HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 July Planning Commission Minutese .W A
PRIOR LAKE. PUNNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
July 19, 1979
7:30
P.M.
Don Fellon
Subdivision
8:00
P.M.
C & E Industrial Park
Subdivision
8:30
P.M_
Ken Carlson -
Variance
8: 1
P.M.
Martin Krashu
Variance
(612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
r �.
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 19, 1979
The meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Speiker. Present at the meeting were Commissioners Warmka, Arnold,
Johnson, Fitzgerald, Councilman Busse and City Planner Graser.
The minutes of the July 5, 1979 Planning Commission meeting were transcribed
for recording purposes only, due to lack of a quorum at the meeting.
Item I on the agenda the Fellon subdivision public hearing continuance was
called to order. It was noted by the Chairman that this was a continuance
of a public hearing, staff was called upon to give a review of specific
comments made at the July 5th meeting.
Mr. Graser made note that there was a revised plan of the Fellon subdivision
showing that the corner lot had been revised to 14,000 square feet due to the
request in the discussion at the July 5th meeting. It was also noted that
the access to lot three is now shown on the east side of the house. Mr.
Graser noted that the City Engineer was requested to check into the possible
erosion problems at the time of construction on the lot, he noted that this
is not something that the subdivision could be made subject to, he suggested
that it be stated in the motion that all precautions should be taken at the
time of building, to require some type of burrning or hay bailing in the
wimter for erosion particularly going west and down to the lake. Mr. Graser
stated that if anything other than single family homes are proposed a re-
zoning or conditional use permit must be obtained. The parcel is zoned R -1
single family. Regarding the sewer connection problem, Mr. Graser stated
that at the request of the City Engineer these lines should be jacked so
that the roads do not have to be cut. Mr. Graser stated that the developer
would install the service at the recommendation of the City Engineer. The
question of the Lakeshore easement for the three lots had been discussed
with the City Staff and again it was noted that this is nct something that
this plat can be held subject to, it was felt that this was a civil matter.
Chairman Speiker stated that it was his feeling in talking with the residents
of Pixie Point Circle that there major concern is what will be built on these
three lots. Other concerns are the legal question of easements or lake access.
He also stated that this would have nothing to do with the action taken by the
planning commission as this is a civil matter to be judicated by the courts.
Chairman Speiker felt that the major concerns were discussed and he called for
comments from the public that would amplify what had already been said.
(612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1979 Page 2
Mrs. Johnson asked if anyone had been out to check the road on Pixie Point
Circle as she had requested at the last meeting regarding the traffic flow.
Chairman Speiker Gtatej iat someone ha,' been out there, but there was no
traffic count taken. He stated that the main concern was not the traffic
flow, but the topography of those three lots.
Judith Hall of 150th Street stated that due to the sewer installation in
front of Bon Benson's house and in front of their home they have had extreme
flooding. They feel that this is a direct result from the water flowing down
from the east down to their house.
Chairman Speiker then called for comments from the applicant. Mr. Huemoeller
who is representing Mr. Fellon commented that he cannot see how approving the
plat is g ' 1 to materially affect whatever runoff situation there is in that
area. He aiso stated that the developer has agreed to limit the construction
to single family residences.
Mr. Graser asked about the installation of the sewer as per the recommendation
of the City Engineer. Mr. Huemoeller stated that they had very little time to
investigate the cost of cutting in a line through the street or jacking in it.
He felt that at this time, recommendation from the planning commission is that
the line for lot two (which is the lot that does not have a stub) be directly
connected to the trunk line with the prohibition that there be no common sewer
line and that the method of putting in the stub be determined at the time of
building permit application.
Warmka showed concern about the hook up, she felt that if this subdivision
was to be approved there should be a stipulation that this sewer would have
to be jacked as per the City Engineer's recommendation.
Johnson asked City Planner Graser if he could explain why there is a water
problem running down 150th, across the Hall's property. Mr. Graser stated
that he did not know why, but that he would be checking into this within the
next few days.
Fitzgerald questioned whether the commission should be looking more closely at
the existing neighborhood to see if this subdivision would fit in with the
continuity of the neighborhood. Mr. Graser felt that this was a good point
and that this should be done, but at this time there is no way to deny a
subdivision that meets the law. Fitzgerald felt that the planning commission
is the vehicle for doing this and that they have an opportunity to evaluate
the situation.
Planning Commission July 19,19 Page 3
Chairman Speiker stated that his main concern in this matter is for equitable
and fair treatment for the interested parties. He stated that the erosion
problem had not been solved to his satisfaction. He felt that the City is
making a fair request that it be jacked and that Pixie Point Circle not be
torn up. He felt that there was no legal grounds to deny this subdivision,
however, he felt that this should be contingent upon resolution of erosion
problem that exists at present, the resolution of the sewer installation
problem and an honest public statement by the developer that this will be
single family units.
Mr. Huemoeller stated that he could affirm on behalf of Don Fellon that con-
struction on lots 1, 2, & 3 would be single family residents only, no multiple.
He stated that them: would be no problem filing some sor of erosion plans
along with the building permit application.
Motion by Flarmka for favorable consideration with the following contingents:
1) A registered engineer prepare drainage plan and submit to the City before
this goes to Council and that all precautions during the building should
be taken to prevent erosion problems.
2) The problem of the sewer connection should be resolved. This should be
done as per the request of the City Engineer.
3) The three lots should be restricted to single family residences.
seconded by Fitzgerald. It was also added that the driveway of lot three be
on 150th Street.
Mr. Donald Johnson questioned why there was a 10 foot strip adjacent to the
north property line. Mr. Huemoeller stated that this is not included in the
plat, but it is a part of Tract A RLS 1.
Due to the discussion on the 10' that has been withheld, Commissioner Fitzger-
ald withdrew his second to the motion to approve this subdivision. He
stated that he did not know what was behind the holding of this part of the
parcel.
Chairman Speiker stated that he wanted action to be taken on this subdivision
this evening and called for a second to the previously stated motion.
This was seconded by Johnson, upon a vote taken, motion to approve was duly
passed.
Item II the continuance the G & E Industrial Park subdivision public hearing
was called to order. Mr. Grendahl was present at the meeting and gave his
presentation to the commission.
Staff was called upon to review the plat.
Warmko questioned the easement to the East and the abandoning of the other
existing sewer easement.
Fitzgerald was concerned about the storm sewer, drainage and erosion problems.
Grendahl stated that there is a possibility of ditching with a natural flow
down hill.
Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1979 Page 4
Chairman Speiker stated that this was the fourth time this had been in front
of the commission and that action should be taken on it. He felt that the
developer should aliviate the water run off problem onto adjoining property
if there is a problem wir.h this.
Mo',on was made by Johnson to approve this subdivision contingent:
])drainage problem be resolved 2) access to cost via a 60' road easement.
3)Lot 1 Block 3 be squared off and enlarged and lots 2 and 3 be combined.
4)a perk test accompany all building permit applications.
seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote taken motion to approve was duly passed.
Item three on the agenda, the continued hearing of the Ken Carlson variance
was called to order. Mr. Carlson could not be present at the meeting his
son was there in his place.
Staff was called upon to make a presentation or a review of the previous meeting
of July 5th. It was noted by staff that the 68' lakeshore setback recommended
would cause potential problems with existing trees and buildings. This
should be changed to 64' setback or a 4' variance. This would be from the
904 elevation.
With no comments from the commission a motion to grant the 4' variance with
a 64' setback was made by Warmka, seconded by Fitzgerald. Upon a vote taken
motion was duly passed.
Item four, the Martin Krashu variance request was called to order. Mr.
Krashu and his wife were present at the meeting. Staff made a presentation
to the commission. It was noted that the variance request was for a 6'
side yard variance on lot 7 and the westerly 17.62 feet of lot 8 Jo -Anna
Stepkas Hi -View 3rd Addition. The applicant is proposing to construct a
20 X 14 garage attached to existing home which would require a 6' side yard
variance. Staff recommendation being to deny the request, but recommend
a 5' side yard variance because of precidence set in the immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Krashu stated that there would be gutter on both sides of the garage to
avoid drainage problem.
Neighbor's of the Krashu who were not identified showed concern about the
building of this garage. They felt that if the variance was granted and the
garage was built it may cause problems for them in selling their home which
they now have on the market. They felt that this garage would be to close
to their property.
