Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052802REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. o Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: None Public Hearings: Ao Case #02-064: Shamrock Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds North, consisting of 77.26 acres to be subdivided into 68 lots for single family dwellings and 4 outlots for future development in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH's 42 and 83, north of Wilds Parkway. Bo Case #02-065: Shamrock Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit of approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of CSAH 83, south of CSAH 42 to allow grading before approval of the preliminary plat known as The Wilds North. Case #02-059 and #02-060: Wensmann Homes is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of a mixed development consisting of 22 single family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on 34.5 acres. This property is located on the west side of CSAH 21 and north of CSAH 82. Old Business: Ao Case #02-047: Wensmann Realty is requesting a Final Planned Unit Development Plan and Final Plat for the development of 64 townhouse units on 7.17 net acres, and a Final Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be subdivided into 2 L:\O2FILES\02planning comm\02pcagenda\AG052802 DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER lots for commercial development and 67 lots for townhouses and common open space. 7. New Business: Case #02-049: Wensmann Homes is requesting a Vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements located on Lots 21-23, Block 2, Wensmann 1st Addition. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pc, agenda~AG052802.DOC PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission~t~lcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speak/rig once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS ~om YufseF~'g (il L v ~ U~ PHLIST. DOC PAGE I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Atwood called the May 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and Ringstad, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Absent Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Atwood read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. The applicant for the first two items was not present, therefore, Item C was presented first. (See page 6). A. Case #02-064: Shamrock Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds North, consisting of 77.26 acres to be subdivided into 68 lots for single family dwellings and 4 outlots for future development in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH's 42 and 83, north of Wilds Parkway. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on file in the office of the Planning Department. Shamrock Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the north side of CSAH 82, on the south side of Wilds Parkway and west of Orion Road. One of the issues with this plat is the timing of the application. The design of the plat assumes the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance reclassifying Hass Lake has been L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXmn052802.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 approved. This amendment will be considered by the City Council on June 3rd. Should the Council approve the amendment, it must be submitted to the DNR for approval. The preliminary plat cannot be approved until the DNR has approved the reclassification. Another major issue pertaining to this subdivision is the dedication of parkland. As noted earlier in the report, partial dedication may be allowed for the area around Hass Lake. Dedicating this area to the public will ensure preservation of the bluff and trees around the shoreline. A neighborhood park is also required within this area. The remainder of the parkland dedication can be satisfied by the dedication of a 3-4 acre park, located somewhere towards the center of the development. Another issue pertains to the access point on CSAH 83. Street 1 must be shifted 50' to the south so it is consistent with the County designated access. In addition, Street 1 must also provide access to the labeled "exception" on the north side of the site. The City Engineer feels analysis of the sanitary sewer is required. In addition, staff has not completed the hydrological review. These analyses may require some redesign of the utilities. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat cannot be approved until the DNR has approved the reclassification of Hass Lake. If this reclassification is not approved, the plat must be redesigned so all lots meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for a Natural Environment Lake. 2. Provide a neighborhood park within the residential portion of the development. 3. Move the rear lot lines for Lots 9-13, Block 1, further away from the Ordinary High Water Elevation for Hass Lake. 4. Move the access point for Street 1 on CSAH 83 50' to the south. 5. Provide access to the "exception" from Street 1. In addition, sewer and water services must be stubbed to this exception. 6. Provide the net lot areas for all lots that include a wetland or storm water pond. Minimum lot area is based on net lot area. 7. Change street names for Streets 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 unique to the Prior Lake street naming system. 8. Revise the landscape plan to note 4 trees are required comer lots (2 per street frontage). 9. Submit an access permit and other required permits for work in the County right-of- way with the final plat application. 10. Provide a copy of the approved Watershed District permit for this site prior to any grading. L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes~rnnO52802.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 11. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. The preliminary plat cannot proceed to the City Council until final action by the DNR on the Hass Lake reclassification. Lemke questioned approval from the Metropolitan Council for the commercial area. Kansier responded it would be through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density but it does not affect the plat. She did not anticipate any problems. Either way it could be developed commercially. Ringstad questioned if the lake designation is a formality from the DNR. Kansier said they have had many discussions with the DNR representative for the area who has been supportive. Based on the criteria from the last meeting, the City feels confident the DNR will approve the designation. Ringstad questioned if Scott County has any comments on the new streets connecting to County Road 42. McDermott responded it would be addressed with the County Road 42 redesign by the County. The County's only concern was to be consistent with the access points. Comments from the public: Applicant Jim Stanton, of Shamrock Development concurred with the Planning Report. He understood the preliminary plat would not be approved until the DNR approved the lake designation. Stanton felt confident the DNR would approve the designation. He also briefly explained the park dedication and moving the lot lines from the lake. There have been discussions on the access on County Road 83 with the County. They will redesign County Road 83 to make the sight distance better and provide a better access. Stanton explained the access problems and he will move the road wherever the County dictates. All other conditions will be met. There is no Watershed jurisdiction in the northern area. Atwood questioned Stanton why there were no trails or sidewalks. Stanton responded he "would never offer anything he doesn't have to." He went on to explain the access to the lake with a possible trail on top the berm. There is a question whether it is desirable to even have a trail by the lake. The strip of land was left with a condition by the DNR that every homeowner is not going to mow right down to the lake. Atwood questioned sidewalks. Stanton said there are sidewalks on Wilds South and get mixed feelings from residents. Kansier did not have a problem with sidewalks but some people do. There are no sidewalks on Wilds Drive. Stanton said there could be sidewalks on Street #1 and it could be an added condition. Lemke questioned the location of the park. Stanton said the easiest place would be to the west of the wetland. It would have to be graded. The access may come off the cul-de-sac and the main street. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesh-nn052802 .doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 The public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: Went out to the site and agreed with staff's recommendation. · Add sidewalk to the current street named Street # 1 as a twelfth condition. · It is a good use for the land with the park to the northwest. · Supported. Lemke: · Agreed with Ringstad. The rezoning process and lake designation is consistent with other plats. · Agreed with the condition to add a sidewalk along Street #1. · Had mixed views with a path along the lake. Access to Basin #5 is something staff can work with the developer's engineer. · Support and move forward. Atwood: · Agreed with Commissioners. · Looks forward to the development and the future development in the northwest comer. · Add 12th condition and move forward. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT PLUS A 12TM CONDITION WITH ADDED SIDEWALKS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter is anticipated to go before the City Council on June 17, 2002. B. Case #02-065: Shamrock Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit of approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of CSAH 83, south of CSAH 42 to allow grading before approval of the preliminary plat known as The Wilds North. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on file in the office of the Planning Department. Shamrock Development is proposing to grade and excavate approximately 15 acres of property located on the east side of CSAH 83, south of CSAH 42 and north of Wilds Parkway. The purpose of this grading and excavation is to prepare the land for development prior to preliminary plat approval. Section 1101.509 Grading, Filling, Land Reclamation, Excavation requires a Conditional Use Permit for excavation of more than 400 cubic yards. L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes~nnO52802.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant must submit storm water calculations, prepared in accordance with the Public Works Design Manual, for review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant must submit an updated wetland delineation report. 3. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must submit a signed statement noting that approval of this CUP and grading permit does not require that the City approve a preliminary plat as proposed, nor does the permit give the applicant a vested interest in approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed. This letter must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 4. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit from any other agency as required. Copies of the approved permit must be submitted to the City. 5. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans. 6. The clean up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 7. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways. Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source. 8. The CLIP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial approval of this CLIP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents. Ringstad questioned what would happen if the DNR did not approve Hass Lake reclassification. Stanton said they would not be grading on the far end and explained plans for a decorative waterfall on the comer of County Roads 42 and 83. There were no other comments from the public. The heating was closed at 7:57 p.m. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXmn052802.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · The staff has it right; if the City Attorney is comfortable with the letter and bond, move forward. It is an exciting development. Ringstad: · Agreed with Lemke. · Does the expansion to 25 acres have to come back before the Commissioners? Kansier said it would not. The City sent hearing notices farther than the recommended area. It is not a problem. Atwood: · Agreed - have no problems supporting. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002. A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:06 p.m. C. Case/t02-059 and//02-060: Wensmann Homes is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of a mixed development consisting of 22 single family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on 34.5 acres. This property is located on the west side of CSAH 21 and north of CSAH 82. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on file in the office of the Planning Department. Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as Jeffers South on the property located west of CSAH 21, approximately ½ mile north of CSAH 82 and directly north of Wensmann 1 ~t Addition and Regal Crest. The application includes the following requests: · Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; · Approve a Preliminary Plat. The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 81 dwelling units on 23.69 net acres, for a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development includes 22 single family dwellings and 59 townhouse units in 45, three and four-unit buildings. The development also includes parkland and private open space. L:\02 FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~nn052802 .doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted as a conditional use permit in the R-1 district, so a similar development with public streets could be done without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster development. Only Outlot F is a private street, since it provides access to 3 buildings. The other outlots could be considered shared driveways. If one of the buildings were eliminated, Outlot F would also be a shared driveway and the PUD would not be required. The other major issue pertaining to this development is the park dedication. The developer needs to provide information indicating how much of the park area will qualify for dedication credit. Also, a plan for the trail extension must be provided. Finally, access to the park on the west side of the property must be provided from Jeffers Pass. Staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. The developer must provide specific information on the parkland, detailing the area that qualifies for dedication credit. 2. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from Jeffers Pass. 3. Extend the trail from Wensmann 1st to the north edge of this development. 4. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street naming policy. 5. The landscaping plan must be revised to include 20% of the evergreen trees as oversized trees. An irrigation plan must also be provided. 6. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond and the temporary cul-de-sac located on the adjacent property. 7. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs. 8. The Traffic Impact Report must be revised to include the proper number of units. 9. Revise the plan sheets to specifically note that there is a 25' setback from the public right-of-way line required for the townhouses, and that the 30' setback is measured from both decks and porches. Also, the plan sheets must note that conventional R-1 setbacks will apply to the single family dwellings. 10. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated May 23, 2002. Ringstad and Atwood questioned who makes the determination on the parkland dedication and the requirements. Kansier explained the requirements and credits. Lemke questioned the new IBC (International Building Codes) and if it should be a condition. Kansier responded the City can not make a condition that has not been L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminuteshnm052802 .doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 adopted. It would not matter what is approved, any building has to meet the new building requirements. The building permit process will ensure compliance. Lemke also questioned if the 14 parking spots for visitors was enough. Kansier said it did meet the requirements. Ringstad questioned if there would be a problem if some of the townhomes were built under the current code and some under future codes. Kansier said if there had to be a new design the applicant would have to come back before the Commissioners for an Amendment to the PUD. Comments from the public: Applicant Terry Wensmann from Wensmalm Homes said the development would be similar to Wensmann 1st Addition and went on and explained the units and prices. He also explained the access to the park and trail. Their engineer will work with staff on the dedication. Wensmann explained why they went with a PUD. It was important to have a private street to get as many driveways off Raspberry Ridge. Ty Erickson, 14900 Timberglade Circle NE, questioned if a trail would be available to the public. (Kansier said it would.) He also questioned if the northern outlot would be vacant. Kansier responded there is not a specific plan at this time but them would be future development. Erickson also questioned what would be in the park. Kansier explained they needed to know more information on the overall development. There is not a lot of flat land, it maybe more passive recreation with a trail. There are no specifics on playground equipment. Once the development is approved staff and the Park Advisory makes a decision on what should go in. Erickson questioned the drainage into the ponds and if there was going to be any kind of fencing or barrier. He felt there were some severe eddies and vortexes that could be dangerous. McDermott explained the issue had been addressed several years ago. Fences can be more of a trap and nuisance. The City is not in the practice of fencing ponds. Kansier said it was a policy decision made several years ago as the City has several ponds near parks. McDermott explained the area Mr. Erickson referred is not part of the subject plat. Erickson questioned if any improvements would be made on County Road 21 and Raspberry Ridge. Kansier said the actual intersection at Raspberry Ridge was completed with the County Road 21 project. There may be a median at some point. McDermott said the County did not comment on that issue. Terry Wensmann pointed out the IBC pertains to the interior of the building and would go through the building process. Nothing would effect the exterior of the building. The public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXmn052802.