Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-01 CITY OF LAKEVILLE Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes OCTOBER 16, 2001 The October 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Drotning in the City Hall Council Chambers at 1:00 p.m. Flag Pledge and Roll call of members: Present: Stolte, Michaud, Drotning, Comer, Detjen, Wulff, Puncochar Absent: Grenz Staff Present: Daryl Morey, Acting Community and Economic .Development Director; .Leif Hanson, Zoning Enforcement Coordinator; Roger Knutson, City .Attorney; and Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Commissioners Detjen and Comer recommended changes to the minutes regarding ' the Stonegate Preliminary Plat: .Commissioner Detjen wanted to clarify that he did not like the idea of the townhouse development access into the commercial property because it would have three points of ingress .and .egress that could limit the options on siting a , future commercial building on the property. Commissioner Comer wanted the following added to his nay vote for Stonegate; "and the lack of space for. the children to play." The .October 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as amended. ITEM 4: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey indicated that he would like to have a short discussion with the Planning Commission under New Business to discuss the City Council action from their October 15, 2001 meeting regarding the Stonegate preliminary plat. He also stated that the following items were distributed to the Planning Commission members and staff before today's meeting:. 1. Revised survey for Roger Gilb showing the existing driveway. Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2001 .Page 2 ITEM 5. ROGER GILB Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Roger Gilb for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 32' X 52' detached accessory building in the RS-2, Single Family Residential District, as follows: 1. Accessory building floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet. 2. Accessory building height in excess of 15 feet. 3. More than one detached accessory building. City Attorney Knutson attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with state statutes and City :Code. Roger Gilb was in attendance to answer any questions that the public or the Planning Commission may have.. He indicated that he was requesting this conditional use permit' so that he would have a place to store- his vintage cars and vintage farm vehicles. Zoning Enforcement Coordinator Leif Hanson presented the planning report. Mr. Hanson stated that Roger. Gilb has submitted- an application for a conditional use permif to allow the construction of an oversized. detached accessory building on a 2.5 acre legal non-conforming parcel located at 9880 Iteri court West. He indicated thaf the proposed accessory building has a height of 18' 2", .which exceeds the 15 foot height allowed in the RS-2 District. Mr. Hanson stated that Mr. Gilb is proposing two detached accessory buildings on his property that would consist of the proposed detached accessory building and a gazebo that currently exists on the property. He indicated that with the addition of the proposed- accessory building, the combination of attached garage and detached accessory building area on the property would be greater than the 1,500 square foot area permitted in the RS-2 District. A conditional use permit is required to allow a total. accessory building area :greater than 1,500 square feet, an accessory building height greater .than 15 feet, and more than one detached accessory building on a property located in an RS-2 District. Mr. Hanson stated that Mr. Gilb submitted a letter dated October 1, 2001 that states he is requesting the conditional use permit for the oversized accessory building for the purpose of storing cars, trucks and farm tractors. He also stated. in the letter that he doesnot intend to operate a business within the building. . Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2001 Page 3 Mr, Hanson stated that.Mr. Gilb is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of a detached accessory. building with an urea of 1,664 square feet and a height of 18'2" on his property. The existing house includes a-798 square foot attached garage. Two detached accessory buildings currently exit on the property, a portable shed and a 185 square feet gazebo. He indicated that Mr. Gilb is proposing to remove the portable shed and keep the gazebo, Mr. Hanson indicated that the total proposed accessory building area would be 2,647 square feet, which is 1,147 square feet greater than what is permitted in the RS-2 District unless approved by a conditional use permit. The proposed building area and height is consistent with similar detached accessory buildings that have been approved by the .City.. Mr. Hanson stated that the exterior of the proposed building will be comprised of asphalt or fiberglass shingles and vinyl siding -and will be compatible with the principal. building located on the lot and other existing homes in the area. Mr. Hanson indicated that the .proposed building complies .with the required setbacks and will not be installed in any drainage or utility easements. Mr. Hanson stated that a revised survey was submitted by the applicant, which was .distributed to the Planning Commission before today's meeting, shows. the location of the existing paved driveway. Mr, Hanson stated that should the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Gilb Conditional Use Permit application, Community and Economic Development Department staff recommends approval subject to the 8 stipulations listed in the .planning report, and approval of the Findings of .Fact, dated October 16, 2001. Chair Drotning opened the hearing to the public for comment. .There were no comments from the audience. 