Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/07 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 13, 2007 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Oswald, Larson, Burke, Rotty Members Absent: Barker Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner Michael Bischel, Kimberly Sperling, Shannon Walsh 2. Approval of Minutes a) October 9, 2007 MOTION by Larson, second by Burke to approve the October 9, 2007 minutes. VOTING FOR: Burke, Rotty, Larson. ABSTAINED: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Continued Business - Public Hearings a) Bischel-Sperling Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Michael Bischel and Kimberly Sperling P.O Box 194 Farmington, MN 55024 This item has been extended by 60 days giving it a deadline of December 31, 2007 for 120 day review. This is a continuation. The revised plat was submitted on October 9, 2007. The general requirements of the City Code have been met. The total acreage is 0.86 and Lot 1 is 6,011 square feet, Lot 2 is 14,861 square feet and Lot 3 is 12,208 square feet. Lot widths are as follows: Lot 1 is 69 feet wide, Lot 2 is 109 feet wide and Lot 3 is 75 feet as measured at the setback. The lot widths all meet the minimum requirements. The net density is 5 units divided by 0.86 acres = 5.81 dwelling units per acre. The maximum density would be 6.5 units per acre. The setback requirements have all been met as well as the lot coverage requirements. The Engineering Department has stated that the private street and turn around meet City standards. The Planning staff received questions in writing from Larry and Shannon Walsh at the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting and staffhas provided answers to their questions as shown in Exhibit G and Exhibit H. Planning staff is concerned with the following issues. In the easement and covenant agreement (Exhibit I) the owners of Lot 2 are solely responsible for the performance of all driveway maintenance on Lots 1, 2 and 3. The costs of all driveway maintenance will be divided between the owners of all three lots. The burden of maintenance ofthe private drive and turn around including keeping the access open for emergency vehicles, snow removal and maintenance for repair, ice removal, cleaning, resurfacing and replacement of driveway. If Lot 2 does not perform the duties as required then the owners of Lots 1 and 3 need to commence the performance of the driveway maintenance and charge the owners of Lot 2. Planning staff feel that this agreement could be an overburden to the owners of Lot 2. Commissioner Burke asked if Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007 Page 2 . the City could regulate the Homeowners Agreement. Staff replied that we do not become involved in these types of agreements but we do have to ensure that the means of access to the development is being addressed. Staff is also concerned by the difference in appearance of the proposed homes compared to others throughout the neighborhood. Additionally there has been concern regarding the definitions of private streets, City approved streets and public streets and driveways. The Code is somewhat ambiguous regarding what a private street is. The private street in this development is an approved street per the engineering requirements. Mr. Ray Brandt stated that the Homeowner's Agreement should not have indicated that all of the responsibility should fall on the owners of Lot 2 and he feels that that is an error. The responsibility will be shared by all of the owners of all tree lots. He states that you will primarily only see the front ofthe single family home as you drive by on 2nd Street. Chair Rotty asked if there is any screening requirement on the south side of the development. City Planner Smick stated that there is a requirement for a six foot high fence on the south side of the property. . Ms. Shannon Walsh, stated that if there is not a consistent application of City Codes the City leaves itself open to lawsuits. City Code 11-4-4 A states that easements for utilities at least 10 feet wide will be located along all lot lines, unless larger easements are necessary. Section 11-4-10 states that the design features set forth in this code are the minimum requirements and the City may impose additional or more stringent requirements as deemed appropriate. The City requires all construction to follow engineering guidelines and standard detail plates provided by the City Engineering Division. Ms. Walsh stated the easements on the lots as provided by the preliminary plat do not allow for 10 foot easements. She also stated that there must be a 10 foot utility easement on each side of the private street. Staff stated that we are currently requiring 5 foot easements for areas where there are not utilities located in the easement area. She stated that the code prohibits an impervious surface on a lot line and the driveway of Lot 1 is on the property line. She states that there is 4,600 square feet of missing code required easement in this project. Regarding lots; she stated that the City Code describes a lot as a parcel ofland occupied or capable of being occupied by more than one structure having principle frontage on a public street. Section 11-4-2 states that every lot must have minimum frontage on a City approved street and she stated that Lots 2 and 3 do not meet this requirement. She added that he property lines of Lots 2 and 3 are not at right angles to the street as required by Section 11-4-2. She stated that the net density calculations for this project are 5.81 which meets the Code requirement for the duplexes only. The right of way will be dedicated to the City once the project is platted and that will increase the density. Staff stated that the net density is calculated with the street included because of the meets and bounds boundary and the lots meet the requirements. Ms. Walsh stated that she believes that lot sizes include other easements other than utility easements. She stated that there has been no resolution to what a City approved street is. The private street/driveway is in conflict with City Code. Ms. Walsh stated Section 11-4- 3 B states that a City approved street states that dead end streets are prohibited but cul-de- sac with a right of way radius of not less than 60 feet. Another reason that she feels that the drive can not be a street is that lots with frontage on two streets shall not be permitted without an additional 20 feet for depth. She feels that all three lots do not meet the buildable lot requirements because of access. She stated that there is an issue with . Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007 Page 3 . garbage pick up because the City garbage trucks will not drive down the street. She said that it will be difficult for the homeowners to drag the garbage cans to the street and there will not be adequate lighting. There needs to be 5 feet between receptacles. As for snow removal, she states that there is not adequate room for snow storage. She asked what the definition of ownership of a duplex building is with regard to ownership of the lot. Mr. Brandt stated that the issue can be handled under a Common Interest Community. She asked that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Michael Bischel stated that the drainage and utility easement has been discussed for the last year. He stated that the Westview Acre Townhomes have private roads going into them that are very narrow and their garbage containers are all put on a shared driveway. He stated that he feels that the people who purchase these homes will be aware of their responsibilities. He said that with regard to snow removal, the snow is currently pushed to the back ofthe property. He said that the drainage pipe is well below the frost line so it will not freeze. . Ms. Kimberly Sperling stated that they have tried to meet every requirement and correct any issues that have arisen. Mr. Ray Brandt stated that the flag lot for Lot 3 corrects the double frontage issue. He stated that ifhe has to make it 10 feet wider then he can accomplish that. Ms. Sperling stated that their time frame keeps getting pushed out further and she would like to have a decision made. She said that she understands that there is a review process. Chair Rotty stated that the process is necessary for the Planning Commission members to be able to address the proposed development thoroughly. She stated that the look of the properties is similar to other properties downtown. Mr. Mike Kaiser, 811 2nd Street, stated that the snow is not pushed back to the railroad tracks currently; it is not pushed back onto the property. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine if the road is a driveway or if it is a street. . Chair Rotty stated that it was stated that the plat meets the general requirements of the City Code. City Planner Smick stated that the private street does not meet the 10 foot minimum easement requirement. Chair Rotty asked why the Engineering Department would state that the road meets the Code requirements. Staff also stated that there should be City plates on the plat for clarification but they are not shown on these plans. City planner Smick also stated that the City Code states that there is a 10 foot easement requirement on all lot lines but that is not what has been required for areas that do not contain utilities. There are three places on the plan where they do not meet the minimum. Weare currently approving 5 foot easements. With regard to frontage on a City Street; the street on the plan must be a street, not a driveway for the plan to work. Commissioner Larson stated that he feels that the lot width should be measured on 2nd Street because it is an actual street. Commissioner Burke stated that the road on the plan being viewed as a street has been the premise throughout the review process and no one has led the developer to believe otherwise. He stated the code does not allow for 5 foot easements and there needs to be a decision made on the areas that are ambiguous. He stated that the unclear issues should be addressed by the City Council. Commissioner Larson stated that they need to look at the impact of the immediate neighbors and have that written into the Code or in the objectives. Chair Rotty asked ifthere has been any Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007 Page 4 . . deviation from the 10 foot minimum along roads. Staff replied that they are not sure because that is an Engineering Division decision. Commissioner Oswald stated that the plan just doesn't make sense to him because of the roadway issues and the driveways that cross property lines. Chair Rotty stated that there are lots in other areas of the community where the right angles requirement has not been enforced. He stated that he is comfortable with Staff's calculation of net density. He stated that the garbage and snow issues will be taken care of by the homeowners. Chair Rotty also explained that there has been a very in depth review of this project because this is a new type of development in the City. He stated that some ofthe ordinances aren't as clear as they should be, but they have not been addressed in this way before. He stated that he doesn't feel that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to provide for this type of development along 2nd Street. He stated that the plan stretches some ofthe requirements of the City Code. He said that he does not feel that this plat meets the requirements. Commissioner Larson stated that they have turned away previous projects because they did not fit the neighborhood and he is comfortable doing the same thing with this project. Commissioner Burke stated that ifthe project meets the zoning requirements he would vote to approve it; but this project has technical issues so that it does not meet all ofthe City Code requirements so he can not support it. MOTION by Larson, second by Oswald to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Oswald to recommend denial to the City Council and direct staff to write Findings of Fact. Commissioner Burke asked if the applicant would be able to submit a revised plat. Staff stated that the revised plat could be submitted and would go to the City Council with the Findings of Fact. Chair Rotty asked if the City Council could send the project back to the Planning Commission. Staff replied that the City Council could send it back, but the timeline for the review runs out of December 31, 2007. APIF. MOTION CARRIED. b) Findings of Fact - Variance Request to Encroach into Drainage and Utility Easement - 19874 Dover Drive The Findings of Fact for the denial at the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were presented. The Commissioners stated that the Findings were accurate. MOTION by Larson, second by Oswald to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Oswald, second by Burke to accept the Findings of Fact. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Development Review Process The only significant change to the process is that the review period has been increased from 5 weeks to 6 weeks. Staff requested that the Commissioners review the document. . Commissioner Burkes stated that he felt that the handling of the review process for the project presented earlier was an embarrassment to the City. He stated that he feels that if there are big fundamental issues that need to be addressed they should be addressed in the beginning rather than after the developer has had to solve many smaller issues and come back repetitively. Chair Rotty stated that he . . . Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007 Page 5 does not feel that anyone should be embarrassed by the review process. He stated that their decisions are made based on the technical issues and they are not able to make their decisions based on their personal preferences. He stated that the definitions are not as clear as they should be and there was not enough consideration ofthe possible interpretations of how the City Code is written prior to this project and it will need to be reviewed. Commissioner Burke stated that he hopes that these issues will be brought to the attention of the developer sooner in the process. Commissioner Larson stated that he is frustrated that they asked the City Attorney for the definition ofthe City Street and they did not receive it. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Oswald to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Approved