HomeMy WebLinkAbout102201REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
A. g01-081 Cutaia Variance Resolution 01-019PC
mo
Public Hearings:
#01-045 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance creating
a new downtown zoning district and establishing design review criteria and standards.
g01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary
High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard
and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239
Fairbanks Trail.
g01-084 John and Jennifer Barncard are requesting approval of a site plan to allow a
detached accessory structure on a nonconforming lot of record separated by a private
road from a lot with the principal structure for the property at 16558 Inguadona Beach
Circle.
#01-082 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting variances to a front setback from a road
easement and to a setback from a rear property line for the construction of a single
family dwelling for the property at 14934 Pixie Point Circle.
Old Business:
New Business:
g01-083 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting a vacation to a portion of the drainage and
utility easement located on the north side of Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition
(14934 Pixie Point Circle) for the construction of a single family dwelling.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagenda~AG 10220 I.DOC
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhofcalled the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Kelly
Meyer.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
4. Consent:
A. #01-081 Cutaia Variance Resolution 01-019PC
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
019PC.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #01-045 Consider an Amendment to Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance creating
a new downtown zoning district and establishing design review criteria and standards.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report on file in the office of the City
Planning Department. Koegler Group prepared the Downtown Redevelopment Guide in
June 2000. This report had been commissioned by the Economic Development Authority
to serve as a guide to the redevelopment of the Downtown area. While no official action
was taken on the report, it nevertheless contained a number of ideas and concepts for
Downtown development and redevelopment.
Subsequent to that, the City Council determined that it was necessary to incorporate some
of the design criteria and standards from the consultants report into the zoning ordinance
L:\01 files\01 pl ancomm\01 pcminutes'dVlN 102201 .doc I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
to provide clear guidance to those persons developing or redeveloping property in the
Downtown area. The Council then directed staff to draft an ordinance that met this
objective. The City retained URS Consultants to assist in the creation of a new zoning
district for the Downtown area as well as a streetscape plan for Main Avenue.
There are several features of the draft ordinance that are different from the current
ordinance. The section on permitted uses and uses permitted with conditions has been
modified to be more limiting on the types of land uses allowed in the Downtown area.
Specific kinds of retail uses, for example, are permitted rather than allowing all retail
uses. The size of retail uses is also limited to fit in with the scale of the Downtown area.
Larger retail uses may be allowed by conditional use permit. Certain mixed uses are
encouraged, including multiple family dwellings, retail, offices, services, studios and
coffee shops or restaurants.
The dimensional standards such as lot sizes and setbacks remain basically the same. The
primary difference is the establishment of a build-to line along Main Avenue. This
requires that at least 70% of the width of a building fagade must be within 5 feet of the
street right-of-way.
The most significant difference from the current ordinance is the addition of Design
Standards in the Downtown area. These design standards apply to: · All new construction.
· Any renovation or other exterior changes to existing nonresidential or multiple
family dwellings, including repainting.
· Any development or expansion of parking areas.
· Any other exterior alteration requiring a building permit.
The standards apply only to the site or building element being altered. For example, a
faCade renovation would not require changes in a related parking lot.
The Design Standards are comprehensive in scope. They cover architectural and site
design elements such as building orientation, fagade treatments, entrances, windows and
doors, awnings, mechanical equipment screening, colors, signs, building materials,
lighting and parking lots. These standards are consistent with recommendations from the
Downtown Redevelopment Guide and the Streetscape Design elements developed by
URS Consultants. Noted that an addendum to the staff report had been distributed
regarding the standards and their relationship to the documents that have been prepared.
Atwood: Asked for clarification why the automobile type businesses along TH13 were
not included in the proposed Downtown District, and if that was based on the amount of
their investment alone.
Rye: Advised that the intent is to promote uses in the Downtown District with a
pedestrian orientation and automotive type businesses are probably incompatible with
those types of uses. Under the proposed ordinance, the other automotive businesses that
front on Main Avenue would be non-conforming.
L:\01 files\01 pi ancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 102201 .doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Lemke: Asked if the automobile businesses that front on Highway 13 would be C-4
zoning.
Rye: Advised that they would be consistent with the other uses for C-4 zoning.
Lemke: Asked for clarification as to the different requirements for adult day care
facilities, group day care facilities, and elderly housing relative to open space
requirements.
