ y,,na an,1,0n34.
On.cm.7 ,.._..----%
s."-.--*. oni 1-■■.....- ..*
'
i ."' , ...--•-..-'...---- .7411.1,..—.....1---'--- 1 . 1
1 11 i ". ,,.■-■.,----.--''.--.----
I
ns X■... . ,
r 1
f■ , , _______ .1t.. ____
m
r—
1‘ /1
. - I
1
- I
• 1 1 ‘ i • yan Y...'''''' ' V '71..IS
% ..E t.4 ■1 ... t " \
:•• gw ;A L'8
• '' ' ' /-* -1c A----
..-,
/ ..................„„/"''' \
•
-1
i
m
"a 0
,—
I
i 1 ...
..• ) ,4L: ... 2:
_ 1 1
)
/,, ,'* — 1
,,,..o• il-: T _1,
,-, ,... a.,.. •1---1-—N ..,,n,,,,,„„„„,„
A i 4._,„.% „." 94 i _.3.--- ...00 trut
(M.K.06400
/r 1 $ 1_____r____,
.. i .0..
i i \ 1 ID 0.
...„7„.. .47
... ....
/
... .5
:4", — -
V eil V 13V, ,S.' ,,.., it =
il 1 ,§ r ir 14i fil pctirciri gall WI!i'l f fil 1.4 T . li I 1 ii 1 1 2
f
5 , ; 4 1 PI EirP 411 .1Z4z!ils,1/ irtAat /44. IR r i li I II
i #'Et gi 1 P- 4- Tilt' 1 / 1 a a 1 it II WI
' I i a ; 11 fg Pi I ttl gild 1 1 11 1 g , : I". ' :`,7:' 1
f f - i -11. r I iff!,§011 1 i 1 l 4 1- `'. i IN 1 fli! ;` rie I ill? i I E
i I 1 i Iii ” g .4;11911441,E1 9 f H 1 LI ii 11: / 141 1 :jilt 1 1
8 . 1 i Pt
.. ! 3 Ifr Itra 111WIPI iiig; ! 11;$ ; 7ttitrtp114.1A1
g ' I 1' tt iF a„laft i i
11 1 1 ;...-- 1111 1 118A i him liy.„ i
tst i I_ Z
! g 45--- -Orogg---"''''-• it
- i - -/I 4r4V1114.11 i a 1.,. zi i i 1'4 I I i IT
.2.-. g - i ,..1 1 t,i r.1
V fol,V .1 w 1 tit ; IN 44 . ii.• . I
. I
I 4 a il r - la I if lir 1 Se I x4 4 1
4 ilt 1 El id. .
214. ; ! n, : 11: I I I I:: 1 i
I I - a t . I % .
? i Illi 'di - wil f Ell 1 i
g t a,t 1 Pell :- :II 1 III tit c
f -... 11 x
/,
,...
ii 1 i'jilt 3 /.. 43'
1 i “; 01 i I al I ai I i
D Pt! S f 11; a2ms
k 1 il s it 111 i
. .,. . 3
4 I I•4 ar r !if i tr -.
i
',I 1 :- ' '
, , al s 6 .4 3 i
. 11.8 FUY ; f 33 E rtgiE 1
1 i ii! 111 4 ill g ID ,
i tiYf EH '' laS 1 9,1 i
jaig °i 1 s
II
• rt 11 i
. 1 lit
!irl19 1
a 1 el r.
I i L.: 1.1 hi 1 1.1 ..
