The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-11-18 PACKET 08.C.FiEQl1EST OF ClTY COIJ�lCIL R,CTION GOU�lCIL AGENDA F�EETIN� IT�M # DA°CE 11/18/98 PREPARED BY: Community Developrrient Kim Lindquist ORIGINAT(idG DEPARTMENT Sl'AFF AUTHOR a�.e.a�,�e..aARAR.a.e.4�bti..�.�..�....�.g.��aeoaa � • ' 1� Approve 4he resolution for the rural subdivision application made by Fiugh D. Gibson for property in the southwest quarter of Section 8 and the soufiheast quarter of Section 7. � � . . : � � � '� � • ADVISORY COfVIMISSiON ACTION �1. � � ■ ■ ■ ■ . . : •* •> � • , . . •'• � •- , •: •: REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ •'�" �� ►1 # - - � • r : •. .. -� •: �� * �' �,_ � �'1 ' . . . � , � ' � �' f ►i� • ' • � • . • - DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2) Parcei division — parcel merger sketch 3} Exc,erpt from September 28, 1998, Planning Cnmmission Minutes 4) Staff repor4 and exhibits AClMli�l�l'f2,4TOR5 CCiN1tViEP�TS �1�1; � �ity Adminisfr�t�r �1at� ��«�,a.��«*��.��.��,.�$tr��:��>¢�a.�� cc�c��ceL �c��c�� - r��: ❑,a��rav�� ►� ��o�� ❑ o�rr��z , �� . � �_ � - .� I'� �I/ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Associate Planner DATE: November 12, 1998 RE: Case RS98-35, Gibson Rural Subdivision and Subdivision Agreement introduction The appiicant, Mr. Hugh D. Gibson, has requested that certain points within the staff report for Case RS98-35 be ciarified for the record. The total acreage invoived with the subdivi- sion application is 13.17 acres; the land that is actually to be subdivided is 12.48 acres and .689 acres are proposed to be combined as a resuit of the application. The new parcels that would be created as a result of this appiication are a 1.65 acre commercially-zoned property that lies south of East Point Douglas Road and a 11.52 acre residential parcel that is north of the road. r . . The applicant has indicated that the rural subdivision is for the sole purpose of creating two separate legally described lots of record from one parcel that is physicaliy subdivided by East Point Douglas Road. The physical separation of property was compieted in 1982 when MnDOT acquired right-of-way through the property for the East Point Dougias frontage road. There is no development proposed at this time on either of the resultant parcels. There is an existing two-unit attached dweliing on the commercial portion of the property. This dwelling is an historic structure has been nominated for registration on the City's Register of Historic Places and Landmarks, which will also be on the Council's November 18 agenda. This residence is a non-conforming use within that district, based on its current commercial zoning classification There is a private conservation easement on the northern residential portion of the sub- division that is held by the Minnesota Land Trust, This easement runs in perpetuity and restricts devefopment of the property. Based on the language specified in the private easement agreement document #954996 and the fact that it is held by the Minnesota Land Trust, it is highly unlikely that the prope�ty will ever develop. Due to this, the typical park- land dedication requirements and utility area charge requirements were handled a little Honorabie Mayor and City Council Case RS98-35, Gibson Rural Subdivision November 12, 1998 Page 2 of 2 different for this application. The staff report for this case details the specifics for how the City and appiicant arrived at the required fees that will be charged for subdivision of the property. The commercial portion of the property is outside of the private conservation easement and wouid have the potential for triggering utility area charges with the intensi- fication of the land use or redevelopment. A subdivision agreement is required as a condition of approval far the application. The applicant and his legal council have reviewed the draft resolution and subdivision agree- ments. Several changes to the documentation were requested by the applicant. These changes were acceptable to staff and were completed prior to submittal to Council. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rural subdivision appiication as detailed in the staff report. Staff additionally recommends approval of the required subdivision agreement as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RURAL SUBDIVISION APPLBCATION MADE BY MR. HUGH D. GIBSON FOR PROPERTY IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7 WHEREAS, Mr. Hugh D. Gibson has applied for a rural subdivision to split a 12.48 acre parcel into two parcels. In addition, the two resultant parcels wiil be merged, through approval of this rurai subdivision, with two adjacent small acreage parcels. The property is legaily described as follows: Parcel 2: ' Ali of my interest in and to that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 8, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as foilows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said tract at a point 2 rods South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East on a line parailel with the North line of said tract, 8.50 chains to a point; thence South 7 degrees East, 11.92 chains; thence South 67 degrees West 3.25 chains; thence South 22 %. degrees East, 2 rods; thence South 67 degrees West, 5.75 chains; tfience South 56 degrees West to the North side of the Point Douglas and St. Paul road; thence Northwesteriy along the Northerly line of said road to the West line of said tract, and thence Northeriy on the West line of said tract to the place of beginning, and containing 13.57 acres, more or less, and subject to a Highway Right of Way easement. Also old abandoned Right of Way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Saint Paul Railway Co. (Deed recorded July 12, 1869, in Book "U of Deeds, Page 147) containing .50 acres, more or less. Also, that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follaws: Beginning at a point in the East line of said tract where the Northerly line of the Point Douglas and St. Paul Road intersects the East line; thence Northwesteriy Resolution 98-XXX Page 2 of 5 along said road, 11 rods and 12 links to a point; thence North 43 degrees East, 13 rods and 7 links to the East line of said tract; thence Southerly on the East line of said tract; thence Southerly on the East line of said tract to the point of beginning. Also the Northerly one-half of the Old Abandoned Right of Way of the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paui Railway Company (Deed recorded July 12, 1869, in Book °U° of Deeds, page 143) together containing 1.40 acres, more or less, and subject to a Highway Right of Way easement. Excepting from Parcel 2 the following: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7 and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section, both in Township 27 North, Range 21 West, shown as Parcei 43C on the piats designated as Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way plats Number 82-19 and 82-20 on file and of record in the o�ce of the County Recorder in and for Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: " All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota described as foliows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter: thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds East, bearings based on the Washington County Coordinate System, South Zone, along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 33.00 feet (2 rods) to the northwest corner of that parcel described in Book 192 of Deeds, Page 78, on file and of record in the Offce of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, parailel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a d�st�nr� gf �6� .99 fe�t (8.