CR 91-54 Prelim Plat - Ramsgate 2nd Addition•
•
•
February 27, 1991
Council Report: 91 -54
PRELIMINARY PLAT - RAMSGATE SECOND ADDITION
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution No: Z91 -8 approving the preliminary plat for Ramsgate
Second Addition.
Approval of this motion will approve the preliminary plat for
Ramsgate Second Addition.
The Planning Commission on a 4 -2 vote approved Resolution RZ91 -2
approving the preliminary plat. Mr. Woodrich and Mrs. Reuter voting
nay.
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to construct 13 townhomes on the east side
of Ramsgate along Hiawatha. The site that the townhomes are to be
constructed on is currently unplatted. The applicants site will be
divided into to parcels. One lot the townhomes will be constructed
an and the second will be used for Ramsgate and townhome parking.
There was little discussion by the Planning Commission on this item.
It was noted that the parking area is an outlot. An outlot is
unbuildable as long as it is platted an outlot.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the preliminary plat meet the ordinance requirements?
o What is an outlot?
o Should the parking area be an outlot?
o Can the parking area be designated unbuildable permanently?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Alternatives
o Resolution No: Z91 -8
o Preliminary Plat
4 - 41 1 ,TV _
Nancy S . Anderson
Planner
•
•
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the preliminary plat meet the ordinance requirements?
The preliminary plat submitted by the applicant meets the ordinance
requirements.
o What is an outlot?
CR: 91 -54
Page 2
A parcel of land, included in a plat, which is smaller than the
minimum size permitted for lots and which is thereby declared
unbuildable until combined through platting with additional land; or,
a parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is at least
double the minimum size and which is thereby subject to future
platting prior to development; or a parcel of land which is included
in a plat and which is designated for public or private open space,
right -of -way utilities, or other similar purposes. An outlot is
deemed to be unbuildable.
This definition is used by Plymouth, we will be adding a definition
of an outlot.
o Should the parking area be an outlot?
An outlot is unbuildable at the time it is an outlot. This is the
reason the staff is recommending that the parking area is an outlot
because if the applicant would want to develop the parking area in
the future he would have apply to the City to replat the outlot.
Since there is no overall plan which involves the development of the
parking area, replatting assures the City that any development on the
parking area will require City approval. By having the parking area
an outlot does not prevent the applicant from permanently not
developing the parking area in the future.
o Can the parking area be designated unbuildable permanently?
There are two ways of making the parking area unbuildable in the
future. One way is to add to the conditions in the conditional use
permit that the parking area is to remain a parking area or an open
space. A second way is to record with the deed, that the lot is
unbuildable.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the preliminary plat with an outlot for the parking
area. By approving the preliminary plat with the parking
area an outlot, the townhome lot will be platted and the
parking area will remain a parking area or open space until
the outlot is replatted.
•
•
•
CR: 91 -54
Page 3
2. Deny the preliminary plat. By denying the preliminary plat
the applicant will be unable to plat the site.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council
indicates further information is needed, the item should be
continued.
411 [ rrtli7 • N t. rrt►... Orrtw N Metiw
1t, T e .. 2,..... N P.M P 70.04... I
1 7 of tte Ste. 11 ember 7 7
.0Mt•of-.o7 of the pmt 7hether. IN ft... .•r.o• r!L.I. t
. ...I. that tort Nt werlbe/ r ..
t ►e r nN a the Wterls rtMt0. Mt7re t► Ole ew N N T �e 1W
r n. pmt ...hers ha l ..11 Yee. brt►..etwlt0tt� tl W1, N
1 t-of..p Il.. r the hemha.l ..► •I..e WMiIs
■ y..ad
•or•o• .If pr7 70ert II. of T• wl �w e7 W0..I . Mitt W
. It. 707.21 ay. a IoM N o 7.1* N re he t.... tY w o.. t .. s Itt a I'
..11 8.47.17 It..t► tM Y1 Um el Wf S rte.. Om.. W Y.
• ert.1 rlMtsfy, 11• N tM ewthe•o WI..TI 14. n •
717.7 llr r • 1100 7o the Iwo► 1 N t•u parr pmt. rI le
710 feet 8707.. •••.... thot eel M.► 1170 hoe the M...et
.
oxen. thong; tt
mt net timer •nrt
o. .the ameth 11.• to pl. el e.......•to. a •[t.. •
•
es.+✓ %.4e�i
r1, Amor
RAMSGATE Z(�
PRELI MIN.ARY
RAMSGATE „ 2 ND.
PLAT
ADDITION
ovrpmconirmaimplamm empowammiiiinagimingariwt
•
•
�k"
•
•
•
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SUBD:91 -1
WHEREAS, an application for Subdivision Approval entitled SUBD:
91 -1 made by Mark Z. Jones, is recommended for
approval.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as
follows:
Attest:
1. That an application for Subdivision approval
SUBD: 91 -1 was filed with the City of Hopkins on
December 31, 1990.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on January 29, 1991.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
published and mailed notices, held a hearing on
January 29, 1991 and February 26, 1991: all
persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for Subdivision
Approval SUBD: 91 -1 is hereby recommended for approval
subject to the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the preliminary plat meets the ordinance
requirements.
2. That the new lots created meet the minimum
requirements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for SUBD: 91 -1 is hereby
recommended for approval subject to the following
Conditions:
1. That Lot 2 is platted as an outlot.
2. That the Conditional Use Permit is approved by the
City Council.
Adopted this 5 day of March, 1991.
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: R91 -08
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor