HomeMy WebLinkAbout121399Ao
Bo
Co
A.
6.
A.
Bo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case Files 99-056 and 99-057 (Continued) D.R. Horton, Inc. is requesting a Preliminary
Planned Unit Development Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting of a total of
632 dwelling units on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.75 units per acre and a
Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 165.03 acres to be subdivided into 632 lots for the
dwelling units and the parks and common open space for the Project to be known as
"Deerfield".
Case File 99-86 (Continued) Mark Leisener, is requesting a variance to place the
lowest floor at an elevation lower than the minimum required lowest floor elevation
of 3 feet above the ordinary high water level and a variance to permit a structure
setback less than the required 100 foot minimum setback from the ordinary-high-
water (OHL) level for the property located at 4510 Jackson Trail.
Case File 99-089 Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer are requesting a front yard setback
variance to permit a garage addition to be less than the required 25 foot setback to the
front property line for the property located at 15142 Fish Point Road.
Old Business:
Case File 99-080 Marvin Mirsch Resolution.
New Business:
Case File 99-085 Larry and Joyce Nickelson are requesting vacation of a portion of
the road right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue adjacent to 15543 Ridgemont Avenue.
Case File 99-095 William & Margaret Righeimer and James & Nancy Samec are
requesting vacation of the lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's Street adjacent
to Lots 5 & 6, Kneafsey's Cove.
L:\99FILES\99P LCOMM~CAGENDA~AG 121399. DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Election of Officers.
B. The December 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled.
8. Adjournment:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCAGENDA~AGI 21399.DOC
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The Monday, December 13, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by
Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cfiego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Kuykendall Present
Cfiego Present
Cramer Absent
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files 99-056 and 99-057 (Continued) D.R. ltorton, Inc. is requesting a
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting
of a total of 632 dwelling units on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.75 units per acre
and a Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 165.03 acres to be subdivided into 632 lots for
the dwelling units and the parks and common open space for the Project to be known as
"Deerfield".
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
D.R. Horton has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary
Plan and a Preliminary Plat for the property located south and west of CSAH 21, south of
Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The
application includes a request for a PUD Preliminary Plan to allow a mixed use
development consisting of single family dwellings, two-unit townhouse buildings, two-,
three- and four-unit coach homes, and four-, six-, eight- and ten-unit villa homes totaling
540 units. The development also includes public parkland and private open space.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCM IN'uMN 121399.DOC 1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
Kansier concluded stating most of the outstanding issues have been addressed. The
redesign is consistent with the PUD criteria.
If the project is to proceed, the following changes or revisions must be made to both the
preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan:
1. Address the issue of providing access to the parcel in the northeast comer of this site.
If access is provided via a private street, address how that will be accomplished.
2. Revise the grading plan to identify the required 30' setback from the 100 year flood
elevation for all wetlands and NURP ponds. This required setback must also be
included on the PUD site plan.
3. Revise the grading plan and tree preservation plan to include the lots currently shown
as "custom graded". If necessary, the landscaping plan must be revised to include any
required replacement trees.
4. All private streets must meet the requirements of Section 1006.206 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. This requires all private streets must be at least 32' wide, and all
easements must be identified. In addition, eliminate as many of the dead-ends and
private tum-arounds as possible by connecting some of these streets.
5. Identify all drainage and utility easements on the preliminary plat.
6. All public utilities must be designed in accordance with the Public Works Design
Manual. The proper plans must be provided to allow staff to review this design.
7. Loop the watermain through Wilderness Trail in Phase I of the development.
8. Identify the useable open space graphically on the PUD plan to ensure the minimum
dimensions are met.
9. Provide greater detail on the size and location of the proposed signs.
Comments from the Public:
Don Patton, D.R. Horton, and his staffpresented the revised proposed development.
Project Manager Dick Krier explained the PUD changes and addressed staff's concerns,
specifically: Private streets will be changed to a 32 foot width; Signs will not exceed 50
square feet and street lights will be on both private and public streets. Krier stated all
experts claim there will be no storm-water mnoffproblems to Markley Lake. He also
stated the development will provide an access to the 4 acre parcel to the north. All usable
open space, setbacks and elevations from the wetlands have been identified. Krier felt
with the revised lower density and changes, the development meets all criteria for a
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat.
Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, Credit River Township, said all he heard in regard to
the water problems with Markley Lake is encouraging but everything he has read
addresses the 100 year flood. Water events are of as much concern or greater to the
residents of Markley Lake. Volume is rate times duration. He would like have the
hydrologist address some of his issues. Stanley read statements fxom DNR Supervisor
Thomas Balcom, dated November 29, 1999 to the City of Prior Lake. He also read a
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMkPCM INhMN 121399. DOC 2
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
letter from Savage Public Works Director, David E. Hutton. Stanley felt there were no
figures in the EAW to make a correct decision. Stanley is not giving the developer
permission to put water on his property. Stanley asked the Commissioners to pay
attention to the EAW. The developers should not rush this project and force
Commissioners to make quick decisions. Make sure Savage and Credit River Township
agree to the water runoff and have some kind of plan to address any problems.
Hydrologist Brian Miller, from BDM Consulting Engineers, 4175 Lovell Road, #112,
Lexington, Minnesota, explained the process of redirecting the water from Markley Lake.
A diversion structure which has been used in drainage facilities in hydrology for many
years will be constructed. It is a simple stop-log structure with the intent of taking water
from the Deerfield development and completely divert it away from Markley Lake. This
water body is under the DNR's jurisdiction. One of their concerns with Markley Lake is
that it is a water body and it can't be starved. If there is a dry year it will drop
considerably. The water must be supplemented and maintained at a reasonable level.
There will be diversion structures on the normal outlet and one on the proposed diverted
outlet. A permit application has been submitted to the DNR to allow for this diversion.
The developer will negotiate a management plan with the DNR for the diversion
structures. In the opinion of the DNR, the operation of the facilities will stay with the
City of Prior Lake because both structures are in the city limits. The DNR does not want
to add any additional work load to themselves. It is not for the DNR's benefit, it is for
the City's benefit the structures are being considered. Once the permit is in place along
with the management plan, the situation will be taken care of. Up to the 100 year storm,
this will divert all of the water from a 54 acre area from Markley Lake. The overall
drainage impact to other areas are at a rate of discharge to DNR Wetland 188 is also
reduced. With the development, increased volumes will go to that wetland and discharge
to Cleary Lake. The maximum increase would be approximately 2 inches (with no
discharge). The down stream impacts to the wetland is insignificant. Miller stated the
development will reduce the amount of water to Markley Lake.
Kuykendall paraphrased Miller's comments confirming the development would not have
a significant impact to the area to the south, Savage or Markley Lake.
JeffElasky, 16951 Wilderness Trail, wanted to keep Wilderness Trail a cul-de-sac. In his
meeting with the Planning Staff, the City felt the road should go through. Elasky felt he
did not receive a valid reason. Mr. Patton, the developer, told him it wouldn't be a
problem, but city staff recommended a through-street. Elasky questioned the benefit to
opening the cul-de-sac.
McDermott responded if the City allowed a the cul-de-sac, there would only be one way
to enter and exist the development. There should be two points of entry. It is a safety
issue.
Kansier said not only is a public safety issue, other concerns are for maintenance, snow
plowing, costs to the City, school buses, garbage hauling, mail delivery and all kinds of
L:\99FILES\99P LCOM M~PCM IN'uMN 121399.DOC 3
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
vehicles that go through neighborhoods every day. It is a more logical and efficient use
of the public right-of-way.
Margi Atwood, Crimson Court, the spokesperson from Wilderness Ponds, said they
consider the new proposal a great gesture. Atwood said on behalf of the neighborhood,
they consider it adequate.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
Commend the developer, neighbors and City staff for the thorough comprehensive
report.
· The development is a great addition to the community.
· There is a couple of issues left to be addressed by the developer. Specifically,
drainage and utility easements. Staff indicated it was not a problem.
· The other concern was Item 6, regarding public utilities meeting the Public Works
Design Manual. The developer, Don Patton responded they will address all issues.
· The hydrologist has addressed the issues to satisfaction.
· A permit application is in for process with the DNR. McDermott did not feel it was a
problem waiting to hear from the DNR in regard to the application as this is a
preliminary plat.
· Requested Tom Stanley to come forward and address Hydrologist Miller's comments.