�p c.ha�n�1 t9 th� n�rth��t �rn�r �f saic� par�el described in Book 192 of Deeds, Page 778; thence North 07 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West, along the Northwesterly projection of the east line of said parcel described in Book 192 of Deeds, Page 78; a distance of 33.25 feet to its intersection with said North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, along said North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 556.74 feet to the point of beginning. (Document No. 781858 includes additional property) Parcei 2, above, is commonly known as 7003-7007 E. Point Douglas Road South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota. * The labels "Parcel 2° and °Parcel 3" were used for organizing purposes in Exhibit A of Document Number 7818585 but are not integral to the legal description of the property. Resolution 98-XXX Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, the two parcels resultant from the rurai subdivision appiication approval are as legally described below: PARCE� 1 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Tow�ship 27, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8 distant 33.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, assumed bearing, along a line parallel with the north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 561.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 786.72 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 193.99 feet to the most northerly line of Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT N0. 82-20; thence North 73 degrees 11 minutes 53 seconds West, along said most northerly line of Parcel 43C, a distance of 507.10 feet to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds West, along said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 734.66 feet to said northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, along said north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8 a distance of 556.74 feet to the intersection with a line which bears North 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 33.25 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2 Those parts of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7 and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 27, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, distant 33.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter af the Saufhwest Quarter of Section 8; thence or� an assurned bearing af North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, along a line parailel with the north iine of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 561.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 786.72 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 214.50 feet; thence South 23 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 379.50 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 55 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 47.91 feet to the most northerly corner of Parcel 43D, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT N0. 82-20, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 57 degrees 31 minutes 02 seconds West, along a northerly line of Parcels 43U and 43C, said MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLA"f N0. 82-20 and along northerly line of Parcei 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-19 a distance of 241.08 feet to the most northerly comer of said Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-19; thence Resolution 98-XXX Page 4 of 5 North 39 degrees 21 minutes 23 seconds East, along the northeasterly extension of the northwesterly line of said Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PIAT N0. 82-19, a distance of 174.55 feet to the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7; thence North 0 degrees 37 min�tes 41 seconds West, along said east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, a distance of 13.55 feet to a southwesterly corner of Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT N0. 82-20; thence South 73 degrees 11 minutes 53 seconds East, along a southwesterly line of said Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20 a distance of 432.45 feet to its intersection with a line which bears North 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 308.59 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin and notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on September 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, Section 23-8 (b)(1) of the city code requires that in rurai subdivisions, 'The newly created parcels shall meet all requirements of this chapter and be located in the R-1, R- 2, AG-1 or AG-2 zoning districts"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes that this property is unique in that it is situated in two zoning districts, the large majority of which is within the rural R-2 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that due to the existing development on the portion of the property currently zoned retail business, the new parcel being created as a resulf of the rural subdivision is on 4he poriian of the parcel currentiy zoned rursl estate; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission found that the rural subdivision application was not for development purposes, but rather to simply divide one physically separated parcei into two separate iegal lots of record; and WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission further recognized that the unique factors about the property are consistent with the intent of the ordinance criteria and that the property is eligible for a rural subdivision under the standards of Section 23-8 (b)(1 j; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimousiy approved (9-0} vote the application; � WHEREAS, the applicant, Hugh D. Gibson, accepts the conditions being imposed for the rural subdivision. Resolution 9&XXX Page 5 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the Rural Subdivision application made by Mr. Hugh D. Gibson to spiit a 12.48 acre parcel of land that together with the merger of two adjacent small acreage parcels owned by Mr. Gibson equates to a 12.52 acre parcel as legally described as "Parcel 1" and a 1.65 acre parcel as Iegaily described as "Parcel2" as so referenced in this resolution. The approval of the Rural Subdivision is subject to the following conditions: No parkland dedication is required at this time. The subdivision agreement would outline that a park dedication fee would be required if the portion of the site that is currently zoned retail business (B-2) were converted to a commerciai or higher density residential land use. 2. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City. The subdlvision agreement shall contain language that waives all area charges on the portion of the property cuRently zoned retail business (i.e., Parcel 2) at this time a change to commercial or higher density residential land use. The rates charged will be equivalent to the current rate at the time of the additional development activity. 3. The adjusted storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,178.56 shall paid in fuil prior to the deed being released for recording with Washington County. The area charge may be assessed to the property if the applicant signs a petition waiver and the payment information is inciuded in the subdivision agreement. 4. Any unpaid assessments on the property shall be paid in full prior to recording of the new parcels. Passed this 18th day of November, 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk [Reseaved for recording data] SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR A RURAL SUBDIVISION OF A TRACT OF LAND OWNED BY MIL HUGHD. GIBSON This Agreement is made and entered into on the i Sth day of November, 1998, by and between Mr. Hugh D. Gibson, hereinafter referred to as"SUBDIVIDER," and the City of Cottage Grove, a municipal corporation, situated in the County of Washington, State of Mmiesota, hereinafter referred to as the "CTfY". Wf3EREAS, the OWNER is the SUBDIVIDER of a RiJRAI. SUBDIVISION consisting of two (2) sepazate legally described pazcels of land situated in the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Mimtesota, which parcels aze described in E�chibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; and WF�:REAS, Chapter 23 of the City Code of the City of Cottage Grove, requires SUBDIVIDER to pay certain pazkland dedication chazges as a result of the RURAL SUBDIVISION, and the parties hereto aze desirous of entering into an agreement with respect to such pazkland dedication charges; and WHEREAS, Chapter 26 of the City Code of the City of Cottage Grove, requires SUBDIVIDER to pay certain utility azea charges as a result of the RURAI.. SiJBDIVISION, and the parties hereto are desirous of entering into an agreement with respect to such area charges. _�_ 1 I' i' I' : ' �: �: I`�• 1 I��ZiII•1P.