Loading...
1994-06-28 Planning Comm Minutes) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 1994, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll, Friel, Dwyer, Hunter and Tilsen. Also present were Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder, Planning Consultant Lynn Rabuse and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved approval of the May 24, 1994 minutes. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CONTINUED HEARING: CASE NO, 94-11: STRINGER - VARIANCE As per the request of the applicant, Commissioner Friel moved to continue the public hearing to July 26, 1994 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 HEARINGS: CASE NO. 94-16: LENTSCH - VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT Chair Dwyer explained that Planner Uban has suggested that this item be tabled to July 26, 1994 at 8:15 o'clock P.M. to allow the applicant to submit more complete plans to the City in a timely fashion. Commissioner Friel moved to table the Lentsch Variance and Wetlands Permit request to July 26, 1994 at 8:15 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 2 CASE NO. 94-17: LENTSCH - REZONING Chair Dwyer explained that Planner Uban has suggested that this item be tabled to July 26, 1994 at 8:30 o'clock P.M. to allow the applicant to submit more complete plans to the City in a timely fashion. Commissioner Hunter moved to table the Lentsch Rezoning request to July 26, 1994 at 8:30 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 94-13: NISITA - WETLANDS PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. and Mrs. Nisita, of 676 Maple Park Drive, are requesting a Wetlands Permit to build a 20 x 21 foot four-seasons porch addition. He explained that the existing structure is already within the 100 foot setback of the north branch tributary of Ivy Falls Creek. He stated that this addition would be sixty-five feet (65°) from the creek and is within the water resource related area. Mr. Nisita and Mr. John Yust, architect, introduced themselves to the Commission. Chair Dwyer stated that the applicants have submitted the names of all of the immediate adjoining neighbors which allows the City Council and Planning Commission to consider waiving the required public hearing. Commissioner Koll moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Hunter stated he had not visited the site and he inquired if there are any neighbors in the vicinity who have a structure similarly close to the creek. Mr. Nisita responded that his neighbor's house is close to the creek. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 3 Chair Dwyer inquired about plans for landscaping, site restoration and drainage. Mr. Yust stated that he had met with a landscape architect today and discussed a number of details. He stated that they discussed channeling the water below ground through catch basins and that the water would not be discharged over the bluff edge. He stated that more than 1/2 of the land is hard surface and that it has never retained water and that it percolates well. Mr. Yust submitted information to the Commission regarding the straw/hay bale erosion barrier method they are proposing. He stated he is confident that this process will be beneficial as it will prevent soil erosion. He stated that hay bales and an erosion control fence will be placed during the construction to prevent erosion over the bluff edge. Chair Dwyer inquired if a landscape plan has been completed. Mr. Yust responded no. Yust explained that due to the shadiness of the area, a special grass mixture will be planted. Commissioner Friel stated he had not visited the site and that he knew the former owners. He inquired if there is still a recirculating pond on the site. Mr. Nisita responded no. Commissioner Koll noted her concerns regarding the hard surface area and the amount of shade created by the trees. She inquired if there will be future plantings on the hill side. Mr. Yust responded that they are considering planting hosta, ferns and the special grass mixture. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Mr. Yust stated that the drainage flows to the south and will be underground. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mr. Yust explained that the site elevations, as indicated on the map are incorrect and that they should be as follows: 6-Al - North Elevation; 7-Al - West Elevation; 8-Al - South Elevation. He further explained that the location of the addition is due to the interior configuration of the house. He stated the addition placement is next to the family room area. Administrative Assistant Batchelder briefly explained the. Wetlands Permit process and clarified that it is not a variance process. Mr. Nisita stated the house was constructed in 1968. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant a Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a 4 seasons porch to within sixty-five feet of Ivy Creek, Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll noted that the applicants are respecting the existing trees by placing the addition between them. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that a revised set of plans indicating the correct elevations be submitted for City Council review. Mr. Yust responded that he would provide the Council with revised plans. CASE NO. 94-14: CARLSON - VARIANCE TO DRIVEWAY SETBACK Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. and Mrs. Larry Carlson, of 805 Wagon Wheel Trail, have built a driveway round the side of their home for the purpose of parking their recreational vehicle and a dock truck. He explained that the Carlson's were told by their asphalt contractor that no permits were necessary and therefore the asphalt ,driveway was installed. He further explained that the City's Code Enforcement Officer, after receiving a complaint about the driveway, found that the driveway was being built on the property line and that the dock truck was being parked on site. Chair Dwyer stated that the Carlson's had reviewed this construction with their next door neighbor, who shares a common property line, and received their permission prior to installation. Dwyer explained that the Carlson's are now approaching the City requesting variances for this condition