HomeMy WebLinkAbout091498REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
A.
1.
A.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent:
Case #98-094 Boeck Resolution
Public Hearings:
Case #98-098 Eagle Creek Villas/Hillsbury Townhomes Preliminary Plat -
requesting 0.76 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for townhouse units located by the
intersection of 160th Street and Franklin Trail.
Case #98-108 Creekside Estates/Assisted Living Facility - requesting a variance to
permit a building more than 35 feet in height for the property located at the
intersection of Five Hawks and Priorwood Street.
Case #98-105 Gleason Gymnastic School - requesting a conditional use permit for a
gymnastic school in the Waterfront Passage Business Park District.
Case #98-106 John and Jeri Tmlson - requesting a variance to construct an
ornamental iron fence at 48 inches on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street.
Case #98-085 and 98-116 Holiday Stores - requesting a conditional use permit and
variance to construct a car wash for the property at 16800 Duluth Avenue.
Case #98-118 Mark Sudheimer - requesting a variances to construct a 1,368 square
foot garage and a variance to permit one off-street parking stall for the property
located at 16211 Birch Avenue.
Case #98-019 Consider an official map for a ring road in the southeast comer of
Highway 13, from Franklin Trail to Tower Street.
16200 L~?~t~o]~:. ~?L~.,^l~q~re, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Case #98-109 Sandy Silfverston requesting variances for a front yard setback and
setbacks from a county road to construct a garage addition for the property located at
16196 Arcadia Avenue.
Old Business:
Case #98-070 Robert Jader - request to table a continued public heating for a lot
width variance and bluff setback variance for the property located at 14962 Pixie
Point Circle.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:~98FILES~98PLCO~AGENDA~AG091498.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The September 14, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jem Tovar,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Absent
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 24, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #98-094 Timothy Boeck Resolution
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO MOVE ITEM 1.A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS, CASE 98-070 THE ROBERT JADER REQUEST TO CONTINUE
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR LOT WIDTH AND BLUFF SETBACK, AT 14962
PIXIE POINT CIRCLE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing procedures.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn091498.doc 1
A. Case #98-098 Eagle Creek Villas/Hillsbury Townhomes Preliminary Plat -
requesting 0.76 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for townhouse units located by the
intersection of 160th Street and Franklin Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 14,
1998 on file in the office of the City Planner.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as
required by Section 6-7-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat of Hillsbury
Townhomes as presented and subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific
changes directed by the Planning Commission.
Comments from the Public:
The applicant was not present.
Verda Russo, 5384 150th Street, questioned why the neighboring residents were not
notified with the initial application or for the Safe Haven building.
Kansier responded that this is the first hearing required with the exception of the
variance. Variances require notification within 100 feet. The building permits were
issued because they met all standards and did not require public hearings.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Questioned the landscaping plan. Kansier said the City requires the landscaping plan
be submitted in the proper form before the final plat. It is included as part of the
approved plat package. Generally the City receives the plan with the preliminary plans,
but not this time.
Cramer:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation with the condition the landscaping plan is
received prior to the final plat.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn091498.doc 2
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS HILLSBURY TOWNHOMES SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #98-108 Creekside Estates/Assisted Living Facility - requesting a
variance to permit a building more than 35 feet in height for the property located at
the intersection of Five Hawks and Priorwood Street.
Planner Jenni Tovar said the applicant notified staff by letter dated September 14, 1998
requesting a 60 day extension to the November 16, Planning Commission Meeting.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR CREEKSIDE
ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, CASE FILE 98-108, FOR A PERIOD OF
62 DAYS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-105 Gleason Gymnastic School - requesting a conditional use
permit for a gymnastic school in the Waterfront Passage Business Park District.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 14, 1998 on file in
the office of the City Planner.
Staff is of the opinion the proposed use would be appropriate to the proposed location
given the recent ordinance amendment to allow gynmastic schools as conditional uses.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use
permit with the conditions specific to ordinance 98-10 such as hours of operation and
parking to be incorporated into the resolution.
