Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.08.95 Planning Packet .... . . . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 8, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES July 11, 1995 a. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 P.M. - Consitler Preliminary Plat of Deer Meadow 7:30 P.M. - Discuss Proposed Relocation of "Hed" House a. b. 4. DISCUSSION Proposed Addition to Gordon Chant Residence Proposed Subdivision Waiver of Platting for Marlene Halstead a. b. 5. ADJOURN . . . AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 1995 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes 3. Public Hearings a. 7:00 P.M. - Discuss the Preliminary Plat of Deer Meadow Deer Meadow is a 90 lot, single family subdivision located on the west side of Pilot Knob Road immediately north of Hill Dee Subdivision and immediately south of Lakeville's city limits. The plat is as approved in the PUD approved by the City Council. Lot 1 in Block 4 is the smallest lot at 7,960 square feet and many of the lots are in the 8000 to 9000 square foot range. The larger lots are situated in the western one half of the plat in high land comparable with the western portion of the Hill Dee and Hillview plats. The average lot size of 10,981 square feet is a result of the exceptionally large lots at the ends of the cuI de sacs. The access to Outlot B appears to measure 12 feet, which is just wide enough for maintenance vehicles. The Park Board, through the Parks and Recreation Director, has suggested that the City acquire Lot 10, Block 5 to provide space for recreational equipment since there will be no direct access to Hill Dee Park. Such an acquisition will facilitate better access both to the wetland and the stormwater management pond located on site. It will also open this public land to better visibility along 180th Street. A second outlot, for a stormwater management pond, adjoining Pilot Knob Road will have extraordinary visibility since there are no lots separating it from 180th Street. The single access and long (2600 feet) temporary cul-de-sac have been discussed at length. However, at some time in the future a second access will be possible when Everest Path in TroyHil1 is extended northward in the City of Lakeville. Anticipating this connection, the Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended that the Developer pave an eight foot wide hiking and biking trail along the entire length of 180th Street. Because there is only one access to and from this development, the County may recommend a traffic signal at 180th Street as a part of the pilot Knob road improvement project. Allocation of costs will likely be determined by the City Council. As of July 31st there were no comments available from the City Engineer or the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. Relevant recommendations will be presented verbally during the meeting. There should be few surprises since the PUD was only recently discussed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. One Planning comment relates to the intersection of Eventide Way and Euclid Avenue. This should be designed as a UT" intersection rather than a sharp curve to accommodate the development of a cul-de-sac into the five acre exception sometime in the future. The Developer has indicated that the plat will be developed in one phase rather than two, which means that all improvements will be in place during one construction season rather than two. . Recommendation Forward the preliminary plat of Deer Meadow to the City Council with a recommendation to approve. b. 7:30 P.M. - Discussion of Relocation of the "Hed" House This was discussed at the last meeting under a section of the City Code which required no hearing in an effort to save the applicant the cost of a conditional use hearing. The City Council, in its discussion of procedure, was reluctant to give up public hearings in building relocation requests. The City Administrator has drafted a proposed ordinance which would incorporate public hearings, but without notification of every property owner within 350 feet as is required by the conditional use process. This proposed ordinance will be discussed by the City Council on August 7, 1995. If the Council approves the change, the Planning Commission can hold a hearing since adjoining property owners have been notified. Currently, the applicant believes that he has a valid moving permit but, since the Council has not yet repealed the conditional use process for building moving, the existing moving permit may not be acted upon. It is hoped that this cloud can be removed from the process as quickly as possible, since the streets are now able to support the equipment used in building relocation. Recommendation . Proceed with the hearing in order to receive neighborhood input before reviewing the previous decision. 4. Discussion a. Proposed Addition to the Gordon Chant Residence. discussed during the September meeting.) {Variance Requests to be The Chants are planning an addition that will extend their structure into both a front and a side yard. The front yard setback normally is 20 feet except in older neighborhoods when existing housing establishes the setback. In this situation, the housing fronting on Seventh Street in this block is approximately 25 feet from the right of way line. In the block to the south, the front yard setback is considerably smaller at something less than 20 feet. The proposal for an open deck with railing will require a variance, since the deck is considered a structure, but it is unlikely to obscure the view of the adjoining property unless the deck were to be suddenly enclosed. The second variance is being requested since the building layout appears to dictate a 3'10" encroachment into the required 6 foot side yard. The steps represent a small portion of the overall structure that will encroach on the side yard, but they may not be built without benefit of a variance. . These requests are being presented for informal review before the Chants invest in a variance hearing. . . Recommendation Look at the