Meeting Minutes New Prague Planning Commission Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Meeting Minutes New Prague Planning Commission Wednesday, June 27, 2018"

Gavin Simon
5 years ago
Views:

1 Meeting Minutes New Prague Planning Commission Wednesday, 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Member Bob Gilman with the following members present: Amy Jirik, Matt Goldade, and Paul Tupy. Absent was Dan Meyer (arrived at 6:35PM. City Staff Present: Ken Ondich Planning / Community Development Director 2. Introduce New Member: Paul Tupy Paul Tupy was introduced as the new member to the Planning Commission. 3. Elect Chair and Vice Chair for 2018 / 2019 It was moved by Goldade, seconded by Jirik to elect Gilman as Chair for 2018 / Motion carried (4-0, Meyer had not yet arrived). It was moved by Gilman, seconded by Jirik to elect Goldade as Vice Chair for 2018 / Motion carried (4-0, Meyer had not yet arrived). 4. Approval April 25, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes It was moved by Goldade, seconded by Jirik, to approve the April 25, 2018 regular meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried (4-0). 5. Old Business A. None. 6. New Business A. Preliminary and Final Plat of Tupy Acres Elizabeth D. Tupy, applicant Planning Director Ondich presented the staff report. He stated that Elizabeth Tupy applied for the preliminary and final plat of Tupy Acres which is a rural plat of two lots on 4.33 acres within the City s 2 mile extraterritorial subdivision review area. He stated that LeSueur County retains zoning and permitting authority and that there is a shared well and shared septic system for the two lots being platted. He stated that the Page 1 of 7

2 plat is essentially a lot line adjustment between two properties but that it couldn t be done as an administrative subdivision because the land was not previously platted and is under 10 acres in size. He stated that the lots are zoned Agricultural within LeSueur County which have a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres and 200 of lot width and 300 of lot depth. Lot 2 does not meet the 200 width requirement of LeSueur County but they noted that they are ok with this as the lot is going to be more conforming than exists today. He stated that the existing homes do not meet existing setbacks but that the County is OK as the nonconformity is not increasing. He stated that the lots are located about 1,900 east of the city s growth boundary. He stated hat County Road 29 exists on the north side of the plat and the LeSueur County Engineer is OK with the proposed ROW for County Road 29. He stated that a wetland delineation is being completed by Bolton & Menk but is not yet completed at this time. He stated that the DNR was solicited for comments and none have been received at this time. He stated that park land dedication is normally required with a plat, but would be recommended to be deferred until the property is annexed to the City and likely further developed into smaller lots and blocks. He stated that staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Tupy Acres with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Meyer arrived at 6:35PM. The public hearing was opened at 6:40PM. No public comments were received. The public hearing was closed at 6:41PM. A motion was made by Meyer, seconded by Jirik to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat of Tupy Acres for following reasons: 1. The plat complies with the purpose and intent of the New Prague Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. And with the following conditions: 1. Approval is granted in general accordance with the Preliminary Plat submittal dated 5/11/2018 on file with the New Prague Planning Department. 2. Approval is granted in general accordance with the Final Plat submittal dated 5/11/2018 on file with the New Prague Planning Department. 3. The Final Plat must be recorded within 90 days of the date of the City Council granting approval per Chapter 051 (E) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Approval is subject to all requirements of the City Attorney including review and approval of the Title Commitment. 5. The City is not the LGU for the wetland permitting and therefore approval is subject to review by the LeSueur County Soil and Water Conservation District prior to final plat approval. 6. City Park Land Dedication is being delayed at this time. The Subdivision Ordinance would require 4,401 sq. ft. of land with a current 2018 estimated market value of the land per LeSueur County at $0.66 per square foot. This Page 2 of 7

