2016.09.12 PC Meeting Packet
Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Crystal Planning Commission Agenda
Monday, September 12, 2016
7 p.m.
Crystal City Hall Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
a. Monday, August 8, 2016 meeting minutes
3. Public Hearings*
a. Variance request from Matthew Detloff for a detached garage at 5565 Welcome Avenue
(Application Number 2016-08)
b. Variance request from Greg Staples for an attached garage addition at 5440 Twin Lake
Terrace (Application Number 2016-09)
c. Subdivision request for Bottineau Gardens preliminary plat (Application Number 2016-10)
4. Old Business - None
5. New Business - None
6. General Information
a. City Council actions on previous Planning Commission items:
Floodplain Overlay District (City Code Section 515.61)
b. Update from Council Liaison
c. Update on City Code Review Task Force
d. Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, October 10, 2016 meeting
7. Open Forum
8. Adjournment
* Items for which supporting materials will be included in the meeting packet.
Page 1 of 4
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
DETAILED AGENDA
Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Crystal City Hall
Commissioners, please call 763.531.1130 or
email john.sutter@crystalmn.gov if unable to attend
* Items for which supporting materials are included in the meeting packet
1. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at ______ p.m. with the
following members present:
Commissioner (Ward 1) Commissioner (Ward 2) Commissioner (Ward 4)
Sears \[Secretary\] Selton Einfeldt-Brown
Commissioner (Ward 1) Commissioner (Ward 3) Commissioner (Ward 4)
Heigel \[Chair\] VonRueden Johnson \[Vice Chair\]
Commissioner (Ward 2) Commissioner (Ward 3) Commissioner (At-Large)
Strand Buck Daly
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *
Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to approve the minutes of
the August 8, 2016 regular meeting with the following exceptions:
Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Variance request from Matthew Detloff for a detached garage at 5565 Welcome Avenue
North (Application Number 2016-08)
Staff presented the following:
The following were heard:
Page 2 of 4
Planning Commission discussion:
Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to recommend
______ to the City Council of the variance for a detached garage with the following
conditions:
Motion carried.
b. Variance request from Greg Staples for an attached garage addition at 5440 Twin Lake
Terrace (Application Number 2016-09)
Staff presented the following:
The following were heard:
Planning Commission discussion:
Page 3 of 4
Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to recommend
______ to the City Council of the variance for an attached garage addition with the
following conditions:
Motion carried.
a. Subdivision request from Hennepin County for the Bottineau Gardens preliminary plat
(Application Number 2016-10)
Staff presented the following:
The following were heard:
Planning Commission discussion:
Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to recommend
______ to the City Council of the subdivision request for the Bottineau Gardens
preliminary plat with the following conditions:
Motion carried.
4. OLD BUSINESS None
5. NEW BUSINESS - None
6. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. City Council actions on previous Planning Commission items: Revisions to the citys
Floodplain Overlay District (City Code Section 515.61)
Page 4 of 4
b. Update from Council Liaison
c. Update on City Code Review Task Force
d.Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, October10, 2016meeting
7. OPEN FORUM
8. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by _____ and seconded by ______ to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at ______ p.m.
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2016
CRYSTALPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, August 8, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
Crystal Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7 p.m. with the
following members present:
X Commissioner (Ward 2) X Commissioner (Ward 4)
Commissioner (Ward 1)
Selton Einfeldt-Brown
Sears \[Secretary\]
X Commissioner (Ward 1) X Commissioner (Ward 3) X Commissioner (Ward 4)
Heigel \[Chair\] VonRueden Johnson \[Vice Chair\]
X Commissioner (Ward 2) X Commissioner (Ward 3) X Commissioner (At-
Strand Buck Large) Daly
Other attendees: City Planner Dan Olson, City Council liaison Jeff Kolb, Public Works
Director Mark Ray, Phil Oftedahl, and other interested persons.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Selton and seconded by Buck to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2016 regular
meeting. Ayes all.
Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING
a.
Planner Dan Olson presented a summary of the staff report, and stated that staff is
recommending approval of the draft ordinance shown in attachment B.
Commission member Daly asked why FEMA is updating the maps and ordinances at
this time. Olson stated that FEMA periodically updates these ordinance and maps, and
the city assisted in that effort by studying the central area of the city in 2010.
Chair Heigel asked if the pond in Bassett Creek Park will be enlarged through dredging.