Motion was made by Fitzgerald to deny the request for a 6' variance and to
approve a 5' side yard variance based on the irregularity of the lot and
position of the homes on the lots. This was seconded by Warmka. Upon a vote
taken the motion was duly passed.
Motion to adjourn was made by Warmka, seconded by Fitzgerald, upon a vote
taken the motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY S, 1979
7:30 PM Don Fellon Public Hearing
v.i.+ •�• vo uy vlenLLalll PLLblic Hearing
9:00 PM Ken Carlson Variance
(612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
7A
CITY
OF
PRIOR
LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY S,
1979
As chairman of the Planning Commission I call the regularly scheduled July 5th
meeting of the Planning Commission to order. As you can see for the first time
in at least three years the Commission does not have a quorum to conduct and act
upon the agenda items. However, per guidance from the Council Representative,
Don Busse the public hearings that have been scheduled will be conducted even
though final action and vote cannot be taker. this evening. I personally apologize
to those present for the lack of attendance tonight. We were aware that two in-
dividuals would not be here this evening and we were hopeful that we would have
a quorum of three to conduct business. This puts me in an awkward position being
the only .member present but as chairman we will go ahead with the public hearing .
and the secretary will take copious notes. Following the conclusion of the pub-
lic hearing it will be continued until July 19th and the first item of business
will be a call for a vote, relative a recommendation to the Council. Are there
any questions from the public or the applicant in regards to this? Hearing no
questions, now am I correct in the interpretation that the public hearing must
be conducted because it was p•iblished? Right.(Don Busse). Hopefully with the
Secretary taking the notes we will not have to plow over the same ground twice
and we can get the discussion and the applicant's arguments out of the way as
well as pass recommendation this evening and then the only item on July 19th will
be the vote. I now call the public hearing, the Don Fellon subdivision to order.
Procedure we will follow is the applicants opening comments, comments from staff,
and then I will call upon the public for any testimony they wish to make. Is Mr.
Fellon present? (Bryce Huemoeller) No he is not. (Speikerl Would the applicant
representative like to make an opening comment? Yes, my name is Bryce Huemoeller
and I am here on behalf of Don Fellon. The first question for the chairman: is it
possible to call a special meeting of the Planning Commission for the purpose of
taking a vote prior to the 19th? (Speiker) No it is not. Our agendas are locked
in now and unfortunately we have had some difficulty in scheduling the way it is.
Is there some reason? (Huemoeller) I think that you well know that financing is
becoming difficult and we have got a possibility of sales of the property hanging
and they're contingent upon approval of the re -plat here. We would like to get
this resolved. If the contractor has to wait until the first part of August then
we are well past the beginning of the school year before we can have houses comple2g4
and of course marketability of any houses, except for a straight custom built is seV-
erly hampered. (Speiker) Well Mr. Huemoeller, clearly that argument is not going
to fly. When is this special meeting going to be conducted? (Huemoeller) Later this
week, first part of next week. (Speiker) I mean, it's Thursday night. (Huemoeller)
I'm here, your here. (Speiker) The first part of next week Monday, Tuesday or Wed-
nesday, it couldn't go to the City Council before July, the third Monday of the
month. We are only talking about a week by going ahead and scheduling it for July
19th. (Huemoeller) A week's week. (Speiker) I just don't see how we can schedule
a special meeting for one public hearing. These folks were notified and we are try-�_,, .
ing to follow a process here. I understand and I apologize to you for not having
(612) 447 -4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
z-
a ounrum to aci: on this this evening. I don't think that a special meeting is called for.
(Huemoeller) r don't want to have a special meeting just for the hearing, I want to have
a special meeting for the vote. (Speiker) No, I understand that. (Huemoeller) There is
not going to be any arguments at that meeting anyway, it's just a matter of them reviewing
the minutes and then making a vote. (Speiker) Well they may call upon you or staff for
additional questions. Or the Public for additional questions or comments. July 19th is
the earliest that we can schedule it Bryce and be fair to all parties involved. Okay?
(Huemoeller) No. (Speiker) That's not okay? (Huemoeller) No, I think that we should g
this thing done. (Speiker) Well following the conclusion of the public hearing this e
ning, we cannot act upon it but you and the applicant are free to go directly to the C .y
Council and if you feel that it is not being properly adjudicated you can take it t.. ..em
directly. Do I have any opening comments in regards to the subdivision? (Huemoeller)
Briefly, there is the proposed subdivision of the property. There are presently two lots
we propose to subdivide them into three. To my knowledge there is complete access to the
public roads, the lots are served by all the necessary utilities, the square footage meet-
ing the city requirements, that's all that I have to say for now. (Speiker) Thank you.
In absence of Horst, our consultant, Charles Tooker will make the staff presentation.
(Charles Tooker) The Fellon subdivision being .87 acres is situated on the Corner lot of
two public streets. As pointed out the basic question of staff relates to size of the
lots keeping the plat layout corner lots larger than interior lots or those that have
frontage on one street only, that the plat be rearranged so that the larger lot runs to
face the corner of 150th and Pixie Point Circle. Also question about sewer stubs, there
are only two sewer stubs presently there would have to be special accomadations to create
a third one and I would assume that this would be cause for some readjustment in the assess-
ment against the lot because the original was based on two lots rather than three. Staff
has recommended that park dedication fee be negotiated will involve cash rather than land
? being used for dedication. Basically the staff recommendation is to that we approve this
with the comments that I just made. (Speiker) Thank you. It is my desire now to call
upon public testimony. Anyone present that wishes to make a comment in regards to the
Fellon subdivision? Yes sir, would you come up and identify yourself for the record. My
name is Ron Buckeye and my question is, is this development going to be zoned so that they
can put two family dwellings with a common wall in between. Is there anything going to stop
them from doing that? (Speiker) I believe your asking specifically on the zoning of the
three lots. (Buckeye) Right. (Busse) -1, single family residential. (Buckeye) But they
can 't put two single family houses together with a common wall? (Busse) No they're .asking
for R -1 zoning and that is single family zoning. (Buckeye) Isn't that R -1 where we live?
I mean the whole Pixie Point View. (Busse) Right. (Buckeye) Well there is already one of
those in there now and I was just wondering if there was going to be another one. (Tooker)
I think that would require a conditional use permit. The present plat indicates three indiv-
idual lots under the zoning regulation they would be single family dwellings permitted uses
If they were adjusted there would have to be a variance for a conditional use permit.
(Speiker) But to answer Mr. Buckeye's question specifically, this subdivision does not addree
the question of what could happen in the future as far as two homes with a zero sit back or
a common wall. That could possibly develop in the future. (Buckeye) That could possibly
develop in the future? (Speiker) Well, he would have to appear at a public hearing, yes
that could develop. (Huemoeller) You have two lots now and you could put up a double with
zero set back on the existing two lots (Speiker) Well that would require an application made
to that effect and a public hearing. (Huemoeller) That would require the same procedures
the way it is now as it would even with the three lots. (Speiker) Yes, but to respond to
Mr. Buckeye's question specifically subdividing into three lots could theoretically, and I
am just drawing a hypothetical here in response to your question, one home being free stand-
ing and then two homes without sit backs if the applicant, or if the developer went through
an additional process of requesting that. Am I correct Charles? (Tooker) Yes, but in other
words, in stead of possibly four houses that would be able to be placed on now it would pos-
sibly be six units. (Buckeye) How much time would we have before we would know what was
being planned? (Tooker) There would be a public hearing. (Buckeye) One month before.(Tooker)
Correct. (Buckeye) Alright. Now I have( another question about the lay of that land, due to
the fact that is it pretty steep there, (I know you can't do an environmental thing on it &pt
I would suggest that there lie some type of bail system or something set up down there. T,.