Rye: Believes the intents are consistent and sensible given the uses, even though the
square footage requirement of 40 and 50 feet respectively probably bears no significant
difference. Screening also addresses the level of activity given the uses.
Comments from the public:
Tom Flink (Owner of Amoco Station)(4805 Dakota St.): Admitted that he did not
understand all of the effects an ordinance of this type would have on his business.
Concerned with limiting his ability to sell, modify or expand his current business, and
would oppose any ordinance that would limit his ability to do so.
Rye: Clarified that if the Amoco site was not included in the Downtown District which is
what is proposed, the Amoco station as it exists would not be affected.
Stamson: Noted that any expansion into the Downtown District would not allow
automotive uses.
Randy Simpson (R & K Sales): Referred to the Lakefront Plaza project and discussed the
language relating to multiple-family dwellings and some of the limitations compared to
the current zoning ordinance. Further discussed parking requirements and green space
calculations, as well as how they are restrictive when considered with the new DNR and
Watershed requirements for ponding. Also commented on building facade width and
breaks in connection with 50 foot lots, screening of mechanicals (suggested a smaller
requirement for smaller mechanicals such as air conditioners and gas meters), and
restrictions for internally illuminated signs (believed it wouM limit franchise-type
business uses).
Karen Fisher (Little Lakers Montessori School): Advised that 75 sq. fi. per child for
outside play surface is the state standard, and 35 sq. fi. per child interior space. Also
noted that to not permit day care facilities to front on Dakota Street or CSAH 21 is very
prohibitive and renders her business as a non-conforming use. Advised that they are
currently licensed for 49 children and believes her business brings people to the
Downtown area.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 102201 .doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Stamson: Noted that the requirement for 40 sq. fi. per child proposed in the ordinance is
regardless of whether the child is inside or outside. So, it is a slightly different standard
than defined by the state standards.
Jennifer Scheda (Integra Telecom): Asked what it means if a business is non-
conforming, what is going to be required of Downtown businesses, and what type of
assistance, if any, will be provided by the City.
Rye: Advised that existing businesses would only be affected if some remodeling took
place and the standards would be applicable to that remodel. The ordinance would not
require remodeling. Noted that the staffhas been directed to research the means by which
the City can provide some type of assistance for businesses that do wish to improve
facades, and that that effort is underway. Non-conforming status means that the
designation no longer exists in the current standards, however, businesses can continue
their existing operations uninterrupted until such time as improvements take place or the
business is moved or destroyed.
Terry. Crawford (Integra): Concerned that if a property is damaged in excess of 50%
and the structure is a non-conforming use, businesses such as Integra that have a
substantial infrastructure built into the building are financial punished because the cost of
the infrastructure exceeds the cost of the building.
Rye: Advised that in the ordinance Integra is classified as an essential service which is
permitted in any zoning district, and the business is conforming under the proposed
Downtown ordinance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: Concerned with the issues raised with respect to parking as it relates to green
space. Asked staff to comment. Agreed that the screening requirement may be excessive
in some cases. Further is concerned about eliminating franchise stores by not allowing
internally illuminated signage. Believes the ordinance may need some additional review.
Rye: Advised that any space devoted to green space or parking may impact the
economics of the site, but that it becomes a question of aesthetics. A 6 ft. screening
standards for mechanicals is not burdensome, and lower screening may not block
mechanicals from line of sight which is the intent.
Stamson: Believes there is substantial public benefit by adopting the ordinance and is
happy to see the redevelopment of Downtown moving forward. Agrees with removing
the automobile businesses fronting on Highway 13 from the proposed Downtown district.
Suggested removing or adjusting the standard for day care facility open space to be in
line with the state standards. Favors the proposed standards for parking, signage and
screening. Recommended approval.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 102201 .doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Atwood: Commented that she is excited to see the project moving forward and
appreciated the comments from some of the area business owners. Believes there are
many positive items in the zoning ordinance including mixed-use zoning, size of floor
area for showrooms, and consistency with the streetscape plan. Suggested that there are
several items that needed clarification, including the screening requirement, parking and
landscaping, and the impacts the ordinance will have on the day care facility. Noted that
day care facility traffic, while currently drop-off and pick-up traffic, which is not a use
desired in Downtown, that fact may change dependent upon the future uses in the
Downtown area.