, 111 fit / Fp EV §
e;p10 Pi' .11 c, „ I
I IN ia / Da I =4
ktarip'A I 1 s r, i; 4 c it3 pc . Pg t pc
d 1•
'a 1
a ,r
ill Øi I ft! Ill
0
rx31;eK A. I le '
,It•rn.fj, I 1 ,
1, I s;: iii t tit tii
."-AZ 4 ii ill a L 11
11 a
.tg: s: lj:
w a t q
'i 1 I
1 . E t
IP II I 131 (li
It i
' P
1 I 11 I I
r. I
I i i; / '1.
tiZ E I
• m. ,
I 8 • lq 1.1 f b. 14
12 15§11 A ;4 1 g -F ;41 di I Iii tit
API - ii r 4 x git ill 1 IEf in
E 1
II r I 7
1 Hi 1;1 i fil lit
k gei 12 " is p.,
! 8
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A LOT SPLIT
WHEREAS, Patrick Kasper (The Applicant) has applied (The Application) for a lot split to
subdivide a 2.85 acre parcel into two lots; a 1.85 acre lot and a 1 acre lot; and
WHEREAS, the Elk River Council, on July 16,2012,held a public hearing on the Application for
a lot split, at which time the Applicant and all members of the public desiring to
speak were provided the opportunity to do so;and
WHEREAS, following the July 16, 2012,public hearing,the City Council considered the
Application,and took action to continue consideration of the Application to its
regular scheduled meeting of August 20, 2012, and directed city staff to prepare a
draft resolution for denial of the Application;and
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council, on August 20, 2012, took additional testimony and
further considered the Application and the draft resolution of denial prepared by
staff;and
WHEREAS, after all parties desiring to present testimony and offer evidence for and against the
application had had the opportunity to do so, Elk River City Council closed the
public hearing on the Application, continued its discussion of the application, and
reached the decision incorporated in this resolution.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council for the City of Elk River makes the
following findings of fact and decision with respect to the Applicant's request for a lot split:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Application:
(1) The proposed lot configuration is inconsistent with Section 30-477 of the City Code,which
requires that lot remnants be attached to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as
unusable parcels. Lot remnants include lots that house storm-water features and offer no -
buildable site.
(2) The proposed lot split does not comply with findings (2), (3) and (7) of the required findings
for approval of a lot split set forth in Section 30-375 of the City Code, as follows:
a) The proposed lot split does not comply with finding (2) because it is not consistent with
the City's Plans. The subject parcel is part of the 2010 Focused Area Study Plan. The
Focused Area Study Plan identifies the need for connection of a road serving the
businesses on the west side of Highway 10 to the public street to the north. The
proposed lot split and construction of an Advertising Sign would make this connection
unlikely, to the detriment of the businesses in the area that rely on vehicular access. The
City invested considerable time and resources developing, considering and adopting the
Focused Area Study Plan and it is critically important for this area of the City that the
Plan be followed and that there be no barriers to the Plan's implementation.
b) The proposed lot split does not comply with finding (3) of Section 30-375 because it
creates a lot that provides less than 3,000 square feet of buildable land,well under the
minimum size for C-3 zoning lots, and well below the minimum buildable area for the
type and density of development and uses contemplated in the C-3 zoning district.
c) The proposed lot split does not comply with finding(7) of Section 30-375 because the
lot split would have an adverse impact on the adjacent parcels by making connection of
roads unlikely, hampering the development and use of the lots on the west side of
Highway 10.
(3) The proposed lot split is inconsistent with Section 30-322 of the City Code which provides
that the purpose of the subdivision code is to provide for and guide the orderly, economic
and safe development of land and urban services and facilities within the City. The
proposed lot split does not support that purpose because it would create a flag shaped lot
with limited use options and significant adverse impacts to neighboring properties.
DECISION
THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Elk River makes the following decision with
respect to the application for a lot split by Patrick Kasper:
A. The record in this matter shall include all material submitted to the City and
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council,including those materials
presented in the staff reports,by the City staff, all materials and testimony submitted
by or on behalf of the Applicant, and all testimony received from the public as of the
date of this resolution.
B. The findings of facts set forth above in this Resolution are hereby adopted and
incorporated as specific grounds for the decision set forth herein.
C. Based on all of the above,the Application for a lot split is denied.
Passed and adopted this 20`h day of August, 2012.
John J. Dietz,Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard,City Clerk