HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.11.89 Planning PacketAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
APRIL 11, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES MARCH 21, 1989
3. DISCUSSION PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION
4. DISCUSSION SUGGESTED REVISION TO 10 -8 -10 OF THE CITY CODE
5. DISCUSSION SUGGESTED REVISION TO 4 -3 -3 OF THE CITY CODE
6. DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
7. DISCUSSION TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE JAMES REISINGER
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES MARCH 21, 1989
3. DISCUSSION DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION
The developer of Dakota County Estates, Jack Benedict, has been asked by
staff if there are changes he wishes to make in the approved PUD. The
only one that he proposes is situated in Block 1 of the Sixth Addition.
This will change one quad lot into two single family lots, reducing the
density of this block by one dwelling unit. Staff has determined that
this is a minor change to the PUD based upon the City Council's action
to replat the Fifth Addition from quad units to single family dwellings.
Mr. Benedict does not anticipate any other changes in the current PUD at
this time.
The Plat contains 51 single family lots in the same general configuration
as the PUD. A majority of the lots in this plat are 6000 square feet in
size. Those lots at street intersections and on the cul -de -sac are slightly
larger. The subdivision is comprised of one major loop street with three
points of access to previously platted stub streets. Approximately 2000
lineal feet of streets are added by this subdivision. The Soil and Water
Conservation District and the City Engineer are preparing separate
memorandums to be forwarded with this plat. I have reviewed the tree
planting program and suggest revisions which will emphasize specific species
in each block rather than to introduce alternate species in the same block.
Recommendation
Forward this subdivision to the City Council with a favorable recommendation
suggesting that a hearing be scheduled during the first meeting in May subject
to comments from the City Engineer.
4. DISCUSSION
Please refer
5. DISCUSSION
AGENDA REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
APRIL 11, 1989
SUGGESTED REVISION TO 10 -8 -10 OF CITY CODE
to staff memorandum dated March 9, 1989.
SUGGESTED REVISION TO 4 -3 -3 OF CITY CODE
During meetings regarding Dakota County Estates Sixth Addition, Mr. Benedict
asked for a clarification of Section 4 -3 -2 of the City Code regarding
"2. Signs for Promoting and /or Selling a Development Project" and
"12. Off- Premise Directional Signs." The second paragraph indicates that
five signs up to 200 square feet in total area are permitted whereas the
twelfth paragraph suggests that a 25 square foot sign observing yard setbacks
is permitted. This question came up regarding a neighborhood identification
sign for Akin Park Estates. The proposed revision of 4 -3 -3 (A) 5 indicates
that utility easements must be observed when placing these signs whereas
elsewhere in the ordinance ordinary for sale signs must be 15 feet from
the property line. One advantage of a specific measurable set back is
that all property where signs might be located are not platted. This
means that some signs might be placed directly on the property line. Those
that are platted normally include utility easements up to 10 feet in width
along public rights of way. For the purposes of discussion, I would suggest
that neighborhood signs should observe utility setbacks whereas all others
could be established at either 10 or 15 feet from the front property line.
Upon reflection, paragraph 12 does not contradict paragraph 2 since Dakota
County Estates involves approximately 160 acres with direct frontage along
Pilot Knob Road. The various phases that are in the process of development
are all part of the same project. It should be possible then for Mr. Benedict
to design and build promotional signs (he indicated two plus a permanent
neighborhood identification) without need to secure a conditional use permit.
The material submitted in the staff memorandum of March 17, 1989 will need
to be amended to reflect the wishes of the Commission regarding sign setbacks.
6. DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
Mr. Thompson wishes to review with the Commission the urgent need to update
the City Comprehensive Plan.
7. DISCUSSION TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE JAMES REISINGER
Mr. Reisinger has asked if the buyer of the Equipment Maintenance and Storage
Building in the C -1 Conservation District on the east side of Akin Road can
move into the property without securing his own Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Reisinger secured a Conditional Use in 1976 to build the present structure
after the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow such a use. A second Con-
ditional Use was applied for and granted in 1979 to expand the use but later
was allowed to lapse by the applicant. Staff has reviewed the material
submitted with the first conditional use application and found it to be
lacking in specific detail with regard to the site plan. I indicated that
a new application and site plan should be submitted for the new use even
though it is similar in character to the existing use. However, I did
indicate that Mr. Reisinger could appeal directly to the Planning Commission
for a review of that decision. In essence, is the Commission comfortable
with the transfer of this Conditional Use without any additional information
being provided?
Charles Tooker
Planner