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