last house that went down there, there is still gullies that you have to walk across to get
down to the lake. it is a pretty had mess. There will have to be alot of fill hauled in
there. It seems like when your talking about dredging Kneafsey's Cove and letting something
like trat run into the lake and it is still running in there now, it doesn't make any sense
to me. I have one other thing to say, it being that this fellow wants to have a special
hearing we were called about a month ago for a special hearing and he didn't even have, wasn't
good enough to show up himself so I can see no reason why they should have any special goings
right now. (Speiker) Thank you sir. Following up on Fir. Buckeye's second question., and I
hate to put you under the gun Charles, but at the last, or when this was scheduled previously
serie comments were made in regard to an erosion problem, do you know if DNR has responded
to any of that imput. (Busse) I think it was the Watershed District. (Speiker) Yes, the Water-
shed District. This is not germane to this particular discussion, but in response to your
questions. At our last scheduled public hearing in regards to this matter the question came
up on this, with specific recommendation to staff, I believe the Watershed District and I
thought the DNR was also going to be contacted. (Tooker) To answer your question, there is
no response from either the Watershed District or DNR. (Speiker) Okay. Yes Bryce. (Huemoeller)',
First of all Don Benson is not the President of the Watershed District, he is merely a part -
time staff member he is not even ( ?) . Secondly, the Engineer for the Watershed
District, whose name is Bruce Patterson, he works for Suburban Engineering has inspected the
property and to my knowledge he has not issued a citation or work order other than to recom-
mend that some brush that was down from some recent storms that we had be left in place until
a concrete spillway can be finished. The purpose of that brush was to insure that there would'.
be no run off until the spillway is finished. (Speiker) Where is this erosion coming from is
this from the proposed subdivision or from the existing housing? (Huemoeller) No it is coming
from the existing house. To my knowledge the subdivision is natural ground. Obviously teie
probably is runoff coming from the subdivision through to the lake but I think the concern,
here was the excavation caused by the construction of the Fellon residence, Fellon- Kannegieter
residence left a steep grade towards the lake and I think that there was a spillway that was
either being constructed or has been constructed and there is some runoff there. The question
as I understand it was whether that run off was carrying pollutents and sediment into the
lake and I think that is a question that Patterson investigated when he went out to the
house. I think that he inspected around the residence and the beach area behind the residence.
(Speiker) Following up with earlier comments is it not feasible to assume that you'll aggravate
a run off problem by development on the proposed subdivision? (Huemoeller) I am not sure
that I can answer that question, I guess that I would say that any construction on that prop -.
erty whether it's two houses or three houses would proba6,ly tend to aggravate the situation
unless adequate erosion control measures are adopted. As things are right now you have got
natural ground which means weed type foliage and your normal leaves and things like that. If('
you put a house in there your probably going to have to put in a little bit of fill between
the front of the house and the road and probably some type of a tie or a rock barrier on the
sides of the house to support the fill. I am really not qualified to say exactly what kind
of run off it is going to cause although where you have property that is close to the lake
you normally will have a Watershed District or some type of water control operation out to
determine if there is an increase run off problem and you follow their recommendations.
(Speiker) The reason that I asked you that question is because it was a question that came
em earlier and it is one that staff really hasn't addressed as far as aggravation of run off;
in existing topography as it lays. Will this be an aggravation? I don't know if staff should
dwell in that area. (Huemoeller) I think if you were looking at a plat that involved a fair`.
amount of construction work to make it buildable and you had a fairly substantial length of
time between the date that the platting process and construction process started and the ` ;me
that new homes would be built on it I think you would have a fairly substantial question,
erosion. In this case you have property that if it is modified at all it will probably be on
a one to one basis. In other words, you are going to start on a house and put it up in
-a-
and in sixty to ninety days down the road you are going to have it finished and have it
., occupied and you will either have seed or sod in place. (Speiker) Are you talking sixty
to ninety days development of the property? (Huemoeller) well we've got property that is
in it's natural state right now. If it's causing an erosion problem it's a natural problem.
(Speiker) No, but you mentioned that you've got a possibility of development within sixty
to ninety days. (Huemoeller) Sure. (Speiker) Well, could you eleviate the concern of the
?ublic in regards to a duplex, or double bungalow, or whatever is being put on the property?
(Huemooller) To my knowledge the people that are looking at buying it are single family
stick builders. They huild free standing single family residences. (Speiker) okay. (Huemoeller)
lliey are qualified builders in the town of Prior Lake. (Speiker) Are there any other comments
from the public? (Huemoeller) I am not certifying or warranting that this property is going
to be sold I just know that there has been offers made on the property and we can't accept then
until the platting process is finished. My name is Ray Callaway I live directly across Pixie
Pointe Road from this property and like Mr. Buckeye I am concerned about what is going to be
built there. This Planning Commission, over our objection allowed this duplex to be built
where we have single family dwellings and ruined the neighborhood. I don't want that across
Pixie Point Road from me, the same damn thing I want some insurance that this is not going to
be done. (Speiker) Do you have anything else sir? (Callaway) No that's all. (Speiker) Thank
you. Yes Ma'am. I am Mrs. Donald Johnson and first of all I would like to say that he says
(Mr. Huemoeller) that they will be for sale and that there will be single family dwelling
homes on here. I don't have it down in writing or anything but I have heard from a relative
of Mr. Fellon's that he is planning on selling two and keeping one lot for himself. We also,
like we said two years ago came and I happen to live next door to Mr. Fellon and at that time
we asked for this not to go through and in that double home two single homes there is one
plumbing line into that house and your talking about only two sewer lines right now and you
are sure that the third one will be in $ I personally called the Engineer out and everybody
from the State, not the State but Horst has been out to my house since that house was built.
It was built completly different, nothing like the blue prints that you seen here. It
was supposed to be an all brick front, there was supposed to be a flat roof, it is nine feet
higher. We were at one time planning to put in solar heating to our house I would like for
you to come out and see, there is no way this can be done. one more thing I would like to
say and that is Pixie Point is a circle it is not a through street. There is alot of older
lots in there that are only So' wide on the roadside and there is alot of them that are very
hilly on the lakeside and alot of them that don't have garages or have their garages right
next to the road. The average home in there has three cars right now. Mr. has three`''.
cars and plus his son runs a business out of his home with a big truck, a trailer which I am
sure is against the law but we haven't complained. With cars and a van and a big trailer
outside of that house, I have two cars myself, most of these people all have two cars. The
road when it was black topped if we could have had it wide enough like we asked foi but it
was done to save somebody's front yard tree, a school bus will not go through. Now you can't
tell me that that is a wide enough road when our children have to go up to 150th street.
There is land on the other side of the circle owned by and he is just waiting
for a subdivision on this property and you will see it, another subdivision within two months.;
We asked and then when it went through and we watched it being built up and then you sit here
and say R -1. I heard that two years ago. When you sit here he has to have a special meeting,'."
of course he does we know that, we have been to many of those. I really do think that if yod'`;:
people would come out on a Saturday or even early in the morning before people go to work and
drive through that circle there is no way that two cars coming can get through with the parked':
cars. I have nothing against a subdivision if these homes were going to be built on 150th
Street but definitely not on Pixie Point Circle. It just isn't, we have small children, the
cars are parked there now, I think it is very unfair and I am definitely against two homes
being built there. I really think that before you do, you should come out see the traffic
before you grant a subdivision. Thank you. (Speiker) Thank you. Charles? (Tooker) I think
to clear up one of the problems here is that the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordi-
ante that we are working with in Prior Lake indicates that single family dwellings be zoned
for 10,000 square foot lots and two family dwellings require 15,000 square feet. Each of then
lots is smaller than 15,000 square feet so that if you are really concerned about two family
dwellings probahly it would Le better to _rcate the three lots than to leave two because
in audi (Mrs. Johnson) One siugle family dwelling can be two separate homes
with a zero variance yet he was granted and that is what he built. It has nothing to do
with that, we tried to stop it but the Planning Commission went right over our heads with
that. (Speiker) Well as you all know, or I hope you all know, I did not sit on the Planning
Commission at that time, however, I. Charles and Don Busse are familiar with configurents
that you are talking about, you are right that the two separate and distinct lots SO' fronta,
I believe. The request was made for a zero setback variance so the two homes could be built
with a common wall. (Mrs. .Johnson) But there is only one plumbing going in there. (Speiker)
We are still talking about lot size and the reason that that's why that occurred. The
thinking of the Planning Commission at that time as I understand it was that it would have
been in more desires to the community to have the zero setback rather than sitting ten feet
apart as two separate free standing units. Whether that was true or false, the hind site is
20/20. (Mrs. Jnbnson) Have you been out there': (Speiker) Well Mrs. Johnson, I have life
long friends iu that neighborhood and I am out there frequently, I am very familiar with
the parcel in question. Yes Sir. I am Don .Johnson, Lot 14, First Addition to Eastwood and
am glad that you are very familiar with the area. Charles, I would like to correct you. In
Prior Lake it does not take a conditional use permit to build a duplex. We proved that two
years ago, we came down here in force trying to prevent the building of that duplex and I
would like, in all honesty, that talking with the City Council or the Planning Commission
was alot like wetting your pants with a dark suit on; you get a warm feeling but nobody
notices. In this particular case we have some extenuating circumstances and I hope you all
realize this. First of all, after Don Fellon built he gave the people that owned the lake
shore in front of his property 10 days v< remove their boats, their docks and everything elsi
They had no alternative but to file suit against Don Fellon to maintain this property
that many people had owned for twenty years. The case went to District Court, the Court
ruling is right here from Judge Mitchell, the people won, hands down. The secondary point
was for Don Fellon to try to make some alternative agreement with the people. In making
the agreement with the people, and I would like to quote, in the letter from our Attorney:
Tim Dweyer of Kelly, Torelson and Neal. Statement five states that "it should be noted
that Mr. Fellon has purchased the Tract "A" property on the bottom of the enclosed exhibit
and was anticipating granting an additional easement to the homeowners of that Tract."