Mark Ray said that the watershed district has allocated funds in 2018 to dredge the
pond, but that it is not expected to be enlarged.
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2016
Chair Heigel opened the public hearing.
th
Phil Oftedahl, 6408 40 Avenue North asked why his property is remaining in the
th
floodplain, but the homes across 40 Avenue are being removed. He felt that his home
was at a higher elevation than those homes. Olson said taking a brief look at his
property, it appears that his home is still located below the floodplain elevation with the
revised map, but he would do a more detailed review and get back to Mr. Oftedahl.
Commission member VonRueden said there were quite a few properties added to the
floodplain in 2004, and asked if those same properties are now being removed. Mark
and stated that the reason they were removed now is due to the
FEMA review process.
Commission member Selton asked where we maintain the high water elevation for
Gaulke Pond. Mark Ray stated that the city pumps water out to maintain an elevation
of
No additional members of the public wanting to speak, Chair Heigel closed the public
hearing.
Moved by Buck and seconded by Daly to recommend approval to the City Council of
the revisi
show in attachment B. Ayes all.
Motion carried.
5. OLD BUSINESS None
6. NEW BUSINESS - None
7. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. City Council actions on previous Planning Commission item: Variances for 3226 and 3232
Georgia Avenue North Planner Olson reported that the City Council approved these
variances on July 19, 2016.
b. Update from Council Liaison Council liaison Kolb
work with the quiet zones project and the city budget. Mr. Kolb also informed the
Suites, the upcoming Village Fest sponsored by Serenity Church, and the Crystal Lions
Corn Feed.
c. Update on City Code Review Task Force Commission member Buck stated that the task
force is reviewing Section 800 of the city code.
d. Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, September 12, 2016 meeting
Applications for a three-lot subdivision and two garage variances are expected to be heard
at the September meeting.
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2016
8. OPEN FORUM
No one from the public spoke at this time.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Selton and seconded by Einfeldt-Brown to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Planning Commission (September 12 meeting)
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Variance request from Matthew Detloff for a detached
garage at 5565 Welcome Avenue (Application Number 2016-08)
A. BACKGROUND
Matthew Detloff, owner of the property at 5565 Welcome Avenue North, is requesting a
variance to enlarge or replace a detached garage that is closer to the street than the existing
home, and is located at a distance of 24 feet to the front property line rather than the required
30 feet. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-1). Notice of the September 12
public hearing was published in the Sun Post on September 1 and mailed to owners within
350 feet (see Attachment B).
Attachments:
A. Site location map
B. Map showing public hearing notification area
C. Existing zoning map
D. Project narrative
E. Property survey
F. Garage elevation drawings
B. VARIANCE
The existing 327 SF detached garage was constructed in 1951 and is considered legally
no-. Originally this garage and home were part of a larger lot
that was subdivided in 1966. Prior to 1966 the garage was located to the rear of the home
and met zoning requirements, but with the property subdivision the garage became located in
what is now the front yard. Therefore the garage does not meet the zoning code requirements
front property line. The rom that property line.
The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing garage to 896 SF to provide for more usable
space. As an alternative the applicant may also entirely replace the existing garage with a
new 896 SF detached garage. In either case the garage will not be closer to the front property
line than it is now. The enlarged or replaced garage will continue to be accessed by the
5565 WELCOME AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 1 OF 3
existing driveway. Because the applicant is proposing to enlarge or replace a nonconforming
structure that is closer to the front property line than allowed by the zoning code, a variance is
necessary.
The following are the relevant approval criteria for this variance as outlined in Section 515.05
Zoning Code, followed by staff response:
a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the official control and when the terms of the variances
are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Response: The intent of the C
regulations to promote orderly development that allows for adequate
access to light, air, and convenient access to property. Since the larger
detached garage will not be closer to the street than the existing garage,
approval of a variance to construct this garage is not in conflict with those
goals. If the variance is approved, the home will continue to be in
future land use designation.
b) Variances shall only be permitted when the City Council finds that strict
enforcement of specific provisions of this section would create practical
difficulties due to circumstances unique to a particular property under
consideration. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner:
1) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control; and
2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and
3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
Response: The use of this parcel for a detached garage is a reasonable
Zoning Code. In 1966 the city approved a
subdivision of this property which caused the garage to become
nonconforming. This is a unique situation not created by the applicant.
Since the enlarged garage will not be closer to the street than the existing
garage, the essential character of this area is not proposed to change.
c) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Response: The applicant has indicated that his reason for requesting the
variance is to enlarge or replace a detached garage that will have more
usable space. Therefore economic considerations alone are not the sole
reason for requesting this variance.
5565 WELCOME AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 2 OF 3
C.REQUESTED ACTION
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council to either deny or approve the variance application to allow a detached garage
at 5565 Welcome Avenue North that is closer to the street than the existing home and
is located 24 feet from the property line rather than the required 30 feet. This
recommendation should include findings of fact either for or against the proposal. The
Commission may reference the findings for approval in Section B, above.
Since the variance meets the relevant criteria in the zoning code, staff is recommending
approval of the variance request.
City Council action is anticipated on September 20, 2016.
5565 WELCOME AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 3 OF 3
Bass Lake Road
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Matthew Detloff
5565 Welcome Avenue North, Crystal, Minnesota 55429
Phone: 612-807-2928E-Mail: Mpdetloff66@gmail.com
th
Monday, July 11, 2016
Dan Olson, Planning Commission, & Crystal City Council
Request for variance to update existing garage at 5565 Welcome Avenue North
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Drive North
Crystal, Minnesota 55422
Dear City Official:
My name is Matthew Detloff, I was born and raised in Robbinsdale, Minnesota and attended Sacred Heart
Catholic School where I recently married my wife Jaycee, who is a native of Lakeville, Minnesota, graduate of the
University of St. Thomas, and working in the communications technology industry. I attended DeLaSalle High
School and have furthered my career as a teacher at Maple Grove Senior High School with an undergraduate
University f 2015, Jaycee and
I became residents of Crystal when we purchased our first home and we could not be happier with our property,
neighborhood, and greater community. As I have known Crystal my whole life and have fell more in love with it
now that I live here, we have decided that we would like to begin to make preparations to raise our family here.
With that being said our current garage does not function properly for the two of us alone much less when we
choose to have children. Therefore this is a written request explaining the need my wife and I have for a variance
to update our existing garage at 5565 Welcome Avenue North.
The plans that are attached were designed by former City of Crystal Community Development Director John
Sutter and have been reviewed by City Planner Dan Olson. Before I go into greater detail on the efforts I have
made to be a good neighbor in this project, let me explain why a variance is necessary. To do this a brief history of
the property is necessary. In
1918, the property was built facing North towards what is today Bass Lake Road. At that time the garage was in the
backyard or the southern portion of the lot. Welcome Avenue was built to the East of the property. In 1966, the
owner subdivided the property into 4 lots in 1973 the lot closest to Bass Lake Road (or the original
original property and garage now became the front yard. The point being that neither the original owner or I
intended to have a garage closer to the Welcome Avenue than the house. According to
history of the lot and house, and the fact that the garage was made nonconforming by the sub-developments
around it, there is a strong case to be made for a variance that would allow the current garage to be updated and
expanded in a way that does not make it closer to Welcome Avenue As I will explain this is exactly what I am
asking for, a variance to add on to the south and west sides of the garage but not the east.
Note that the current garage is 24
property line on Welcome Avenue. The purposed garage would maintain this distance and expand only to the
south and west of what is already there (i.e. new structure would begin where eastern wall of current structure is
and expand towards southern and western property lines The purpose of
this two-car garage would be to have a safe place to store both our vehicles with a small workshop and storage area
in the back for our lawn mower, snow blower and other miscellaneous storage. The peak of this garage would be
The other reason this is the best option for my family and I, is that financially we cannot
afford to demolish and remove our current driveway to install a new garage in the northwest corner of our lot. We
have received estimates of $6000-$10000 in concrete alone. These numbers do not include removal of current
black top, new curb being cut, and removal of three of the largest trees on our street. To place another garage
anywhere else on the property would result in not only the dissatisfaction of removing massive trees from the
neighborhood but extremely large financial burdens that are unnecessary through a variance. It should be noted
that countless homes in the Twin Oaks neighborhood have garages that are closer to the primary street then their
front doors; the only difference is many of these are that these garages are attached. In order for us to add an
attached garage it would involve removing our deck and substantial removal and installation of new driveway.
