Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-08-2002PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2002 PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: RON JOHNSON, JERRY BROST, ELIZABETH WEIR, LENNY LEUER, RANDY BRINKMAN, TOM SUPEL, SHARON JOHNSON, DICK PICARD AND MARY VERBICK. ALSO PRESENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CAROLYN SMITH; PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN; ADMINISTRATOR - CLERK PAUL ROBINSON AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. ANDREA EDMONSON/STEVEN COX - 3125 COUNTY ROAD 24 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVERSIZE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the area. Andrea Edmonson said that the building would be on a hill separated by fencing. She pointed out on the overhead where the paddock would be. She said there was a culvert and a dedicated drainage easement by the woods to the west. She said the building starts 30' from the wood line. Andrea showed a picture of what the building would look like. Chuck Chakrabarti, 3155 County Road 24, said that they lived just west of Andrea Edmonson. Loren and Paul had several pictures that had been taken (new Power Point presentation). Loren pointed out the locations that the pictures were taken from, one of which was taken from inside the Chakrabarti home. There was discussion of where the best place for the Black Hills spruce would be. C. Chakrabarti asked if there was any option other than 3 trees. He said that their kitchen, dining room and deck are on the side of the house that will face the proposed barn. He said they are concerned with the smell in the summer. A. Edmonson said that the arena is close to the Chakrabarti's and there will be no smell. Mrs. Chakrabarti said they would like more trees so it looks more natural. She mentioned the manure storage and the removal every 14 days and wondered how it would affect their lives in the summer. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 1 L. Kohnen said that the manure will be in an enclosed area with a cement slab and with sawdust and shavings, so you will not see it. He said removing it every 14 days is quite restrictive. Dick Picard said that the MPCA asked for 300' between manure storage and wetlands and this is less than that. He said he would need to see a letter from the MPCA agreeing to the proposed location. A. Edmonson said that the watershed required the wetland delineation and the woods has soils that are classified as a different kind of wetland. L. Leuer questioned whether this was considered a manure pit. D. Picard said with it being enclosed on three sides and on a slab, he was not sure. L. Kohnen said it is on a concrete slab with no drainage from it. D. Picard said that the location might be allowed, but it also may not be, so he would ask for a letter from the MPCA before we proceed. L. Kohnen said this is not a pit. D. Picard said maybe o.k., but he would like to know it. L. Leuer said he looked back at other CUP's and the # of foals is usually mentioned and we should add that 2 foals are allowed along with the 12 horses. He said we also usually restrict living space in the barn and the plans do not show any, but we should mention it. Lenny asked about special events. L. Kohnen said a special event is one where the public is invited. There was discussion about special events. Ron Johnson said that manure and odor seem vague - what is acceptable and what is not. A. Edmonson said that manure with wood chips and shavings has no odor - none. She said that she is at Alpine and even brings bags of manure home with her for her garden and there is no smell. Jerry Brost said that 14 day removal is very aggressive. Mrs. Chakrabarti said she had two points: 1 - Alpine has lots of land around and 2 - not smell? She said when it rains it smells. They had one horse and it did. There was continued discussion of manure, smell, etc. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 2 Elizabeth Weir asked Andrea if she was open to planting a few more trees for the neighbor. A. Edmonson said it is wet in the area and she could plant some weeping willows. Tom Supel asked about the 60 day rule. L. Kohnen said we are still waiting for information from the applicant (letter from watershed), so we can let the applicant know and it is extended. There was discussion of the 60 day rule. T. Supel asked if the watershed was not involved, the 60 days starts at the application, but with them involved it starts after it is received. P. Robinson said the only way to extend the 60 days is in the 1st 10 days after the application the city tells the applicant it is not a complete application. He said he is not sure how we deal with it with the watershed. L. Kohnen said the applicant can give us an extra 60 days. It was clarified with Andrea about the 60 days. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 3125 COUNTY ROAD 24 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Total accessory structure area not to exceed 15,600 square feet. 2. Total of 12 horses plus 2 foals, owned by the applicant, be permitted. 3. All lighting must be shoe box style with all sides enclosed except the bottom The light source and globe may not be visible. 4. No lighting permitted on the North and West sides of the structure. 