3 would require a land dedication payment of $2, due at the time of signing the plat if within the City Limits. The land will not be required at this time, however, as it is not currently located within the City Limits. The land payment can be delayed until the time at which the property is annexed to the City and likely further developed into smaller lots and blocks. Motion carried (5-0). B. Request for Variance #V Fence Height Variance at 1301 Grant Ave. NW Darcie Kotzenmacher, applicant Planning Director Ondich presented the staff report. He stated that property owner Darcie Kotzenmacher has applied for a variance to allow a 6 tall privacy fence which does not meet the ordinance requirements as it would exceed 4 within 30 of a road right of way. He stated that she would like the fence installed along her rear lot line to be able to have more privacy, security and to reduce noise pollution and that the fence would be a wooden privacy fence. He stated that the neighborhood is zoned RM Medium Density Residential and that the ordinance would allow only a 32 deep area north of the home to be within the fenced in area which would cut the backyard area in half which affects the practical use of the yard and that if other adjacent lots built 4 tall fences that would extend to the rear lot lines that it would create an awkward appearance along 6 th Street NW. He stated that no sidewalk is planned between the lot line and 6 th Street NW and that no other homes have fences along 6 th Street NW at this time. He stated that 6 th Street NW is a major collector road and will have 1,100 vehicles per day in He stated that the aesthetic appearance of the 6 tall fence would be lessened with no trail or sidewalk in the boulevard area which is 14 deep and said if the fence variance were not approved, that the area from the curb to the fence will be 44 instead. He stated that there have been various fence variances issued in the recent past with the two most recent being reviewed for fences along County Road 29 which were approved by the Council in May He stated that staff recommended approval of the variance with the six findings in the staff report. Planning Director stated that he had received comments from Bill Pieper at 1303 Grant Ave. NW prior to the meeting in support of the variance request. He stated that Mr. Pieper stated that he supported the 6 tall fence as close to the rear lot line along 6 th Street NW as possible. Darcie Kotzenmacher, applicant, stated that she wanted the fence for the safety of her pets. A motion was made by Meyer, seconded by Tupy to recommend approval of Variance #V from the fence regulations in the RM Medium Density Residential Zoning District to allow a 6 tall fence to be located up to the rear property line along 6 th Street NW at 1301 Grant Ave. NW, for the following reasons: Page 3 of 7

4 A. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance because the RM Medium Density Residential Zoning District allows fences to be constructed as a permitted use. B. The proposed variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan because fences are allowed as a permitted use in the RM Medium Density Residential Zoning District. C. The applicant will continue to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance in that only the height of the fence within 30 of the right of way exceeds the ordinance permitted 4 height. D. Unique circumstances apply to the property in that it is a through lot abutting a road on two sides (front and rear) with the roadway along the rear yard being a 6 th Street NW which is a major collector road with future traffic counts above normal residential levels and which does not have a trail in place or planned between the rear lot line and curb of 6 th Street NW. E. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed 6 tall fence would be located on the rear lot line and presumably line up with future fences that would also be placed along the rear lot line leaving a common 14 boulevard area. F. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties because the variance would allow the applicant the privacy, security and noise mitigation they are seeking while not reducing the usable area of their backyard and while not changing the essential character of the neighborhood. Motion carried (5-0). C. Request for Variance #V Wetland Setback Variance and Fence Setback Variance at th Street Court SE Greg and Jane Kemper, applicants Planning Director Ondich presented the staff report. He stated that the property owners Greg and Jane Kemper are seeking a variance from the 50 wetland setback in order to construct an above ground pool with associated deck as we as a small storage shed. He stated that they also seek a variance for a fence to be less than 2 from the edge of a trail to extend an existing fence line. He stated that the wetland setback to structures precludes the use of their backyard for any structures and the existing fence was installed before the 2 setback to the trail existed. He stated that the applicants purchased the property in He stated that the subject property is zoned RM Medium Density Residential and that most other properties in the plat are not subject to the same setback limitations as the subject property having the wetland located into their property except for the lot directly to the west which is much deeper than the subject lot. He stated that the subject lot is unique in that the wetland setback reaches the rear of the home, precluding structures from being located there. He stated that the applicant s submitted a statement of difficulties dated 6/15/18 and noted their desire for a pool in their backyard. He stated that the City implemented wetland setbacks in 2002 and amended them in He stated that the first 40 of the wetland buffer per the 2002 ordinance was to be a natural vegetated area, but this property was agricultural land before it was platted and did not contain native vegetation. He stated that per the Page 4 of 7

