Loading...
CC Minutes 2-27-06 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 no rekindle and going through and making sure everything was okay. I think the initial knock down probably a couple hours. Todd Gerhardt: I know that the insurance company was out there today and recommended that the house be taken down to it's original foundation. That it not be reconstructed or rafters replaced. That it come down to the original foundation and rebuilt from there. That's the intent of the homeowner. Randy Wahl: Yeah, there was also some accolades I guess from the insurance company in that the fire ground preservation was well intact so they were able to make cause determination from that. Todd Gerhardt: And cause again was wood burning stove is what I was told. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other questions for the fire department? Thank you for everything. Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you. PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. LOCATED AT PINEHURST & GALPIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION (LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION). PLANNING CASE 06-03: A. PUBLIC HEARING ON V ACA TION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCA TED AT PINEHURST DRIVE AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. B. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLA T APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 28 ACRES WITH VARIANCES. C. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PINEHURST DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, as I was going to state, there is 3 action items for you tonight. The one action item requires the public hearing. Otherwise this item would actually be on consent. This project was actually recently approved a little over a year ago. The Pinehurst development. It included 2 lots. As you know when subdivisions come in we request that they demonstrate the home size. At that time it looked like the homes, the biggest one would be 72 feet in width, at our 10 foot side yard requirements use little bit bigger lots because our normal is 90. The home site actually went up and with that the staff was reluctant to grant variances, so it resulted in a replat. Not all the lots got replatted but if you can just follow me I'll point to one lot was lost up in the northern area, and then one lot was also lost, there was 2 lots that were removed from the project. So it went from what was originally approved at 43 down to 41 lots. With that, utility lines have to follow property lines so that's the public hearing tonight is to vacate the old utility lines and to have those put in their place. So with that, unless there's specific questions, it's all the grading, utility work, that stuff is pretty much, there is some clean- up with the site, with the plat except for the 2 lots being removed. It's pretty similar looking to what was originally approved. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise I would just have you follow as on your agenda, the 3 items for a motion. 7 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Do you want questions on any of the 3 items at this point? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any questions for staff? The one I have is with regard to impervious surface coverage, as we're looking at. Kate Aanenson: Yes, actually we did ask the applicant to look at that because that was one of our issues. We did, they submitted for us a summary. We do have one model that's up on the project already, on the site and so if you look at their standard home size, which is about 74 by 45, add in a 900 square feet for the driveway, we're just around 4,000. So we should be well within that impervious for that homeowner an opportunity to put decks or some other features that they want. So the impervious surface would be, meet the requirement of the 25% so there is room within that. Mayor Furlong: And that's the question, that they're not maxing it out with the actual construction? Kate Aanenson: No, and we looked at that too, which is one of the reasons why we didn't want to go to a variance because we just felt like that the homeowner is being.. .that they can't make changes too, and we find that comes back to the City as a rub and that was the developer. So yes, there is enough room for them at a future date to do additions or make modifications. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and work out across the entire subdivision? Kate Aanenson: Correct. What I gave you for those dimensions would actually be at the 4,000 and 500' s actually some of the smaller lots so, it should work alright. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, the public hearing as I understand it relates to the issue of vacating utility easements that were with the original plat and since some of the lot lines have been redrawn, they need to be vacated that were there and then new ones would be established... Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was when you approved the new plat, those are, with the new plat which would be item (c). Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So at this point I would open the public hearing with regard to the discussion and invite interested parties to come forward and discuss, represent their opinions with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. Seeing nobody, we'll close that public hearing and move on. Is there any discussion on any of the other items, (b) or (c) here as well? Any discussion on the first item? If not, is there any reason that we can't deal with all 3 of these in a single motion? Kate Aanenson: Right, you can make one motion. 8 City Council Meeting - February 27, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can make one motion based upon staff's recommendation in the reports. Do I hear such a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I would make that motion that the City Council approve all the recommendations supported by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following: a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst, Vacation #06-07. b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2nd Addition, Planning Case 06-07. c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. OS-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o. DAVE BANGASSER. 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 3 STALL GARAGE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located out at Red Cedar Point. It is actually two lots. This is where the actual variance is on, where the existing garage is and I'll show you that in a second. There is existing home on the site and existing single car garage on the north property. The applicant is requesting to receive a variance to add a 3 car garage. The variance involves a front and rear yard setback for the garage, as well as the impervious surface, hard cover. Can you zoom in on that just a little bit Nann? Thank you. So the existing lot with the house on it, I've got the hard surface shown in yellow on this. The gravel driveway in the front, which provides access to the existing dwelling and the garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this on February 7th and recommended, or voted for a 3-3 tie, which is why it's before you tonight. It didn't have a super majority vote. One of the things that the Planning Commission did ask for was some of the surrounding impervious surface coverage in the area, and that was at 29%. This would be at 31 %. In looking at the 3 car garage, staff looked at the existing situation regarding the driveway. Could some more hard surface coverage be removed? We also recommended that the lot be combined. I know there was that question regarding whether or not you could combine two lots when the street goes through. You can under the City's code. Under lot, definition of zoning lot you can combine lots and we have no requirements of how that would happen. We have other circumstances in the city of why we would do that. Have it under one ownership so you can sell them off and try to allow somebody, if this was in a separate, it's a lot of record and there is some legal standing for someone should ever get a permit on there. So one of the conditions that you can apply when someone asks for 9