By him making that statement and by him trying to subdivide that land he is trying to
compound the threat that he made to the people while they were trying to make a settlement
prior to this going to Supreme Court. You have to realize that most people out here, like
myself have moved out and lived out here and enjoyed life and have never first of all
been to District Court to fight for land that they bought, paid for and owned. Now they
have to go to court and fight for that land, they did and they won it. He threatened, his
threat failed. The third thing that I would like to bring up is a brief to the Minnesota'
Supreme Court, right now this case is pending on the docket of the Minnesota Supreme Court,
Don Fellon has attested the people winning that case. I would suggest very strongly
first of all that this case should not be considered until the Supreme Court ruling is
completely through, secondary in leiu of the fact that we came down the last time that this
came on the ageada, Mr. Fellon did not show up. At 3:00 P.M. this afternoon I called the
City Council, or the City Hall and checked and they said yes this is on the agenda for to-
night. Again we came down and it's really not, we're just talking about it. I would suggest
strongly that number one, the subdivision is completely disbanned. Number two, if that is
not accepted that it is completely disbanned until the Supreme Court ruling is through.
Thank you. (Speiker) Thank you Mr. Johnson. (Johnson) Excuse me, one more point, our
Attorney, Tim Dweyer has a letter on record to Mike McGuire stating the facts that this is
right now in the hands of the Minnesota Supreme Court, that it does include this tract and
that he suggests and adds that this awaits the decision of the Supreme before decision
is made. (Busse) Do you know when Mr. McGuire is going to recieve that letter? (Johnson)
lie should already have recieved it, it was mailed out at the time when this first came 07
the agenda. If need be I can get another copy of the leter for you. (Tooker) There is n3
one in the file right now. (Johnson) I can obtain another copy of that letter for you.. As
G_
matter of fact the night of the first 'searing I brought down a copy of that letter in
case one was lost because we seem to have some kind of a history of losing documents within
the City. (Speiker) Do you have anything else Mr. .Johnson? (Johnson) No, that's it. (Speiker)
Thank you Mr. ,Johnson and I have no intention of making a rebutal to any of your comments.
Personally I think out of common courtesy you would forego any labasting of the present
Commission until it acts. It acts only as a recommendation or a recommended body to the
Cit Council we are not the approving authority on any subdivision. Past history would
indicate that recommendation from the Planning Commission is well received by the Council
but that need not be the case. I make no apologies for Mr. Fellon for not being present at
the first Public Hearing as I think most of you realize. We should parlimentary and to be
fair address ourselves distinctly and specifically to the issue at hand and if there is
the ramifications from a judicial action pending effecting this specific property then it
should be discussed. I would like to think that this subdivision will stand or fail upon
it's own merits. It would be my own personal desire that personality, whether deserve it
or not not be come a part of this particular subdivision. What has happened in the past
unfortunately cannot be rectified in some cases. Any other comments from the public?
Hearing no other comments from the public -- (Huemoeller) Jim, do you want me to say a few
words in regards (Speiker) Do you have any comments in regards to the questions that have
been proposed? (Mr Johnson) I would like to draw attention to one fact that is to the best
of my knowledge, the land in question is owned in joint ownership with Don Benson and Don
Fellon. I believe that the attorney representing Don Fellon is also the attorney for the
Watershed and the spokesman for the Watershed is Don Benson. It would seem to me that there
is kind of a triangle intermitent with this entire thing. (Speiker) Yes Sir. (Huemoeller)
I will take the last thing first, he is right I am the attorney for the Watershed Board and
there probably is a conflict if it came down to the question whether or not we would have
to take action against Don Fellon and of course I would be disqualified because I represent
both parties. Our Engineer does not do work for Don Fellon and I guess that before we did
anything we would have to look at his recommendation. As far as the way the land in question
is owned it is being purchased on a contract for deed from Don Benson. To some extent they
both have an interest in this plat or in the subdivision since they would both have to sign
the hardshell. I suppose in a common (in audibl that would be considered joint ownership
but legally it is not. I guess legally the owner of the property is Don Fellon so long as
he complies with all the provisions of the contract for deed. The question raised about the
fact that Don Fellon could sell two lots and keep one for himself, its true, he could. As
it is right now, he could keep two and build what ever he wanted. You have to keep in mind
that what the effect of this subdivision is to change two lots into three and I believe that
Mr. Tooker brought up the fact the lot sizes right now are such that presumably you could
build a multiple family dwelling on the lot although I don't think that is planned the plan
is to build single family residences. There is an appeal of -:he District Court decision
in the easement matter pending for the Supreme Court right now. As I understand it, and I
am not totally positive because I am not totally positive because I am not involved in that
but the case will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall session. The question that is in
volved in that is to the extent, as I understand it the question before the courts is the
extent of the easement rights that these pecple have to get to and from the lake, what that
includes and what it doesn't. (Johnson) I would correct you on that the extent is pending
before the Supreme Court also the Donald Fellon seems to own Tract " A " going down to the
lake he seems to have sole authority to grant easement rights to whoever he sees fit to
and if he could subdivide that into eighteen lots he could then grant eighteen easements
coming down to the lake and that is the main threat to the people to consider his alternative"
is that he would subdivide it under his. He would subdivide Tract "A" $ "B ". (Huemoeller)
I don't understand what you mean. (Johnson) He would subdivide Tract " A " and "B" for more
people to have lake access than what was originally scheduled. (Huemoeller) Oh I see, you
mean by subdividing you would get three rights instead of two. As I understand it, both
Tract "A" and Tract "B" do have easement rights right now and if I understand this Court
order right it says that the easement cannot be expanded, is that right? So the District
Court ruled that the easement is big enough with enough use and I guess at this point I am
not sure exactly what would happen if the Supreme Court were to overturn that decision
as far ns easement rights with respect to these lots. As far as the pure question of sub-
division i am not sure that the easement question is involved in that to the extent of th
land use. if Don l'cllou has a court order that prohibits further expansion of the easemen,
rights and he then subdivides two lots into three and then attempts to convey easement
rights in violation of that court order, he is in contempt of court and he will either pay
a fine or spend time in jail one or the other or maybe both, Whether or not he trys to
convey extra easement rights i am not sure if it has a hearing on land use. At the least
it could mean that he has three tots only two of which have easement rights. He has got
several options with respect to these easements, he can convey the land without an ease-
ment thereby terminating any easements that these properties would have, he could try to
, convey three easements in which event he may very well be in violation of the court order
so, I guess that the point of it is the mere fact of subdividing doesn't necessarily mean
that there is going to be three easements that's I think a matter between Don Fellon and
the District Court or the Supreme Court, what ever they rule on it and I am certain that
these people are going to keep very close tabs on what Don Fellon does with his easement
rights. They spend clot of money and they have taken alot of time so far and I have every
reason to believe they are going to continue to do so. It was mentioned that the area is
crowded I think that it probably is although you have two lots now, both of those lots could
dump its traffic out onto Pixie Point Road. With this set up right here you will still have
two lots that will dump traffic onto Pixie Point Road although I think that it certainly
could be specified that a.v driveway or any traffic from the corner lot could go out onto
150th Street and as I understand it that is the plan right now. The one sewer line to the
double I don't know how that applies here other than the fact that it handles the sewage.