VonHof: Believes the proposed ordinance does move the Downtown redevelopment
forward in a positive manner. Agreed with making an adjustment for the nursery school
open space to coordinate with the state standard. Added that in a Downtown area where
buildings are typically side by side, the open space needed for a day care facility is
prohibitive to uses of that type. Liked the addition of mixed-use facilities and believes it
is consistent with the objectives for Downtown. Commented that the screening
requirement should be flexible, and that the parking requirement for 15% of green space
is reasonable. Supports moving the ordinance forward.
Lemke: Noted that the 15% green space requirement for parking appears only to impact
elderly housing.
Rye: Suggested that one possibility would be to say that in calculating the 15% a certain
amount of the adjoining lawns or open space can be considered. Added that elderly
housing is a residential use and the intent is to allow some type of separation from
commercial uses.
Kansier: Clarified that the 15 feet separation is intended as a buffer for any type of
residential housing against noise and lighting glare.
McDermott: Commented that in the case of Lakefront Plaza, the City will need to
upgrade the roads in that area. Staff has been looking for an area for the ponding that is
required for the site, including working with the DNR to use a part of the pond within
Lakefront Park. A variance from the Watershed will probably be appropriate for the
Lakefront Plaza site.
Lemke: Asked if, with respect to an articulation of the building fagade at 40 feet, the City
is encouraging that part of the property be undeveloped.
Rye: Commented that that is not the intention. With the opportunity to go to a zero lot
line, the additional costs of adding some type of feature to the front of the building is
probably offset. The standard is encouraged and not required.
Stamson: Suggested that with respect to the addendum, that page 10, item 5 be clarified
to reference the Main Street design guidelines.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXlVlN 102201 .doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Rye: Clarified that all of those elements have been included in the hardscape and
sofiscape design elements.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATW00D TO APPROVE THE REVISED
LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY STAFF FOR SECTION 1102.1107.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE REVISIONS (1) SCREENING SUFFICIENT TO
SCREEN FROM VIEW AT THE LOT LINE, (2) THE LANGUAGE FOR REQUIRING
AN EXTERIOR CHILD CARE SPACE BE ELIMINATED AND THAT THE STATE
GUIDELINES SHALL APPLY, AND (3) PARKING WITH RESPECT TO THE 15
FEET BE CLARIFIED TO STATE THAT ANY LAWN, LANDSCAPING OR OPEN
SPACE ADJACENT TO AND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT
FOR A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET BY INCLUDED IN THE 15% LANDSCAPING
CALCULATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
VonHof: Advised that the Downtown businesses will be notified when the item will go
before the City Council.
The Commission took a brief recess.
VonHof: Advised that the public hearing was being re-opened in order to consider
adoption of the Downtown Zoning Map.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN
ZONING MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
Bo
#01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary
High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard
and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239
Fairbanks Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage, a second story addition, and a main level room
addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record
located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). The applicant is
requesting the following Variances:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 102201 .doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property line, a
12-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 48-feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHWM), a 1.41-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.59-feet from
the side property line, a 2-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to
within 3-feet from a side lot line, a 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in
length to be setback 5-feet to a side lot line, a 256-square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of 2,436 square feet (33.5%).
The City Engineering Department has determined there is a sanitary sewer easement that
should be depicted on the survey in order to verify the proposed building addition does
not encroach. In addition, the Department submitted comments for this report stating in
essence, approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients,
sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed,
and promotes lake creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards
the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources has not responded to this variance request.
The staff believes that all of the Variance criteria have been met with respect to some
type of front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback.
A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage
addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot
of record.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in
size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 6. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to 5 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff
recommends denial of these requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised survey to show all easements and the proposed
grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
Comments from the public:
Norling: (15239 Fairbanks Trail NE): Commented that he has the support of the
neighborhood and that he intends on staying in the house long-term. Further discussed the
project plans in detail, the rationale for requesting each of the variances, the comparison
of his property to neighboring properties, and his family's need for the additional space.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'dVIN 102201 ,doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Commissioner VonHof closed the public heating.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: Commented that he believed that the garage is necessary and eliminating 4 feet
from the garage would mean it could no longer be used as a three-car garage.
Atwood: Asked if the Commissioners are going to be comfortable acting on the
application without a current survey. Suggested tabling the item until there is a final
survey.
Stamson: Agreed that in dealing with the lake side of the home it would be necessary to
see a final survey. On the balance of the structure, he did believe that the side yard set
back could be met and still provide for a 32-foot garage and concurred with the staff
recommendation.