Staff recommended the Council approve the conditional use permit with the following
conditions:
1. The gynmastic school must be located as shown on the approved plans.
2. Hours are limited to 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
3. Twelve parking spaces must be reserved for this use. These spaces must be signed for
use by the patrons of the school during designated hours.
4. The applicant has until one year from the date of adoption of the resolution by the
City Council to complete the required improvements and record the resolution or the
Conditional Use Permit becomes null and void (Section 5-6-8). A certificate of
Occupancy will not be issued until proof of recording of the resolution has been
submitted to the City.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhmn091498.doc 3
Comments from the Public:
Larry Gleason, operates a gymnastic school in Eagan where he resides. Mr. Gleason has
many students from Prior Lake who would like to see a program in Prior Lake. He feels
it is an excellent program for kids and sees no problem with traffic or parking.
Stamson questioned the location of the Eagan school. Gleason said he has been in Eagan
for about 22 years. The last five years the 20,000 square foot school has been in a
warehouse. All gynmasfic schools need a minimum of 18 feet for the apparatus used.
Bev Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle, stated she totally supports Gleason's Gymnastic School
program. She appreciates the Commissioners support for the youth of Prior Lake.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Supported the original ordinance.
· Agreed with the conditions in the staff report.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Cramer.
· Is the building protected for fire? Tovar responded it was.
· How many participants in the program at one time? Gleason said it is a class
program. The bulk of the children are between the ages 5 to 10 with the maximum
number at one time around 18.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier noted this item will go before the City Council on September 21, 1998.
D. Case//98-106 John and Jeri Trulson - requesting a variance to construct an
ornamental iron fence at 48 inches on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 14,
1998 on file in the office of the City Planner.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'urm091498.doc 4
Staff concluded all the hardship criteria had not been met and the variance request for
fence height is not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant
has no control over.
Comments from the Public:
John Trulson, 14296 Rutgers Street, gave back ground on improving the fence. A fence
has been in place for over 25 years and he is improving his yard. He received numerous
comments and approval from his neighbors. Trulson explained the fencing is standard
factory made and cut at a standard 4 foot length. The difference with a custom made
fence is $60,000. It would be costly and inefficient to cut and repaint. The difference is 6
inches and if reduced will not look consistent with the rest of the fencing. He also
pointed out the City has a solid 7 foot fence surrounding a lift station across the road.
Trulson feels the fence is attractive, it doesn't hurt anyone, the neighborhood thinks it
looks fine, the minor variance should be granted. He also explained the setbacks and
setting.
Liz Kapahn, 14329 Rutgers Street, has a 6 foot fence around the city sewer easement.
She is supportive of the fence and felt it is attractive.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The fence is well below the standards. The request is only 4 inches. This seems
pretty minor. Does not agree with the staff report.
· The variance hardship criteria are met.
· Another related issue is the platting of this lot. The nature of the neighborhood,
particularly this street is substandard.
Crflmer:
· Question to staff- What is the top of a fence definition? Kansier explained.
· The top of the fence is 39 inches (the top bar) not the fence posts.
· Does have a problem approving the variance with the hardship criteria.
· The fence is appropriate but explained why he felt there are no hardships.
Stamson:
· Concurs with Cramer, it is an attractive fence.
· It does not meet the ordinance or the State hardship criteria.
· Height requirement is difficult to look at. A variance is not the way to solve the
problem.
Vonhof:
· Agreed it is a difficult standard. All variance situations are unique and one cannot
compare. This situation is one that gets down to an issue of what is the top of the fence.
· Does this situation fit the ordinance? It is a matter of interpretation.
· The first hardship would be met.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'mm091498 .doc 5
A manufactured fence does not meet City requirements.
· There was no intention to violate ordinance.
· The fourth variance has also been met.
· Question to staff- What powers does the Commissioners have with the
interpretation?
· Rye explained they have the authority to interpret the ordinance.
· Suggest to deny the request and define what the top of a fence is.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Vonhof. This is a very unique situation.
· Why are the main posts not considered the top of fence?
· Horsman explained the interpretation.
Stamson:
· It will be difficult to write an interpretation to make this fence qualify. Would the
horizontal bars be the top of the fence or the ornamental part?
Rye read the proposed fencing language in the new zoning ordinance.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 98-
24PC DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 INCH HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK
AREA IN PLACE OF THE 42 INCH HEIGHT ALLOWED.
Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, DIRECTING STAFF TO
ADDRESS THE FENCE LANGUAGE INCLUDING ORNAMENTAL AND A
DEFINITION OF FENCE HEIGHT.
Mr. Trulson felt he met all the hardship criteria. An ordinance cannot be written for every
situation in the City. He feels the government has this process to address issues that do
not meet the ordinance and this is one of them. He pointed out numerous lake variances
granted, where are the hardships? Trulson said he wants to be legal and do the right
thing. Common sense is, this is a little variance. One way or the other, the fence will not
get done this year. He will be patient and do nothing illegal.
Cramer explained they agreed with Trulson, the fence issue is ridiculous but the
Commission is bound to prove hardship to grant the variances. It is State Statute.
Stamson said in the end they will find a way to construct the fence, a variance is not the
way to do it.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn091498.doc 6
E. Case #98-085 and 98-116 Holiday Stores - requesting a conditional use
permit and variance to construct a car wash for the property at 16800 Duluth
Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 14,
1998 on file in the office of the City Planner.
The staff recommends the requested variance be granted. The use of the spaces at the gas
pumps allows adequate parking on the site, and meets the intent of the ordinance.
The proposed use is generally consistent with the standards for conditional uses. The use
would be appropriate to the proposed location and blend into the neighborhood.
However, before the plans are approved, the following items must be addressed:
1. A new survey showing existing conditions must be submitted. The survey submitted
with the application shows the former buildings which have since been removed.
2. A site plan showing the complete site and the stacking for the vehicles waiting to use
the car wash must be submitted. This site plan should also identify traffic movements
on the site.
3. Extend the curbing and landscape area to the east side of the existing building to
better delineate the stacking and driving lane for the car wash.
4. Redesign the 4" sanitary sewer service so that it is not connected into the manhole.
The clean out on this service line must not be located within the public right-of-way.
5. Provide specifications and pavement sections for the parking lot replacement.
6. Car wash mnoffmust be discharged according to State requirements. The plans must
identify how these requirements are met.
The Landscape Plan be modified to include landscaping of the entire site as approved
in Building Permit 96-471 (new station). Any dead/disturbed/missing trees are to be
replaced as part of the CUP.
8. A Conditional Sign Permit will be required as part of this CUP.
The staff recommended the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution
approving the variance for the required number of parking spaces, and continue the public
hearing on the Conditional Use Permit to a date and time certain to allow the developer to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning Commission.
Comments from the Public:
John Beregi, representing Holiday Station Stores, 4567 West 80th Street, asked the
Commissioners to approve the variance and conditional use permit with staff's conditions
and move on to the City Council. All the conditions can and will be met for some reason
they are not on the plan. Mr. Beregi presented the proposed plan addressing the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn091498.doc 7
conditions. The plan did not show a vacuum which will be built. The car wash was in
the original building addition plans. The addition did not have to go before the City but
the car wash issue did because it is a conditional use.
Cramer questioned the shared easement off Highway 13 with Dairy Queen. He also
questioned the joint parking with Dairy Queen. Kansier pointed out most of the parking
takes place on the Dairy Queen site. The City wants to make sure stacking does not occur
on the Dairy Queen property.
Vonhof questioned the common easement and pointed out driving occurs on both sites.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Does not agree with staff on the variance hardship criteria being met. The sticking
points are the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property. The buildings did not exist at the time the ordinance was written.
The ordinance predates the current buildings.
· The applicant decided to build and did not leave enough parking places. In my mind
the variance hardships have never been met.