I don't see what the problem is, when you have a town house project for example, you may
have several units, maybe more than two that are served by one primary _ine or two primary
lines so I don't necessarily think that is a problem as long as the capacity of the line
is built to handle it. The question on the Planning Commission assurance that there won'
be a duplex or multiple dwelling built there, for practical matter I don't know what you
could give that right now, I suppose you could but it seems to me - what is permitted use
for R -1 is a duplex a permitted use? (Tooker) No a duplex is a conditional use. (Johnson)
Could you give me the definition of a duplex? (Huemoeller) What I am thinking of as a duplex
is a multiple family dwelling built on one lot. That would require a conditional use at
worst, maybe a variance at the minimum for sure these people would get notice and get an
opportunity to express their concerns about crowding the neighborhood. As far as a zero
set back building, I guess that there is no assurance that this couldn't be done right now
I don't see where making two lots into three would materially increase that possibility
or materially change the situation here at all. As far as building design, as soon as the
subdivision is approved, the City has some fairly specific requirement that they must follow;
continuity of set back, the continuity of design, the general continuity with the neighbor-
hood and regardless what has been done in the past I feel confident that the lesson has
been learned and there will be a tight ship rum so I would think that if there is any
material variance from normal building construction or acceptable design in the neighborhood
I would think that would be picked up at the building permit stage and there will either
be a Planning Commission or a Council Hearing to approve any proposed building permits. we
talked about several things at the preliminary meeting that we had that haven't been talked
about tonight, one of which is the general lay of the land and I think specifically Jim, we
provided topographical data on your map to assist you in analyzing that. Just a couple of
other things that have to do with the topography of the lot since you raised your eoncerns
about the steepness of the lot and a question as to whether or not they were buildable. I
have consulted with Valley Engineering and I also talked to two what you call basement guys,
are they masons, and I also checked the bids that were given for the house plans that were
bid out for those lots and the figures, which I think are in the neighborhood of $6500 for
each one of the basements we had the guy go back out and look at the lots again and Cher
his bid. He was confident that he could build the basements for that figure. I didn't 't7 ink'i
and Fellon didn't think and the mason didn't think that those figures were unreasonable and
that the required substantial amount of excavation and reworking of the lot to get the job
done proporly. Ile did mention th.it it would Luke Some extra fill in the front :end the:'c
�,oulQ h :I to I a bcct a we can determine the economics were accept -
.1hIC. 1 I �uess that I h a
hive looked t three sources for construction costs and each one
is cro tiUd checked and I guess I have given Don Fellon as the owner of the property ample
opportunity to access the cost aixl determine if the budget is right and he feels that it
is. Ile is the guy that would take it on the car if he were to develop the lot and pa un
unreasonably high development cost he feels that this is within reason. I guess that 1
would have to answer your question as to whether these lots are buildable as saying yes,
they are. They are huildablc from the economic stand point. (Speiker) Anything else Bryce?
m
(Hueoeller) .No unless you have some questions. (Speiker) Alright. (unknown) I have one
qucstio,i, if you have gotten bids on the basements you must know what type of homes are
going in there (Huemoeller) in audible (unknown} then why can't you tell us whether
it is going to be double homes or not. (Huemoeller) The ones that we got bids for are for
single family . iomes. (Speiker) Thank. you Bryce. Do you have anything Don? (Busse) No.
(Speiker) Getting back to the staff recommendation and a couple of other items that should
he address. One is lot three of the proposed subdivision is 100' roughly fronting on Pixie
Point Circle, the recommendation is that that be increased to a minimum of 120'. Is there
any reason why the developer would not agree with that? It would be 20' addition feet on
lot three. (Huemoeller) No it is not a problem. (Speiker) The question of access to Don
Benson home is that presenting a problem to the developer? (Huemoeller) The contract pro-
vides that when construction starts on these lots they will assist Don Benson in relocating
his driveway so that has already been taken care of$ provided for in the contract for deed.
(Speiker) The fact that the proposed three lots would be serviced by two stubs off the
sewer -- (Huemoeller) We were under the impression that there were four. (Speiker) Well
the Engineer indicates that there are two. (Huemoeller) That's what I found out.
He will have to pay the cost of stubbing in an additional line. (Busse) I see that staff
recommends that they jack the line in rather than tear up the street. (Huemoeller) What does
jack the line in mean? (Busse) In other words they push it in under the street rather than
dig up the whole street. (Huemoeller) Is that expensive? (Busse) Yes. (Huemoeller) Well,
where are the stubs, is it on there? (Busse) I think that he recommends that you jack it
in underneath the roadway to the manhole. Jacking runs about $100 per fait. What distance
he is talking about to the manhole I don't know. (Speiker) I guess that it is the Engineers
opinion that three lots cannot be serviced off of two stubs without an easement going across
one of the other two lots if you'r going to bring it off common. That is the reason that he
is recommending that it be put in. The developer would have no problem with that? (Huemoeller
Well I guess that my preference would be, if I had a choice between a common sewer line and
the cost of a new stub I would put in a new stub. (Speiker) Okay. The question of bails or
erosion problem the developer is aware that a bond will have to be posted as far as erosion
is concerned. Traffic problem; access to lot three the developer proposes that it will be
gained off of where? (Huemoeller) Off of 150th Street. (Speiker) Lot three, that is the
corner lot? (Tooker) Yes. (Huemoeller) Ya, it would have to come off of 150th street I think
that is the plan at least the one that Don gave me. The houses that he is looking would come
off of 150th Street now I don't know what another contractor would do but that's what is
planned. (Speiker) Okay ar.l the proposal, I think those are pretty much to question!
that staff had recommended. I have questioned this as R -1, zoned single family your request-
ing a subdivision of three lots, is there any reason why the developer at this time would not
make the subdivision condition upon building of single family dwellings? The previous case
that has been mentioned frequently this evening was based upon narrow lots of 50 foot to two
relatively narrow lots and that aledgedly gave enough extinuation that a zero set back
would be fit on one property line. Here you are looking at 122' 125' and 100' even if you
would shift lot three you would still have in excess of 100' on every lot of frontage. There
would be no reason, if they are buildable lots for the developer not to stipulate that he
is going to build single family, is there? (Huemoeller) I don't think so. (Speiker) Would the
developer be willing to make that stipulation as part of the subdivision? (Huemoeller) I am
sure that he would. Everything that I know about this indicates that he would. Do you want
me to confirm that by letter, in writing? (Speiker) I am in an awkward position because we
cannot act upon this tonight nor can we lay it over, but first of all I do not think not
audible - this proposal will fly unless a number of changes are made. My personal concer.
, I
YOU 1 —oli'c me that all three lots .1c huildahle. all three lots according to the rendering
as irk in vsces5 of lu.nnu square feet, etc. I hove got just one other question
that 1 would like in the minutes :md this is a side issue. The pending legal action, is `
that significant in regards to this subdivision? (Iuemoeller) 'These people, because it
effects the extent of their use. if you add the materials changed, the number of lots
that are going to he used in that casement you just crowd your use up. To that extent
it is significant hot 1 guess Tile mere question of sacrificing to three doesn't number
one automatically mean that he is going to try and extend the use and it doesn't mean that
he can extend if he is under a court order restricting the use to a certain level of a
certain number of lots benefiting from the easement. I guess if you approve this subdivision
and a court order says that he's got three he had two he can only give easements for two and
he in spite of that goes ahead and gives three, I guess that the strongest lever that there
is prohibiting him from filing the order is the court itself they have alot more leverage
than you do. Li.kc l said, either jail time or a fine or both. (Speiker) Well my question
is specifically in regards to this subdivision, are you at all concerned that with pending
legal action the title of the property is going to be clouted. (Huemoeller) The title to
this property is not clouted by the law suit. The only reason that these properties are
even involved is that included in the conveyance of this property is the right to use the
easements that these people are talking about. The law suit doesn't specifically affect
th land other than the fact that it benefits from the easement. I guess from what I
know of the facts, I can give a title opinion of these properties and say that the title
is clear and unimcumbered, not effected by a law suit other than the fact that the extent
of their easement rights will be determined by the Supreme Court. (Speiker) Are there any
other questions from the public or staff or representative from the Council. Yes ma'am,
please identify yourself. My name is Edna Poquette we don't live on Pixie Point Road but
I am wondering about what is going to be happening with all of the water that is going
to be running off. Right now we have a river going down our road because it runs down
and that storm sewer is always filled with sand and trees and everything and it just does
not take care of it. So now this is going to shove off some more places for the water
to go. We live on 150th Street and the Hall's live next to us. The water runs through
Halls and through the lot that is vacant next to us and then down onto our property and
we have the sewer down there and there is an awful lot of water running into that sewer
it is running right down into the lake. Half of the time that bell is ringing up on
the road because that sewer is getting filled up and the pump doesn't work and we have
had to have the pumpers come and it is our responsibility to keep watching that light
because no one else watches it. I just wonder what is going to happen with the water.
(Speiker) I am not in a position,I am not an engineer and I can distinctly answer that
question however, that is a bonified question as far as further run off. (Huemoeller)
In regard to the run off you have two lots here already and if you build houses on both
of those lots you are still going to change the lay of the land and if you have large lawns
and fairly large houses which you could have with those large lots I am not sure with leaving
as is verses putting into three lots will make a whole lot of difference for that particular_
question. (Speiker) Any other comments? Yes. (unknown) Weren't those lots, when sewer
and water went in, weren't they deferred because they were unbuildable lots
(Huemoeller they could have been at that particular time (unknown)
because they were unbuildable and I am sure that Don Benson did not
.(Huemoeller) On record at a council meeting down here they were to be
deferred because they were unbuildable lots as a matter of fact it was Tom Watkins that
made the comment at that time. (Busse) I will say that the Council made a decision on it
for deferring the sewer cost on it not because they were unbuildable because they were Out
Lots "A" and "B ". (Speiker) The ultimate deferral of those assessments will be addressed.
Are there any other comments? Alright. My feeling that this Public Hearing will be contin-
ued until 7:30 P.M. on July 19th, I am not at liberty to close discussion at that time be-
cause other commission members may have questions and therefore the public will be invite
to come back as well as the developer but it is my desire that it not be a lengthy discusYon'`.
because all meaningful items should have been discussed at this meeting tonight. It is also
my recommendation that on July 19th the new rendering be proposed to comply with the recom-
mendation from engineering and the recommendation from the commission made specifically on
lot si:c, traffic flow, that access be posted on the rendering, the increase on lot three
as staff has recommended and a road approach off of 150th street which the developer in-
dicates that he i, going to propose. It would be my hope that the City Engineer can draw
upon what ever assets are necessary to answer the water run off question both on 150th
Street and in regards to the lake. I won't make this part of the recommendation but it will
be my hope that the developer will also make his subdivision contingent upon development
of single family dwellings only. (Huemoeller) Flow do you want that done? (Speiker) Well,
act to that stipulation if a motion were to be made to that effect. The developer, or clear
it with the developer prior to that time. I also ask staff if we could perhaps address a
letter to City Manager anv other legal questions in regards to this property so we can speak
intelligently on it at that time then we can get clarification on legal questions of ease-
ment and if that effects the subdivision. Also I think that we need to finalize two stubs
verses three or whatever. Upon the agreement by the developer that the three lots are or
parcels are subdivided into three that they will not, that the developer will pay the cost
of jacking into the main. (Huemoeller) If that is what he has to do then that's what he has
to do. (Speiker) Clearly the action of the Planning Commission tonight is moved, there is
not a quorum and we cannot vote on this issue so it will be address at 7:30 P.M. on July
19th, and acted upon at that time. The adjoining property owners will not receive additional
notice of the continuance because this is a continuance and not a re- scheduling of a Public
Hearing. Any comments or questions? Yes Sir. (Johnson) At the time of the next hearing
will the comments that have been brought up at the last two sessions be brought up at that
time? Should we not take off work to come down here? (Speiker) Frankly Mr. Johnson, as a
concerned citizen I realize that this is an inconvenience for all of you to come down here.
But in your own interest I would recommend that you be here on July 19th. (Johnson) The reason
that I am asking is because when this thing first started, when Don Fellon first started
building the double home which I still haven't gotten Charles's definition of a duplex -vs-
a double home but when we first started this at that time we came down with a petition of
all the property owners in that area that were against the multiple dwelling. That was not
brought up at the public hearing until we requested it, and that is why I am wondering if
we all have to be back down here, I guess that you are saying that we should all be back
down here to protect our own interest, is that right? (Speiker) There are four other Com-
mission members and I hope they will be present at that time and they may have questions
and you may have comments to make to them. Clearly the impact of personal testimony is
much stronger than any minutes can reflect and I would recommend that if you feel strongly
about this subdivision that you be present on the 19th. I personally apologize to you as I
have earlier that we do not have a quorum and cannot act on this tonight. You should not
be concerned with that because actually the Planning Commission is advisory only in nature
and is not legally binding upon decisions. What I mean to say is whether you win or lose
at the Planning Commission, the City Council is going to review the matter. Any other com-
ments or questions? Hearing none, this Public Hearing is continued until July 19th at
7:30 P.M. Thank you for coming.
Call to order a Public Hearing on G $ E Industrial park, scheduled at 8:15. Is the appli-
cant present? Mr. Grendahl, the procedure that we follow at this Public Hearing under nor-
mal circumstances would be that the applicant would make his presentation, staff makes it
continents and recommendations and we call for public testimony. Commission members and
representative from the Council make comments, questions, whatever, and then we act upon
the matter at hand. However, clearly with one Commission member present we do not have a
quorum this evening and rather than go through lengthy apologies we will conduct a public
hearing, copious notes will be taken by the secretary, the matter will be continued until
July 19th at which time final action on'.the Planning Commission's part will take place. Is
that agreeable to the applicant? (Grendahl) I guess I don't have any other choice, (Speiker),;'
Well I am aware that you and other members are concerned with this subdivision have been
called out of the barn many times and we still haven't acted on it. Hopefully we can move
along this evening. Do you have any opening comments or proposal to make? (Grendahl) First
of all I hope you will accept my apology for not being here the last time, it was just a
matter of an oversite on our part we didn't mean to offend you people or whatever, we just
_11_
compI(teIc forgot about it and complctL missed it. Ano this is the _
of the Industrial Parl.. Appro v matrt: 1 believe that we have 12 approximately 1 acres lots
in here. Our I,uiIdin right no,. is presently located right here, we own this lot both to
right here and another one right here has buildings on it right now, this one right here had
been sold. It doesn't show on the plan here but there is, when we sold this we left pro -
visions for a road casement going across here for future connecting with residents r ight here
but that is in the sale to whoever bought it(not audible) but there is a building _right there
(Busse)On what lot is that? (Grendahl) Lot one. (Tooker) It would he on the north side of one?
(Grendahl) Yes. it doesn't show up here, I don't know why it wasn't drawn in here but the
lot is sold and there is a road easement on the contract. (Tooker) How wide is that, do
you know? (Grendahl) Thirty feet. hopefully the same thing will happen on the next lot.
( Busse) On lot two' (Grendahl) Yes, on lot two. I guess that there was an objection before
with this ,cater, but hopefully that has been resolved as far as taking care of the water
with the sewer clown thin here. The only concern I guess that we have as developers is
basically we are riot in the development business, we are in the mechanical business, now
that is that the project doesn't get so costly that it is no longer feasible. This sewer
here is about $50,000.00 for the storm drain. (Busse) Where will that start ? (Grendahl)
It will start right here at the low point, right here and it will spill out into the lake
I don't know what the traffic will bare, but I can see that if alot of things are added
into it that nobody will come in here and buy an acre or what have you, and still have an
acre for amount. The further along I get into the project when you start adding
up the dollars, this right here we priced it out ourselves we thought of getting the property
and moving our mechanical business,run this in, and with the manhole there it would be about;
$50/60 thousand dollars. Otherwise it is basically, with this particular area I think it
is going to lend itself to our type of operation not a big manufacturing plant that takes
alot of water and sewer. There are alot of businesses around that will be able to move
{ into here, we have had interest now from Scott County Mosquito Control, which is located
now presently in Jordan. Ile are negotiating with them right now they want this lot right
here, they find that being up there in Jordan they have spent alot of time and gas and
they are not in the central area of Scott County and they would like to get there. They
employ 25 people and we are in the process of negotiating with them right now. (Speiker)
Thank you Gerry. Charles. (Tooker) The entire plat contains 13g acres it is zoned 1 -2
light industrial, it is situated in the center of an industrial area. There are comments
regarding single access between lots one and two, the comments that staff has made are that
there should be some access to the adjoining properties to the east. There is tentptive
easement shown between the second lot to the west draining to the east slope and may not
be of actually any real value. The property to the north east, Mr. Schweich has indicated
that he is interested in providing access- offered in this plat and
to dedicate the right of way necessary for a 60' easement. The drainage problem encountered,:
in the The major comment that staff has on the sub
division layout is the three lots that actually run into Markley Lake. The water feeding
into Markley out here. All of lot three actually is divided deeply between
standing water and steep slopes across all of lot 3. - Lot 1 is divided by the sewer force
the actual level lot for development, and making only one lot taking the place
of the three. The proposal is for developing without sewer and water services. Staff is
reluctent to see that happen based on the work that has been developed in the comprehensive
plan; regarding residential development; platting and extending services in a gradual manner'
however, it is the area that the plan indicates shall be developed for industry, there is
very little industry that has indicated an interest in prior Lake and staff feel that the
plat could be improved on the contingency that sewer and water does become available and than
these utilities are extended into the plat. Staff feels that this should be sometime within
a five year range that sewer and water will be available. Also along that line is concern
that the type of industry that is accepted into the plat be such that it will require very
little water usage, in other words so far it has been . The staff dd(
recommend approval of the plat with those contingencies. (Speiker) Thank you Charles.
