Loading...
2007.11.13 PC Meeting MinutesCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 13, 2007 A. CALL TO ORDER Page 1 of 5 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chair Renm with the fnllnwino memherc nresent- X Commissioner (Ward 1) Commissioner (Ward 2) X Commissioner (Ward 4) Sears [Vice Chair] Whitenack [Chair] Not Hester [Secretary] Present Commissioner (Ward 1) X Commissioner (Ward 3) X Commissioner (Ward 4) Davis Not Present VonRueden Scheibe X Commissioner (Ward 2) X Commissioner (Ward 3) X Commissioner (At -Large) Nystrom Buck Strand Also present were Council Liaison David Anderson and city staff members John Sutter and Corinne Elfelt . B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Buck to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2007 regular meeting with the addition that Council Liaison David Anderson was noted as also being present at the October 8, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2007-13 for a Variance to eliminate the rear (south) setback at 3550 Hampshire Ave North. Mr. Sutter summarized the staff report. No questions from the Commission. Vice Chair Sears opened the Public Hearing. The follow were heard: Mr. Allen Franz explained the reason for the variance was to add a deck and keep the shed on the south end of his garage. He wants to replace his deck and has had to have soil tests done. When he told the city of his plans, he was informed a variance was needed for the replacement of his deck. In 1977 he obtained a building permit to build the original deck; 1993 he obtained a building permit to install 7 new windows; 2003 he obtained a building permit to construct a new retaining wall. He stated he had not received a letter that stated he needed to remove the shed. He stated he understands the importance of easements; he has given the city other easements to add drainage. The easement on the south line of his property is for drainage and utilities; however, he does UTLANNING\PLANCOMM\2007\11.12\plan comm minutes.doc Page 2 of 5 not feel this easement area would ever be used. He would like to suggest the easement be vacated. He stated that none of his neighbors have objected. The shed blends in with the house and garage. Mr. Franz had pictures of the shed. Asked if there is any reason to hear from his neighbors. Commissioner Sears stated that after you speak any others would have an opportunity to address the Commission. Mr. Franz asked if there is any "grandfather" clause to keep his shed since it has been there so long. He stated he keeps mowers, stock car parts in it and he keeps it neat and clean. Mr. Wayne Haupt addressed the commission. He indicated he lives 100 feet south and across the street. Neighbor behind Mr. Franz has no easement, why? This is a nice residential neighbor hood. There has only been one complaint in the neighborhood about a garage and that was taken care of. Mr. Haupt indicated he has been in the neighborhood 23 or 24 years, and the shed was there before he moved in. He feels the shed is not an issue. Mr. Sutter explained that the subject property has an easement as a result of land subdividing. And often easements are added when properties are subdivided to address any possible future issues. Commissioner Sears asked if this is standard protocol. Mr. Sutter explained that, for example, when the Economic Development Authority obtains properties, it often adds easements along all property lines. Mr. Donald Kruse addressed the commission stating that his property adjoins Mr. Franz property to the east. Drainage is not an issue for his property. Mr. Franz' retaining wall and other improvements have improved the area. Ms. Julie Baldwin stated that she has lived across Hampshire from subject house for 38 years. She stated that the addition on the garage looks like a shed not a "lean-to". The Franz yard is always kept up very nice. When easements have been needed Mr. Franz has given as needed. Hearing there were no other comments, Commissioner Sears closed the public hearing. Planning Commission discussion was as follows: Commissioner Sears asked if this is a permanent shed. Mr. Franz indicated that it has a corrugated fiberglass roof over to the fence. Not a permanent roof. Commissioner Scheibe asked about the construction of the shed, was it fence, cement floor, wood construction? G:APLANNING\PLANCOMM\2007\11.12\plan comm minutes.doc Page 3 of 5 Mr. Franz stated there are cedar 2x4's out to fence, cement floor. Commissioner Strand asked why he did not obtain a permit. Mr. Franz stated he was a little "green" about the procedures. Commissioner Buck stated that in 1993 there was a recommended removal of the shed structure. Why didn't you remove it when the Building Official had told you to? Mr. Franz indicated that the January 1993 Council Meeting minutes did not