Stanley said he felt the hydrologist addressed his concerns for keeping the water out
of Markley Lake. His concern remains as far as the development actually being able
to pull it offwith Savage.
· All of his concerns have been addressed.
· Requested Developer Don Patton to explain his comment stating "considerable arm
twisting by staff'. Patton responded 4.1 is the density for R1. He felt they are
reducing the density which was an issue from the beginning. Patton said they are
yielding if that is what it has to be. They still think the original proposal they had was
appropriate with the subjectiveness of the grid system. They answered that with staff,
but have to accept it for approval.
· Did not like Mr. Patton's negative comment about staff and was not impressed. The
staff does a remarkable job and should be commended and in response to the
community. The proposal is 99% solid with the exception of the negative comments.
Criego:
· Requested to see the sidewalk and trail systems. Kansier identified the paths.
· Patton explained the custom six, eight and ten unit buildings.
· Questioned why the developer wouldn't construct four and six unit buildings. Krier
responded the strategy in reducing the density is price reduction and design. They
dropped 94 units and to do that they need some flexibility. The development provides
a limited number of large buildings, yet maintain the look from the outside of being a
lot less. It was a trade off.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCMIN~IN 121399.DOC 4
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
· Has a hard time with large buildings - 8 and 10 units. Concern for parking, etc.
does not seem professional. Krier said all units have 2-car garages.
· The developer has done a wonderful job in laying out the project.
It
Stamson:
· Overall the developer has done an excellent job in addressing the Commission's,
City's and neighbor's concerns. The redesign of the villa development is a great
improvement.
· The PUD is appropriate.
· Most of the other concerns, water, traffic and design have been addressed.
· It is an important development for the City with many housing choices.
· Most of the people mentioned in their EAW comments that information was not
available. As part of the recommendation, the developer should provide information
to support what he stated in the record before it goes the City Council.
· Supported the development.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S
CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT AND THAT THE
HYDROLOGIST'S REPORT BE ATTACHED TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL.
Criego suggested having the developer reduce the eight and ten unit buildings.
Stamson felt the larger units would be minimized. He explained the increased setbacks
with the smaller units which would eliminate green space. It is a trade off. Take the ten
unit buildings in exchange.
Criego did not disagree, his concern was the number of people in a small area. Proposed
to reduce the number of units in the each of the 8 and 10 unit buildings.
Kuykendall said he would rather see adding the 6 units somewhere else. This
development meets all the criteria with all the design standards. The process has been
long but it is an excellent product. It meets staff's concerns. All the issues have been
addressed. There is no other alternative. Accept as proposed.
Stamson pointed out the previous proposal actually had four eight-unit buildings. The
design was rejected and traded off. The Commissioners said come back with something
better and a new proposal was submitted.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall and Stamson, nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on January 18, 2000.
A recess was called at 8:16 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
L:\99F1LES\99PLCOMM~PCM IN'uMN 121399.DOC 5
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
Commissioner Stamson announced (6. New Business B.) Case File #99-095 William and
Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec's request will been continued.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File 99-080 Marvin Mirsch Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner.
On November 22, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this
property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution approving a variance to the front yard
setback.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 99-024PC APPROVING A 5.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 19.6
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File 99-86 (Continued) Mark Liesener, is requesting a variance to place
the lowest floor at an elevation lower than the minimum required lowest floor
elevation of 3 feet above the ordinary high water level and a variance to permit a
structure setback less than the required 100 foot minimum setback from the
ordinary-high-water (OHL) level for the property located at 4510 Jackson Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mark Liesener for the
construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage. The applicant previously
applied for a variance to lot area that was approved by the Planning Commission. The
applicant applied for a Variance to permit the lowest floor level to be less than the
required 3 feet above the ordinary high water level and the Planning Commission tabled
this request at the public hearing held on November 22, 1999. The following variances
are being requested:
1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit the lowest floor elevation to be three tenths foot
(.3) instead of the required three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level.
2. A 70 foot Variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback instead of the required
100 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of a tributary stream.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCMINhMN 121399.DOC 6
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
The Acting City Engineer, City Water Resources Coordinator, Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources recommend denial of the 3
foot separation in elevation.
The staff recommended denial of the requested lowest floor elevation variance on the
grounds that all required criteria for approval had not been met. The request is contrary to
the City Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and a legal alternative exists to develop the
vacant lot without the variance.