anyone from the public have any comments or questions on fie proposed subdivision? (Speiker).`
Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Carlson you were scHeduled at 9:00 for a variance request, as
you can see we do not have a quorum here to conduct a hearing. (Carlson) I would just as 500
- I' -
F-- go over it tonight and have them give the staff report. (Speiker) Alright fine. Thank
1'ou. Are there any comments from the public in regards to easements that are reflected;
traffic pattern; the water situation; or what have you'.. (Ray ?) I am just wondering
where is the easement for the east going? Is it going between lot 1 and 2 or is it going
down a ?. (Grendahl) It will be a one way. (Busse) You better have the developer
show you where he's got it. (Grendahl) Well basically we have got it, a half a one so far,
but it is not shown on the plat here, I don't know why. (Speiker) 30' to the North on the
end of lot 1, block A, that's what you have presently, right? (Grendahl) Yes, but I mean
the problem we end up getting into here is that When the numbers are all
added up we find that we have a sewer going right across here but actually it goes across
two lots. It could possibly be like Now we just mentioned that this is
going into a one lot and now we have a full easement here and this storm cost is $60,000.00
but 1 don't know who I could intice to come out and buy the remaining four lots, maybe,....
so, more concern about this and if I show a lack of enthusiasm, I keep thinking of these
things in the back of my mind. After you get dorms with the cost of the road, the storm
sewer which I said is 60,000.00 from here to t'.iere and now we're down to one lot, and we
have a sewer easement here which cuts across two lots and now were thinking of another
full road closer to here and I am sure that there is a park dedication coming up someplace
along the line, you begin to wonder. (Speiker) Well the easement, that question was really
answered one year ago, there was going to be an easement to the east. (Grendahl) Yes, but I
guess it was originally up and then it got split back here, as a matter of fact, we wanted
to sell this lot and make sure we would not lose control of it which we have anyway and we
would be more than happy to do that. (Speiker) Take the 30' off of lot 2 (Tooker) I think
it is more useful on this side. (Grendahl) Oh I agree, you mean here. (Tooker) Yes, on the
other side you show another one... (Grendahl') Yes, there is another road easement here.
(Tooker) L.don't think that is worth a nickel because it doesn't go anywhere. (Grendahl)Ya.
(Ray) That is suppose to have been on the old sewer easement that's why we put it on there,
-�' so we wouldn't have to use those four easements. That was the idea of that. Now if we
move or shift it that would be more (Grendahl) Well originally when the
thing was bought we anticipated that, that's where this thing here was and the records were
wrong. As a matter of fact it showed it this way before. But the only thing I guess that I
can really do,..... it would be nice to be able to get some activity going and we have had
alot of interest, alot of people have inquired but I keep repeating just so we don't get to
a point where we have to ask $50,000 per acre. I don't think that there is anybody that
would want it then. My thought is that possibly we can make this a city project, that is
something else that could be.... I don't know if the Council would use this as a City project'-
but it is my understanding that the city is pretty booked up and I don't know if it can be
delayed. (Busse) You would have problems getting into this years projects. (Grendahl) Right.'f'
Like I say, Scott County M squito Control people, their lease is up in Jordan the first of
the year. (Busse)so you' Nting caught two ways aren't you. (Speiker) Anything else?
Okay, we really have to a dress that easement question and I think we have to take a look at
lot three, lots 1,2 and 3. Staff has recommended that lot 1,2, and 3 be made into one lot.
I realize that on the exception there is a standing building and that property has been sold..:4
(Grendahl) Right here? (Speiker) Yes. (Grendahl) Yes, that has been sold. (Speiker) I have
to agree with staff that the 60' easement going between the exception lot 1, is inconsequen-
tial, in the future it may be, but it would be nice if that also ran over the sewer easement.':
Lot 1, in block 3 I don't know how you could build anything on there, you have a sewer going
right through the middle of the lot. That is no good for building without seeing the top of
the sewer. (Grendahl) Right, I mean you can see the problem. I don't know if Ray would be
for moving it over. He probably would (Ray) Well if I had to change the easement in the prop -''
erty with the building there so that it isn't really straight down there is it. It's sharp
.n the back all the way across but it isn't exceptionally steep is it? (Speiker) Where are tae
talking about? (Ray) We are talking about going to the West in front of the existing building' <:
there. (Speiker) The swimming Pool? (Ray) Yes. (Speiker) Right (Ray) and to the north side..
of that is where the easement is, am I right? (Speiker) kight. (Grendahl) Well that isn't
such an exceptionally steep bank over the edge there is it. (Speiker) No, I wasn't commenting
on the grade. Just that an easement going through at that location doesn't help lot one at
-13-
ail as far as the developer is concerned. (Tooker) I think the steep slope gets off of
the parcel when you get out there and your on flat land but then you have to really come
back to stay on say industrial land. It becomes the same kind of slope that we are
talking about in lots two and three here. (Speiker) The easement itself is level. It's much
better where it is than if you moved it North another 100' (Grendahl) Well that's what I
thought. (Speikerl I am just thinking it would be much nicer planning wise, instead of taking
up alot of ...... you've got alot of easements going across there making the two together.
But that is neither here nor there. I do think we have to address the easement going to the
East. (Grendahl) Lets get back to this, I think that this is going to be abandoned shortly.
The overflow but that could be discontinued completely. (Tooker) Is
that the one that goes to Credit River'. (Grendahl) Right. This is the overflow and I don't
even think it is being used anymore so there is probably an easement that can be just abandoned
It is no longer being used. (Tooker) I never thought of that, it's a good point. (Grendahl)
So it is just a case of getting this on the record really. (Speiker) Well even without
that easement, that sewer easement staff still recommends because of topographical limitationsll
that 1,2 and 3 be consolidated into one lot. Block 3. (Grendahl) Well ..... (Speiker) How do
you feel, I realize the economics of this. (Grendahl) I don't think it necessarily excites
us because there is quite a bit as far as the burm goes there, but I don't think that would
stop us if the numbers will come up. (Speiker) Okay. Do you have anything else Charles?
(Tooker) No. (Speiker) Any other comments from the public? Don do you have any other comments ?.
(Busse) No. (Speiker) Okay, I think that you could take a look at the consolidation of those
lot, and also we must see a rendering with the easement to the east. That has been consis-
tent throughout the whole planning process. (Grendahl) You mean right here. (Speiker) Yes.