5. Manure must be stored in an approved container and area, on a concrete slab enclosed on 3 sides in a location approved in writing from the MPCA. 6. Manure must be removed from the property every 14 days. 7. All conditions stated by Minnehaha Creek Watershed be provided to the city staff before city council review. 8. Any conditions of Hennepin Conservation District must be met. 9. Erosion control methods provided before any work is stared onsite, as shown on plans, plus silt fencing on all of the north side of the structure. 10.Any conditions of the city engineer be met. 11. Building location be surveyed onsite. 12. Provide three 6' Black Hills spruce or Austrian Pine on north side of building. 13. Hay storage and any equipment be stored inside of building. 14. Building to have shingled roof to match house on site. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 3 15.Steel siding to be earth tone colors. 16. No commercial use allowed - personal use only. 17. Building to have a minimum 18" overhang, gable to eaves. 18. No living quarter in the barn. 19. Public events to be approved with special event permits by city staff. 20. Fire marshall review. 21. All fencing to be kept in good repair. 22. No exterior phones or loud speakers. MOTION PASSED. 2. DAVID & SUZIE SWEEN/JOSEPH RASKOB - 2112 HOLY NAME DRIVE - LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT/PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the area. He mentioned the small shed and said that we should let the applicant know that it is non -conforming (set -backs) and if anything were to happen to it, it could not be rebuilt in the same location. Loren pointed out the proposed new lot line. He said that the city engineer had said that the drainage easement should be 30' instead of 20' because not knowing how deep the tiles are, if they had to dig them up there would need to be enough room to stock pile the dirt Pictures were shown of the site from different directions. Lenny Leuer clarified that the #2 condition in Loren's memo was what Tom Kellogg had said it (the easement) should be 30' and Loren said yes. Suzie Sween asked if we found out how deep the tiles were, could we go less than the 30'. L. Kohnen said the city engineer recommends the 30' and he recommends 20'. Jerry Brost asked Suzie if it mattered if it was 30'. S, Sween said she had no specific reason, but would like it not to be 30' if it didn't have to be. Tom Supel asked if the easement was there because equipment might have to be brought in and he was told yes. Tom also clarified that we are not asking that the non- conforming shed be removed because typically we do not ask for that. L. Kohnen said that the only time we ask for removal is when it is on or over a property line. Mary Verbick said it looks like Suzie will have lots of debris to clean up. L. Kohnen said they have made considerable progress. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 4 S. Sween said it was a 100 year old house that was rented out and there were lots of old buildings and debris and they have cleaned up a lot of it and it is a `work in progress'. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY RANDY BRINKMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT/PLAT FOR DAVID AND SUZIE SWEEN AND JOSEPH RASKOB WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 Proper easements to be shown for all lot lines 2 30' drainage easement be provided over all tile lines on both parcels. 3. It is acknowledged that the small 4.4'x25.5' shed on the south lot line does not meet the 20' side set back and is a non -conforming structure. The home on the south parcel also does not meet the required 50' front yard setback. 4. Title work to be complete before final approval. MOTION PASSED. 3. ROWDY DORWEILER - 29 HAMEL ROAD - SITE PLAN REVIEW - CHANGE FROM BUSINESS USE TO RESIDENTIAL USE IN UPTOWN HAMEL Loren Kohnen explained this application and read his memo to the planning commission. He pointed in front of the house where maybe they could do some plantings. He put up a picture of the house. Rowdy Dorweiler said that this was built as a house, was used for a house for many years and he would like to use it as a house once again. He said that he would keep the ramp in the rear, the handicapped bath, etc. so it could be a business use again. Tom Supel asked if possibly he would use it as part business. R. Dorweiler said it is set up that way and it could be residential and business and maybe will be sometime in the future. Elizabeth Weir asked if this was the time to start the Uptown lighting as outlined in the ordinance. L. Kohnen said street lights should be a cooperative effort. Mary Verbick asked about Loren's reference to lighting in his memo. L. Kohnen said he was referring to the light on the front of the house and that it should be downcast. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5 Brandon Guest, Hamel Fire Chief, said recruiting and housing is a big issue - this is a prime piece and affordable for people we need on the fire department and we need fire fighters living in town. Lenny Leuer said that he found 8 areas to discuss in the Uptown Hamel ordinance and he wanted every one to remember we are talking PUD and not variances. He would like to recognize and discuss the following: 1. 