Staff recommended approval of the structure setback variance as all of the hardship
standards are met and the pre-existing lot of record will not be buildable without a
structure setback variance.
Criego requested clarification on the elevation. Horsman and Kansier responded there are
no studies and the elevation may be higher than the 802.9.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Mark Liesener said the 803.3 was a point actually agreed upon by City staff.
All agreed that 803.3 was a reasonable height for the lowest floor. From the day the plan
was submitted there was considerable discussion on the high water mark. He finds it
difficult to accept the floor level is dangerous. It was not an issue in September. After
the variance was granted, it was discovered the property is in the Shoreland District. His
attorney has a fax from the City stating he would be able to get a building permit. At no
time did the City mention any variances. He does not agree with the suggestions of
redesigning the home. He can't get an answer from the City on how to redesign. Now a
100 foot setback is required. Liesener said he is critical of staff and would like a "sorry"
from the City.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Concurred with staff in opposing the request for floor elevation.
· Outlined objections at the previous meeting.
· This is a very serious variance. The home does not meet the criteria. It creates a
definite danger to the current resident and future resident.
· There are alternatives.
· Agreed to the 30 foot setback. The DNR has no objection.
Kuykendall:
· Apologized to applicant, but it does not change the rationale criteria for the variance.
· Supports staff's recommendation.
· Did go out to the site. Could see the flood area - it is obvious the water comes down
at a very terrific speed.
· Cannot in good conscience give a variance for the floor level. Applicant will have to
redesign the home.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCM1NhMN 121399.DOC 7
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
· Applicant had to know when he bought the lot there was a creek bed.
· Prior Lake is unique. We have to stay with the criteria.
· Supports the side yard setback from the creek.
Criego:
· Agreed with Kuykendall and apologized for thc process.
· Went to thc site.
· The Commission would cause applicant additional disservice to allow this variance in
the flood plain. There arc alternatives.
· Agreed with the setback variance to the creek.
· Suggest in thc Motion mention the 803 elevation instead of the O-H-W.
Kuykendall:
· Lives on the lake and has knowledge of his neighbor's flooding problems.
· Concerned for furore generations.
· Empathetic to applicant.
Stamson:
Markley Lake is a good example of homes being built where the homeowners never
dreamed they would end up with flooding problems.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 99-25PC DENYING A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TO BE .3 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 3
FEET ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF A TRIBUTARY
STREAM.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 99-26PC APPROVING A 70 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 30
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 100
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF
A TRIBUTARY STREAM AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY ATTACHED TO THE
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process before the City Council.
Liesener stated he would not appeal and asked if there are any other requirements if he
came in with another plan. Horsman said he had to see a survey and a plan before he
could make any comments. Kansier said according to the survey submitted by Liesener
the zoning issues are covered unless he changes the survey. Building Code issues are
separate. The Engineering Department has reviewed for grading.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCMINhMN 121399.DOC 8
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
C. Case File 99-089 Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer are requesting a front yard
setback variance to permit a garage addition to be less than the required 25 foot
setback to the front property line for the property located at 15142 Fish Point Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Thomas & Kathleen
Snouffer for the construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling
with attached garage. The existing structure is setback 15.6 feet from the garage to the
front lot line. They are proposing to widen the existing garage by six feet and because the
structure is not perfectly parallel to the lot line the front yard encroachment increases by
.54 feet. Snouffers are requesting a 9.94 foot setback variance to permit the structure to
be setback 15.06 feet from the front lot line rather than the minimum required setback of
25 feet.
The Planning Staff felt all of the hardship criteria had not been met in this case and a
legal alternative to the proposed garage addition exists, such as an accessory structure in
another location.
Criego questioned if the building is under construction. Horsman explained it is, but the
applicant would like to extend the garage further.
Horsman said the applicant is limited because of the elevation. He could build a shed to
accommodate his storage needs.
Comments from the public:
Tom Snouffer, 15142 Fish Point Road, explained the remodeling project began five years
ago. The side yard setbacks changed from the beginning of the remodeling project. A
variance request was the easiest route. They have worked hard to stay within the
ordinances. Snouffer did not agree with the number 1 hardship criteria and felt he was
working with a difficult lot. He has a storage shed down by the lake. Snouffer felt his
proposal is not any different from several of his neighbors and does not see any other
legal alternative.