+f.`li � _,�I1►lI1M �P�.� 1.1 �. The following terms shall have the meanings as set forth below. 1.2 C�. "CTfY" means the City of Cottage Grove, a M'umesota municipal coiporation. 1.3 Subdivider. "SUBDIVIDER" means Mr. Hugh D. Gibson. 1.4 Owner. "OWNER" means Mr. Hugh D. Gibson, sole owner in fee simple of certain real properiy legally described on E�chibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. 1.5 Rural Subdivision. 'RURAL SUBDIVISION" means the legally described subdivision of land as described in E�chibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, and approved on November 18, 1998 by the City Council of City of Cottage Grove, a Minnesota municipal corporation. I • 1 2.1 Warranty ofTitle. The SUBDIVIDER represents and warrants that he owns fee tide to the property which is the subject of this RURAL SUBDIVISION, free and ciear of any martgxges, liens, and othec encum�rances. III. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. 3.1 Authoritv to Rural Subdivide. Section 23-8 (b)(1) of the city code requires that "The newly created pazcels shall meet all requirements of this chapter and be located in the R-1, R-2, AG-1 or AG-2 zoning districts". The CTTY recognizes that the property in the RURAL SUBDIVISION is unique in that it is situated in two wning districts, retail business (B-2) and rural estate (R-2), and that the lazge majority of which is within the rural R-2 zoning district. The CITY further recognizes that based on the e�cisting -2- development being located on the commercial portion of the property, the newly created parcel resultant from the RURAL SUBDIVISION is the residentiatly zoned lot which meets the zoning criteria. The RURAL SUBDIVISION as reviewed by the City is consistent with the intent of the ordinance criteria and that the property is eligible for a rural subdivision under the standards estabGshed in section 23-8(b)(i). The SUBDIVIDER acknowledges the City's interpretation of the ordinance language pertaining to rural subdivision because of the split zoning on the property and the fact that the large majority of it lies within a rural land use district. The SUBDIVIDER further acknowledges that the application meets the intent of the ordinance, as the purpose for the RURAL SUBDIVISION is not to further develop the property, but rather to simply divide one physically separated parcel into two separate legal parcels of record. 32 Easements. No drainage or utility easements aze required by the CITY as a result of the RURAL SLTBDIVISION. 33 Easement Aclmowledgments. The SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that a private conservation easement is recorded against a portion of the property, and that the terms of the conservation easement, as recorded in said document number 954996, run with the land in perpetuity and will not conflict with the RiJRAI. SUBDIVISION approval process or this agreement. °fhe CTl'Y recognizes the private conservation easement and aclmowledges that as long as the easement is in place and in effect, it imposes certain unique land use restrictions that are not addressed in the appicabte City zoning regulations. The CITY expects that the conservation easement will remain in place and in effect. IV. AREA CHARGES. �� 4.1 Area Chazge Requirements. Chapter 26 of the City Code of the City of Cottage Grove requires the SUBDNIDER to pay certain utiliry azea charges as a result of the RURAL SUBDIVISION. 4.2 Area Char�es Required. The RiTRAL SUBDIVISION is unique, in that the southern commercially zoned portion of the properiy is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (M[ISA) and the northem residentially zoned portion is not. The CTI'Y has deternvned that the only area chazge required for the portion of the RURAL SUBDIVISION zoned R-2 (i.e., Pazcel 1) is the Storm Sewer Land Use Assessment, and that the azea charges requ'ved for the portion of the property mned B-2 (i.e., Parcel2} are the Storm Sewer Iand Use Assessment, the Sanitary azea chazge, and the Waterworks azea charge. 4.3 Area Chaz�e Adjustment #1. Due to the unique circumstances of e�cisting development on the property and the ]ack of new development activity resulting from approval of the RURAI, SUBDIVISION, the CITY is not requiring payment of the azea charges for the portion of the property currently zoned B-2 (i.e., Pazcel 2) at this time. The CITY requires and the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that a change to commercial or higher density residentialland use of the southern portion of the RURAL SUBDIVISION (i.e., Parcel 2) wilt trigger the requirement for payment of the Starm S�wer Land Use Assessment, the Sanitary azea chazge, and the Watenvorks area chazge at the time of such change in land use. 4.4 Area Chazge Adjustment #2. Due to the unique circumstances of the pnvate conservation easement on the residentially zoned portion of the RITRAL SUBDIVISION, the CITY is adjusting the area charge for the residential portion of the property. The CITY recognizes that storm water area charges serve to pernvt installation of the City's water quantity and quality infrastructure, and that both of these services benefit the entire _4_ community. The CITY is therefore of the position that all properties, even those self- restricted from development, should pay some nominal area chazge fee. The CITY has utilized a formula that promotes a logical method of calculating a reasonable charge for properties with usrique legal prohibitions and restrictions on development. Based on the cunent zoning, the residential portion of the RURAL SUBDIVISION has the ability under City ordinance for one building permit in the absence of any further subdivision of that portion of the property. In order to determine the appropriate share of one building permit, the CITY divided the required 1.5-acre minimum lot size into the total area of the portion of the RURAL SUBDIVISION that is currently zoned R-2 (11.52 acres). The potential number of lots if the property were not encumbered by the conservation easement equates to 7.68 lots. This figure divided by the total residential storm sewer land use assessment charge of $39,7'7132 equais a figure of $5, 1'78.56 per unit. Based on the terms of the conservation easement, and the fact that City ordinances would only ailow for one building permit under cunent R-2 lot configuration, the SUBDIVIDER is only required to pay the storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,178.56. 4.5 Area Chazpe Payment. The SUBDIVIDER has requested that the required area charges be assessed against the property in the RURAI� SUBDIVISION. The CTTY agrces to assess the required azea chazge amounts against the properry in the RURAL SUBDIVISION in accordance with lvfinnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Chapter 444. The amount of the assessment shall be computed by taldng the total costs of the required azea charges ($5,178.5�, less any deposits or payments made by the SUBDTVIDER, according to the terms of this Agreement. 4.6 Assessment Timin�. The area charges assessed pursuant to Muuiesota Statutes, Chapter 429 shall be assessed with a payback over a period of three (3) years. -5- 4.7 Waiver. The SUBDIViDER hereby waives the requirements of hearings and notice of any hearings necessary for levying of said area charge assessments as provided herein; the SUBDIVIDER furthee waives objection to azry and all defacts in the proccedings for the ordezing ofthe assessments. V. PARK DEDICATION. 