building and its relationship to other neighborhood development before providing input. b. Proposed Subdivision Waiver of Platting for Marlene Halstead Two attached drawings indicate the wishes of Marlene Halstead with regard to the proposed property division plus a lot layout that would be possible if the land were to be efficiently divided. A simple solution to anticipate and prevent future problems with respect to good subdivision design would be to move the north property line southward in line with the right of way of Eventide Way and request that a stub street extend Eventide Way into the outlot at least 70 feet so that the new lot will have frontage on an existing street without cutting off access to Lot 30, Block 4, and without encroaching on the second lot in this division. In the future, both lots would have the opportunity to pay for street improvements by creating additional lots. The drawback of this solution is that Lot 4 probably will not be created. On the other hand, an even lot plat will provide a more efficient block layout than will be possible if the property is divided as proposed. Recommendation . Forward a recommendation to the City Council which would amend the plat of Deer Meadow to include a 70 foot long stub street which will provide both oversized lots access to a public street and allow for future land divisions through the platting process. ~'1Z Charles Tooker ~ City Planner . ..~.... . . . . Memo to: ~ubject: Date: Charlie Tooker Planning Commission Meeting - 8/8/95 August 8, 1995 -", I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight due to a conflict (My daughter's birthday.) There are a couple of things you should know for the meeting. First, Tim Giles requested that the Council split the 5 +/- acres from Deer Meadow so he could close on the property this week. Since it was listed as an exception in the PUD, the Council did approve the split (see attached memo.) It was noted that there were access concerns regarding the split of the 1.5 acres from 5 acres, and he indicated that whatever the desires of the County was acceptable. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT APPROVE THE SPLIT OF THE 5+/- ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS, NOR MADE ANY COMMENTS EITHER FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE. I spoke with the County (Dave Zech and Pete Sorenson) and both indicated the split of the 5 acres from the 40 was OK, and added that they really did not have any jurisdiction over the split of the 5 acres into two parcels, but suggested the owner be required to file an access restrictions for the newly created parcel as a condition of the split. Second, there was a great deal of discussion regarding the Randall house. relocation hearing. The Council noted that it was the Planning Commission's call. A great deal of the comments were from Pat Akin indicating staffhad misled Mr, Randall, had violated the Zoning Ordinance, the relocated structure did not meet the covenants, and the Planning Commission had not taken the standards into consideration when the permit was approved the first time. Virtually all his points were refuted by Mr. Randall, Tim Giles, Chris Galler, or myself. I wasn't sure of the actual covenants enforce by the City at the time, so 1 have attached a copy of the pertinent section from the PUD agreement for you information. It appeared Mr. Akin's intent was to blame staff for all of the problems. I am not certain there are any problems. The point I am trying to make is that 1 believe there will be people trying to bait you this evening. Please try not to fall into the trap of defending every action staff or the Council took. This is a Planning Commission decision. Finally, Mr. Randall and Rod Hardy both informed me that they were Dmnotified of the meeting. While Mr. Randall can attend the meeting, Mr, Hardy is in California and cannot attend. Therefore, Mr. Hardy will be requesting the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting. There should be a FAX arriving today from him. I will be at home until approximately 6:45 pm. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: file r''''' . Memo to: Subject: , Date: Mayor and Council Waiver of Platting - Deer Meadow AUgllst 2,1995 ' '~~ :' , The Citj has received a request from the develope~ of Deer Meadow to split the 5 +1- acre , exception fr{)m the plat. Normally this is. done administratively at the time the phit is filed, b~t Mr. Giles has indicated closing has been 'scheduled before the plat is to be filed. Thf? exception must be split before the lender will close. Since the property,in question is within the MUSA and notpart of li'plat, only the Council can grant the waiver. - . The request originally came in as a split of the S acres from the original 40, and then a split of th~ 5 acres into two parcels, with the entrance of the, second parcel from the west , via future Euclid Avenue, Since Deer Meadow had not been platted, it was the consensus of staff that the second lot would not meet code requirements of having adequate access to a developed street; and also the split as proposed could pose certain access problems in the future. ' Therefore the matter was referred to. the Planning Commission with a recommendation which addresses the access. concerns. It is anticipated the Planning Commission will forWard a favorable recommendation to the Council. As a side note, the City haS interpreted that once a plat is file,d, developers agreement signed, and surety and fees paid, the platted street is considered a developed street. When I discussed this matter , with Mr. Giles, it was indicated it 'was doubtful the waiver of platting for the 5 acre parcel into two could not be approved until the August 21, 1995 ~eeting due to City Code requirements'. ,It was indicated that the Co.uncil could act on the 5 acre exception from the 40 acres, since the remaining 3S acres already had been zoned as a PUD, and streets and ' . lots had been designed. Since Mr. Giles' major concern at this time was to close on the property, he agreed that the best course of action would be for the Council to just conSider the waiver of platting which would split the 5 acre parcel from the 40. Since the entire 40 acre parcel was reviewed as part of the Deer Meadow Plat, I do not have any major concerns regaraing this split. The only negative comment may come from Dakota County regardmg the creation ofa second lot fronting tSAR #31. I will recommend the County approve the split as submitted, and at a minimum, approve the split contingent upon ~e filing of the Deer Meadow Plat. I have placed a call to the County Engineer to. discuss this matter, but'have not received a return call at this time, I will update the' , Council~accor~gly. ' , , r.....1-.