Agenda - Council - 03/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

outlot designation is to replat the property and reassign the outlot a lot and block number. Designation of outlots when property is platted is at the discretion of the property owner and generally reflects land set aside for future replatting and development. Additionally, at the time Mr. Martin's property was platted, outlots were taxed less than lots; so, if there was no immediate use planned for the property it was advantageous and appropriate to plat it as an outlot. Now, as it pertains to the moratorium and Mr. Martin's property, if the property were titled 'lot' versus 'outlot', he would not be subject to the moratorium and could proceed to develop the property upon obtaining site plan approval. However, he needs to replat the property to change the title from outlot to lot and that replatting for a title change makes him subject to the moratorium. Upon receive the request for a moratorium exception, Council directed City Staffto obtain input from Hoisington Koegler, Inc. regarding how the request relates to the Comprehensive Plan update and the County Highway Department regarding how the request relates to the future Mississippi River bridge corridor preserved in the area. The written response from Anoka County Traffic Engineer Jane Pemble is that if a Mississippi bridge is constructed west of Mr. Martin's property, additional right-of-way beyond the current preserved corridor will be required. There is not a concept plan for a proposed interchange and therefore the exact right-of-way requirements cannot be determined. If a standard diamond interchange were used, it would require an additional 1,000 feet along both intersecting routes (refer to the enclosed exhibit). This configuration would impact two of the three ballfields and approximately 1/3 of the customer parking area. The verbal message from Anoka County Engineer Jon Olson is that Mn/DOT is not enthusiastic about upgrading Hwy. #10 or owning another bridge. If the bridge project happens, it is at least 20 years off in the future; however, preserved corridors do get the projects. The City then has to consider whether or not the restaurant, bar and ballfields is an acceptable use of the property for the next 20 years. The developers of the sports bar have provided City Staff with a written response dated March 5, 1998 regarding the comments of the County Highway Department with respect to the bridge crossing. They have indicated in their response that if and wh~-n the bridge crossing becomes a reality, .they are willing to provide any unused portion of their site for the additional right-of-way in lieu of park dedication and stormwater management fees today; they would expect to be compensated the fair market value for any additional portion of their parcel necessary to complete the bridge project. Obtaining a commitment on that 1 acre of additional bridge fight- of-way at today's rates may or may not be a benefit and that is a separate issue from the moratorium issue and would be negotiated at the time the development agreements and development permits are drafted if this project goes forward. The report from Mr. Brad Scheib of Hoisington Koegler basically states that development of the parcel as a sports bar will not have an impact on the Comprehensive Plan process or end product. However, the Comprehensive Plan when completed and implemented could result in actions that could have an impact on the development of the parcel. (For instance, one of the elements identified in the visioning process was improving the image on Hwy. #10. The results of the comprehensive plan as it relates to the Hwy. #10 image could necessitate as part of the implementation strategy, amending City Code performance standards as far as required site improvements for developing parcels.) Mr. Scheib goes on to state that the current moratorium I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I !