Atwood: Agreed with Commissioner Stamson and noted she was uncomfortable in
making any further decision without a final survey.
VonHof: Believed that due to the slope of the lot some variances are probably warranted,
but was not willing to make further determinations until an updated survey was received.
Lemke: Most concerned with the 16.5 foot driveway, but noted that the neighbors garage
is only 12.5 feet from the road.
Stamson: Commented that the each property is unique and the circumstances vary, so
comparisons are inappropriate.
Horsman: Advised that Fairbanks Trail is very small to begin with because it was
originally platted as a private road.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL
NOVEMBER 13, 2001 SO THAT A FULL-SIZED UPDATED SURVEY CAN BE
REVIEWED.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the motion carried.
Co
#01-084 John and Jennifer Barncard are requesting approval of a site plan to allow a
detached accessory structure on a nonconforming lot of record separated by a private
road from a lot with the principal structure for the property at 16558 Inguadona Beach
Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 102201 .doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
The Planning Department received a site plan application from property owners John &
Jennifer Bamcard for the construction of a detached accessory structure on one of two
existing platted lots of record located at 16658 Inguadona Beach Circle. There is an
existing single-family dwelling located on the other lot, but is separated from the subject
lot by a private road. The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a detached
accessory structure to be built on one of two nonconforming lots of record under single
ownership separated by a private road or driveway from a lot with the principal structure.
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage on Lot 25. The topography and
location of the principal structure on Lot 10, preclude the ability to construct a garage,
with a front setback of 24.6 feet to the exterior wall and 12.5 feet to the deck. However,
Lot 25 is relatively flat and will accommodate the proposed structure with setbacks of
42.25' front, 12.69' side, 15' rear, and 12.85' side yard.
The proposed structure is 34' deep by 24' wide for a total area of 816 square feet, and is
less than the maximum allowed 832 square feet for a detached accessory structure. The
proposed building height is 13', as determined by the mean distance of the highest gable
on a pitched roof and the grade elevation having frontage on a public right-of-way. The
exterior finish material is an 8" lap cedar siding with asphalt/fiberglass shingles, and is
compatible in design and materials with the principal structure (Attachment 2 - Building
Plans, 3 pages).
The City Engineering Department has recommended approval without comments. The
Department of Natural Resources has not submitted comments on this request.
The staff has determined that all of the conditions, except # 2, have been met with respect
to the applicants requested site plan and Zoning Ordinance 1101.501: Lot Provisions: (3)
Lots of Record - Buildable. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on
the lots because of topography and the existing principal structures location.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution 01-022PC with the
following conditions:
The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenants with the Scott
County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This deed restriction
or covenant must include provisions that restrict the resubdivision of the lot. This
condition shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Comments from the public:
There were no comments from the public.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes~IN 102201 .doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson: Believed that having a garage was a necessity and that the proposal, given
staff's conditions, was appropriate.
Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and VonHof agreed with the comments
from Commissioner Stamson.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
01-022PC APPROVING A SITE PLAN TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE ON ONE OF THE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD
UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP SEPARATED BY A PRIVATE ROAD OR
DRIVEWAY.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
#01-082 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting variances to a front setback from a road
easement and to a setback from a rear property line for the construction of a single family
dwelling for the property at 14934 Pixie Point Circle.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with an attached garage, as shown on the attached survey, on the
property located at 14934 Pixie Point Road, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
Eastwood 2nd addition. The following variances are being requested: a 10' variance to
the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be setback 15' from the front
property line and from the road easement, and a 10' variance to the rear yard setback to
permit the structure to be setback 15' from the rear lot line.
The survey submitted by the applicant also shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the
road; however, this survey was revised after the application was submitted and the
heating notice published. The applicant has not requested a variance to the maximum
driveway width of 24 feet.
The applicant is proposing to place the structure on the lot so it is located 26.92' from the
front property line, 15' from the roadway easement, 15' from the rear lot line, 23.71'
from the south side lot line and 33' from the north side lot line. It must be noted that the
proposed structure is encroaching into the 40' wide easement on the north property line.
The applicant has filed a petition to vacate a portion of this easement. The Planning
Commission will also consider this petition at this meeting. As noted earlier in this
report, the attached survey also shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the road;
however, this survey was revised after the application was submitted and the hearing
notice published. The applicant has not requested a variance to the maximum driveway
width of 24 feet.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 102201 .doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
The DNR had no comments on this request. The City Engineering Department
comments are attached. The Engineering Department comments primarily concern the
vacation of the existing easement until the design for the reconstruction of the street is
completed. Also attached to this report is a letter from the owner of the property to the
south of this lot, objecting to the requested variance.
