Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-11-1994 SpecialJZ>
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 11, 1994 - 5:30 p.m.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Brian
Stumpf
Call to order.
Public Hearing --Consideration of approval of the preliminary plat of the
Eastwood Knoll subdivision.
Adjourn.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4111194
�• Public Hearing -Consideration of approval of the oreliminary plat of
the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Planning Commission granted preliminary approval of the Eastwood Knoll
subdivision on a vote with three in support, one abstaining, and one
opposed. Rich Carlson abstained, and Cindy Lemm opposed the design of
the plat due to the impact of the traffic flow on the existing developed area.
This item is being returned to the Planning Commission, and a new public
hearing will be conducted due to the mistake made in the original notice.
The original notice included the outline of the original PUD design, which
could have had the effect of misleading residents as to the impact of traffic
on their neighborhood. As you know, the original PUD design did not
include a through street to Briar Oakes, whereas the plat of the Eastwood
Knoll does include a through street, which is a significant difference from
the original PUD design.
In addition, at the previous meeting the City Council listened to the
residents' concerns regarding the traffic impact on the neighborhood and
responded by authorizing preparation of an alternative design of the plat.
Planning Commission is asked to review this alternative design and
determine a preference.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll
subdivision under the original design.
Under this alternative, the City will be assured of achieving its goal
of creating an exclusive, isolated neighborhood. As a result,
additional traffic impacts will be experienced by the existing Meadow
Oak neighborhood.
Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll
subdivision under the revised design.
The alternative plan features the extension of the roadway from Briar
Oakes extending through the site, thereby providing direct access to
Meadow Oak Avenue. Under this configuration, the additional traffic
impact on Meadow Oak Lane will be minimized, and the roadway
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/11/94
connecting the Briar Oakes area to Meadow Oak Lane through
Eastwood Knoll can be constructed to a 36 -ft wide minimum, which is
the city standard for this type of roadway. By keeping the additional
traffic out of the Meadow Oak Estates area, property values in that
area can be maintained. The down side of this proposal is that the
lots created along either side of the collector road in Eastwood Knoll
will not be as exclusive as under the original design and will,
therefore, likely fetch a lower price.
This design will not affect the exclusivity of the lots on the Eastwood
Knoll cul-de-sac to the west. Under the alternative, the City's goal of
creating an exclusive neighborhood for the entire area is diminished;
however, preserving the exclusivity of the original Meadow Oak
Estates is maintained. As a final note, the City will need to acquire a
lot along Meadow Oak Avenue for the through street. According to
Rick, there is at least $25,000 in delinquent taxes and assessments
against this property. He is relatively certain that the City can
acquire it through the tax foreclosure process or through a direct sale
of the property by Dickman Knutson to the City.
As a variation of this alternative, a connection of the through street
to Briar Oakes could be eliminated, thus eliminating drive-through
traffic and maintaining exclusivity. This would also result in creation
of a separate entrance to Eastwood Knoll apart from the Meadow Oak
entrance. From a marketing standpoint, there may be an advantage
in creating a separate entrance, as it would provide the opportunity
for placement of landscaping, signage, etc., which would assist in
creating an attitude supporting higher -end housing.
Creating a separate entrance to Outlots C and D would also provide a
second access point for the Meadow Oak Estates/Eastwood Knoll area
and result in one less cul-de-sac to maintain. On the other hand, the
down side is that Cho loss of the cul-de-sac reduces the exclusivity of
the lots near the entrance. Under this alternative, the City would be
trading a cul-de-sac for a direct access to the upscale neighborhood.
Motion to approve the original plat design but eliminate access to
Briar Oakes, thereby maintaining separation as envisioned under the
original PUD design.
Special Planning Commission Agenda • 4111/94
Under this alternative, the future connection of Briar Oakes to
Eastwood Knoll would be eliminated, thereby eliminating any
possibility of cut -through traffic traveling in either direction. Briar
Oakes traffic created by 64 lots would enter and leave at one location.
Meadow Oak/Eastwood Knoll traffic consisting of traffic generated by
62 lots would also enter and leave the subdivision at one location.
This alternative is not consistent with the standard practice of
providing at least two outlets from each development; however, due to
the relatively small size of each subdivision and due to the potential
of the road becoming a shortcut for traffic from outside the
development, it might make some sense to select this alternative.