Besides the stated financial concerns, we believe that removing trees and or having two garages would disturb the
appeal of the neighborhood more than renovating and expanding the existing garage All of these things are
burdens that we believe can reasonably be avoided through your support and approval of a variance to expand the
footprint of the current garage. I would like to thank you for taking the time to consider this request. I am a young
family man that has chosen Crystal as the place I want to raise my family. I am simply trying to invest in my
property and add to the neighborhood. I am a blue-collar teacher who wants a place to park my vehicles and
tinker with my mower so I can keep my yard groomed, my family, and neighbors pleased. I appreciate you
approving our variance and making a positive recommendation to support our investment in the City of Crystal.
Sincerely,
Matthew Detloff
Property Owner
2
Attachment E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Planning Commission (September 12 meeting)
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Variance request from Greg Staples for an attached garage
addition at 5440 Twin Lake Terrace (Application Number 2016-09)
A. BACKGROUND
Greg Staples, owner of the property at 5440 Twin Lake Terrace, is requesting a variance to
construct a garage addition to the front of the existing home that would be located at a
distance of 12 feet to the front property line rather than the required 30 feet. The property is
zoned Low Density Residential (R-1). Notice of the September 12 public hearing was
published in the Sun Post on September 1 and mailed to owners within 350 feet (see
Attachment B).
Attachments:
A. Site location map
B. Map showing public hearing notification area
C. Existing zoning map
D. Project narrative
E. Property survey
F. Proposed street reconstruction
B. VARIANCE
The existing home with an attached one-stall garage was constructed in 1954 and is
considered legally n-. This is because a recent property
survey shows that the existing attached garage is lo
There is no documentation that the setbacks were
verified by the city when the home was constructed.
along the north side of the property (see attachment E). The applicant has indicated on the
property survey that no part of the footings, foundation, or eaves for the proposed garage will
encroach into this easement. However to ensure that no part of the proposed garage is
located within the easement, staff recommends a condition of approval of the variance
documenting this requirement.
5440 TWIN LAKE TERRACE VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 1 OF 3
The applicant is proposing to construct a 450 SF attached two-stall garage in front of the
existing attached garage to provide for more usable space.
Because the applicant is proposing to add
onto a nonconforming structure and that addition is closer to the front property line than
allowed by the zoning code, a variance is necessary.
The home is located on the north end of the Twin Lake Terrace cul-de-sac. The city is
reconstructing this segment of Twin Lake Terrace in 2016. As part of that street
reconstruction the cul-de-sac will be reduced in size, and the additional right-of-way will be
used to add length to existing driveway (see attachment F). Therefore although
the proposed garage will not meet the required setback, it will appear farther away from the
street pavement than it would be if the cul-de-sac were not reconstructed. In addition the front
setback for the proposed garage will be reasonably similar to other existing homes on that side
of the cul-de-sac.
The following are the relevant approval criteria for this variance as outlined in Section 515.05
Zoning Code, followed by staff response:
a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the official control and when the terms of the variances
are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Response: The intent of the
regulations to promote orderly development that allows for adequate
access to light, air, and convenient access to property. Since the
proposed attached garage is located at the north end of a cul-de-sac,
having a garage closer to the street will not conflict with other property
ight, air and convenient access to their property.
If the variance is approved, the home will continue to be in conformance
d use
designation.
b) Variances shall only be permitted when the city council finds that strict
enforcement of specific provisions of this section would create practical
difficulties due to circumstances unique to a particular property under
consideration. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner:
1) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control; and
2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and
3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
Response: The use of this parcel for an attached garage is a reasonable
ode. There are three unique
5440 TWIN LAKE TERRACE VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 2 OF 3
circumstance of this property not created by the applicant that justify the
approval of the variance:
In 1954 the City approved the location of the existing attached
garage which caused the garage to become nonconforming; and
Since the property is located on the north end of the cul-de-sac, the
proposed garage will have a reasonably similar setback to other
homes on that side of the cul-de-sac and will have minimal impact on
neighboring properties; and
The reduction in size of the existing cul-de-sac will create the
appearance that the proposed garage is further from the street
pavement than it would be if the cul-de-sac were not reconstructed.
Since the enlarged garage will be located at the north end of a cul-de-sac,
other properties on the cul-de-sac will not be impacted and the essential
character of this area is not proposed to change.
c) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Response: The applicant has indicated that his reason for requesting the
variance is to construct a larger garage that will have more usable space
than the existing single stall garage. Therefore economic considerations
alone are not the sole reason for requesting this variance.