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request does not meet the nine
hardship criteria. The staff recommendation of the original application was denial of the
requested variances. There is a legal alternative for the construction of a house on this lot.
Advised that the developer has submitted a total of three additional surveys with different
building footprints. Staff has not had an opportunity to review any of the surveys and
until such time as the applicant determines which survey we are dealing with, the staff
would recommend tabling the item at this point.
Lemke: Asked about the location of the road on the west side of the property.
Kansier: Advised that staff believes that Pixie Point is either within the roadway
easement or very close to the roadway easement identified in the survey.
Atwood: Asked about the reconstruction of Pixie Point.
McDermott: Advised that the surveying for the reconstruction of Pixie Point is starting
this week, and until the staff can determine why the 40 foot easement was acquired in the
first place, it is probably premature to vacate any portion of it at this time. The staff does
not want to put the City is the position of vacating easements we may have to go back
and pay for as temporary construction or permanent roadway easements in connection
with the project.
Comments from the public:
Jim Koestering (Builder): Advised that the Outlot A is owned by Jerry Hein. Discussed
the topography of the lot and its 24 foot grade change. Advised that in addition to
topography, they are attempting to save as many trees as possible as well as comply with
impervious surface restrictions. Also believed that the City ordinance definition of a front
lot line could be interpreted so that the front lot line was the one facing the lake. Advised
that Pixie Point Road utilities are underneath the road, and that they had been located and
identified a month ago. The road was built to the edge of the easement. Because the road
is too close to the lot line, the City required an additional 10 foot of easement. Each foot
the house is moved back from the street, the higher the house is out of the ground.
Discussed the location of the force main, and that both the manhole and force main had
been identified and marked. Believed there was adequate easement area available even
with the variance. Believes the City made a mistake in placing the street and now the
property owner has to suffer. A 25 foot set back, rather than 30 foot, would be adequate.
Further discussed the timing on the construction and the need to move forward. Believes
the application meets the nine requirements.
L:\01files\01plancomm\01pcminutesXMN102201 .doc 1 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Stamson: Asked if the back was left at 25 feet, what was needed on the front.
Koestering: Explained that the house could be rotated one way another, but cannot fit
within both the front and rear yard setbacks. More trees can be saved if the variance is to
the front. Believes that the easement in the front should go back to the property owner.
Kansier: Advised that the staff has never seen a tree survey.
Rye: Noted that vegetation on the property is not germane to the consideration of
approving or denying a variance.
McDermott: Advised that the 40 foot easement has been platted as a drainage and utility
easement, not a roadway easement. A survey was not provided with the field location of
the force main until tonight. Staff also requested that Mr. Koestering pothole that force
main so staff could be verified the depth and as-built features. A few feet from the
easement can be considered, but with four surveys, staff needs to know which one we are
considering. Staff has pointed out to Mr. Koestering that it is likely that not all of the
easement will be needed, but at this time, it is premature. Had Mr. Koestering provided
this information previously, we probably have enough information to make a
determination. The roadway easement along Pixie Point Circle are the small utilities.
VonHof: Suggested that the Commissioners give the staff an opportunity to review the
information provided and offer a revised recommendation.
Koestering: Noted that he had not been told ahead of time about the pothole and that is
staff's fault. Requested approval of the variance subject to the Engineering staff stating
how much room is needed beyond the force main for workability.
Lemke: Asked whether the Commission is being asked to consider the driveway.
Kansier: Noted that based on Mr. Koestering's request, he doesn't want the Commission
to consider the driveway.
Koestering: Advised that the surveyor drawn a 20 foot driveway.
McDermott: Advised that it would be helpful, if the surveyor is going to revise it
anyway, if the survey showed the edge of the bituminous roadway, which you will need
anyway for the building permit.
Jerry Hein (Property Owner): Appreciated the Commissioners' time and patience.
Clarified that Outlot A is owned by four parties, and they are making the best effort to
build a home that fits into the neighborhood, preserve the view for the neighbors, and
save as many trees as possible.
Marilyn Koeker (5994 - !50th St.): Advised that the rear of this lot abuts her side lot.