say he had to. Commissioner Scheibe asked if Mr. Franz would be willing to remove the structure from the easement if something needed to go there. Mr. Franz said yes, but there is no need. Commissioner Sears asked whether the concrete patio under the shed would have to be removed should this structure be removed. Mr. Sutter stated he would have to look at the set -back for a patio and he is unsure how this would be treated. Commissioner VonRueden asked if the shed structure meets building code. Mr. Sutter indicated that it is unknown since no plan was ever submitted for the structure and it was therefore never inspected. In 2003 when the retaining wall was being constructed the Building Official noted the shed structure and indicated the need for it to be addressed. Commissioner Hester stated that state law requires a variance meets the three criteria as stated in the staff report. He states that this request does not meet any of the criteria. He stated he is willing to go along with staff recommendations. Mr. Franz asked how we vacate an easement. Mr. Sutter said it is an action similar to this Planning Commission action but it is the City Council that has to take the action. There are additional fees, public notice and the utilities also need time to comment on the action. Commissioner Sears stated that future owners of the property and area properties have to be considered when such an action is requested. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Buck to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2007-13 for a Variance to reduce the rear (south) setback at 3550 Hampshire Ave North from 12.5 to 2 feet with the findings of fact as noted in the staff report. Motion carried. G:APLANNING\PLANC0MM\2007\11.12\plan comm minutes.doc Page 4 of 5 Moved by Commissioner Hester and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve a variance from 515.33 Subd. 8 b) to reduce the south setback from 12.5 feet to 5 feet provided that the west setback is increased to 30 feet, thus bringing the south and west setbacks into line with what was in effect when the house was built in 1964 along with the finding of fact as noted in the staff report. Motion carried. 2. Consider Application 2007-14 for a Low Density Residential Planned Development at 4908 & 4910 Bernard Avenue North. Mr. Sutter summarized the staff report. Mr. Sutter also indicated there is a copy of a support petition by neighbors on the dais for the Commissioners. Also noted is that there will be an association document that will outline maintenance, dock, grounds care, etc. Commissioner Nystrom asked why the 16 feet of property can be taken from the neighbor. Mr. Sutter explained that the owners of the two properties are partners on this development project and they are transferring ownership of the portion of one property to the other. Commissioner Sears asked whether lot coverage guideline will still be met should the owner(s) in the future choose to create additional driveway space on the 16 feet of additional land. Mr. Sutter explained that due to the size of this lot and the size of the lot next door it should not be an issue with either property. Commissioner Sears opened the public hearing. The following were heard: Mr. McColgan stated that a Quit Claim Deed for the 16 feet of property has already been filed with the county. It has been easier for his to manage this property from next door. Neighbors seem to prefer home owners living in this home instead of renters. Lloyd Olson expressed his concern about the possibility of a house being built on Lot 3 of this property. Mr. Sutter explained that Lot 3 is the common property around the two units. Most of Lot 3 is in the flood plain, the street would have to be extended and flooding problems would have to be solved before anything could be built on Lot 3. It is not something he would anticipate for the future, as it would take another subdivision of the property to create a buildable lot. And a public hearing like this one would need to be held. There was no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2007-14 for a Low Density Residential Planned Development at 4908 & 4910 Bernard Avenue North with the findings of fact and conditions as noted in the staff report. G:APLANN1NG\PLANC0MM\2007\11.12\plan comm minutes.doc Page 5 of 5 Motion carried. D. OLD BUSINESS None discussed. E. NEW BUSINESS None discussed F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items 2. Staff preview of likely agenda items for December 10, 2007 meeting. 3. Reminder: Comprehensive Plan Task Force Open House 6-8 p.m. on Nov. 15th. G. OPEN FORUM There were no comments. H. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Buck and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Motion carried. G:APLANNING\PLANC0MM\2007\11.12\plan comm minutes.doe