C.REQUESTED ACTION
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council to either deny or approve the variance application to allow a garage addition to
a nonconforming home at 5440 Twin Lake Terrace that is located 12 feet from the front
property line rather than the required 30 feet. This recommendation should include
findings of fact either for or against the proposal. The Commission may reference the
findings for approval in Section B, above.
Since the variance meets the relevant criteria in the zoning code, staff is recommending
approval of the variance request with the following condition of approval:
1. No part of the new garage foundation or footing, nor any eaves, may be
located within the 5-foot wide storm sewer easement on the north side of the
property.
City Council action is anticipated on September 20, 2016.
5440 TWIN LAKE TERRACE VARIANCE APPLICATION
PAGE 3 OF 3
85458
INVOICE NO.
1089-37
F.B.NO.
Proposed Building Addition Survey For:
20'
SCALE: 1" =
GREGORY STAPLES
5" E
AV
E
LIN
E
Denotes Found Iron Monument
4
" F
OO
TIN
G
LI Denotes Iron Monument
NE
Denotes Wood Hub Set for
excavation only
22
'0
"
Denotes Existing Contours
n
EXT
ER
IO
R W g
AL
L O Denotes Proposed Contours
F
BLO
C
K
o
o
i
j Basis for
t
a Denotes Existing Elevation
"
bearings is
"
0d
'
n
0
2
assumed Denotes Proposed Elevation
'
u
0
o
f
Denotes Surface Drainage
2
o
t
Property Address: 5440 Twin Lake Terrace Crystal MN
Property located in Section 3, Township 118, Range 21,
22
'0
"
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lot 1, Block 2, TWIN LAKE TERRACE
Hennepin County, Minnesota
30.16
22
'0"
g The Gregory Group, Inc.
o
j
"
d.b.a.
0
"
'
2
0
'
P
ro
po
sed
0
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY
2
Ad
diti
on
Established in 1962
(fo
un
dat
ion
)
LAND SURVEYORS
22
'0"
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
(763) 560-3093
7601 73rd Avenue North
Fax No. 560-3522
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
Vxuyh|ruv Fhuwlilfdwh
The only easements shown are from plats of record or information
provided by client.
I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota
75.00
24.51
Surveyed this 4th day of August 2016.
EAST 115.15
Signed
Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992
8-12-16 garage dim's
Drawn By
Rev
8-25-16 easement & shifted prop gar.
File Name
TLT-1-2fb108937inv85458.dwg
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Planning Commission (September 12 meeting)
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Subdivision request for Bottineau Gardens preliminary plat
(Application Number 2016-10)
A. BACKGROUND
Hennepin County, owner of properties involved in the Bottineau Gardens subdivision, is
proposing a preliminary plat application to replat three lots for new single-family homes
on an approximately 0.9 acre parcel. The preliminary plat is located near the
th
intersection of Lakeland and 49 Avenues North, north of Lakeside Avenue North. All
of the properties involved in this application are zoned Low Density Residential (R-1).
Notice of the September 12 public hearing was published in the Sun Post on
September 1 and mailed to owners within 350 feet (see attachment B).
Attachments:
A. Site location map
B. Map showing public hearing notification area
C. Existing zoning map
D. 2030 Land Use Comprehensive Plan map
E. Project narrative
F. Proposed preliminary plat
B.PROPOSED PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
Existing use of properties
The properties are currently vacant land. In the 1970s the three homes on these
properties were removed for the construction of a proposed State Highway 52 (now
County Road 81) interchange that was never built. In 1995 the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT), the property owner, conveyed these lots to Hennepin County as
part of the transfer of County Road 81 (Bottineau Boulevard).
th
The current property addresses are 5205 49 Avenue North, and 4816 and 4834
Lakeland Avenue North. If the subdivision is approved by the City Council, the properties
th
would be re-addressed as 5201 and 5209 49 Avenue North and 5140 Lakeside
Avenue North.
Comprehensive Plan
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the 2030 planned land use for these properties is
designated as Low Density Residential (LDR), with a maximum gross density of 5 units
BOTTINEAU GARDENS SUBDIVISION SPECIAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PAGE 1 OF 3
per acre. The proposed single-family homes will have a gross density of 3 units per acre,
which is consistent with this designation.
