HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-10-1998PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1998
PRESENT: KATHY COOK, CAROLYN SMITH, ANNE HEIDEMAN, FRANK
MIGNONE, LENNY LEUER, ELIZABETH WEIR AND BRUCE
WORKMAN. ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN AND PLANNING AND ZONING
ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON.
ABSENT: SUSIE MACKAY AND JERRY BROST
Chairperson Anne Heideman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1998
Carolyn Smith wanted her comments added regarding the tree ordinance that is being
talked about in conjunction with the Kelly application: Add: Carolyn asked about the
tree ordinance that was being talked about and if it became an ordinance would it apply
to the Kelly subdivision before us tonight. She was told no, that it was not an ordinance
when the application came in.
Elizabeth Weir for Susie MacKay - page 5, bottom of page, change to: Susie asked if
city could regulate the use of phosphorus free fertilizers and limit chemical use in order
to protect the ground water and wetlands.
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
Loren Kohnen said that at the council meeting there was discussion of trees on the
Kelly proposal and each parcel will have at least two trees on it.
Carolyn Smith said that it is good that we treat everyone the same.
Kathy Cook added comprehensive plan discussion to the agenda tonight.
Lenny Leuer asked Loren if the requirements for Lunddgren Brothers was looked at for
the Kelly's.
There was some discussion about this.
2. THOMAS AND VICKY DEBROWSKI - 550 NAVAJO ROAD - LOT LINE RE-
ARRANGEMENT AND RE -PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:50 P.M.
Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of
the site. He pointed out the old lot lines and the new proposed lot lines. He also
1
mentioned Jim Dillman's memo requesting that the easement in the NE corner of the
property be increased to 50'.
Brad Moen, 625 Navajo Road, said that the neighbors are all for this.
Lenny Leuer asked if any of the Tuckborough conditions carry over to this re -plat,
covenants, etc.
B. Moen said that it had all been handled with the Tuckborough Association.
L. Leuer said one of the stipulations should be that access be only from Navajo Road
and not Hunter Drive. He also asked about the pond that was on Debrowski's lot with
his home on it and if this triggered any involvement from the watershed district.
L. Kohnen said that the city is it's own LGU and handles it.
B. Moen said that 10 ponds had been dug in Tuckborough with about 7-8 acres of water
and about 40 acres of prairie grass.
L. Leuer wanted to know how we make sure that these ponds are not filled in.
B. Moen said that they cannot be filled in, there are very strict state and local rules
about filling wetlands, so it cannot be legally done.
There was discussion of ponds, plants, etc.
Elizabeth Weir asked about where Navajo Road used to be behind these lots.
Anne Heideman said that it is a city easement and that the road bed has been taken up.
Tom Debrowski said it is nice having that there, that the people in the subdivision
behind Tuckborough walk there all the time out to Hunter and do not have to go all the
way around.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY KATHY COOK TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT/RE-PLAT FOR THOMAS AND
VICKY DEBROWSKI WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Drainage and utility easements around all property lines as required
2. Easement in the NE corner to be increased to 50'
3. Access for the new lot to be from Navajo Road only.
There was discussion of trees on these lots and in the Tuckborough area.
MOTION PASSED.
3. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE
2
Anne Heideman said that there were three concerns: Outlaw inflatable signs before
they get here; measuring of signs and the City will be getting a request for on off site
sign in the near future.
Frank Mignone said that it is evident there hasn't been many requests in 20+ years so
apparently our ordinance is very strong.
Bruce Workman said that we should bring it up to date, put ideas together that we have
and give it to the city attorney to put together.
Kathy Cook said that when the McDonald's issue came up it showed that there was no
control over the number of signs on a site.
Carolyn Smith said that it seems o.k. for a corner lot to have more than one sign.
There was discussion of the definitions in the current ordinance:
• The definition of an inflatable sign should be added
• Free standing, pylon and business sign definitions should be looked at and clarified
C. Smith asked about 815.05, subd. 2 - she asked in whose determination is something
offensive and could this section be cross referenced with our adult ordinance.
Loren Kohnen said we have to be very careful in these determinations - referenced "free
speech".
C. Smith said that she wants a legal opinion from our city attorney - does this say what
we want it to say. She then asked about 815.07, subd. 1 - why do we prohibit flashing
signs except for time, date and temperature.
Lenny Leuer said that Highway 55 Rentals has a flashing sign.
The city attorney is to look at this section also - flashing signs, where they are allowed
and what is allowed on them - 815.07, subd.1.
Kathy Cook said that since the city council gave permission to Highway 55 Rentals, can
the ordinance somehow reflect that and of having community information on the flashing
sign.
L. Leuer asked if 815.07, subd.3 included murals.
There was discussion of murals, were they signs, etc. The planning commission would
like the attorney's opinion on this.
There was discussion of 815.11 and that the titles of the section and subdivisions
should be looked at to clarify their meanings, that they were somewhat confusing.
L. Kohnen said that he and Ron would definitely look at that.
Section 815.13 needs to have clearer language.
3
C. Smith said that she feels there should be a limit to the number of signs.
K. Cook asked why wouldn't pylon signs be included in business signs, 815.11, subd. 2.
C. Smith said she would like a sentence that clarifies that a pylon sign is only allowed on
a major thoroughfare. She also asked about 815.13, subd 2, why does it say that signs
at gasoline service stations should not be internally illuminated - when they all are.
There was discussion of temporary signs.
A. Heideman asked Loren if the rodeo and fair signs were lighted and he said no.
C. Smith asked if there was a limit on the height of temporary signs and she was told 8'.
Staff will discuss all of the sign ordinance sign suggestions with the city attorney and he
will put something together for further discussion.
4. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETINGS
Kathy Cook asked what the next steps were.
Anne Heideman asked Loren if he would arrange staff; Jim, Ed, Paul and Glenn to get
together and come to a meeting with any concerns they may have about the
comprehensive plan.
There was some discussion about this and it was decided that staff would be asked to
come at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 10th for this discussion prior to the start of the
planning commission meeting. (Food to be included!)
MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO
ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
4