· Parking spaces should be counted at the pumps.
· No problems with the Conditional Use Permit. Agreed with items set forth by staff.
· In summary - does not support the variance but does support the conditional use
permit.
Cramer:
· Feels the variance hardship have not been met.
· The definition of parking space for convenience stores should be looked at. This
should not be part of the variance but addressed in the ordinance.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation to continue the conditional use permit.
· Kansier responded staff would make sure conditions are approved before the matter is
before the Council.
Vonhof:
· Disagreed with Commissioners.
· The pump spaces should be included with the parking spaces. The majority of people
go to Holiday for gas. Would include the pump spaces.
· The variance hardship has been met.
· Agreed with staff, the store is constrained by the property.
· Would like to see a condition showing an actual flow plan including how the vehicles
are going to be stacked. Show signage.
· Traffic problem on the east side (Duluth Street), recommend either a stop or yield
sign be included.
· Regarding the Conditional Use Permit - No problem having the applicant make the
conditions in the staff report.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcminLrnn091498. doc 8
Kansier said nine stalls would be removed to accommodate the car wash.
Beregi said they are in excess of parking now. If the islands are back in, there would be
24 spaces. Beregi pointed out the car wash was in the original plans for the new building.
This is not a large store and feels constraints with the easements surrounding the
property.
Cramer:
· Feels he can make a case for meeting the hardship criteria. This is not a regular store,
it is a service station. Applicant meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Vonhof's point that applicant is sitting on a unique parcel for a service
station and make for a reasonable case for some of the variance hardships.
· This is better addressed through an ordinance change.
· Variance hardship is marginally made with regard to parking.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAW
UP A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WITH THE
REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BASED ON TESTIMONY GIVEN,
THE STAFF REPORT AND NOTICE THAT THE VARIANCE HARDSHIP
STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING
TO A FUTURE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING SPACES FOR
SERVICE STATIONS.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE
STAFF REPORT CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICANT'S SATISFACTORILY
MEETING THE CONDITIONS. ALSO WITH THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE
DIRECTING THE VEHICLE INTO THE CAR WASH, THE ADDITION OF
APPROPRIATE ROAD MARKERS AND STOP SIGNS AT THE EXIT OFF THE
CAR WASH.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
F. Case #98-118 Mark Sudheimer - requesting a variances to construct a 1,368
square foot garage and a variance to permit one off-street parking stall for the
property located at 16211 Birch Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 14, 1998, on file in
the office of the City Planner.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn091498.doc 9
Staff has concluded the variance request for a four stall garage 47 feet wide and 24 feet
deep is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and unique circumstances of the
site and structure. Should the Planning Commission find a five stall garage, as requested,
is reasonable and opposed to the recommended four stall garage, then staff should be
directed to prepare the necessary resolution.
Comments by the Public:
Mark Sudheimer, explained why he would like a five stall garage and keep all the
equipment neat and clean in the garage instead of building another storage building.
Verda Russo, 5384 150th Street, spoke on behalf of her mother who owns the adjoining
property. Mrs. Russo feels it is better to construct a five stall garage. She also
questioned the off street parking.
Tovar explained the new parking located closer to the building.
Comments by the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Questioned the driveway width. Tovar responded the widths are correct and the
impervious surface has been met.
· The parking spaces are a condition of the variance.
Cramer:
· Concurs with staff's recommendation.
· Could there be an existing island for the parking? Tovar explained the ordinance and
the plan.
· Sudheimer explained his driveway plan with two 24 foot drives and landscaping.
· Questioned utilities off Lakeside Avenue and driveway setbacks.
McDermott pointed out the contractor is ready to put in curb and gutter and would like to
know as soon as possible where the driveway opening would go.
Sudheimer said he would like to keep the cars as far away from the building as possible.
Stamson:
· Believes the hardship criteria had been met and agreed with staff.
· Preference for storage is someplace other than a garage stall.
· It will also help with the parking spaces.
· Supports variance hardship in that context.