Either there, or originally I thought we talked about between five and six on block four,
but that was the earlier proposal. (Grendahl) Okay, but I guess before we do that I am
just questioning, just to keep ourselves protected, but as far as Ray, why can't it be ser-
viced from over here. My understanding is -the only reason I get concerned about this is be-
cause everytime we do this, it just doesn't come out and it may be a situation that this
we have a road easement here and a road easement here and we have ti)e road easement balanc-
for the main road and .....(Speiker) Well for planning purposes you looking-at 1500 liner
or 1600 liner feet without a loop in fact, you looking at a 1500 or 1600 foot cul de sac. <t
For planning purposes we have not liked that we like access to the adjoining property less than
1600 feet. (Grendahl) But there is access over here. Ray's farm is right here and he does
have access over here. (Speiker) Yes but Ray has indicated it is his desire to have access -'
(Tooker) I think it would make a great deal of sense to have; regarding in terms of circula-
tion, if this one industrial area eventually rather than going out onto the County Road, you'd:
be going from parcel to parcel. It makes planning sense that the abstract would be able to
have these terms. (Grendahl) The only thing Ig uess is NSP would probably get the easement,
right there. I don't know but they don't need this acreage right here. (Speiker) Well front-
age is something that could be addressed but that is really off of your parcel. I realize
that your talking about economics but you know from the last year and a half we were talking .
about easement to the East all the time and that was a problem. Lot 2 is a very large lot
isn't it. Well no, it's not, it is not a very large lot. As far as a 30' easement on
the south side of lot 2, that would not make Lot 2 unbuildable. (Busse) But then he would
make lot 2 under one acre. (Speiker) Did he ....... (Busse) Well it's one acre now and if
you take 30' off it isn't going to be one acre. (Speiker) When I first looked at this
property I thought it was a very easy piece of property to subdivide and as you get into
it it is not that easy. (Grendahl) No it's not and I personally .... I know that all of us
that are involved in it would like to see this. We have had alot of people come out and want
to put a building up. (Speiker) The lay of the land between five and six, is there any problew!
there? I don't think your map is correct or Ron's map is correct because lot 5 is smaller
than 6 and is reflected larger in these. (Grendahl) I know, if I understand Charles right
that you want kind of a flow back in here anticipating all that's basically in here is
light industrial. I think there may be about 10 acres here and Ray's got another 10,12,oll,
acres here........ so there is quite a chunk of back there that can be plowed up
Rut it seems to us right now that we are kind of the key but the key can't get
unhooked. (Speiker) Well what we're looking at is planning and what is going to happen five
-11-
-• years from now when Mr. Barra :ind Mr. Schweich would ever go ahead with their development
how is it going to marry in with this parcel. How is it going to be. (Grendahl) I agree but
what Charles is talking about is having access here. My thinking is it would be better
off here. (Speiker) Well Charles may have mentioned that but I think our concern is an
access to the east up to this parcel whether coming between 1 and 2 or 5 and 6, whatever.
I think we're looking for an internal traffic flow whether it is north or south on the parcel..
Mr. Bang has made it clear that lie wants access for future development of his adjoining prop-
erty. For planning it just made good sense. What do you think? (Grendahl) Well there is
concern that if the city would like to help and get something, not that we're looking for
it, but you can also realize that it has to add up. (Speiker) Well the public hearing of
course is going to be continued but I can assure you that there is going to be alot of
heartburn if we do not reflect on the easement going to the east off this subdivision.
(Grendahl) Well I want to go on record that I am not against having an easement and none
of us are because we have good relationship with Bang's. (Speiker) Hearing no other comments
or questions it is my desire to continue this public hearing on G B E Industrial Park until
8:00 P.M. on July 19th at which time it will be acted upon by the Planning Commission. I
think the question that should be addressed before that time are staff's recommendation
(Do you have a copy of this Gerry? No I never received a copy. Okay, we will get you a copy
so you can specifically address those concerns.) Easements to the East, being a major concern
of mine. Also I think although you have come up with a recommendation on the storm sewer
I would like the engineer to work with the developer in the adequacy and necessity for
having that storm sewer. I don't think the Planning Commission wants to put the developer
through any additional expense. (Tooker) Was there previous discussion regarding flow across
the Pa property? (Speiker) Yes but I don't think the engineer ever addressed himself to
the necessity for a storm sewer did he? (Grendahl) Well I don't know how the storm sewer
got into the picture, I question how it did get into the picture. (Busse) I think that was
a question that Mr. Pavek brought up about water problems he had coming from that direction,
wasn't it? (Grendahl) Yes. It's probably a big concern right now how actually there is a
creek right now in it's natural flow that has been there for many years and it has been going:.;:
on for many years. But it is probably a natural concern. Probably a legitimate concern
because maybe it would'increase the flow.somewhat if we sold that upper portion and black -
topped. (Speiker) I wonder if you could talk with the City Engineer and address that problem `
if there is a need for a storm sewer and if this storm sewer is going to solve any potential
water flow problems across the Pavek property. (Grendahl) It has been addressed and I think...-
(Speiker) Larry looked into that? (Grendahl) Yes, I am sure they looked into it (Busse) I
think also you should direct staff to look into that overflow sewer line; whether it is
abandoned (Grendahl) Yes, that is a good idea. (Speiker) Charles can you pass those comments
on? (Tooker) Yes. (Speiker) Thank you very much we will continue the hearing but I don't
anticipate any lengthy discussion on July 19th.
The Ken Carlson variance reauest was called to order. Mr. Carlson do you have any opening
statements that you would like to make in regards to this variance? (Carlson) I would like
to know what the staff's recommendation was and as far as granting the variance. You do
have the letter from the property owner that joins the property to the north or to the left.
The property owner to the right, and that has a ........ I talked with him and there is no
objection on their part at all. One of the owner's is in Mas so they just could
not get a letter here for the meeting tonight, but they have no objections to moving of the
cabin forward and putting the basement in. I would like to know what the staff recommenda-
tions are because I do have a conflict on the 19th. (Speiker) Basically when you do get the
staff's recommendation usually you can't go with the planning commission. (Carlson) I do
realize thatI am fully aware of that, ' I know that the staff report does have a bearing on
the planning commission. Because I will not be here should I have somebody here in my behalf
askina for not audible (Tooker) Essentially the lot is a very long and narrow, 50'
wide by some 300 feet 50 foot zoned R -1. The frontage on the
The question, essentially is the placement of a structure that would be closer than 75 feet
of the 904 mark on Prior Lake. In essence the staff is concerned about the further intrusion
of houses onto the lake. The existing house to the north or left side is some sixty feet
from the lake. The house on the other side, however, does sit back within the 75 foot range
-15_
and the staff has really recomended that there i = stage setback similar to a front yard
setback and then the zoning ordinance has a fr. yard set backs at a certain level by _
existing structures are closer than that and setbacks may be averaged. So the staff reci
ommendation here is that the setback is moved at 68 feet at the 904 which would be not as
close as requested but the difference would be between the request and the existine lots for
either side. The principle point that the applicant should be aware of is that there is
in the zon:nq ordinance a reauirement that there be only one principle use no matter how
large a lot is. One principle use of that is there either be a new house sitting out with
some kind of setback from the lake or an existing house. There is an extra house on, is that
still the incorporated with the structure. (Carlson) No, we had originally planned'4:
on using, we have taken a permit out to bring out that other house that is out there, the
City Inspector did approve that, it was originally an office from a townhouse project and we
would use that as a guest house. And with the basement of that now,... it has been completely;yy.
abandoned, the house that was moved in is 14 x 28 and I am trying to sell it now to have it
moved out of there aeain and if I am unsuccessful in selling it we will probably put it in on
the lot as a garage. We had intended originally to use it as a guest house and that would
have made more sense to put in a basement and improve the one on the property, so it will
not be used as an adaptable house. I have no problem with that at all. (Speiker) Okay Mr.
Carlson, do you understand staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of a 68 foot set-
back and 904 elevation to the deck? According to Paragrpah 1, section 4 of the zoing ordin-
ance, 68 feet to the deck. (Carlson) That is something that I can live with that all of
Alright, based on that , with the recommendation the staff has on the
68 feet, you feel that I should be here on the 19th. (Speiker) You are saying that you have; t{Oa
objectin on what the staff has recommended? (Carlson) Right. (Speiker) I can't speak for
four people that aren't here. (Carlson) No, I know. What I mean.... (Speiker)I feel that
you will have no problem. The staff's recommendation will probably be intuitively, concured
with. When are you planning on going into construction? (Carlson) Well, you see that's my
problem. As soon as this is approved I have already talked to Werehouse movers and they c
do it right after the 15th of July, and I am getting caught between a rock and a hard wallnox,`
because I have a conflict on the 19th, I just cannot get out of, it's a board meeting that
I have to attend. But, I can probably have someone here on my behalf. (Speiker) As far as
the staff recommendtion of the 68 feet from the deck of that, that will be sufficient. That:: rA
will work. (Carlson) It does set me back just a little bit further than I would have liked' ;y
to have been, but this is agreeable. (Speiker) I want this to go ahead as rapidly as possible
and we do have a meeting scheduled for July 19th and would like to put you on the agenda,'
and intuitively, I feel that you will have no problem with the variance requesting approval,
as staff has recommended. I think that your wife, or whoever or some representative here ?
that evening and I will tentatively schedule it for 8:30 P.M. that evening of the 19th.
(Speiker) This meeting is adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. x>
NOTE: These minutes were transcribed to the best of my ability from what could be heard
from the tape recording. In the future, please request all persons to speak into
a microphone.
Thank you.
P7anhing Commission Secretary
'i4