Subdivision design features
The subdivision (plat) is called Bottineau Gardens. The three lots are lots of record, but
the main reason for replatting is to re-orient them to face east-west streets rather than the
frontage road (Lakeland Avenue North). The following are the notable design features of
this subdivision:
1. Zoning Requirements
Building setbacks Since the County is merely replatting the lots so that they can
be sold for single-family homes, the County is not proposing building pads at this
time. However, the County has indicated that the proposed homes will meet the
setbacks for the R-1 district, which are 30 feet for the front and rear property lines,
five feet from the interior side property line, and ten feet from the corner side
property line. No part of the homes, including eaves, may be located within a
drainage and utility easement.
Lot size and area The proposed lots meets the lot area, width, and depth
requirements of the R-1 district.
Property encroachment There is an existing driveway located at 5132 Lakeside
Avenue North that encroaches one foot over the property line for lot 3. Left
unaddressed this encroachment issue could cause title issues for the buyer of lot
3. To address this situation, staff is recommending a condition of approval of the
plat that the applicant grant an easement to the property at 5132 Lakeside to allow
this encroachment to remain until such time as the driveway is replaced.
2. Street and Pedestrian Access
th
Street access The three lots will be accessed off of existing streets: 49 and
Lakeside Avenues North. The County is dedicating additional right-of-way so that
the existing trail along Lakeland Avenue North and the existing street pavement in
Lakeside Avenue North are in a public right-of-way. However Lakeside Avenue
North will not be widened until the street is reconstructed.
Pedestrian connections There is an existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail along
Lakeland Avenue.
3. Utilities
th
The proposed new homes on both 49 and Lakeside Avenues North will connect with
existing water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer mains. The following is a description
of these existing mains:
th
Water mains in Lakeside, Lakeland and 49 Avenues
th
Sanitary sewer mains in Lakeside and 49 Avenues North
Storm sewer main: Existing 24Lakeside Avenue North and a
Lakeland Avenue North
th
An existing overhead utility line along 49 Avenue is located in the street right-of-way,
and the existing overhead line along the east side of lots 2 and 3 will be located in a
drainage and utility easement that will vary in size from five to ten feet in width.
Private utilities will be buried underground. City staff will also request that the City
Council vacate an existing city-owned sanitary sewer easement on lot 2 since
BOTTINEAU GARDENS SUBDIVISION SPECIAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PAGE 2 OF 3
this easement will be replaced with new easements. The sanitary sewer pipe located
within this easement previously serviced the home located on this lot.
4. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control The city does not require a grading,
drainage and erosion control plan for parcels under one acre in size. However during
home construction, the city will require erosion control techniques to be used on-site
including silt fences, inlet protection, and a gravel construction entrance. The typical
drainage and utility easements for each lot are ten feet along property lines adjacent
to a street and five feet along side and rear yard property lines.
5. Tree replacement Existing trees on the three lots are shown on the preliminary plat.
It is possible that trees will be removed from the property to accommodate the new
homes. According to City Code Section 830, which provides requirements for the
removal of significant trees, if deciduous trees over 12 diameter or coniferous trees
either
Significant trees are located on lots 1 and 3. Staff recommends a condition of
approval of the preliminary plat that will require significant trees removed during home
construction to be replaced according to the formula required in City Code Section
830.
6. Park dedication Since there is no new net addition of lots to the city, this subdivision
is not subject to the c
C.REQUESTED ACTION
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council to either approve or deny the preliminary plat application to replat three lots for
th
new single-family homes near the intersection of Lakeland Avenue North and 49
Avenue North. This recommendation should include findings of fact either for or
against the proposal. The Commission may reference the findings for approval in
Section B, above. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The minimum building setbacks for the new homes are 30 feet to the front and rear
property line, 5 feet to the interior side property line, and 10 feet to the corner side
property line. No part of the home, including eaves, may be located in a drainage
and utility easement.
2. Tin lot 2 shall be vacated by the City
Council at the time of final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall grant an easement to the property at 5132 Lakeside Avenue
North allowing the existing driveway to encroach on to Lot 3. This easement
agreement will be recorded at the same time as the final plat.
4. If significant trees, as defined in City Code Section 830.11, are removed from lots 1
and 3 during the construction of the homes, the property owner shall submit a tree
replacement plan with the building permit application for the new home.
City Council action is anticipated on September 20, 2016.
BOTTINEAU GARDENS SUBDIVISION SPECIAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PAGE 3 OF 3