5.1 Parkland Dedication Land Requirements. Section 23-26(a) of the City ordinance requ'ues that "when land develops or is subdivided, land shai be dedicated to the City for pubfic use, or in lieu of dedicating land, cash shall be paid to the City for purposes of developing recreational facilities." The City recognizes, however, that in the case of this RURAL SUBDIVISION, the parkland dedication requuements do not apply (except as provided in 5.4 herein); so land is not required to be dedicated. 5.2 Park Dedication Charees. The City acknowledges that strict interpretation of the ordinance criteria requ'ves a cash payment when land is not dedicated, and that the ordinance establishes different rates for residential and commercial uses. 5.3 Park Dedication Adjustment. The CITY recognizes that due to unique circumstances involving the property, the pazk dedication charges that are due based on the RLTRAL SUBDIVISION will not be reguired at this Lim�. Th� CITY has deternsined that the essential nexus between the development and the park dedication charges is difficult to establash based on: 53.1 The fact that the attached dwelling units on the commercial portion of the propecty are currently in existence, and do not add any additional burden on parkland facilities above and beyond the e�sting conditions. � 5.3.2 The northern proposed parcel (Parcel i) has a private Conservation easement on the properry which prohibits residential, commercial, and industrial development and limits the installation of parkland facilities. 5.4 Park Dedication Charge Trieeer• T'he CTTY requires and the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that the future development of land in the RURAL SUBDIVISION that would increase the demand on parkland facilities would require payment of the parkland dedication amounts current at the time of development. � � ��• � 6.1 Imorovements. No utilities or other infrascnACriue will be installed as a resuit of the approval of the RURAL SUBDiVISION. In view of the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the conservation easement, the CTI'Y dces not expect such development to occur on the portion ofthe property currendy zoned R-2 (i.e., Pazcel 1). [ +�[• r.i : : x�ii��:��r�y 7.1 Anproval resolution. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to comply with all conditions of approval contained in the resolution approving the RURAL SUBDIVISION. uI �_.1_ • �• ��J �. Y Terms oi t�reach. Breach oi any term of this Agreement by the SUBDIVIDEK shaii be gounds for denial of Re�tal dwelling licenses, building, or occupancy pernrits foc buildings within the RURAL SUBDIVISION until such breach is conected by the SUBDIVIDER; provided, however, that the CIT'Y shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and standazd procedures pertaining to enforcement of this Agreement (mduding, without limitation, the issuance of compliance orders or other written directives respecting correction of such breach). _�_ 8.2 Validitv. If any portion, section, subsectioq sentence, clause, pazagraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of remaiiung portions of the Agrcement. 8.3 Rig,hts G�mularive. No remedy confened in this Agreement is intended to be exctusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. IX. MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1 Notices. Ai notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to the CiTI' and SUBDIVIDER hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivued, or when deposited in the United States mail, first class, with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows: If to the CIT'Y: City of Cottage Grove Director of Community Development 75 T 6— 80th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 ffto the SUBDIVIDER: Hugh D. Gibson 136 Sixth Street NE Washington, DC 20002 The CITY and the SUBDNIDER, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notice, certificate, or other communications will be sent. 92 Amendments. Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by the CTTY and the � � �� 93 Apolicable L.aw. This Agreement shall be govemed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Muwesota. 9.4 Successors and Assiens. This Agreement shall be binding upon and e�tend to the heirs, representatives, assigns and successoes of the parties. _g_ 9.5 Payment of City Costs. Prior to the City signing the deed for recording with Washington County, the SUBDIVIDER shall pay to the CITY the out-of-pocket costs for preparing this contract. The out-of-pocket costs paid shall include, but not be limited to, attorneys' fees, and other technical or professional assistance, including the work of the CTTY staff and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. : 1� : : � `TCiI�i.Yil:l7\ill�)�1:7 C Hugh D. Gibson Its : OWNER CTI'I' OF COTTAGE GROVE I� John D. Denzer Its: Mayor Attest: By: Cazon M. Stransky Its: City Clerk -9- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On the _ day of l: � � � [ � 3+. � � ! I � l�t 1 7�� ► I ! � : �'l � � I � •1 1998, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeazed 7ohn D. Denzer and Caron M. Struisky to me personally known, each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Cottage Grove, a municipality named in the foregoing instrument and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and seated on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk aclmowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. Notary Public STATE OF iv1INNESOTA COUNTY OF On this _ day of 1998, before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Hugh D. Gibson to me personally known, by me duly sworn, did say that he is respectively the SUBDIVIDER and sole owner in fee simple of certain real property legally described on Exhibit A, and he did aclrnowledge and execute the foregoing instrument to be tus free . h ._ � �� 1 THIS INSTRUMENT DRAF'TED BY: Community Development Department City of Cottage Grove '7516 — 80'� Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 � ) ss SUBDIVIDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT ) Notary Public �T�2'7 EXHIBIT A (i,egal Description) PARCEL 1 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 27, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8 distant 33.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, assumed bearing, along a line parallel with the north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 561.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land Yo be described; thence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 786.72 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 193.99 feet to the most northerly line of Pazce143C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20; thence North �3 degrees 11 minutes 53 seconds West, along said most northerly line of Parce143C, a distance of 507.10 feet to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds West, alon� said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 734.66 feet to said northwest comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section S; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, along said north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8 a distance of 556.74 feet to the intersection with a line which bears North 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 33.25 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2 Those parts of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7 and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 21, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, distant 33.