Her only concern was that the rear setback remain at 25 feet.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'ffvlN 102201 .doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Carter Christy. (6002 150th St.): Noted that his home is directly to the northeast of the
property. His concern was also that the rear lot line setback remain at 25 feet.
Commissioner VonHof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: Despite the inconvenience to the applicant and the builder, believed it was
important to give the staff an opportunity to verify the information received and make a
recommendation.
Kansier: Clarified that there are two issues. The first is the front and rear yard setback.
The second part is the vacation of some portion of the easement.
McDermott: Advised that if the survey had originally shown the edge of bituminous, it
appears that a vacation of the easement is probable.
Stamson: Suggested that a 3 foot variance could be recommended.
VonHof: Advised that the Commission can recommend a variance as long as it is not
more than what was identified in the public hearing notice. Suggested moving forward
with a recommendation to the City Council.
Kansier: Asked if the variance included overhangs.
Rye: Suggested setting a distance, and the builder would need to work within that
parameter.
Koestering: Suggested allowing building within 20 feet of the existing asphalt on the
property and verified by the surveyor.
VonHof.' Noted that staff has advised that is not appropriate.
10 Foot Variance to the Rear Yard Setback to Allow the Structure to be Set Back 15feet
from the Rear Lot Line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSOM TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE 10-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO
THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
VOTE: Ayes by all, MOTION CARRIED.
10 Foot Variance to the Front Yard Setback to Allow the Structure to be Set Back 15 Feet
from the Front Property Line and from the Road Easement Rather than the Minimum
Requirements of 25 Feet.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminu tesXlVlN 10220 l.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 5 FOOT EASEMENT AND A 20 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ROAD EASEMENT AS DEPICTED IN SURVEY #4.
Rye: Asked if the findings in support of the resolution was due to the topography on the
site.
Stamson: Clarified that the 24% grade as well as the force main field and other
easements on the property create a difficult situation.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
#01-083 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting a vacation to a portion of the drainage and
utility easement located on the north side of Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2~d Addition
(14934 Pixie Point Circle) for the construction of a single family dwelling.
[The Planning report was given in connection with the previous agenda item.]
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
Jim Koestering is requesting the vacation of a portion of the 40' wide drainage and utility
easement located on the north side of the property legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
Eastwood 2nd Addition. This request also includes the vacation of a portion of the 10'
wide road and utility easement located along the west property line of this lot. This
easement was dedicated to the City in 1984 when Eastwood 2nd Addition was platted.
The applicant is proposing to construct a house on this lot. As presently designed, the
house would encroach into the existing easement.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of the
existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public need or
anticipated future need for the dedicated property? The Comprehensive Plan does not
specifically discuss utility easements, other than as a function of ensuring access to public
utilities. There are existing utilities, including storm sewer and sanitary sewer, located
within the 40' wide easement. The Engineering Department has noted that it may be
possible to vacate a portion of this easement; however, the location of the existing
utilities must be field surveyed and shown on the certificate of survey before staff can
determine how much of the easement may be vacated. A portion or all of the easement
may also be required for the 2002 Pixie Point reconstruction project.
The 10' wide easement located along the west property line is for both utilities and the
existing road. The Engineering Department has noted that Pixie Point Road, along with
L:\01 file s\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXMN 102201.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
the storm sewer, is scheduled for reconstruction in 2002. It is not in the best interest to
vacate any of this easement until those plans are completed.
Based on the information submitted thus far, there appears to be a public need for these
easements. The Planning staff therefore recommends denial of this request. It may be
possible to vacate some portion of the 40' wide easement; however, in order to make this
determination, the applicant must submit a certificate of survey that identifies all of the
existing utilities, including sanitary sewer and storm sewer, as located in the field. In
addition, no part of this easement should be vacated until the Pixie Point project has been
designed and constructed, so any future need for the easement can be determined.
Comments from the public:
Comments from the public were received in connection with the previous agenda item.
Comments from the Commissioners:
McDermott: Discussed the description of the easement.
Kansier: Suggested that staff provide the applicant and the Council a drawing of the
recommended easement area, and the applicant will need to provide the description.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT
BEGINNING 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE CONTINUOUSLY TO
THE REAR PROPERTY LINE 5 FEET FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
EASEMENT.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners discussed that there would be no meeting in December, and staff also
asked if Commissioners would contact them with respect to the November meeting to be
sure there is a quorum.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 1 Opm.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Kelly Meyer
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminuteshMN 102201 .doc 15