Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-09 CPC MIN0 Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Russ Hultman, John Rheinberger, Darwin Wald, Tom Weidner and Terry Zoller Absent: Glenna Bealka, Kirk Roetman and Don Valsvik Others: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Mr. Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Hultman, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved approval of the minutes of Feb. 9, 1998; all in favor. Case No. SUB/98-9 A resubdivision of Lot 6, Block 14, Holcombe's Addition Case No. SUB/98-12 A resubdivision of Lot 5, Block 14, Holcombe's Addition Case No. SV/98-13 Vacation of the east half of South Everett Street bounded on the north by the south line of West Anderson Street and bounded on the south by a line from the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 14, Holcombe's Addition to the west lot of said Lot 6. Timothy J. Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Dupray & Associates, Inc., representing applicants James Finnegan, 819 W. Anderson St., Mark McGrorty, 813 W. Anderson St., and Tom O'Brien, 823 W. Anderson St. • Mr. Freeman explained the requests were prompted when a discrepancy in property lines was discovered when drawing up a legal description for McGrortys to sell their property. He said the new legal descriptions reflect where the property owners currently are "mowing to" and maintaining as their property. The new descriptions bring the parcels closer into conformance with lot size requirements, he said. All of the property owners are in agreement; the property owners were in attendance and all attested to that fact. Mr. Weidner asked if other property descriptions are in error. Mr. Freeman said he would "speculate" that it was an isolated problem involving these three property owners. Mr. Weidner also noted that in street vacations, property owners on each side of the street get half of the vacated property, rather than as proposed in this request. It was noted that City Attorney David Magnuson could resolve that issue. Mr. Weidner also raised a question about the city engineer's condition of approval regarding the street vacation - that the west property line be located 10 feet west of the existing property line. Mr. Weidner and Mr. Freeman suggested the intent is that the property line be located 15 feet west of the existing property line, subject to a five foot easement. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of SUB/98-9; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/98-12; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger moved approval of SV/98-13 subject to the city engineer's condition of approval. Mr. Weidner asked that the condition of approval state the vacation of 15 feet west of • 0 March 9, 1998 the existing property line, subject to a five-foot easement. Mr. Rheinberger accepted the amendment to his motion. Mr. Weidner seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. V/98-10 A variance for relocation and expansion of a second residential unit on an 8,302 square foot lot (10,000 square feet required) in the RB Duplex Residential district at 216 W. Wilkins St. Marcia Kilbourne, applicant. Ms. Kilbourne was present. She objected to the conditions of approval relating to grading/drainage. She said she was not doing any excavation of the lot. Mr. Russell said that such a condition is standard procedure if the applicant is putting soil against the wall as shown in submitted plans. Mr. Russell suggested removing condition of approval No. 3, since it is repetitive, and adding language "if grading is proposed" to condition of approval No. 5. Ms. Kilbourne explained that due to water problems, the duplex unit was moved from the basement, and a new unit constructed behind the garage. The basement will now be used as a family room. Mr. Zoller asked why a variance is required. Mr. Russell said a variance is needed since the request involves enlarging/intensifying a non-conforming use, specifically increasing the duplex unit from one to three bedrooms. is The main point of discussion centered on the fact that building permits have been issued for the project. Ms. Kilbourne stated that she had the permits and was not told that a variance was needed. Mr. Weidner said the only issue for the Planning Commission to consider is whether to allow expansion of a nonconforming use. The issue of the applicant being granted building permits and not advised that a variance was required is an issue for the City Council to deal with, he said. Mr. Wald said the problem is not the applicant's fault - she is caught in the middle. Mr. Zoller moved to approve case No. V/98-10, eliminating condition of approval No. 3 and adding language "if grading is proposed" to condition of approval No. 5 (No. 4); Mr. Zoller said he was making his motion of approval based on the hardship created by the water problem and the fact that a duplex existed before. Mr. Rheinberger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-2, with Mr. Weidner and Mr. Fontaine voting no. Case No. V/98-11 A variance request for reduction of a drainage/utility easement to accommodate construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard of a single-family residence at 263 Pineridge Lane in the RA Single Family Residential District. Todd and Kristine Wilson, applicants. 0 0 March 9, 1998 Mr. Wilson was present. He explained that the variance request does not just pertain to the pool; the requested variance is needed to allow the Wilsons to utilize their backyard. He said when they signed the purchase agreement there was no mention made of a conservation easement; the Wilsons thought the easement on the property was a typical utility/drainage easement. The request is to fill 25 percent of the easement and place a drainage system under the fill. Mr. Wilson said if he had been told there was a conservation easement on the property, he never would have purchased the property. Signe Cowan, Crestwood Terrace, stated neighbors were very concerned about protecting the wetlands when the development was proposed and worked hard to obtain protection measures. Mr. Zoller also pointed out that the City Council made an agreement with Trailhead Development Co. to obtain the wetland protection measures. Members suggested that Mr. Wilson's real issue was with the developers. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved to deny the request; motion passed unanimously. Other business Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of the revisions to the draft Home Occupation Ordinance; motion passed unanimously. It was agreed to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0