Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.12.95 Planning Packet \ .. . . . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 12, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES a. November 14, 1995 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:00 P.M. - Zoning Amendment Increasing Density of Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 3, Dakota County Estates 9th Addition b. 7:15 P.M. - Variance Request for Shed Height/Setbacks at 5311 Upper 182nd Street 4. DISCUSSION a. MUSA Expansion b. TroyHill PU~ . . . AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 12, 1995 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes 3. Public Hearings a. 7:00 P.M. - Zoning Amendment Increasing Density of Lots 1,2,3, Block 3 - Dakota County Estates 9th - from 12 to 16 Housing Units The enclosed large scale site plan illustrates the intention of T.C. Construction to add a fourth quad cluster to the vacant 1.8 acre site in Dakota County Estates 9th Addition. The second drawing is copied from the POD to show how the lot fits within this neighborhood and the third shows the relationship to prairie Creek Second Addition. The properties most affected by the proposed change are Lots 1, 8 and 9 of Block 3, Prairie Creek and Lot 4 in Block 3 of Dakota County Estates 9th Addition. The change for these lots is that four additional housing units will now replace a relatively large and open rear yard. This probably can be accommodated if T.C. Construction hires a local nurseryman or landscape architect to develop a planting plan in the relatively large side yards that will help buffer the added units from adjoining development. The units, which are oriented northeast/southwest with access from 185th Street have been described as handicapped units. They appear to be significantly larger than the others and will have the greatest impact on the single family lots immediately across the street. Again, a landscape plan is strongly recommended. The Developer is also requested to provide information on the front yard setbacks for adjoining development along English Avenue and 185th Street. It may be possible to move these units somewhat closer to the streets in order to create a larger common open space in the rear yard. Recommendation Forward the proposal for increased density in these lots with a recommendation to approve subject to the prior submission of a detailed site plan with accurate building dimensions and specific plant materials and potential berms. b. 7:15 P.M. - Variance Request - Guy and Michelle Kinney of 5311 Upper 182nd St. - Retain Storage Shed There is no doubt that this property owner needs a storage shed, however, there does not appear to be any legitimate hardship that would justify keeping it as built. The shed is on blocks and can be shifted away from the fence by an additional two feet. The height is another problem, as it is difficult to imagine the removal of two feet from the bottom of the structure. The full impact of this building cannot be appreciated without walking into the rear yard or, possibly, standing in the upper level of the house to the west. The lot is small and the equipment stored extends into the public street right of way. While it is true that the shed will enclose some of the materials that are now outside, this should not be accomplished by intruding on neighboring property. As built, it definitely does interfere with views of the storm water ponding area in the rear yard of both properties. This storage shed provides a basic example of why a nine foot height limit was established in the ordinance. " RecoIllltlendation . The shed should be moved away from the property line and it should be reduced in height to a maximum of nine feet. 4. Discussion a. MUSA Expansion In October, the City Council scheduled two workshop sessions with the staff to talk about development issues. The consensus of Council was that development activity should be capped at 300 units per year, which is the current level. The memo which accompanies this report indicates what this means and possible locations as to where construction likely will take place. It was drafted because developers are increasingly anxious to know what the City development policy is going to be regarding location. This should provide an opportunity for the Commission to provide input into the decision making process. b. TroyHill PUD Builders Development has indicated that it would like to submit for discussion a PUD of the remainder of their holdings in Section 23. It sounds as if this land will be developed in two or three phases, with the first to be under construction in 1996. A schematic map will be available at the meeting. ~~ Charles Tooker ~~. City Planner ~.. .