Agenda - Council - 03/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE #: Z REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF RIVER PINES 5TM ADDITION; CASE OF OAKWOOD LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Community Development Director Sylvia Frolik Background: Oakwood Land Development has submitted a final plat to the City for a subdivision to be named River Pines 5"~ Addition. The property is located on the west side of T.H.'. #47, immediately north of the existing Apple Ridge/River Pines neighborhood. The following items are enclosed: a) b) c) d) e) f) Site location map Proposed final plat dated received by the City on February 27, 2002 Letter from Mn/DOT dated January 22, 2002 City Staff Review Letter dated March 7, 2002 Proposed resolution for final plat approval Proposed development agreement Notification: A public hearing is not required by State statute for final plats. Observations: The Comprehensive Plan adopted on December 18, 2001, expanded the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to include the property proposed to be developed as River Pines 5"' Addition. On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for River Pines 5~ and adopted an ordinance, to rezone the property from R-1 Rural Residential to R-1 Urban Residential. The plat area is 9.7 acres. The final plat proposes ~to plat 17 lots and one existing komestead for a total of 18 single family lots. The 18 lots will receive public access from the existing 158t~ Avenue, an extension of 158th Lane into the plat from River Pines 2"" Addition to the west, the extension of Lithium Street from Apple Ridge to the south, and the construction of 158t~ Court extending 'west off of Lithium Street. Per Mn/DOT's comments, the development agreement will require closure of the existing driveways on T.H. #47 and converting the access for the existing homestead to 158t~ Court. Mn/DOT also suggested consideration of a northbound bypass lane at 157~. As a result of subsequent conversations between Mn/DOT and the City Engineer, it was agreed that construction of a bypass lane cannot be a contingency of the development as Pdver Pines 5t~ is not the only factor creating a need for the bypass lane. Additionally, the cost to construct the bypass lane is not proportionate to the benefit River Pines 5~ would receive. -155-