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, alo»g a line parallel with the north line of said Sauthwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter af Section 8, a distance of 561.00 feet; Yhence South 7 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 786.72 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 214.50 feet; thence South 23 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 379.50 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 55 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds 1Vest a distance of 47.91 feet to the most northerly corner of Parcel 43D, MINNESOTA DEPARTMEN'i' OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 57 degrees 31 minutes 02 seconds West, along a northerly line of Parcels 43U and 43C, said MINNESOTA DEPART1vIENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20 and along northerly line oFPazce143C, MIl�TNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-19 a distance of 241.08 feet to the most northerly corner of said Pazcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-19; thence North 39 degrees 21 minutes 23 seconds East, along the northeasterly extension of the northwestedy line of said Parcel 43C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-19, a distance of 174.55 feet to the east -li- line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7; thence North 0 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds West, along said east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, a distance of 13.55 feet to a southwesterly corner of Parce143C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20; thence South 73 degrees 11 minutes 53 seconds East, along a southwesterly line of said Pazce143C, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 82-20 a distance of 432.45 feet to its intersection with a line which bears North 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 308.59 feet to the point of beginning. _g2_ EXCERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.3 CASE RS98-35 Hugh Gibson has filed a niral subdivision apptication for a proposed rural subdivision of a 12.42-acre taz parcel. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approved subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked if additional charges would be assessed to property owners in the event that the city divided their property with a road. Burbank responded that if a roadway divides a property, the property is appraised for before and after market value, and the property owners are compensated for any loss of use of the property and for the amount of land at the going market rate. Japs then asked if this would automaticaliy trigger subdivision of the property even though the owners had not initiated the process. Lindquist stated that Mr. Gibson's property was taken by the state some time ago, and the City is not requiring that he legally subdivide it. Gibson is laying the foundation in the event he decides to seli one of the parcels, which would need to be done prior to any sale. The parcel is not legally disjointed even though the roadway runs through it. Hugh Gibson, 136 Sixth Street NE, Washington, DC, stated that the property has been in his family since 1918. He is interested in preserving and protecting the hilly wooded area with a conservation status and that his preserved property wili be a valued amenity as the West Draw develops. He noted that there is a double house on the 1.6 acre wooded lot. Gibson stated that in the future he will be appiying to rezone the property from retail business (B-2) to single-family residential (R-3), which would give the property the best possible chance of retaining its current beauty and character over the long term. He noted that the installation of the 80th Street overpass has limited direct access to the property from 80th Street and that the property abuts the 80th Street ramp to Highway 61. For these reasons, Gibson feeis that the property is most appropriately viewed as primarily a re�id�ntial �r�perty, although certain types of commerciai uses could be compafible wi4� i4s character, such as professionai offices or antique shops. Boyden asked if Gibson had any objections to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Gibson responded that he doesn't, but he is concerned about area charges. He stated that staff has proposed deferring the area charges on the house portion of the property untii something happens in the future. The staff report currently reads that the trigger would be redevelopment or reuse of the property, such as conversion to a commercial property or creation of a condo. He stated that staff has also conside�ed the possibility that rezoning would be the most apprapriate trigger for area charges. Gibson stated that another concern is a triangular parcel, which is a separate lot of record. Staff has argued that it wouid be logical in the future for the property to be combined. Gibson stated that if he sold the house, he would probably sell the smaii triangular parcel with the larger one. He stated that he would not do the merger if it would increase the acreage base on which area charges would be applied in the future. He stated that because the property is zoned commercia►, even the addition of .266 acres to the acreage 6ase would make a substantiai difference to the total bill. He asked if he would be able to merge the two properties in the future if the Planning Commission approves his application tonight. Lindquist stated that the legai description would have to be redone if he makes the decision before the City Council takes final action. Auge c%sed ffie public hearing. Boyden moved to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Japs seconded. 1. No parkland dedication is required at fhis time. The subdivision agreement wouid outiine that a park dedication fee would be required if the commercia! porfion of the site were converted fo a non-resldenfial use. 2. The applicant shall enfer into a subdivision agreemenf with the City. Ti►e subdivision agreement shal/ contain language that waives fhe three commercial area charges at this time pending the redevelopment or reuse of the commercial property. The rates charged will be equivalent to the current rate at the time of the additionat deve%pment activity. 3. The adjusted storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,681.62 shai/ paid in ful/ prior to the deed being released for recording with Washington County. The area charge may be assessed to the properfy if fhe applicant signs a petition waiver and the payment informafion is included in the subdivision agreement. 4. Any unpaid assessments on fhe property sha!l be paid in full prior to recording of the new parcets. The mofion passed unanimous/y. . � � � � .�� . . �� • ' • � . PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 9/28/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 10/21/98 t" • • APP�ICANT: REQUEST: Hugh Gibs�n Rural subdivision for a proposed simple lot split of a 12.48-acre tax parcel into two separate taxing parcels. SITE DATA LOCATION: Z�NING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: �IZE: DENSITY: 7007 East Point Dougias Road R-2, Residential Estate (northern portion) and B-2, Retail Business (southern) NORTH: Residential EAST: Gommercial SOUTH: State Highway WEST: Commercial 12.48 acres N/A . � �, � Approval, subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. � � . � ` . � � � \�CG FSiwSYS�GROUPSV'LANNING\19961PCREPORT1Gibsoncover.doc ,.T.� ./4W v �l i �� . . . /�� . . . . . �. . . y _ / �asa � I . . � � .,�,. ,�.«.. ,.x � '. y 4fSti h e�� . ' , 0��3��M� �. '. � � `, A f � . _..__ _,� _.-_A _____ .. 775i S. 6900. . g SITE,�i ��.n»b�` �� e e �; m � � e�'� �.� '� , . , 88�1� rn�'y•.� �`�. - . . Be6 1A.�'A�' 0�} {q6� = . ` reao� /saes,�e, ��e�'°/V/ /', �� .� . . , � ' _ - 7evt � �"a t�a+s��.�'Rn� � . . . . � . �= ... 8 . asi � i —� � � � � . . ' . /� &oo¢,,�ae> ^e° � > �. ooQ ��_'� "`.� �/'��'i��Ab � �. � � . @sBO �. � �'--. A°�r� ��'^' > ' �V "� ' . ` � eset i c 'w�'R�� 'oa ,� � � . c�Nq ' ''&��4 �,�� ti - � . . �, - ��k��t-�V �� 1�'� � �. � V' ,� ,. . . , . s' /� ' � �Im �r b `' � � y� �i g �Rb� �i'�O , ' . �� ^18�30 � A`b �� 1 � BO1B �8(U{ �� Y � 8 � �� i, I o � BMen. ��. � � � �� '� V �. i $T 6T� g � / � \' Lj �� .�� C��i � � \�\\ le�` .. �� e", +% ~"d"; '��./ � 9,�^e�,�� . . :. ' ns .. g � . . .. ��µ � � �� y � � -�� swat+ �e� 1 `B'�e�i a , �O`C�' " � / � ; _ s t ��3' a,� :� � m . � �. � /��/ _� P R �e�"C's�'�* j �� 9� -' � ��eiss ��e, .'ae� e,� e qre � Bw0 m� �''� 0 \ �s ) " \a' '�i os �§v � i 1 ��98 s+. �''�IC 'Q'�.� / v ��'r� y l�'B A'B18o n ,yG P '2�*e` �`B.>o ��y � V6� �—� RIMPHOUSE p � ." � /,��$ WELLit � ' e��b "��dr ��' a ��`r '� � �l'° � 'V \ �-y a � e;s �� e�`';� ,� a�A �. CO i TAGE e . ` � Qk � ;�'�� 6 \ ��, �^ % ` • � 'j �"' SQUARE '` ,M1 � B�� l� B � � 3.