834.05 - Subd. 4 - front yard set back has a maximum of 10' and this is about 35' 2. 834.05 - Subd. 8 - Minimum lot size for single family dwelling is 6000 square feet and this lot is 5060 square feet. 3. 834.08 - Subd. 3 - When a change in use a site plan must be submitted - we didn't have one in this case, but thinks we can work with what was provided and waive the requirement in this case. 4. 834.08 - Subd. 3 (m) - hardcover for single family dwelling is a maximum of 40% and recognize that there is too much hardcover. 5. 834.08 - Subd. 3 (n) - 5% of site landscaped - will work with the applicant for some plantings. 6. 834.08 - Subd 3 (o) - fences and walls - there are some here on the lot line, but do not belong to this lot 7. 834.08 - Subd 3 (q) - all utilities to be underground - not a reasonable request at this time - more for expanded or new uses 8. 834.08 - Subd. 3 -(u) - parking in front of building is prohibited - recognize that there is blacktop in the front of the house, but prohibit parking there. T. Supel said he would add to the list 834.09 - Subd 3 - this also calls for a site plan review when there is a change. L. Leuer said that we delayed an applicant in the UC zoning district until they met the new ordinance and do we want to do that here or waive the guideline for the site plan. Jerry Brost said this is a very challenging piece of property, it is small - he said he would look at it with a great deal of flexibility. Sharon Johnson asked what the implications would be for removing the blacktop in front. L. Kohnen said it would not be too expensive to remove it, but to replace it is the expensive part. S. Johnson said she is concerned with the hardcover, but does not want to put undue hardship on the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 6 M. Verbick said this is in an area where it does not look odd as a residence or a business and residential is a less intensive use. She said doing this is not going backwards. S. Johnson said she is thinking about what we are trying to accomplish in Uptown Hamel. M. Verbick said she is looking at this as an affordable home for someone who wants to live and work in the city. E. Weir said she is hesitant in imposing all of these things on this property and then have it change back to commercial in the future. She said let it be used as it is and require them not to park in the front. T. Supel said he has struggled a lot. This seems reasonable on the surface, but the ordinance does tie our hands. L. Leuer said it did not. T. Supel said it is not clear to him that we can approve this. L. Leuer said the title of this ordinance is PUD and we are allowed flexibility. He said the most disturbing to him is the site plan review provision. Paul Robinson said the PUD in this case is different, the intent is flexibility on a case by case basis. He said identifying where the differences are is important, as you are doing. Explaining the rationale for the differences would be an important addition. T. Supel said does it have to be one or the other. This area is guided commercial, but there is residential in the area. Carolyn Smith said a nice way to do it would be to request landscaping in front, bushes and/or trees, and require that no cars are parked in the front whether it is residential or commercial. When the asphalt goes bad, then remove it. L. Leuer said he is ready to go forward recognizing the 8 differences, but definitely that a good size tree be put in the front yard. M. Verbick said each property in Uptown Hamel is very unique and we will be going over this again and again. Randy Brinkman asked if there was any possible other zoning other than calling it residential or commercial and he also said that 3-5-10 years from now, residential will not make a big difference in the PUD. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 7 L. Kohnen said we should acknowledge the 8 items and have the applicant have the site surveyed and plant one tree in front. L. Leuer said Uptown Hamel is notorious on the surveys, garages, etc. being over lot lines. He said he is concerned that the house and garage be shown that they are on this property. P. Robinson said that 825.55 also requires a site plan and we need to recognize that one is required. There was continued discussion concerning the site plan ordinance and requirements. L. Leuer said should this go forward or do we wait and see a survey. L. Kohnen said require the survey before it goes to the city council. P. Robinson said it would be good if we had a site plan on file showing no parking in front, tree planted in front, etc. C. Smith said we have someone who wants to buy a house in Hamel and she said she would rather see the applicant spend money on fixing up the front, etc. and not on a site plan or a survey. Shorty Dorweiler, Hamel Bank, said that the bank has probably had mortgages and surveys at one time or another on all the properties in Hamel. He said it would be a waste of money for a survey, he would rather see money spent on trees, etc. He said no one is more interested in Uptown Hamel than he is. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND THE CHANGE IN USE AT 29 HAMEL ROAD FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Site plan required for this to go on to the city council 2. No parking on the blacktop in the front of the house 3. Recognize that the following parts of the Uptown Hamel ordinance have not been met: 834.05 - Subd. 4 - front yard set back has a maximum of 10' and this is about 35'. 