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned staff on Mr. Erickson's concern on drainage runoff. McDermott said the applicant is proposing to construct stormwater ponds that would alleviate some of the runoff. · Agreed with staff's conclusions. It is in the public's interest. There is no problem with the PUD and private street. · There are no other issues and support the proposal as is. · Liked the trail system. It is positive. Ringstad: · Agreed with Lemke, viewed the property and agree with all the recommendations and conditions. · Support both motions with staff's recommendations. Atwood: · Disagreed with Commissioners. Did not believe a PUD was appropriate for the area. · Given this same plan minus 1 four-unit townhome and exclude one private street - Outlot F. · Felt Mr. Erickson's concerns need a little bit of direction. · McDermott explained the applicant is creating another stormwater basin prior to discharge to the wetlands to the north. They are also building an infiltration area, which will catch some of the runoff. · It should be a condition. · Recommend tabling until another meeting to review the plans and see why the road cannot be a public street. Open Discussion: Lemke: · If the storm ponds are not on the plat why is this an issue? McDermott explained the applicant will provide the City with easements. The applicant has already provided a sketch of the easements. Atwood felt they should be discussed as though they are. McDermott pointed out the existing ponds and proposal. Ringstad: · Questioned staffon significant runoff when the lake is high. McDermott said there is a rather substantial project underway with the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed to make improvements on the entire outlet channel as well as plans within the Jeffers property. The Watershed District has easements over a lot of this area. They have spent a great deal of time reviewing issues on the Jeffers property. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~mn052802 .doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 Atwood: · Felt a representative from the Watershed District should speak on the issue. Encouraged the developer to look at conventional cluster development rather than a PUD. Lemke: · Questioned the private streets and number of units. Kansier said it had more to do with the number of buildings than units. Four units is the maximum in a R1 District. · Wensmann explained they could move the infiltration pond and redirect the driveways towards Raspberry Ridge Road. They would not have to go with a PUD, but felt this was a nicer layout with the driveways off the public street. Ringstad: · Agreed with the plan submitted. It makes sense. · Atwood and Ringstad briefly discussed PUD's. · Comfortable moving forward. Lemke: · The developer makes sense keeping the number down of driveways off Raspberry Ridge. · Staff feels comfortable moving it forward. · Some of the issues with water are do to the existing topography of the land. The developer will control the runoff with grading. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS SOUTH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke and Ringstad. Nay by Atwood. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS SOUTH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke and Ringstad. Nay by Atwood. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002. 6. Old Business: A. Case #02-047: Wensmann Realty is requesting a Final Planned Unit Development Plan and Final Plat for Fountain Hills 2ua Addition a development of 64 townhouse units on 7.17 net acres, and a Final Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesham052802.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 subdivided into 2 lots for commercial development and 67 lots for townhouses and common open space. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on file in the office of the Planning Department. Wensmann Realty has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan for the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail, approximately 1/8 mile south of CSAH 42 and directly south of Fountain Hills Drive. The total site area in the PUD includes 10.16 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The development consists of 64 townhouse units and common open space. The staff recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The following revisions must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council: a. The setback from the decks to the east property line is only 28 feet. The setback approved in the preliminary plat was 30 feet. The decks on these units must be trimmed to meet the 30' setback. b. The table listing the setbacks on the PUD Plan must be clarified to note that the setback is measured from the structure, including decks. Also, the setback from the wetland is measured from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland. c. The developer must provide street names for the private streets. d. The landscaping plan must be revised so at least 20% of the evergreens (5 trees) are 8' in height. e. The plan must be revised to include the location of the monument sign. f. Provide retaining wall profiles and design by a registered engineer. g. A lighting distribution plan, identifying the footcandles at the south boundary of the site that are a result of the wall lighting on the south side of the units must be provided. 2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. 3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council. 4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad, Lemke and Atwood: · Agreed with staff's assessment. · Approve. L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesh-nn052802.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002. 7. New Business: A. Case #02-049: Wensmann Homes is requesting a Vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements located on Lots 21-23, Block 2, Wensmann 1st Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on file in the office of the Planning Department. Wensmann Realty, Inc. has filed an application to vacate the 5' wide drainage and utility easements located on the common lot line between Lots 21 and 22, Block 2, Wensmann 1st Addition, and on the common lot line between Lots 22 and 23, Block 2, Wensmann 1st Addition. The applicant is proposing to create two larger lots out of the existing three lots, and to dedicate a new easement on the common lot line. The existing easement must be vacated in order to allow construction of new houses on the two lots. There is no need for the retention of the existing easements once the lots are combined and the new easement is dedicated. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of this request, subject to the condition the documents dedicating the new easement be recorded prior to recording the resolution vacating the existing easements. Comments from the Commissioners: · All the commissioners agreed with staff's recommendation · Lernke added combining 3 lots into 2 lots make perfect sense. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF EASEMENT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on June 3, 2002. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The new Assistant City Engineer, Larry Poppler was introduced. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXmn052802.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Donald Rye Community Development Director Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshnn052802.doc 13