5 2008 amendments that the buffer could be reduced to 25 but that no buffer actually exists today with native vegetation. He stated that the buffer is typically required to ensure structures are not affected by high water, but that an above ground pool and shed are not inhabited structures that would be affected like a house would be affected. He stated that the suggested 14 buffer and setback would be consistent with a variance granted in He stated that there have been 5 wetland setback variances issued since 2002 and that 3 of them were in relation to decks adjacent to wetlands with the most recent being approved for a setback of 14 instead of the ordinance required 50. He stated that the City Attorney s office believes that practical difficulties exist on the lot to justify the variance. He stated that staff recommended approval of the variances with the six findings in the staff report. Jane Kemper, applicant, stated that she had all her comments contained in the letter she submitted as part of the staff report. Commissioner Jirik asked about the utility easement noted on the survey. Planning Director noted that the survey was incorrect and that it was only a drainage easement, not a utility easement and was only for the wetland buffer. Commissioner Jirik asked about the fence being located in the site triangle. Planning Director Ondich stated that the fence would not be located in the required site triangle. Commissioner Jirik noted that the fence would be allowed 1 closer to the trail than allowed today but that she would be ok with that only if a condition of approval were added to note that the applicant is responsible for all repairs if the fence is damaged by city equipment. A motion was made by Goldade, seconded by Jirik to recommend approval of Variance #V for reduction from the required 50 Wetland Setback to 14 to allow for the construction of an above ground pool/deck and shed and also for reduction from the required 2 setback for a fence adjacent to a trail to 1, located at th Street Court SE, for the following reasons: A. The requested variances to allow for the construction of an above ground pool/deck and shed at up to 14 from the delineated wetland edge and to allow a fence within 1 of a trail edge is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance because above ground pools/decks, sheds and fences are a permitted use in the RM Medium Density Residential Zoning District. B. The requested variances to allow for the construction of an above ground pool/deck and shed at up to 14 from the delineated wetland edge and to allow a fence within 1 of a trail edge is consistent with the comprehensive plan because the subject property can have assessor structures such as pools, decks, sheds and fences as permitted uses in the RM Medium Density Residential Zoning District and the variance would provide for a buildable area to construct the above ground pool/deck, shed and fence on the lot that does not exist with the full wetland setback in place or with the full trail setback in place in order to match the existing fence. C. The applicants propose to construct an above ground pool/deck, shed and fence, which are all reasonable uses and would match the existing neighborhood area. Page 5 of 7

6 D. Unique circumstances apply to this property over which the property owners had no control and which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity because the lot is subject to a 50 wetland setback to structures that leaves the entire backyard area unbuildable and the fence addition is proposed to match the existing fence along the trail on 10 th Ave. SE, rather than have a jog in it to meet the current setback requirement. E. The variances do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the subject property is proposing accessory uses such as an above ground pool/deck, shed and fence that are all things commonly found in a residential neighborhood.) F. The variances requested are the minimum variances which would alleviate the practical difficulties because they would allow for the construction of an above ground pool/deck, shed and fence that would be in similar size to those that already exist in the neighborhood and which could have been constructed on the lot if not for the wetland setback issue for the pool and shed and if the ordinance had not changed for the fence setback. The suggested 14 setback to the wetland edge is consistent with a recent variance approved. And with the following condition: 7. Miscellaneous A. Should the fence be damaged by City equipment, the property owner shall be responsible for all repair and/or replacement costs. Motion carried (5-0). The following miscellaneous items were reviewed as information only: A. Monthly Business Update Planning Director Ondich provided the Monthly Business update to the Planning Commission that had been provided to the EDA earlier in the month. B. Letter from Student Re: Business Request Planning Director Ondich stated that included in the packet was a letter from a local high school student as a class project regarding the need for a particular business in New Prague. He stated that no action is needed and that he included it for informational purposes only. C. TH19 Downtown Reconstruction Project Planning Director Ondich provided a brief update on the TH19 Downtown Reconstruction Project by indicating that the stakeholder committee would be discussing more details of sidewalk designs, planters and street lights in the near future. D. Amy Jirik Resignation Amy Jirik indicated that she had submitted her resignation to the City Council due to a new job she had accepted with the City of Belle Plaine which required her to attend City Council meetings there. She stated that this would be her last meeting with the Planning Commission. Page 6 of 7

7 8. Adjournment A motion was made by Goldade, seconded by Jirik, to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Motion carried (5-0). Respectfully submitted, Kenneth D. Ondich Planning / Community Development Director Page 7 of 7

NORMAN, OKLAHOMA OWNER: RCB BANK APPLICATION FOR 2025 PLAN CHANGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT. 12 December 2011 Revised 5 January 2012

THE VILLAGE AT OAKHURST ADDITION NORMAN, OKLAHOMA OWNER: RCB BANK APPLICATION FOR 2025 PLAN CHANGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT 12 December 2011 Revised 5 January 2012 PREPARED BY: THE RIEGER