� / B� � �. ,��^Y�� ✓ e �i� °�" �� . ��WA7ERTON/�R \ ea ��i s�'� �`�. Cea A°b i �� e "�' �. 4 �m �� 9N tSO.00o Gni -�^d � j� � ✓n � '4Y �''�w @ �;_ � e? d� � ��8� ' B � / C e�`' 6 ��1 Y � m / 83'� 83t41 8343 ,� s( e f 1�� 386 8348� d' �� 831I\ � b �-g;{�e 83B1 ��B..v0�8d>d _63)� �B36� 83]BA&l> � ,—r_ - m�� I 7520 � I . . i ..__ ..i F--�_—_ ' ��, �seo . �`" m � . ^ i-- ml i ._._. . . . _. . _ .;:.. 1< I . ',y'. )647 �,5� 2 � Y 6 { _. .. �q . 5"f": 7]03 „ x„;; .:� , - ` - � •� p. n . .. .::::::.� � x � � '• C � NY� ''$ � >::v:::• : �750 � � _ � e",*. �is*� a%�; �•� �:•i:{:i::�}>:•:�']i ...�z_ . ,. �� 1 � � 7�0 � �� .�w:.�:"3�.` ` « e _ o I_ g ��'-. t C!':j 7qg2 ' a,„ w `'- . `` I . 8 � — ' r � i n �� i i � N � n�o I .: � � ��iea i � ,��. i �a2o o �� .,!_ � �.� , bt� I i�zooll I . r . ��H � . m � . � u ��h h�� H i h f ` '�� '1 �#lARON '� j¢7 �1]0 � , 1 .C11lJRCM . , � . . . _ U.SP.O. , � -'^VC o �: . . ^�� . :`� . � F � . , . \7185 ' E � . ry �6 � y . � �� A, \ s 1 �Tq� : J F ' � i 7f �' � _ � .� � L � o e a N O R T H axn ,r � . . . . �o�z e � -� � ��_.' � loisoae�..��sav�,�eba�+>s � i 4 n�uZKl��a ��,�393 .._ , . PLANNlNG STAFF REPORT CASE RS98-35 SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 I�:Z�7;Z•�'�_1� Mr. Hugh Gibson has made application for a Rural subdivision in order to subdivide an existing 12.48 acre parcel of land (Geocode 08-027-21-33-0002) into two separate taxing parcels. Ad- ditionally, the proposal combines an additiona� sma(i .689 acre taxing parcel (Geocode 08-027- 21-33-0017) with the larger residentialiy zoned newiy created parcei. This combined parcel would equal 11.52 acres. A reduction of the survey showing the existing parcels is attached as exhibit A, and a reduction of the survey of the proposed parceis is attached as Exhibit B. =:s. :• � The subject property was physically divided in the eariy 1980s with the acquisition of public right-of-way and installation of East Point Douglas Road by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This action was part of the overpass construction and is recorded as MNDOT R/W PLAT N0. 82-20. While physicaily and visually two separate parcels, the land is stili iden- tified on the County tax rolis as one taxing parcel and wouid need to go through a subdivision process to permit differing ownership. The northern portion of the property is subject to a private conservation easement between the applicant and the Minnesota Land Trust (per document number 954996). The easement en- compasses 11.52 acres of land and protects the property from development pressure while preserving the natural, scenic, and other conservation values of the land into perpetuity. The private easement agreement requires written approvai from the Minnesota Land Trust prior to subdividing the property. This has no bearing on the City approval but will be required prior to recording of the new lots of record. The southern portion of the site is 1.65 acres and contains a non-conforming dweliing unit and two detached accessory structures. The two-unit principai structure is one of the first home- steads in Cottage Grove and is eligible for placement on the City's Register of Historic Places. The applicant has formally requested the City initiate registration of the property. A memoran- dum from the City's Historic Preservation Officer is attached as Exhibit C and gives additional details on the site. The Historic Preservation Committee recommends approvai of the applica- tion as submitted. The house is currently licensed with the City for two rental dweiling units. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS The land in the conservancy easement is identified as a part of Site 7 in the City's Natural Resource Inventory and contains portions of natural communities identified as mesic oak forest, hardwood forest, and dry prairie. The quality ranking of these communities varies from community to community. These areas wili not be impacted or disturbed as a result of this Staff Planning Report Case RS98-35 September 28, 1998 Page 2 of 5 application. The southem portion of the parcei was not included in the Natural Resource Inventory, but it does contain a variety of mature plant and tree species. .:7A_\►1►11`►[eZdi7►� � : r • ► The property is unique in that it has two land use designations. The northern portion of the property is guided as Rural Residential and tne southern portion is designated as Commercial. The estabiished zoning districts concur with the established land uses: Residentiai Estate is the zoning in the north and Retail Business in the south. The unusuai spiit into dual land use and zoning designations is probably due to the roadway physically separating the parcel. This rare occurrence is a good exampie of a finding in support of the creation of two separate lots of record. The applicant has indicated a desire to have the commerciai portion of the property guided as Residential and rezoned appropriately. Staff will not be addressing that issue in this staff report as it is not part of the formal application. A separate application should be filed or the issue may be discussed as part of the on-going comprehensive planning process, as the appiicants desired changes have issues and ramifications that deserve specific discussion, focus, and action. Section 23-8 (b)(1) is the section of the subdivision ordinance that ailows for the property to be subdivided as a"Rurai Subdivision" with a metes and bounds description versus a preliminary and final plat. A portion of this section of the ordinance language states that'The newly created parcels shall meet all requirements of this chapter and be located in the R-1, R-2, AG- 1 or AG-2 zoning districts." 7he applicant questioned the applicability of this section because a portion of the property is guided and zoned commercially. Staffs interpretation was that the property is unique in that it lies in two zoning districts, and with the majority of the property being in the R-1 zoning district, it meets the criteria for a rural subdivision. Action by the Commission and Council on this application will indicate concurrence with this interpretation. The proposed parcels meet the minimum acreage requirements and have public frontage above and beyond the ordinance criteria. ?here is an existing concret� driveway apron for the norihern parcel and an existing driveway and apron for the homestead site. No additionai access is proposed as a resuit of this application. Park Dedicafion Fee Section 23-26(b) requires that "when land develops or is subdivided, land shall be dedicated to the City for public use, or in lieu of dedicating land, cash shail be paid to the City for purposes of developing recreational facilities." In the case of this Rurai Subdivision, the land was not previously designated as open space, parkland, or trailway in the Comprehensive Plan, so land is not required to be dedicated. A strict interpretation of the ordinance criteria requires a cash payment when land is not dedicated. The current rate per attached dwelling is $750 per unit for parkiand dedication and $150 per unit for the recreational facilities charge. Single- famify detached dweliings equate to $1,000 per unit. As identified earlier, this property has some commercially designated land. The dwelling unit calculation was used for the commercial property due to the existing dweliing units. The ordinance language pertaining to cash dedica- tions for commerciai land is "Equivalent cash amounts in lieu of land shall not exceed four Staff Planning Report Case RS98-35 September 28. 