2021-04-28 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 6, 2021 Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 9 RE: Rehbein Commercial – Preliminary Plat PLANNING ISSUES Lot 1A in Plat – Abstract vs. Torrens th Proposed Lot 1A is the small lot abutting 20Avenue in the NW corner of Lot 1. It is underthe same ownership but recorded as Abstract vs. Torrens property (abstract is olderand morecumbersome; Torrens is the newer, preferred format). The lots cannot be combined unless they are recorded using the same method. Theprocess to convert the parcel to Torrens would involve more time and expense for the developer, but it would make the process cleaner to have all property Torrens in the final plat. If Lot 1 and Lot 1A were sold for development,they would need to be combined anywayin the future. We suggest that the preliminary plat can be approved but that as a condition of approval, proposed Lot 1A be recorded as Torrens and combined with Lot 1 Block 1 whenever development and final plat is proposed for those lots. Street A st Avenue west to a temporary cul-de-sac New Street A is shownin the platextending from 21 ending atthe Kwik Trip lot. The cul-de-sac is about 700 ft long, less than the 800-ft maximum allowed in City code. The site plan shows this street being extended in the future to connect th through to 20Avenue, but the plat does not formally dedicate right-of-way or an easement. th Anoka County has communicated in writing their approval of a “commercial access”to 20 th Avenue, which we interpret to mean any access to the lot abutting 20Avenue, either a driveway or a street. Such an accesswould include a southbound bypass lane and northbound th right turn lane. TheCounty’sapproval is needed since 20Avenue is a County road. Extending this street, now or in the future, would make for an integrated development with a logical traffic patternserving not just the lot it abuts but all lots in the development and nearby. Extending Street A would involve considerable expense (perhaps $500,000 or more), for the street th itself and for improvements to 20Avenue that the County would require. The cost of these improvements would be the developer’s responsibility, but the City should weigh requiring this street extension against the cost-benefit of doing so. It is possible that Lot 1/1A could develop with no access to 20th Avenue, using only its access to the east to the cul-de-sac. The future user of Lot 1/1A may not find value in the extended street and access to 20th Avenue. If that is the case, the costs to extend the streetmay adversely affect the salability of thiscorner lot. The County is also clear that Lot1/1A would not get its own right-in/right-out off Main Street.