HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1 , 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call .
2. Approval of Minutes of February 1 , 1989, Planning Commission Meeting
3. Case No. 89-2, Minor subdivision for Karth Lake South Second Addition
generally located east of Hamlin Avenue at Wyncrest Court; Keith
Ebensteiner, applicant.
4. Discussion of memo on sign regulations related to traffic.
5. Council Report.
6. Adjournment.
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, March 1, 1989, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof Chairman Probst
called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
• ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Dennis Probst, Dave Carlson, Peter Martin,
Raymond McGraw, Dan Ashbach, Jeanne Winiecki and Robert
Woodburn.
Absent: Scott Petersen, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm and
Robert Curtis.
Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe and Deputy
Clerk Catherine Iago.
APPROVE MINUTES McGraw moved, seconded by Martin, that the Minutes of the
February 1, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting be approved as
submitted. All voted in favor. (7-0)
CASE #89-02; MINOR Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 3-1-89, relative to
SUBD/LOT COMBIN. , the proposed minor subdivision and lot combination for
KARTH LK. SO. 2ND Karth Lake South Second Addition, Keith Eibensteiner,
ADDN. , EIBENSTEINER generally located at Hamline Avenue & Wyncrest Court.
The Planner briefly reviewed a previous request by the applicant for a lot split
and consolidation in this area, which was denied by the Planning Commission in
1983; basis for denial was due to the irregular shape of the lot combination as
proposed.
Bergly stated the lot pattern currently proposed by the applicant requires
variances on Lot 1 and Lot 5, for lot width and lot depth, and the subdivision
ordinance specifies that a minor subdivision cannot contain variances. He
• explained the applicant requested pursuing the division at this time as as minor
subdivision and that the Planning Commission and Council indicate whether or not
they would be willing to consider granting the variances proposed; if both bodies
would consider approval of the variances as proposed, the applicant would submit
• a preliminary plat at the next meeting and follow the necessary procedures for
variances and public hearings.
Planner Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report of 3-1-89, as
related to:
1. The lot pattern proposed by the planner in 1983; same number of lots
would be provided and all lots would meet minimum requirements.
(exhibit #3)
2. Potential development of property to the north of this site and provision
for future access via an easement across proposed Lot 5. (exhibit 4)
3. Lot reduction and rationale for variance request for proposed Lot 1.
4. Lot configuration for proposed Lot 5; would require variance.
5. Establishment of front setback for proposed Lot 1; 60 ft. setback
recommended.
6. Drainage patterns; recommended a Swale be provided along the north or east
lot line of proposed Lot 2, to create a positive drainage pattern and
avoid potential problems between neighbors.
7. The existing home and garage be removed from existing Lot 11, as required.
and noted on the plat.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 1, 1989
Page 2
CASE #89-02 (Cont'd) The Planner then reviewed the conclusions and staff
recommendations listed in his report:
• 1. A division pattern is possible that would not require variances and there is
no apparent hardship to provide basis for the request; staff recommends the
variances be denied and the plat be modified to conform with ordinance
requirements, as shown on exhibits 3 and 5.
2. Commission discuss an access easement for the property north of this site;
an equitable resolution at this time would avert future access problems.
3. The front yard setback for Lot 1 be established at 60 ft. , rather than 40 ft. ,
as discussed in the Planner's report under "Considerations - #5".
4. The Village Engineer approve the utility easements, site grading and drainage
• easement in respect to the surface drainage from the rear of Lots 3, 4 and 5.
5. The three existing structures on Lots 1 & 3 be removed prior to construction
on those two lots.
6. The park dedication requirement be fulfilled along with issuance of building
permits.
Commission and Planner discussed the application procedures for a Minor
Subdivision versus a Preliminary Plat.
Marcel Eibensteiner, applicant, stated the variances were being requested based
on financial hardship. He explained he would prefer the lots be platted with the
variances, however, he would agree to the proposal drawn by the planner.
Eibensteiner did not favor provision of an easement along Lot 5 and felt it would
be detrimental to the development. Eibensteiner stated he did not intend to
purchase the property to the north, however, he had discussed purchasing the land
and the property owner was not interested in selling or developing the land.
Eibensteiner explained how the homes would be constructed and the plan to have
the drainage swale constructed between Lots 1 & 2 to direct the flow to the west
onto Hamline Avenue.
Commission questioned if the property owners to the north had been advised of the
proposal; Planner Bergly advised the application process does not require
notification of adjacent property owners.
Member Martin questioned if the land is abstract or Torrens; he advised the
applicant may have problems when filing the subdivision at the County if the land
is not platted.
Eibensteiner advised the property is abstract, however, he would be agreeable to
platting the property or filing any other type of documentation required by the
City and County.
Planner Bergly suggested the Attorney review the ordinance requirement and advise
what documentation would be required for filing.
There was Commission discussion relative to the developer and City responsibility
for providing access to the property to the north. Several of the Members did not
favor burdening the developer to provide access for the property to the north.
Eibensteiner stated the property owner has access along Hamline Avenue and could
provide the access from Hamline.
• Member Winiecki agreed the developer should not be burdened; she questioned if
the City was responsible for assuring access to the parcel.
Bergly stated the ordinance requires the City to identify and discuss
possibilities for averting potential access problems.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 1, 1989
Page 3
CASE #89-02 (Cont'd) Woodburn moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #89-02, Minor
Subdivision and Lot Combination without variances, for Karth Lake South Second
• Addition, Keith Eibensteiner, as shown on Planner's Exhibit #5 and contingent
upon Planner's recommendations listed in his 3/1/89 report as Items 1, 3, 4, 5
and 6. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0)
Winiecki moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission
recommends City staff notify the adjacent property owner to the north of this
site of the proposal prior to the March 13, 1989 Regular Council Meeting. Motion
carried. (Winiecki, Carlson, Martin, Ashbach, Probst and Woodburn voting in
favor; McGraw abstained) (6-0-1)
• Commission questioned when the construction trailer parked on Highway 96 near
Keithson Drive would be removed; Eibensteiner advised he would arrange for the
trailer to be moved within 30 days.
SIGN REGULATIONS Planner Bergly explained the Council had requested he
review the existing sign regulations and recommend
changes that would be appropriate as related to the size and placement of signs
to the distance and speed of moving vehicles from which the signs would be seen.
Bergly reviewed his report of 2-22-89, and recommended the City continue to use
the existing ordinance to regulate signs on the few remaining undeveloped
properties and for sign replacement. The conclusion of the Planner was based on
three primary factors listed in his report.
No action was taken on this matter.
• COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Growe reported on items of interest to
the Commission.
STATUS REPORT; Commission requested Council direction relative to the
ROUND LAKE/TASK status of the Round Lake GB District and also relative to
FORCE Commission continuation of the Task Force Committee for
the project.
ADJOURN Winiecki moved, seconded by McGraw, that the meeting be
adjourned at 8:30 p.m. All voted in favor. (7-0)
Dennis Probst
Chairman
•