1998 Page 3 of 5 percent of the fair market value of the land at the time the subdivision is approved by Council." The use of the dweliing unit caiculation for the commercial portion of the property would not exceed the assessed value of the property. Under the current ordinance criteria, the total amount of parkiand dedication that is triggered by the Rural Subdivision is listed below: Due to unique circumstances involving the property, staff is recommending that the dedication not be required at this time. The essential nexus between the development and the park dedi- cation requirement is hard to estabiish in this situation. This direction is based first on the fact that the attached dwelling units on the commercial portion of the property are currently in ex- istence, and do not add any additional burden on parkland facilities above and beyond the existing conditions. Secondly, the northern proposed parcel should not trigger the payment because the dsveiopment restriction limits the utilization of any parkland facilities. The future development of either parcel of land that would increase the demand on parkiand facilities would require payment of the parkland dedication amounts current at the time of development. Area Charges Area charges for the property are triggered by two sections of the ordinance. The commercial portion of the property is affected by section 26-3(1)(a), which states that "All new commercial, industrial or institutional development. The area charges shall be computed on the acreage of ali tax parceis included in the development site," Calculation of the area charges, storm sewer, water, and sanitary sewer would occur on the entire commercial portion of fhe property or !he newly created 1.65-acre site. "fhe area charges would be triggered when the property rede- velops or the existing residential use is converted to a commercial use, consistent with the existing zoning. The charges wouid be based upon the rates at the time of development and would be payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. The commercial portion of the property is currently served by public utilities and is located within the St. Paul Park Drainage Dist�ict. The foilowing lists the area charges for the com- mercial property under existing rates. Again, these rates would be triggered by redevelopment of the property or a land use change to a non-residential use. Staff Plan�ing Report Case RS9835 September28, t998 Page 4 of 5 Staff recognizes that the applicant has an interest in rezoning the property to residential. Should the property be rezoned and the building be maintained as is, area charges wouid not be required. However, under the residentiai zoning scenario, if the existing structure was re- moved, converted to a different residential use, or converted to a quasi-commercial use, the area charges would need to be paid. The details of what triggers the area charges wiil be defined in the development agreement for the current subdivision. The residential portion of the property is affected by Section 26-3(1)(c), which states "Residen- tial development or any new residential lot, where city approval for the residential construction is required. The area charges shail be computed on the gross land area being developed, ex- cluding from the computation the acreage for ponding areas, major highway rights-of-way and flood plains." The residentiai portion of the property is outside of the MUSA and only triggers the storm sewer area charge. The 11.52-acre tract lies in two drainage districts. The western 6.41 acres are in the St. Paui Park Drainage District, and the eastern 5.11 acres are in the West Draw Drainage District. The storm sewer land use assessment rate for the two districts is different. The following table detaiis the caiculated the storm sewer land use assessment charge for the residentiai portion of the property as based on the current ordinance criteria. In recognition that the property is restricted from development through a private conservation easement, staff is recommending that the storm sewer land use assessment charge be reduced. However, should additional development occur on the property which would promul- gate the need for additional infrastnacture, additional area charges wili be assessed. Staff recognizes that the storm wster area charges serve tv,�o purposes — to permit insfaiiation of water quantity infrastructure and to permit installation of water quality measures. Both of these services benefit the entire community and therefore staff believes all properties, even those self-restricted to development, should pay some nominai area cnarge fee. A formula was devised that promotes a logicai method of calculating a reasonabie charge for properties with legal development restrictions. After the proposed action, the lot has the ability under City ordi- nance for one building permit. Based on the current zoning, the minimum lot size is 1.5 acres. That means on the 11.52 acres parcel, seven (7.68) lots coultl be created if the property was unencumbered. This figure divided into the total residential storm sewer land use assessment charge of $39,771.32 equals $5, 681.62 per unit. Staff is recommending the "adjusted" storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,681.62 be paid in full prior to the deed being released for recording with Washington County. The area charge may be assessed to the property if the applicant signs a petition wa6ver. This method of proportionally adjusting the area charge can be applicable to any property that has unique development constraints. Staff Planning Report Case RS9&35 September 28, 1998 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Rural Subdivision appiication subject to the following conditions: No parkland dedication is required at this time. The subdivision agreement would outline that a park dedication fee would be required if the commercial portion of the site were converted to a non-residential use. 2. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City. The subdivision agreement shali contain language that waives the three commercial area charges at this time pending the redevelopment or reuse of the commercial property. The rates charged will be equivalent to the current rate at the time of the additional development activity. 3. The adjusted storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,681.62 shall paid in full prior to the deed being released for recording with Washington County. The area charge may be assessed to the property if the applicant signs a petition waiver and the payment information is included in the subdivision agreement. 4. Any unpaid assessments on the property shall be paid in fuii prior to recording of the new parceis. Prepared by: John M.Burbank Associate Planner Attachments: Location Map Exhibit A— Survey of existing parcel Exhibit � — Sur�ey of proposed �arce�s Exhibit C— Letter from City's Historic Preservation Officer Exhibit D— Letter from Hugh Gibson a ` � � � i C� 4� �\ �\ �� cj �)� \�•� .. iro'vY�"x �Sss .._.., a.. ..,,.,:,. „ . .. . ... . _ r _, .:.. . .,.... � .. ... . I • ,••.... •..,••: EiY/S71/VCr fj90PEf1TY$URI�EY�FOff' � ,:e., ., . � H(JGH G/BSON t e � 4 Y 3 2 C� �� l . �^ �� f� �'J � � N59' n'M1S PARCEL 3 � eo ��o �95449E . i fJ � � :� Eas G ' � r:.` J` ^ i:� - J , h \ V NJ�� • � ��`\��' i s P ' � � eel:t �a . °� .- � a Y t B�"' °,n � ` �'��,.`�` , s � �;` , , o� r+, � V/ .�L m- o«...� w... m�m> � ��/:.�a i��l smn �Ia� e�.ryrl n��M� o.r(�i) .�..�+e�r �/. wr.� ��%ri.r^�xwh � .....i�..e.en+i<. enn «iM b� n d w�� u w �s �/:.� w s i/.)~ K.�s� �r�.�.�dr...M.ns�� s�..� r�»�u��MT i nwr . `.M :., ' ia w i � m .. �..,... ...�.. ��. «..�. . a� . g n n ` ..d.�.+^^..+'"».' ✓ "`.".;,.. �.....e.... � :—+.�� .... .. ' � �. a... � 1 , ...+ � � vr�ro�n n u...�u ww�su ��is��. u��n �.� s eti �; ��i �> r rF��e.�a w� w O+.nn�N .�os��imw�au�� i.`.i�.� :.��r.i:�.:wi` q9 / Mw+.. �.. mieu �uw+ rw�) '� I i F 6 n ✓ .��. ,t ` \ �� . (�v �I > ' r —�.* ,�m,"m � : "zc �� .� \` :�. Lr'+i'� \t \ � e �'�%p�` 4 �'l? � Q � � • y`'t ! Q�' • f a i 'f YT� / � � �� `� �� "7 � V \ '` I t .�`'� �F� �'`F r ! ° °�: ti �°�, C>� � — — ��° ��, �� o _ . � ., .�,,.,.,m...�..... �, .�.. ,�..w.,,. _� "` �..,�..,,,rz,� . ,. _w,.... ...e�.. �; � 'r�,,..� �..;:.� �^.�.�o .�,� «�.. �.. e+. �. � �... ..�e, .;..�ro. T�. � � wo sAKmG �c. Yvr�4�Ye�uu �1a�ew w.x�� c�xn. MM ��. ��n �rd� N � � . ,: � EXHIBIT B $�,��.,�..,,�.,..� . , , . -: :, cors�n : � .. � . N�rr +�� HI�CH G/BSQN��; I I n_� w NE9'M'/OY s v 5561� __ �� .. _,. ., � � —.�.—. __ .. .__ ve � � .