~~ , '., ~'~~o~pst- , , City Administrator Ijt d' cc: Development Committee Tim Giles file . -.,.-. ...!...-t- /' =w~,,~",,~:..-~~~ -;""~~~~",:;_,~~,;,~~_~'_-'i:i;~~~:,'~~,~~.f;~:~.,-~;~..:~~;~:i;,:--':'~'"2~.'-:':' '..~~''-:2~;:',,'.:. I.' ....':.~.. .\" '.-:.:;; ,".~~".-. !,",-~ ";;p.t.--: /.::;.,,,' " . -. . .. ':'_'.- OWNERS, the CITY agrees to allow DEVELOPMENT on the SUBJECT PROPERTY in ~c9rd with the pun CONTROLS, and amendments thereto. ' . ARTICLE 2 PUD ZONING 2.1 PUD ORDINANCE - FINDINGS. The COUNCIL finds that the SUBJECT PROPERTY should be and is hereby rezoned Pl1rsuant to the PUD ORDINANCE. The COUNCIL fm?s that such rezoning accomplishes the following: (a) Provides the means for greater creativity and flexibility and environmental design than is provided for under the strict application of the existing zoning code while at the same time preserving the . health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the CITY and its inhabitants; (b) Functions as a catalyst in assisting resolution of preexisting water table and storm water drainage problems; . (c) Encourages a creative and ~fficient approach to the use of land; (d) Encourages the preservation and enhancement of desirable land . characteristics and open space; and (e) Encourages an integrated development pattern and a harmony'with the limd use, density, transportation facilities and community objectives of the CITY's comprehensive plan. 2.2 DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE. The land use of the SUBJECT PROPERTY shall be in accord with the PUD ORDINANCE and the SCHEMATIC PUD PLAN. No DEVELOPMENT or use shall be made of the SUBJECT ~ROPERTY or any portion thereof unless such DEVELOPMENT _ or ~se is reasonably consistent with the PUD CONTROLS. Unless the COUNCIL by separate action approves otherwise, no DEVELOPMENT or use shall occur on any PHASE, until the PRELIMINARY or FINAL PLAT PLANS for that PHASE have . been approved by the COUNCIL. . PRELIMINARY or FINAL PLAT PLANS reasonably consistent with the SCHEMATIC PUD PLAN shall be approved by the COUNCIL. 2,3 _ DENSITY. The density of each PHASE shall be in accord with the PUD ORDINANCE and the SCHEMATIC PUD PLAN. 2.4 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. Prior to the FINAL/PLAT approval for any PHASE or combination of PHASES, the DEVELOPER and.OWNER shall submit model deed ". ... . ~ - restrictions, covenants;' agreements, bylaws and a proposed homeowner's association or other documents or contracts controlling the use and maintenance of the land within the particular PHASE!_ These documents shall be subject to the review and approval or the CITY Attorney. c.. ." _,_; ~~ _ Des 37985,12 .Draft 2/1/95 . 3 . . . . . ._'..... The documents shall provide for (i) architectural design and exterior materials guidelines, Ylhich shall, among other elements, require (a) 6:12 pitch roofs, (b) a front porch for twenty percent (20%) in the aggregate of all of the single family detached structures which are constructed within the SUBJECT PROPERTY, and (c) no more than two (2) compatible materials on the front exterior for each single family detached structure; and (ii) maintenance of the block parkS by the association, which shall include a mechanism which allows the CITY to specially assess the association or the individual abutting lot owners for maintenance of the block parks within ,each block and further provides that the association may assess those charges against individual lots. The dc~uments shall also insure the continued maintenance of common areas, if any, - within each PHASE. 2.5 CHANGE OF ZONING. The SUBJECT PROPERTY at the present time is owned by multiple owners. . EAST FARMINGTON PUD PROJECT is intended to be developed as 'an overall integrated, unified, and planned unit development pursuant to the PUD CONTROLS. Because multiple ownership exists, there may be the possibility that the OWNER of a particular PHASE may wish a DEVELOPMENT, or density or land use different than that contained in the PUD ORDINANCE and in this PUD CONTRACT. Subject to Article 6 of this PUD CONTRACT, no such change shall be made unless the COUNCIL approves the change pursuant to the procedures of the PUD ORDINANCE. ARTICLE 3 PUD PLANS 3.1 APP~OV AL'OF PUD PLANS. The CITY hereby approves the PUD PLANS. 3.2 PUD PLANS CONTROL DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT on the SUBJECT PROPERTY shall. conform to the PUD PLANS and the FINAL PLAT PLANS, unless the CITY approves otherwise. 3.3 PUD CONTROLS. The DEVELOPER agrees to comply with the PUD CONTROLS and amendments. thereto. Subject to performance by the OWNER and DEVELOPER. the CITY agrees to aliow DEVELOPMENT on the SUBJECT PROPERTY in accord withthe PlJD CONTROLS. and amendments thereto. ARTICLE 4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS. PHASE I 4.1 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. Subject to the terms and conditions . of thiS PUD CONTRACT and subject to conformance with the other .PUD PLANS. the CITY hereby approves the PRELIMINARY PLAT with respect to PHASE I. subject to such other terms and conditions of approval as appear in the COUNCIL resolution of approval of the plat. dated November 10. 1994. The FINAL PLAT for PHASE IA shall be submitted by February,28. 1995. and shall conform to the requirements of the SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. . -,.r -;.- DeS 37985.12 Draft 2/1/95 , 4'