Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-13-2001PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2001 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS LENNY LEUER, MARY VERBICK, SHARON JOHNSON, SUSIE MACKAY, ELIZABETH WEIR, TOM SUPEL, JERRY BROST, DICK PICARD. RANDY HOPPER ARRIVED AT 7:45 P.M. ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN, ADMINISTRATOR -CLERK PAUL ROBINSON, PLANNING INTERN TODD LARSON, COUNCIL MEMBER CAROLYN SMITH AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. 1. Call to Order Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Lenny then introduced the new planning commissioners, Sharon Johnson and Mary Verbick. He said the 3rd new member, Randy Johnson, had not yet arrived. 2. Election of Chair and Vice -chair for 3/2001 to 3/2002 Elizabeth Weir nominated Lenny Leuer to continue as chairperson - seconded by Jerry Brost. There were no further nominations. Lenny Leuer elected chairperson. Tom Supel nominated Elizabeth Weir to continue as vice -chairperson. There were no further nominations. Elizabeth Weir elected vice -chairperson. 3. CHRISTOPHER DAHL - 2662 HAMEL ROAD - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and also explained that the former owner of this property had been approved for a 2 lot subdivision, but the plat was never filed. Loren then put up the overhead and pointed out the proposed division. He said he had talked to Ron Batty and it would not be a problem leaving the barn on Lot 1 since there were approved living quarters in the barn. Loren showed the previously approved division. Ted Smith, 2752 Hamel Road, stated that they lived next to the Dahl property and had a suggestion for the drive. The division shows a 60' wide portion of Lot 1 coming down to Hamel Road which would serve as access to both lots. Mr. Smith stated that they had an existing 60' wide easement on their east property line to serve the lot behind them. He was suggesting that there be 30' on their side and 30' on the Dahl side instead of having 120'. There was considerable discussion of this. Jerry Brost said he thought it made sense to share - Susie agreed. 1 T. Smith said that the Dahl driveway is lined with trees and if there were 30' on each side, then maybe someday there could be one side going north and the other side coming south and no trees would have to be removed. Carolyn Smith said it appeared that Lot 2 could someday be further divided. Elizabeth Weir said it made sense to have a shared access to all the property. Lenny Leuer said that the landowners should work together on this as this is not part of what is before us tonight. Tom Supel asked if this could be treated as two separate issues. Susie Mackay asked if we have an option of approving this the way it is shown or doing what Bonestroo suggests (an outlot instead of the 60' wide strip being part of Lot 1). L. Kohnen said you could have the applicant come back showing it as on outlot. He did say that the City had approved subdivisions in the past with a `flag' lot as this one is shown. E. Weir asked if there were any advantages if this were to serve more than the two lots, to be an outlot instead, L. Kohnen said that this was discussed about 10 years ago and it was felt that the outlot as not a good way to go. S. Mackay said if we want to achieve one road for the lots to the north and west of the Dahl property, what do we do. L. Kohnen said that we could require that Lot 1 grant an easement to the `Bradley' property. Jim Lane, 2605 Hamel Road, said that Lot 2 has Hamel Road frontage. Would you require that they use the easement from Lot 1 or could they have their own driveway from Hamel Road. He said if Lot 2 can be further subdivided we have to think ahead and how Lot 2 would be accessed. L. Leuer said when land is subdivided do we not require one road for access to all the lots and Loren said yes. J. Lane said that is a safer result. J. Brost we went thru this before and my understanding is that there would be no direct access to Hamel Road for Lot 2. Wherever it may be, it would be shared. 2 J. Lane said that this past winter the Dahl's have plowed a driveway on their east line to access their property to get to the buffalo. L. Kohnen said that the county has to approve any access onto Hamel Road, even farm roads. The public hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. L. Leuer said he did not think it was wise to deal with Mr. Smith's suggestion now. We are being asked for a flag lot in this subdivision. He then asked if the paddock in the back was over the property line. J. Brost said it is a riding ring and is well situated on the Bradley property, probably 100' from the Dahl property line. He then asked if this application is approved with the flag lot, will the property to the west on the northern part of the Dahl property (Bradley property) be landlocked. L. Leuer said no, because there is the easement on the Smith property to access that property. He suggested that it goes back to the landowners to figure out easements. L. Kohnen said he would recommend the proposed 60' is also an easement to the property west of the Dahl property. T. Supel wanted a clarification of a flag lot and how Lot 2 will get access and what happens if Lot 1 sells. He was told that the easement for Lot 2 will be filed with Lot 1, so that it will go with the property. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION FOR CHRISTOPHER DAHL AT 2662 HAMEL ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 Easement be in place for access to Lot 2 from Lot 1 2. All drainage and utility easement per city engineer 3. 30' road right-of-way be obtained on Hamel Road MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST THAT LOT 1 GRANT AN EASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE BARN AREA. Tom Supel said this should be a request to the city council to think about it. Motion amended: 3 MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL THINK ABOUT REQUIRING THAT AN EASEMENT BE GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE BARN AREA FROM LOT 1. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUES - MARCH 13, 2001 4. CY DUCHARME - 2182 PINTO DRIVE - LOT AREA VARIANCE AND 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2000 Loren Kohnen read his memo and explained the request. This item was tabled from last June's planning commission for the applicant to get an easement in order. The easement in question is on the north side of the Ducharme property on property owned by Michael Scherer. Loren put up an overhead and pointed out the drainage and utility easements, the ROW easement that the City was obtaining for a future road if needed. Loren explained that the soils variance is needed because of the property the City is taking for that easement. Jerry Brost wanted the hardship clarified - that we do not count the area that is in the ROW. Lenny Leuer also mentioned the radius for the easement that was in the May 23, 2000 memo from the city engineer. Julia Porter, 2205 Pinto Drive, wanted the ROW, the end of Pinto, and the Scherer easement locations clarified. Bruce Eidenschenk, 2232 Pinto Drive, said he is in the house north of the Scherer easement. He wanted to know who maintains the common driveway area. L. Kohnen said by the people who use it. He said it is about 8' wide and probably should be wider. B. Eidenschenk asked if he was being forced to upgrade his driveway and Loren said that was between the 2 who use it. The public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. Tom Supel said he was confused on the rationale of the hardship. He said the owner did not cause it, but this is only 1 of the 6 variance criteria. He said one of the other ones states that the variance does not grant a privilege to someone that others do not have. He said how can we grant this unless we are ready to grant a variance to anyone who does not have the required amount of soils. L. Kohnen said that the Ducharmes do not have to give the City the ROW, but the City is telling them we are taking his property. 4 Mike Scherer, 592 County Road 24, clarified that his easement does come very close to Bruce's house and very close to Cy's and Julia's properties. He said they were willing to help everyone so we tried to clean up a lot of problems so they wouldn't show up in the future. He said we did the same thing for the sewer going in on Holy Name Drive - we are solving some challenges. T. Supel said his concern is still what do we tell the next person. L. Kohnen stated again that the Ducharme's do not necessarily want to give the ROW, the City is asking for it. J. Porter said she is in favor of this. It is a good solution and will benefit everyone. L. Kohnen said it is good to see neighbors working together. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR BOTH LOTS 1 AND LOT 2 WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THAT THE CITY IS TAKING ROW AREA FROM THESE PROPERTIES. VARIANCE FOR LOT 1:.63 ACRES TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 4.37 ACRES OF GOOD SOILS AND FOR LOT 2:.34 ACRES TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE OF 4.66 ACRES OF GOOD SOILS. MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CY DUCHARME AT 2182 PINTO DRIVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. 30' road ROW be obtained on the west lot line of Lot 1 and the north side of Lot 1 and Lot 2 with a 225' radius in the NW corner of Lot 1. 2. Easement over all wetlands and drainage ways. 3. Drainage and utility around all lot lines, 10' on west side of Lot 1 and 10' on the north side of both lots and 5' on all other lot lines. MOTION PASSED. 5