834.05 - Subd. 8 - Minimum lot size for single family dwelling is 6000 square feet and this lot is 5060 square feet. 834.08 - Subd. 3 - When a change in use a site plan must be submitted - we didn't have one in this case, but thinks we can work with what was provided and waive the requirement in this case. 834.08 - Subd. 3 (m) - hardcover for single family dwelling is a maximum of 40% and recognize that there is too much hardcover. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 8 834.08 - Subd. 3 (n) - 5% of site landscaped - will work with the applicant for some plantings. 834.08 - Subd 3 (o) - fences and walls - there are some here on the lot line, but do not belong to this lot 834.08 - Subd 3 (q) - all utilities to be underground - not a reasonable request at this time. 834.08 - Subd. 3 -(u) - parking in front of building is prohibited - recognize that there is blacktop in the front of the house, but require no parking there. MOTION PASSED. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF MEDINA CODE 830 RELATING TO HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY SETBACKS Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and read the changes in the draft ordinance amendment. Lenny Leuer asked about the `portion of residence greater than 30'. Brandon Guest, Hamel Fire Chief, said that he had attended a meeting concerning this with staff and also had reviewed the draft ordinance amendment. He said he is still not totally happy with the double sheet rock instead of the separation. Loren Kohnen said that Foxberry Farms is an example of using double sheet rock instead of splitting up the attic space.. He stated splitting up the attic space can create moisture problems, mold problems, etc. He said the builders concern is ventilation. Tom Supel asked if the double sheet rock was as good as the separation of space. L. Kohnen said maybe a good idea would be to use the double sheet rock and breaking up the attic space just into two spaces. B. Guest said the double sheet rock is good, but there are holes in it, for fixtures, fans, etc. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked why we need to reduce the setbacks in the first place. He said it will look pretty crowded with 10' setbacks with such large homes. David Newman, president of Restoration Development, said that the rear yard will stay consistent throughout and the reason they were here tonight is partially due to a misunderstanding on his part. He said in dealing with setbacks at meetings, it was his understanding that the language in the agreement was the same as Foxberry's with 15' setback's and 30' between the homes. He said their request is the same setback's as Foxberry. He said as far as the separation in the attic due to the moisture/mold problem, the double sheet rocking seems to be a reasonable approach. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 9 B. Guest said the trend is to look at sprinkling as an alternative. D. Newman said that the fire department has a different challenge. He said they would be supportive to have people use sprinkler systems. Elizabeth Weir wanted to know what the consequences would be if the smaller set backs were denied. D. Newman said there would be no impact on the open space, but it might impact the design of the future phases. E. Weir wanted to know if it was a fire safety issue for the 60'(?) and she was told yes. Dick Picard wanted to know how the height was measured. L. Kohnen drew a diagram on the overhead and explained. There was further discussion on measuring height. Lenny Leuer asked Branden what his reservations were. B. Guest said that their (fire department) preference is the 500 square feet separation, but having flexibility for the consumer, the sprinkler system for the 10' setback, and double sheet rock for the 20' set back as stated in the draft amendment is acceptable. Randy Brinkman said he agrees with the chief. T. Supel said it seems the twist is part of our planning is looking at fire protection and this is putting the cost on the homeowner vs the community and fire department. Ron Johnson said the lack of ventilation concerns him. He said why not just the sprinkler system. L. Kohnen said that the 13D standard for sprinkler systems call for places that do not need to be sprinkled, such as closets, garages, attics, etc. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 830 AS STATED IN THE DRAFT AMENDMENT. MOTION PASSED. 