01.139. Motion by Michaud, Second by Comer to close the public hearing at 1:15 p.m. Ayes. Stolte, Michaud, Drotning, Comer, Detjen, Wulff Nays: 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2001. Page 4 Commissioner Stolte asked Mr. Gilb if he was planning to remove trees so he can access the garage doors on the east end of the accessory building. Mr. Gilb stated that he would have to remove some trees. Commissioner Stolte asked about Stipulation 7 in the October 12, 2001 planning report regarding removal of the accessory building if the property is subdivided in the future. Mr. Morey indicated that this stipulation. has been. recommended for conditional use permits for oversized accessory buildings on larger lots because the subdivision of the property will change the character of the area and the size of the lot, which is a basis for. consideration of the conditional use permit request. The subdivision of the property requires City approval of an administrative subdivision or a plat, at which time staff would .revisit the conditions of the conditional use permit -and enforce the approved stipulation regarding removal of the accessory building. Commissioner Wulff was concerned about screening on the- east side of the accessory ,building. Mr. Gilb indicated that there are trees on his neighbors property line that are not shown on the survey that will screen .the accessory building. Chair Drotning asked Mr. Gilb where he would gain access to the accessory: building. Mr. Gilb indicated that he would gain access across the grass on the east side of his house until his neighborhood received sewer and water, at which time he would. remove his septic tank and .gain access off his existing driveway on the west side of his house. Chair Drotning stated. that the Zoning Ordinance requires a paved. access. Mr. Morey indicated that our policy has been to include as a stipulation of the conditional use permit that the driveway access be paved and an escrow guaranteeing compliance be submitted. Commissioner Wulff asked at what point does an accessory building require a driveway. Mr. Morey indicated that a driveway is required if the accessory building is used. for motor vehicle storage. The City has not approved a conditional use permit for an accessory .building. for motor vehicle storage without a paved driveway. Chair Drotning asked Mr. Gilb if he had shared access with the adjacent parcel to the west. Mr. Gilb stated no. Planning Commission. Meeting October 16, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner. Wulff indicated that it could be several years before there. are paved roads in this neighborhood..She suggested that an escrow be submitted for the full cost of paving the driveway. Commissioner Comer agreed. He felt that with room to store 18 vehicles, there would be vehicles entering and leaving the accessory building., Mr. Gilb stated that he would like to wait to install the paved driveway access. to the accessory building until Iteri Court is paved. His original driveway is paved, but Iteri Court is not paved. Chair Drotning questioned whether we should require a paved driveway when the public street isri t paved. The Commissioners asked about the location and the height of the garage doors. Mr. Gilb indicated- that in the future he plans to purchase a motor home and he wanted to be sure that he would be able to get it into the accessory building for storage. The Commissioners suggested that Mr. Gilb consider turning the building and putting both of the garage doors on the west side of the. building to minimize the .driveway access requirements and to avoid having an access that encroaches on the neighbor's property to the east. The Commissioners indicated that a ramp. will need to be installed over the septic tank located adjacent to the existing driveway on the west side of the house to access the accessory building regardless of whether the driveway is paved or gravel Break at 1:50 p.m. Reconvened at 2:10 p.m. The Commissioners agreed that. this is a unique situation with Mr. Gilb's existing driveway paved and the public street is gravel. They indicated that the accessory building size and height is acceptable, but they suggested Mr. Gilb move the garage .doors from the east side to the. north side of the building so driveway access could tie into the existing driveway on the west side of the house. Mr: Morey suggested the following two additional stipulations: 9. The plans shall be revised to eliminate the two garage doors at the east end of the accessory building.. (The applicant can add doors to the north side of the accessory building.) Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2001 Page 6 10. A Class V gravel driveway access shall be shown on the site plan and provided to the accessory building by October 1, 2002 in compliance with the Zoning .Ordinance.. The driveway access shall be paved when Iteri Court is paved. 01.140 Motion by Stolte, Second by Michaud to recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Roger Gilb for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory building area in excess of 1,500 square feet with a height in excess of 15 feet and more than one detached accessory .building on a property located at 98$0 Iteri Court West in ..the RS-2 District, subject to the 8 stipulations listed in the planning report, along .with the two additional stipulations as stated, and approval of the Findings of Fact dated October 16, 2001. Ayes: Michaud, Drotning, Corner, Detjen, Wulff, Stolte Nays: 0 Item 6. New Business Mr. Morey stated that the. City Council approved the Stonegate preliminary plat at their October 15, 2001 meeting, but they directed the Planning. Commission to ...revisit the need for the private driveway access to the adjacent commercial lot with their review and consideration of the Stonegate final .plat. The City Council questioned. the need for the driveway access. In addition, if the driveway access is needed, they felt that it should be paved with the' initial Stonegate development, and not at a later date, and that it should not be located on a common area lot with the Homeowners Association being responsible for maintenance. Mr. Morey indicated that eliminating the private driveway access would allow the pond to be shifted to the north away from 205 Street and relocate the landscaping to the south side of the pond adjacent to the trail to be constructed on the north side of 205 Street.. This would present a more aesthetically pleasing view into the development from 205 Street :which will address a concern raised by a neighboring resident at the public hearing for the Stonegate preliminary plat. Mr. Morey indicated that he will discuss -the idea with the Stonegate developer prior to their submittal of final plat plans. Because this is a C3 zoning, Chair Drotning stated that the .commercial property could, depending. upon the use, be developed with just staff site plan review and Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2001 Page 7 the Planning Commission would not review the plans. Mr. Morey confirmed this possibility. Commissioner Wulff stated that unless the C-3 use is positively identified prior to the final plat, the driveway should not be constructed at all and the pond should be shifted north. Mr. Morey and the other Planning Commission members agreed that if the private driveway is deemed necessary, it should be constructed with the. Stonegate development. Mr. Morey stated that when the Stonegate final plat is submitted, he will contact the commercial property owner to get an update on any potential users on that site. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,. U Penny B vi ,Recording etary ATTEST: t~ Karl Drotning, Chair