�. . .._�, � va..a: >oina�._n�o`n�:n+n rv��+ 6i %� . R ��E %i 64 ag e � 4 3 a�nrn�v�.o n v r�."`°'�.�'w� �� t g � c k PP52 RE w��or � �....z,,.� r....,„ � 5� F� 1�Doc5No. 95 �� a...� . r+.�r-. C ment �°� . . � � i� fose i^ �i� I �� ; �. f�� n f,i C� i�� ✓ �� ^� c C) \ �`' �� ,�,�,,��'�„� � �� .�. V m �,�� ` . � �'1 �� A.�....,e .�;� �a, :y�,�.o7dm"" K� w.. � �,� . .. .:�k�r��.�., �', CE: � ' 19 1� . P p so�o�. .. � . .. w"ti /✓ ,� �' �� m�� / �� y ° �"N rt'W�ti� I;�� \.u�ue ��5�� ,��\�:. � � a^ A" f � A`. h�� Ip ^ ° \ . w� d.ma �n n we+w r. '�.\v.C�� i' 5� �.,.« . . �' `�}�� o ` r.0 wa �awri�.c wc w a•• e� _(^. l�� s . �} �t�i . � 0 .c , �� ... i A. a�qe�.�k`i.'�y .• �' a �.i o - $a - w..�.m,,..:. ...........a,. i `-i; ` la g f' } � s n� w W: , g�'-w.A...,,�.. Q .`�yf r . c9.,.>..m...�,....r ',, :�� .. '�, G��4 \o ' ��\\ � `cI � �" \\\ I � `;.`,,. . N �,-w ' �� ° `e . 5;��.,. �� `� \ � ,.aaa. ....�...a. � , i7 . sy ------'—_— -- -- ---. — — ..,..��> i _. • . � � ' . ,� � .«. � ,�._.,.,,....,_..d,..�,:..�,.,. ,� ti ,-.-^,»n,�,: �....��..� � A,..�.a:..°°:. _�� .. � . �. . „ �-,,..k,,.,,�,.a..,.�.....,.,�,�.m�>.�.......� .. , EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM 22 September 199$ TO: �sory Committee on Historic Preservation FR:�obert Vogei, City Historic Preservation Officer RE:' Lot Split/Rezoning the HistorSc Hill-Gibson House Mr. Hugh Gibson, 136 6th St. N.E., Washington, D.C., has applied for a simple lot split of a 12.48 acre parcel on Pt. Douglas Rd. north of 80th St. One of the lots to be created includes the Historic Hill-Gibson House at 7007 E. Pt. Douglas Rd., wliich I�as been determined eligible for listing in the City Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks. From an historic preservation standpoint, the requested lot split shouid not affect the histori,cal integrity of the Hill-Gibson property. City Re�ister designation would protect only the 1870s farmhouse and barn on the parcel lying south of E. Pt. Douglas Rd., and not the undeveloped open space across the street. You should also know that Mr. Gibson, whose family has owned the property since the eazly part of this century, wants the City to rezone the historic property from commercial to residential. Taken at face value, the rezoning would probably have little or no immediate impact on the preservation potential of the HiII-Gibson House. Under the current zoning, residential use of the historic house is pemutted. Commercial development of the property wouid have to respect its historic character, but would not necessarily jeapordize its historical integrity. City policy is that historic properties will be used for their historic functions or given new uses that ma�canize the retention of distinctive architectural features. Tl�e Hill-Gibson House could be adapted fo a wide range of cor�mercial uses while retaining its historic character — eaamples include a garden center, o�ce space, or sales room. , " In summary, the Hill-Gibson House is a locally significant cultural resource that is worth preserving as a rare surviving example of mid-19th century vemaculaz cottage azchitecture. Its original function as part of a family fann is no longer practical but it remains in residential use within the urbanized part of the city. IY is in excellent physical condition, thanks largely to Mr. Gibson's investment in preservation and rehabilitation. The proposed lot split should not have an adverse impact ori the historic chazacter of the house and should make historic site management easier. The proposed rezoning (from eommereial Yo residential) is consistent with city policy but is probably not essential for the long-term preservation of the historic site. Regardless of the zoning, preservation code requirements will need Yo be taken into consideration �i�hen decisions ara made with regard Yo future use. I reconunend that the Conunittee support tl�e i_<; �;'� L�:. tz;:e no position on tti� s azoi2ing. �/cc: John Burbank, Associate Planner Staff Planning Report Case RS9&35 September 28, 1998 Page 5 of 5 i_ • �• • Staff recommends approvai of the Rural Subdivision application subject to the foilowing conditions 1. No parkland dedication is required at this time. The subdivision agreement would outline that a park dedication fee would be required if the commerciai portion of the site were converted to a non-residential use. 2. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City. The subdivision agreement shall contain language that waives the three commerciai area charges at this time pending tne redevelopment or reuse of the commercial property. The rates charged will be equivalent to the current rate at the time of the additional development activity. 3. The adjusted storm sewer land use assessment charge amount of $5,681.62 shail paid in fuil prior to the deed being released for recording with Washington County. The area charge may be assessed to the property if the applicant signs a petition waiver and the payment information is included in the subdivision agreement. 4. Any unpaid assessments on the property shall be paid in full prior to recording of the new parceis. Prepared by: John M.Burbank Associate Planner Attachments: Location Map Exhibit A— Survey of existing parcel Exhibit B— Survey of pr000sed parceis Exhibit C— Letter from City's Historic Preservation Officer Exhibit D— Letter from Hugh Gibson Task Force report (1996), which is l�eing used to guide plaiming for the West Draw, expressed strong and unequivocal suppa t for creation ol� a permanent conservancy area on my property: "There is sU�ong suppm�t l�or the creatiun of private or public conservancy areas for the oalc woodla�zd located east and south uf the rural subdivision plat known as Hidden Oaks. Development should be discoura�ed ii om this area as much as possible." (Page 33) "The Gibson property, which is a 3 i acre large tract of land in the sensitive bluff area, is being proposed by the land ow�ier to �ie �laced in a perpetual conservancy easement. This effort shc�utd be applauded and encouraged throughout the West Draw in undeveloped sensitive natw al areas that remai�i in private ownership." (Page 65) Tl�e CiLy's Natural Resources ]nventor}� report (1998) confinns that the area has si�nificant ecological value (see quotation below) and recomtnends that, where possible, the City take tl�e opportunity to work with private landow�ners to protect tl�is site (see page 40): "Site 7 is one of the more signitieant nntural areas in the City of Cottage Grove containing a mixCUre of oal: forest, bedrock bluff prairie, lowland hardwood forest and old field. The average qual ity of nat�ral com�llunities is l�igli, as is the diversity of different types of communities. ... Twenty-three acres have been placed in a perpetual eonservation easement, providina permai�ent protection of some of the best quality portions of Site 7." (Pa� e 71) [Note by owner: tl�e total easement acreage referred to above also includes part o1'an acijoining undeveloped parcel I own in Section 7] The sirnple lot split would further tl�ese conservation goals by making it more feasible for the conservancy part of my property (whicl� is aheady legally protected) to be managed as a distinct and separate unit. It would give me the option of conveying the two parts of the property to different future owners if that �n�ould provide the most appropriate management for each part. Accompanying this letter are my completed applicacion form and iny check for the applicatio� fee of $20�J. I have enclosed a copy of d�e coiiservation easemei�t that appli�s to ti�e parcel proposed for the lot split. 1 understand }�ou l�ave received the required survey materials and transparencies from Sunde Land S�nveyin�! lnc. a»d the list of surrc�unding properiy owners, with mailin� labels, from tl�e county sw�veyor�s office. Piease give me a caIi at 202-260-2717 (work phone) should you need am further i��tormation. I ask that you include this lecter witl� the materials you furnish to members of the City Planning Commission in reference to this application. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sin erely, � � � Hu h Gibson g