Vonhof:
· Concurred.
· The proposal is for a nonconforming structure but a garage is needed.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'umn091498.doc 10
· Prefer to see a non-garage area for a storage place.
MOTION BY VONHOF SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-
26PC GRANTING A 416 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED
GARAGE SIZE OF 1,248 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 832 SQUARE FEET WITH ONE RESTRICTION OF ADDITIONAL
STORAGE; CONDITION 120 SQUARE FEET OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE
DESIGNATED AS STORAGE SPACE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:39 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
G. Case #98-019 Consider an official map for a ring road in the southeast
corner of Highway 13, from Franklin Trail to Tower Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 14,
1998 on file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties
on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a
local street. In the past year, the Planning Commission reviewed several proposed
alignments which would accomplish this by directing traffic from Franklin Trail to
Toronto Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to Highway 13 and the
properties to the south. The alignment ultimately suggested by the Planning Commission
is shown on the attached survey. This alignment has the least impact on existing
development.
The Planning staff recommends the Council approve the Official Map as proposed, or
with changes specified by the Planning Commission. The Official Map provides for the
alignment of the future road, and allows the City and the adjacent property owners to plan
development consistent with this road alignment.
Comments from the Public:
Dean Williamson, of Frauenshuh Company, representing adjoining property owned by
Park Nicollet, requested to continue the matter as they recently received a copy of the
report. They would like to look at the size of the right-of-way, the vacant land, costs,
assessments, etc. They are not opposed one way or another but would like to look over
the options.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· This issue has been before the Commissioners a number of times. Understands the
concern for the adjacent property owners. This is not a pressing issue.
l:\98file$\98plcomm\pcminknm091498.doc 11
· No problem tabling the issue.
Stamson:
· Concurred.
Vonhof:
· Agreed. Continue for 30 days to October 12, 1998.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO OCTOBER 13, 1998.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
H. Case #98-109 Sandy Silfverston requesting variances for a front yard
setback and setbacks from a county road to construct a garage addition for the
property located at 16196 Arcadia Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 14, 1998 on file in
the office of the City Planner.
Staff has concluded the variance requests for the proposed residential and garage
additions are not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot the applicant has no
control over. However, the Planning Commission may feel the four criteria are met with
respect to the residential addition, in which case, staff should be directed to prepare a
resolution with findings supporting such a decision including a condition the lots be
combined prior to issuance of a building permit.
Comments from the Public:
Sandy Silfverston, 16196 Arcadia Avenue, stated he has been in contact with Gary
McKiver of the Scott County Auditor's Office confirming his property has never been
part of the raikoad property. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Commissioners.
He also presented a letter from Scott County stating there is no way to combine the
parcels. Mr. Silfverston said he originally requested a 8 x 24 foot addition which is not
shown on the plan. His original proposal was to take down the garage and rebuild with
an addition. Silfverston explained his proposal.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· To clarify, the first variance is for a 19.6 front yard setback for the proposed residence
offArcadia Avenue, the second is for 62.8 setback for the proposed residence from the
center line of County Road 21; and the third variance is for a 1.5 foot garage setback.
· With regard to the residential addition, hardships have been met.
· The garage variance could be built differently.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn091498.doc 12
Stflmson:
· Agreed with Vonhof in regard to the residential variance.
· There is room to the north for the garage.
Cramer:
· Agreed.
Sandy Silfverston commented if he moved the garage 2 more feet to the north instead of
the south, all setbacks would be met.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 5.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 19.6 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENCE AND A 22.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
62.3 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD FROM
THE RESIDENCE AND DENY A 0.2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 84.8 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 85 FOOT CENTERLINE SETBACK
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
Case//98-070 Robert Jader - request to table a continued public heating for a lot width
variance and bluff setback variance for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle
was moved to the Consent Agenda.
7. New Business:
Public Hearing notices have been published for the new zoning ordinance to be heard at
the City Council meeting October 5, 1998.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjoumed at 9:26 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Come Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn091498.doc 13