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGING THE GUIDING ON A PORTION OF THE ROLLING GREEN COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10 Paul Robinson gave the background on this issue. He said that the area under consideration was zoned and is zoned multi -residential (MR) with the comprehensive plan guiding Public/Semi-public. Mr. Bruce Hendry came to the city council requesting that the property stay both zoned and guided as residential. After discussion the city council thought it made sense to keep it residential and that urban residential (UR) would be more compatible for the area than MR. He said in doing a quick calculation there is approximately 17 1/2 acres or 700,000 square feet. With 9000 square foot UR lots, there is a potential of 64 lots vs about 240 MR units. Loren Kohnen said if the property was subdivided, it would put Rolling Green in violation of parking, etc. and they would have to re -do their conditional use permit. Mike Amundson, vice-president of Rolling Green Country Club, said the 3 par golf course is on the property in questions. He said the club has no intent to build on it and another person has the rights to the property. He said they were in favor of the UR zoning. Bruce Hendry gave the history of how he acquired the option for this property and why he wanted to zoning to remain residential. When rolling Green calls the option, he wants the value to remain and it will not with zoning of public/semi-public. He said that they (the club and himself) had an appraisal done and it was $100,000 if MR and $40,000 if PS. Linda Henes, 267 Cherry Hill Trail, said she would like to see it remain as a golf course, but also understands Mr. Hendry's position and agrees with the rezoning. Garry Spurlock, 339 Cherry Hill Trail, said that they decided to build in Cherry Hill because of the golf course. He wanted to know why it was ever zoned MR in the first place. B. Hendry said because of the sewer district. The sewer pipe goes right thru the property. There was further discussion of the golf course, the zoning, etc. Tom Mrachek, 343 Cherry Hill Trail, said is it buyer beware when you buy a lot. He said he heard at a city council meeting it was zoned public/semi-public and we left the meeting thinking that's what is was. P. Robinson said that was the public hearing at the city council meeting to approve the comprehensive plan PS guiding for the property. The next step was the actual rezoning and that is when Mr. Hendry came to the city council meeting. T. Mrachek asked Rolling Green why they are tickled to have it zoned UR. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 11 M. Amundson they want to keep the value up for Mr. Hendry. He said his long term goal is to keep it a golf course. B. Hendry said that he did not want to develop the property unless he hears it is going to be changed to Public/Semi-public, then he would be forced to come in immediately with an application. Rick Deziel, Plymouth, wanted to know if Rolling Green had a conditional use permit and he was told yes. Brian West, 335 Cherry Hill Trail, asked about the guide plan vs the zoning. He said he understood Bruce's situation. He said that you pay more for a golf course home. It is a tough decision, but if the guiding changes, he will move. P. Robinson said the guide plan supercedes the zoning. However there is probably enough momentum for law suits based on the Guide Plan or zoning at this point. David Newman said that the property was guided and zoned MR until about a year ago. He said lets get it back to where it was so they keep talking and working with each other (Mr. Hendry and the Club). R. Deziel asked about setbacks if it were to go residential. He was told that the setbacks from commercial to residential is 75'. B. West asked if it had to go one way or the other. Lenny Leuer said that this would go to the city council next week and they would make the final decision. Tamara Laudner, 331 Cherry Hill Trail, asked about UR vs MR. The density was explained. Elizabeth Weir asked Mr. Hendry if he was willing to compromise and go to UR instead of MR. B. Hendry said yes. He said what he would object to is the second downgrade to park land. E. Weir said that we endorse the fact that you are working together to keep things the way they are. Sharon Johnson asked if legally we could make Mr. Hendry keep his word and she was told no. Tim Laudner, 331 Cherry Hill Trail, asked Bruce if he was a member. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 12 B. Hendry said yes, he was a honorary member. He also said that he sympathized with the Cherry Hill residents. Suzie Sween, 2112 Holy Name Drive, said that her father owned property adjacent to the 9 hole course. She said if the homeowners object to this, get out your checkbooks, like Mr. Hendry did. This man (Hendry) owns the property and can do what he wants. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE ROLLING GREEN COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL. MOTION PASSED. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING GUIDE Sharon Johnson passed out the draft copy of the training guide. Elizabeth Weir asked if they could get the next draft before the meeting, so they have time to go over it. There was discussion of how do to the changes. Sharon asked that people get changes to her by January 15th and she will get them the next draft by the 22nd. That will give everyone 3 weeks to go over it before the next planning commission meeting. Paul Robinson said that one thing is that the open meeting law should be explained better and he will get something to Sharon on that. 7. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 1, end of page, change then to `than'. Page 2, toward the bottom, spelling change to `degradation' and at very bottom of page, change glove to `globe' Page 3, about middle of page, change part to `parts' MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY SHARON JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 13