Criego questioned the existing structure. Snouffer explained the home originally was a
flat-roof structure. Three years ago with the remodeling, the City requested adding
supporting posts under the pitched roof.
Jane Fier, 15141 Fish Point Road, stated she did not have a problem with the variance.
Almost everyone has a garage that is practically up to Fish Point Road. Her concern is
that the addition will obstruct her view of the lake and reduce her property value. Her
neighbors' lake view has diminished over the years.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCM INhMN 121399 .DOC 9
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
Criego:
Because there is already an existing roof, enclosing it does not affect the current
structure.
· Agreed with applicant to approve the requested variance.
· Understand neighbor's concern, but the applicant can do what he wants with this
property as long as he stays within the City's ordinances.
Kuykendall:
· The site does not belong to the neighbor. The applicant is building within the legal
footprint. It is not an issue.
· Neighbor should do her homework before buying property and understand what can
happen to neighbors' property.
· Adding the extension with the wall is positive. Rather see things stored inside the
building than out.
· The footprint has been encroached before by approval of the City by permit.
· It is impractical because of the terrain to have equipment down below the structure.
· Approve request. Hardship is met.
Stamson:
· Disagreed with Commissioners. On its face, the variance seems minor. By adding
the structure on, it is forming a non-conforming use. The addition is for storage. He
has a two-ear garage and is able to add 90 sq. feet. There is space for storage.
· This application does not have any undue hardship. It is largely for the convenience
of the owner.
Kuykendall:
· The City created the hardship when it allowed the structure to be placed where it was.
Why punish the owner? The City went beyond the limits of the design by the
engineers.
Stamson:
· The background does not warrant the variance.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
DRAFT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9.94 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
15.06 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego and Kuykendall, nay by Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Staffwill bring back the Resolution on January 10, 1999.
6. New Business:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMkPCMINWIN 121399.DOC 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
A. Case File 99-085 Larry and Joyce Nickelson are requesting vacation of a
portion of the road right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue adjacent to 15543
Ridgemont Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The petitioners, Larry and Joyce Nickelson, are requesting the vacation of 18' of the
excess right-of-way adjacent to their property at 15543 Ridgemont Avenue. The existing
lot is about 50,000 square feet in size. Mr. and Mrs. Nickelson would like to subdivide
this area into 3 lots. According to the letter submitted by the petitioners, they believe
vacation of this right-of-way "may avoid future problems for the city and new property
owners if the easements are moved to reflect the tree placement of the utilities and the lot
lines end at the street, as they do in all residential districts."
The staff felt the right-of-way should not be vacated until the ownership issue is resolved.
Once the ownership has been determined, the City can be assured the necessary
easements will be dedicated, and the vacation will not create a separate parcel. The
Planning staff therefore recommends denial of this vacation.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Larry Nickelson, 15543 Ridgemont Avenue, said they would just like to get
this matter resolved. At the time of reconstruction of the road, the City said there
wouldn't be a problem. Nickelson questioned the frontage facing Condons Street instead
of Ridgemont and said he would grant any easements needed. He could subdivide
without the vacation but would diminish the value of the comer lot. The setback would
intrude so far back it would limit the use of the property. In good faith they would have
to tell the property owners there is a disputed piece of property. Their attorney
recommended not putting a driveway in that area. There are a number of issues.
Nickelson said he is willing to spend the money to get the issue cleared up but is asking
for some direction.
Criego explained the process of subdividing the property with a vacation and/or variance
creating a substandard lot.
Kansier said the issue before the Commission is the vacation. Staff could meet with Mr.
Nickelson on the other issues.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON THE NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE OWNERSHIP.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCMINXMN 121399.DOC 11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
This issue will go before the City Council on January.
B. Case File 99-095 William & Margaret Righeimer and James & Nancy Samee
are requesting vacation of the lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's Street
adjacent to Lots 5 & 6, Kneafsey's Cove.
In a letter dated December 13, 1999, the applicants have requested continuance of the
matter to amend their application.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Election of Officers.
Deferred to the next meeting.
Commissioner Kuykendall announced he will be retiring from the Planning
Commission.
B. The December 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCMINMMN 12 ! 399.DOC 12