This alternative will impact the efficiency of snow removal and police
patrol services by requiring longer travel distances between
subdivisions.
4. Motion to deny approval of any of the preliminary plat designs
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
According to the traffic engineer and the City Planner, traffic issues brought
forward by the neighborhood have merit. The additional traffic will have an
impact on the livability of the existing neighborhood. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of a plat design under alternatives #2 or #3.
Rick is also examining additional methods for marketing the property. I
have attached a copy of Rick's agenda item to the City Council regarding
this issue for your information.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of related Council agenda item; Alternative plat design.
c°*4°�
Council Agenda • 4/11/94
Consideration of approval of the preliminary plat of the Eastwood
Knoll residential subdivision. Appflcant. Citv of Monticello. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Since this item was discussed at length at the previous Council meeting but
final action was tabled until this meeting, the agenda discussion from the
previous meeting is included again for your review, as most of the site plan
review items still remain the same and can be used as a refresher. I did
not feel it was necessary to repeat the same items over again and will
attempt to have my agenda deal with the new issues the Council wanted to
address regarding this plat.
It is my understanding that the City Council tabled action on the
preliminary plat request for two basic reasons, one being a concern that the
public hearing notice may have been improperly provided to the neighboring
property owners, and two, a request by the Council to have the staff and
engineer look at any alternatives available for providing an additional outlet
from this plat to Meadow Oak Avenue. As far as the public hearing notice
is concerned, a new notice has been published, and new notice has been
mailed to all of the abutting property owners with the corrected plat
supplement.
With regard to the concerns expressed by neighboring property owners on
traffic congestion with only one outlet from this plat, Bret Weiss again
looked at whether it could be feasibly accomplished to have one of the cul-
de-sacs access Meadow Oak Avenue. Again, in looking at the westerly cul-
de-sac (Eastwood Court), continuation of this road to Meadow Oak Avenue
would still be hampered by grade elevations, which would require more
grading than what is desirable if our efforts were to save trees and the
terrain. In light of this, Bret looked at the feasibility of extending the first
cul-de-sac (Blackwood Circle) through to Meadow Oak Avenue. From a
grade and construction standpoint, this extension would be much easier to
accomplish; and with some alterations to the lot design, it is feasible to line
up the intersection of this road with the Woodcrest Circle Drive entering
into Briar Oakes and extending it through to Meadow Oak Avenue. The
major hurdle at this point would be to acquire property between this plat
and Meadow Oak Avenue, as there are platted lots abutting Meadow Oak
Avenue. Assuming this alternative was selected, the City would have to
acquire Lot 2, Block 3, Meadow Oak Estates, in order to accomplish this
alternate connection point.
Council Agenda - 4/11/94
In further investigating this alternative, I have placed a call to the lot
owner, Mr. Dickman Knutson, original developer of the Meadow Oak
Estates area. As of this time, Mr. Knutson has not returned my call. The
attempt to contact Mr. Knutson was to find out if there would be some
possibility of reaching an agreement with him to have the City acquire this
lot if this alternative was selected by the Council. Assuming we may not be
able to come to an agreement, Council should be aware that this property
will in the near future be up for tax forfeiture for non-payment of special
assessment and tax debt. I confirmed this with Darla Groshens, Wright
County Auditor, who indicated that it is her goal to have this property be
part of the tax forfeiture sale planned for later on in 1994. In light of this,
the City does have a reasonable opportunity to acquire the property at that
time, as the County would give us first right of purchase. Since most of the
debt against this property is the City's special assessment debt, we could
probably acquire it for approximately $2,000 in back taxes. In addition, the
City could try to get this amount lowered even more by requesting that the
School District and/or Wright County agree to abate their share of the
taxes. As far as special assessment debt is concerned, the total debt against
these lots will be exceeding $28,000 to $29,000 by the time it's tax forfeited,
and I do not anticipate other property owners willing to purchase these lots
for that cost.
At this time, the City Council will be asked to decide which alternative for
this plat will be in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood it
surrounds, and whether it should continue as originally proposed under the
two cul-de-sac arrangement or whether one of the alternatives for a through
street connection to Meadow Oak Avenue should be considered. Likewise,
the Council will have to decide whether they want to see this plat continued
in the manner it has been proposed and are comfortable with the idea of
creating larger residential sites for higher -valued homes. Approval of a
concept or preliminary plat does not have to necessarily commit the City to
being the developer of the entire project but would indicate that the Council
is comfortable with the plan as proposed and wants to see it developed in
this manner no matter who is the actual owner. Should the Council decide
on one of the alternates available for having two outlets to the property, we
may have to look at the possibility of doing the project in two phases if we
are unable to acquire the property necessary to connect the through street
to Meadow Oak Avenue. This may not necessarily be a detriment in doing
the project in two phases, as we could still develop approximately 20 lots
along Meadow Oak Lane and Eastwood Court in the first phase and wait to
make the through street connection until the second phase when we aro
able to obtain the lot and property necessary for the connection.
Council Agenda - 4/11/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the preliminary plat as originally proposed with
the two cul-de-sac concept.
Under this alternative, the City Council is satisfied that the
development concept as originally proposed would not cause a
problem for traffic congestion through the Meadow Oak Estates
development and is the best proposal for retaining the exclusivity of
the neighborhood.
2. Motion to approve the preliminary plat utilizing one of the design
alternatives that would provide for a through street connecting to
Meadow Oak Avenue.
Under this alternative, the Council is determining that the additional
outlet to Meadow Oak Avenue should be required in considering this
plat and that if the necessary right-of-way can't be obtained
immediately, the plat could be considered in two phases until the
right-of-way can be acquired. Since it may not be wise to actually
create platted lots with a street that does not make the connection to
Meadow Oak Avenue, it may be better to prepare the actual plat with
an outlot and phase the development in the future.
Also under this alternative, the Council may want to consider
revising the restrictive covenants for this plat by creating two sets of
restrictions with the lots abutting the through street, possibly having
lesser requirements than the cul-de-sac area. Since some of the
exclusivity of the neighborhood may be lessened with a through
street, we may not want to create quite as high a standard in the
covenants for some of these lots versus the lots abutting the end cul-
de-sac.
3. Motion to deny or table approval of either of the Eastwood Knoll plat
proposals.
The Council could select this alternative if it is still not comfortable
with the options that are available or does not feel that the
preliminary plat should continue as originally proposed in a larger lot
development.
Council Agenda - 4/11/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIOtj:
While the staff is certainly aware there have been concerns expressed about
the City becoming involved as the actual developer, the Council will need to
decide whether it wants to continue on with the concept of creating a
neighborhood with larger, wooded parcels for higher -valued homes that have
restrictive covenants or whether some other option should be considered for
this land. Since the Council asked for additional options to be looked at and
to determine whether alternatives were available for providing street access
to Meadow Oak Avenue, I believe the alternatives provided do indicate that
it is a possibility of the City is able to obtain that one lot abutting Meadow
Oak Avenue. Since we can't be sure at this time whether we will have
ownership of this parcel, if an alternate is decided upon by the Council, it is
suggested that we look at creating an outlot for that first cul-de-sac area to
give us the option of designing it later. If we're unable to obtain the
necessary right-of-way, we could always go back to the cul-de-sac design;
but if the parcel does become available, the outlot would be platted at that
time.
If the Council is still comfortable with proceeding with some type of a plat,
additional options are available as to whether we should immediately
cnnsider preparing plans and specifications for the public improvements or
whether we should allow 30 days or so for an active marketing campaign to
sell tho property in the platted developed or undeveloped state. This is
addressed more in the next item concerning ordering plans and
specifications if a preliminary plat concept is approved.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the original Eastwood Knoll plat; Copies of two alternate design
concepts; Copy of Special Planning Commission agenda of 4111/94; Copies of
agenda item material from 3/28194 meeting.
MEADOW
0 200
SCALE IN
Urorn dye DrawN TO
R G DeL=6W.. ei..
o- � 111 I..
f 26/94 ""~°"`�
4"
FEET
Comm. No.
3445.00
Fig
8
ww..w
MEADOW OAK AVE.
1
I I pl- "r%
Grown Hys Droning Title
R G 0 pp �
.-
Dates � . bat1.A.. wn.w. • wrwsw
3/28/84 "."""aw•""'�."��,w"""r
a�wr o �rwm •
0 290 40C
SCALE IN FEET
Corton. No.
344S.0(
ae
8
I