so they do not have to tear out the driveway and park their vehicles off site. Dwyer explained, that as per the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements for a variance, a hardship needs to be demonstrated. Commissioner Tilsen stated that this request for a variance is a difficult one to review. He stated it is difficult to identify a hardship as defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Chair Dwyer explained that if the City Council does not approve the variance request, the applicant's will be required to tear up the driveway and not to park the dock truck on Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 5 site. He further stated that the City Planner has cautioned the Planning Commission and City Council that if a variance is granted, then a precedent will be established. Mrs. Carlson stated that if she is required to tear up the driveway, she will still park the RV in the front yard and the neighbors will be unhappy. Commissioner Friel clarified that there are two variances being requested, one for a five foot (5°) driveway variance and the other a ten foot (10') parking variance. He stated that in any case, the parking of the dock truck is not allowed as per the City's Zoning Ordinance and that with the approval of one variance it would allow another to be in violation. Mrs. Carlson stated that she was notified by a police officer that the dock truck was not allowed. She stated a Code Enforcement Officer had notified her the RV could not be parked in this location. Commissioner Friel stated the parking of the dock truck is prohibited and that the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of a variance for a dock truck. Friel stated the Planning Commission can review the variances for the driveway location and the parking location, but not for the dock truck. Mrs. Carlson stated that they have a corner lot and that they chose to place the RV on this side in order to not block the front yard view and also to hide it. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if a variance could be granted to allow parking on the other side yard. He stated there are unusual circumstances. Planner Rabuse stated that a hardship could be considered due to the configuration of the lot. Administrative Assistant Batchelder submitted pictures as submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Koll stated that the next door neighbor has done the same thing as the Carlson's. Mrs. Carlson stated that that was allowed before 1991. She further explained that they propose to plant trees in front of the blacktop. Mrs. Carlson stated that there fence is located near their property line. Commissioner Koll stated the Carlson's do not have much of a back yard. Chair Dwyer stated that the Carlson's should be parking the dock truck off site. Mrs. Carlson stated she will not be willing to remove the RV from their site. Commissioner Koll inquired if there are any other options as she is concerned for setting a precedent. Commissioner Friel concurred and stated that the asphalt contractor is partly at fault. Mrs. Carlson stated that asphalt contractors should be Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 6 required to obtain permits. Commissioner Friel responded that Mrs. Carlson has a valid point. He further suggested that a solution to the problem could be to grant a variance on the other side of their property. Mrs. Carlson inquired how she would get her RV to that spot. She stated she would have to extend the asphalt and construct another culvert. Friel responded that they could use the same driveway and cross the yard. He stated the setback could be ten feet (10') on that side. He stated this appears to be a possible solution. Commissioner Koll inquired if the entire front yard would be tarred. Mrs. Carlson stated that the RV would be too close to Dodd Road. Friel stated that Dodd Road is at least seventy- five feet (75°) away. Commissioner Friel stated that this is an alternative. He stated that the Planning Commission does not want to set a precedent. Friel stated that to grant the request without a hardship makes the ordinance meaningless. He noted that an economic hardship does not satisfy the Zoning Ordinance's requirement. He stated that a hardship must be unique to the property and not caused by the property owner. Chair Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council deny the requested variances as there is no legal basis for a hardship. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mrs. Carlson stated they constructed their house 2 1/2 years ago. Commissioner Hunter inquired if the Planning Commission could send the request to the City Council without a recommendation. Chair Dwyer stated that the City Council prefers to have some sort of recommendation from the Commission. VOTE ON MOTION: AYES: 3 NAYS: 2, ROLL, HUNTER Chair Dwyer explained to the Carlson's that the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council and that the Carlson's are able to pursue their request further with the City Council. Mr. Carlson inquired if they are able to park their RV on their property at all. Administrative Assistant Batchelder responded that they are able to park the RV in a side yard not adjacent to a street or a rear yard as long as the appropriate setbacks are met. CASE NO, MAY - VARIANCE IN FRONT 94-15: TO FENCE HEIGHT YARD Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 7 Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. David May, of 987 Delaware Avenue, lives on a through lot on Delaware Avenue with a rear yard adjacent to Chippewa Avenue. He stated Mr. May is requesting to install a forty-eight inch (48") high chain link fence setback ten feet (10') from the property along Chippewa Avenue. He further explained that Mr. May's neighbors at 993 Delaware Avenue presently have a forty-eight inch (48") high chain link fence built right at the right-of-way line of Chippewa Avenue. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. May has indicated that the purpose of installing the fence is to help keep his children secure while playing in the back yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Koll, Mr. May stated he plans to install landscaping in the future and that he will maintain the open area as green space. Chair Dwyer stated the applicant has submitted the names of all of the immediate adjoining neighbors which allows the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider waiving the required public hearing. The Planning Commission briefly reviewed pictures of the site. Commissioner Hunter moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant a fence height variance to allow the construction of a forty-eight inch (48") high chain link fence in the required front yard to be located at a ten foot (10°) setback, as shown on submitted plans, with the hardship being the configuration of the lot and it being a through lot. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 8 CASE NO. 94 -18: BEATY WETLANDS PERMIT FOR STAIRWAY AND LANDSCAPING Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Scott Beaty, of 800 Havenview Court, desires to construct a flight of wooden stairs leading down to the natural area behind his home. Mr. Beaty stated that the sloping area is sodded and has been maintained as lawn down to within twenty -five feet (25 °) of the edge of the pond. He stated this area is very steep and tough to maintain. Chair Dwyer stated that the applicant has submitted the signatures of all of the immediate neighbors which allows waiver of the required public hearing. Commissioner Koll moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel noted his concern in constructing a deck to allow the viewing of wildlife that has been in the pond for years. He noted his concern for setting precedent in having other structures constructed along the pond area. He stated there are at least thirty homes in the area and that viewing structures which are constructed along the pond may not allow it to be brought back to its natural state. He stated that this landing is proposed to be 4' by 6' and that future structures will be larger. He stated that he does not want to see an over abundance of structural intrusions when the homes are already intruding. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the landscaping ideas are excellent. He stated that he would like to see erosion control barrier installed during the construction. Tilsen stated that he would like to see materials used with a natural tone and that even wood is considered foreign. He noted his concerns for setting a precedent and that for the purpose of controlling future structures, the Planning Commission should consider language restricting the type of materials used. Mr. Beaty responded that he too wanted the structure to be as natural and unobtrusive as Commissioner Tilsen. He stated that the landscaping will hide the structure. He further stated that the structure does require a railing and that is why it looks like a deck. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Tilsen stated that he does not believe railings are required as there is no vertical drop. He further suggested that the structure be made of stone and not wood. He noted his concerns for future ownership and the possibility of that owner changing materials or landscaping. Commissioner Friel stated that this applicant is sensitive to the landscaping issue but that the next property owner may take out the landscaping and have yard only. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Wetlands Permit with the conditions that if ten percent or more of the landscaping that is installed for this project is removed, then the stairway must be removed. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. Administrative Assistant Batchelder briefly reviewed Section 8 of the Wetlands Ordinance that states a condition may be placed on the approval. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he would like to see the structure constructed in stone and no railings. Planner Rabuse noted that with the construction of stone stairway requires excavation with the possibility of runoff and erosion. Mr. Beaty stated that railings are required by safety factor of building codes and steps. Commissioner Koll stated that handrails should be necessary with steps. Chair Dwyer stated that the City wants minimal impact on the wetlands and that he is satisfied with the proposed motion. VOTE ON MOTION: AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CAO NO. 94-02: BULLARD - CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE Mr. Jim Bullard, representing Mr. Joel Johnson owner of 1819 Hunter Lane, was present to discuss a request for a Critical Area Variance. Chair Dwyer stated that this house was the old Cochrane home which had received a twenty foot (20') variance to the bluff line. Mr. Bullard stated that the Johnson's had purchased this home in November of 1993 and that they wish to construct an extension to the dining room and construct a deck. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Bullard explained that he had met with Planner Uban and Administrative Assistant Batchelder to discuss whether or not a variance was needed. He stated that because the additions fall within the forty foot (40') setback from the bluff, a variance was necessary. Mr. Bullard stated that none of the additions are closer than twenty foot (20°) variance to the bluff line that was granted with the original home construction. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel stated the planner recommends additional landscaping and inquired if there are plans to landscape further. Mr. Bullard stated that there will be minimal landscaping because of the dense natural growth in the bluff area He further stated that the house is practically invisible from the river and that the lawn is very small due to the natural growth of the vegetation. Commissioner Tilsen stated that additional landscaping may be needed to minimize erosion. He stated that the area under the deck will be shaded and it is rather steep. He inquired as to what landscaping will be done under the deck. Mr. Bullard stated there is grass there now and that the house faces northwest so it does get a fair amount of sunlight. He stated there is a slope there but that the grass will still grow. He explained that the drainage moves away from the house. He stated that some ground cover may be appropriate. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that Planner Uban's statement about additional landscaping maybe to help minimize the impact on the adjacent neighbors. Chair Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Critical Area Variance to allow the construction of two additions within the forty foot (40') setback from the bluff at 1819 Hunter Lane. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1, TILSEN Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 11 In response to a question from Mr. Bullard, Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that the applicant may choose a date to begin construction and that completion of the work must be done within twelve months. He explained that there is a process in requesting a variance extension or renewal which is directed to the City Administrator. CASE NO. 94-19: MATHERN - MENDOTA HOMES - PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE FOR PUTNAM SITE Chair Dwyer explained briefly that Mr. John Mathern, of Mendota Homes, has requested a pre-application conference to discuss a proposed PUD which consists of 36 unit townhome project to be located on the southeast quadrant of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. Mr. Mathern explained that he had met with Mr. Putnam to discuss his proposal and then with City staff to discuss the general guidelines of the PUD. He further stated that he had received a copy of the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance. He explained that a day care provider has been identified for the remainder of the property and that that request will be forth coming. Mr. Mathern stated that the proposed streets will be public streets and that the shape of the property dictates the design of the roadway. He explained that there will be one through street with two access points and a cul-de-sac. Mathern explained that there will be 36 units of townhouses and that there will be 17 building pads. He stated the homes which will be twinhomes with a common wall and there will be two detached twinhomes (no common wall). He stated that these homes will be located around the pond at the rear of the development. Mathern explained that the development will be divided into four areas. First area will consist of 6 townhouses. These townhouses will be one level with 1,400 to 1,600 square feet of living space with double attached garage. The second area will be limited to one level townhouses (no basements) with 1,400 to 2,000 square feet with two or three stall garages. The third area will have 7 units on the pond. He explained with the elevation change, basements will be offered with possible walkouts. The fourth area (backs up to the off ramp) will consist of 7 units and will offer basements and could include two levels. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 12 Mathern stated the profiles of the homes will be low to the ground and that only 2 will be detached. He stated there will only be eighty feet (80') of mass for each structure then a green space division. He stated that the area will be extensively landscaped. He stated trees and plants will be installed along Mendota Heights Road and that they will try to save the trees on the eastern portion of the site. Mathern explained the market will be existing residents of northern Dakota County. He stated that the Victoria townhomes had the same type of market and they have all been sold. He stated they are looking for a mature clientele. He stated that the proposal is low density and low impact. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he needs more details. He stated that the natural berming should be extended and that the units can be set low. Mr. Mathern responded that they can use the existing berm and that there is significant vegetation where the berm drops off. He stated that basements can be used in this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated he would like to see the elevations kept low to enhance the berm. Tilsen stated that there is a sixty foot (60°) dedicated right-of-way for the proposed public street with twenty foot (20') setbacks (which is less than the normal thirty foot (30°) requirement). In response to an inquiry, Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that a fifty-five foot (55°) right-of-way has been used in other planned unit developments with public streets. Batchelder stated the City had given the developer a strong indication that public streets are necessary Tilsen suggested that a fifty-five foot (55') dedicated right-of-way with a twenty-five foot (25°) setback might be a better combination. He stated there would be a same amount of hard surface and that actually all they are moving is an invisible line. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Commissioner Duggan wanted him to inquire about park dedication. Commissioner Hunter stated it seems to be a lot of units on the site and hasn't the City seen this before. Batchelder responded that a proposal was before the City for a 68 unit townhouse project with the previous development proposal. Chair Dwyer stated that Commissioner Duggan suggested that the western access be made a one way road. Mr. Mathern stated that two exits spreads out traffic without overloading one exit. Mr. Mathern stated that he stands ready to make changes, if necessary. Chair Dwyer noted Commissioner Duggan's concern for traffic in this area. Administrative Assistant Batchelder briefly explained the progress of signal Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 13 installation at Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. He stated that MnDOT funding approval is an issue at this point but that the design has been approved. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Mathern stated the price range will be $149,000 to $200,000 - depending upon the location and size of the townhouses and interior upgrades. Mathern explained that the Victoria townhomes sold from $135,000 to $215,000. He further stated that the common area will be irrigated and controlled by the Association. Commissioner Friel stated that the Planner's Report mentioned the waiving of the ten acre minimum requirement for PUD's in PUD Districts. Commissioner Friel stated that only applies to areas zoned MR-PUD and that, in this case, the zoning is R-1 with a land use guide designation as MR-PUD. Friel inquired how the developer intended to proceed without ten acres. Friel stated a rezoning is necessary or the City Council may waive the ten acre requirement if certain criteria are met, as spelled out in Section 22. Mr. Friel stated this question was critical to the progress of this proposal. Commissioner Friel stated Mr. Mathern does not meet the ten acre criteria as per Section 22. He further inquired how the 25 percent impervious surface was calculated. Mr. Mathern stated that public roads are included as hard surface. Mathern stated that Planner Uban seems to be vacillating on this issue within his report. Planner Rabuse responded that Planner Uban meant that private roads are included in impervious surface calculations but that public roads are not. Commissioner Koll inquired how the project will be financed. She noted her concern for the project not being completed in a timely fashion. Mr. Mathern responded that he has a purchase agreement with Mr. Putnam and that Mendota Homes would petition the City for installation of public improvements. He explained that his proposal is to go through a pre-conference discussion and then purchase the property, petition for public improvements and begin construction. He stated that the market is strong for this type of unit. He stated there will be assessments charged against the property. Commissioner Koll responded that Mr. Mathern did not answer the question of financing. Mr. Mathern responded that Mendota Homes is paying cash for the property. Chair Dwyer stated that financial assurances will be an issue in the future. Commissioner Friel inquired as to whether the proposed day care center on the adjacent acre of land was to be a part of this planned unit development proposal. Commissioner Friel indicated that he had concern that if the day care was added Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 14 after the pre-application process that it might change the comfort level of both the Planning Commission and the City Council because it might change various calculations that are made which could result in non-compliance within Section 22 requirements, i.e., permitted percent of impervious surface, units permitted in the project area, traffic projections, etc. Mr. Mathern responded that there was a good possibility that the additional acre would be included before the pre- application conference with the City Council. Commissioner Koll stated that 36 units was preferrable to 68 and inquired if the development will look like all garages because they are low, one story homes. Mathern responded the garages are front loaded in most communities and that allows buyers more flexibility of design. Commissioner Koll noted her concern for sound attenuation, not only for aircraft noise but also for highway noise. She stated that berming and quality of interior material should be an issue. Mr. Mathern stated that he is required by the building officials to adhere to all code regulations. Commissioner Koll further inquired about exterior materials. Commissioner Tilsen presented Mr. Mathern with a re-design of the project showing 32 units. Chair Dwyer inquired with the inclusion of the day care, does it throw off the calculation of impervious surface. Mr. Mathern stated that the intent of this project is to avoid variances and meet City requirements for streets, etc. Batchelder explained that Mr. Mathern will next proceed to the City Council for a continuation of the pre-application conference and then in July make formal application for a preliminary development plan. Batchelder stated the developer has the option of combining the preliminary and final development plan under certain conditions. CASE NO. 94-20: SWOR - LOT SPLIT Mr. David Anastasi, attorney representing Mr. Michael Swor of 1349 Knollwood Lane, explained that Mr. Swor, in March of 1992, wanted to add a portion of his neighbor's yard to his rear yard for additional open space. He explained that due to title problems with the parcel he was unable to do that. He stated that since that time, the courts have cleared up the ■ ) legal description. Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 15 Mr. Anastasi explained that Mr. Swor was originally told that a simple lot split would be necessary t combine the parcels, however Dakota County changed their requirements and said they cannot combine tow parcels in different plats at the current time. He stated the County is currently in the process of making modifications to their GIS system that would allow for this to occur within the next few years. Mr. Anastasi stated that a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been submitted which would be filed with a lot split agreeing to combine the parcels into one Tax I.D. number as soon as possible with the County's system. He further stated that Mr. Swor agrees not to attempt to develop the lot in any other fashion. Commissioner Tilsen inquired what items are currently found on the property. Mr. Swor stated he has done some extensive landscaping and there is his children's sandbox. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the City, through this simple lot split, is creating a landlocked parcel. Mr. Swor stated no, and that the City is concerned that the property could go tax forfeit and that is why covenants have been proposed to combine the parcels. Commissioner Friel stated he is concerned that the City not create a non-conforming use with the existing home. He inquired how far the new lot is from the house on Wachtler. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Swor has received the required signatures of consent from his neighbors and the Planning Commission can consider waiving the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the simple lot division, as proposed with the Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Planning Commission June 28, 1994 Page 16 VERBAL UPDATE Administrative Assistant Batchelder informed the Commission of City Council action on previous planning cases. AD JOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:09 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary