HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-10-2000PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000
PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, ELIZABETH WEIR, TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD AND
JERRY BROST. ALSO PRESENT: ADMINISTRATOR -CLERK PAUL
ROBINSON AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE
LARSON
ABSENT: BRUCE WORKMAN AND SUSIE MACKAY
Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Lenny acknowledged
new planning commissioner Dick Picard and introductions were made.
1. Rodger Vieau - 3120 Cedar Ave. - Set -Back Variances for Garage and Porch
Sandie Larson read the memo to the planning commission, explaining the request. She
explained Loren's views of the request, stating that he felt this was too big a garage for
the parcel and no hardship for the porch. She also stated that the public works director
said that a 2nd driveway would require a variance also and he would not recommend
approval for that.
Lenny Leuer asked Mr. Vieau if he had a response to the memo.
Rodger Vieau said that there is a natural opening in the trees for the garage location
and also the slope of the property is a hardship, a 30' set -back would put the garage
into this slope and that wouldn't look nice. He said he was not concerned about a
driveway, this garage would be mainly for storage.
Galen Hochstein, 3140 Birch Ave., asked about the hardcover requirements and if the
porch would be out farther than the other houses.
Paul Robinson said there was a 50/50 requirement in the residential areas, but it is
something that has never come up.
Elizabeth Weir said yes, the porch would be out farther than the other houses in the
block.
R. Vieau said if Loren does not approve the larger building, he could put up a smaller
building much closer to the line. He said everyone has different plans on what they
want to do to their houses. He said that in the future he would like to use some of the
existing garage space for the house. He said he also thought that this second garage
was a better idea than having his boat, etc. stored outside. The location that he shows
on the survey would look the best instead of in the middle of the lot. He said he is trying
to make things look good for himself and the neighbors.
1
G. Hochstein said that he does not object to the garage, but he does object to the porch
- it would look out of place.
E. Weir asked Mr. Vieau if he had considered carrying the natural line of the porch to
the south - it would be narrower, but would look more natural and fit in with the other
homes in the neighborhood.
R. Vieau said that he was going to move the entrance to the house for a larger entryway
with a new screened in porch. He said that Lenny had recommended a porch on the
south side of the house instead, but that would still require a variance.
E. Weir asked how high the garage would be and wondered what the neighbor to the
east thought of this plan.
R. Vieau said he had not talked to that neighbor and the garage would have the same
roof line as the house.
Dick Picard said there are only two homes on Walnut and one of them is for sale. He
said there is someone on Birch Ave. with a storage shed in the back yard. He also said
there was decking on the back of Mr. Vieau's house and maybe that could be wrapped
around for a porch.
R. Vieau said that if they tore down the deck in the back they would put up a 4 season
porch - the idea for a screen porch where he is showing it, is to take advantage of the
shade trees and there are none in the back.
D. Picard said that he did not see any other large structures near the road in the area.
Tom Supel said that they were given a list of criteria for variances and the decision must
be made from this list. He said that he requests that when staff presents a variance
proposal to the planning commission that staff address each of the six items listed. He
asked Mr. Vieau if he had been sent this and Mr. Vieau said yes. Tom said that just the
fact that you cannot do something would not be considered a hardship. The ordinance
is not real clear, but the ordinance is trying to define what us exceptional. He said
unless you can enlighten us, we have no alternative but to recommend denial.
R. Vieau said: a - topography of the lot, b - not everyone is on a corner, c - I haven't
done anything, d - maybe no one else has the ideas that I have - other variances have
been given in the area, e - yes, it is the minimum and f - I don't understand this one.
T. Supel said what about c, you are taking the opposite view of Loren.
R. Vieau said it just makes more sense here.
2
Jerry Brost asked if there were trees on the south side and asked Mr. Vieau if he was
after the shade and Mr. Vieau said yes, that is the idea and yes there are trees on the
south side.
L. Leuer asked that the overhead be put back up. He said everything north and east of
here is what he calls the new development, there are not undersized lots and the
homes are relatively new. He said the porch and the garage is a 2 step variance. He
said he had difficulty with the porch extending beyond the front of the house - there is a
possibility of a porch on the south side of the house. He said he knew of several
instances where variances had been granted to double frontage lots. He said he could
understand not another access and one stipulation could be no improved driveway for
the garage. He said he was puzzled about Loren's comment that the garage was too
large for the lot, when our ordinance allows even larger for this size lot.
P. Robinson said this request is a good example of why maybe our ordinance should be
modified concerning corner lots. He said we should not focus on the garage being too
big.
I. Leuer asked what the possibility was of moving it over 15' and having a right angle to
get into it.
R. Vieau said this would be more difficult because of the slope of the property.
L. Leuer said he is trying to work a compromise.
R. Vieau said he could do a garage this size in the middle of my property.
There was discussion of where trees were on the lot.
E. Weir asked about turning the building and shaving some of the size off.
R. Vieau said he needs the 24' to store his boat.
T. Supel asked if the boat was in and out all summer.
R. Vieau said now he keeps it in the garage in the summer and leaves the car out. He
said he needs the new building for winter storage.
L. Leuer said we need two motions, one for the porch and one for the garage.. He said
we could do a complete denial or allow only 1 variance.
E. Weir said we could table it until Loren was here.
R. Vieau said he is against it, so it does not matter if he is here.
3
T. Supel said that we need to propose to the city council to change the ordinance on
double frontage lots.
There was discussion of tabling this application or going forward with a
recommendation.
E. Weir proposed sending it on to the council without a porch on the front - so only one
variance for the garage.
R. Vieau said he could make the garage work, but how about a porch on the south side
of the house.
The public hearing was closed.
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PORCH VARIANCE FACING CEDAR AVE.
BECAUSE NO HARDSHIP IS DEMONSTRATED.
T. Supel said we should use the term the 6 criteria and not the term hardship.
The amendment to the motion was accepted.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE AS NO
CRITERIA IS MET.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND
A FRONT YARD VARIANCE OF 15' FOR THE WALNUT SIDE FOR BOTH THE
GARAGE AND FOR A PORCH - HARDSHIP BEING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE
LOT AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CORNER LOT. THERE IS ONE CONDITION:
1. No improved access for the new garage
D. Picard said he was uncomfortable with a large structure here, but if the ordinance
allows it, it is a moot point.
MOTION PASSED.
2. DISCUSSION OF BUSINESS PARK (UC1) ORDINANCE
4
Lenny Leuer said this was a public meeting but not a public hearing. This is so the
planning commission can discuss the proposed ordinance before the public hearing.
He asked Paul if we should go page by page and incorporate Ron's notes.
Paul Robinson said that the more we get into this the more we see the inter -relation to
all the ordinances. He suggested that before this is adopted, the planning commission
read thru the performance standards and make sure of the relation to other ordinances.
L. Leuer said that he has 3-4 corrections that are not in this final draft.
Dick Picard asked if someone would bring him up to speed on this.
L. Leuer explained where the planning commission was on this and said there was a
memo and a draft ordinance for tonight.
Tom Supel said there is a difference in office and secretarial.
Elizabeth Weir said secretarial could be considered office.
T. Supel said that the CPIC committee has spent several hours on this draft, so he felt
only if there is considerable difference should we discuss it.
L. Leuer said the following should be discussed: smaller setback for parking and the
setback for commercial to residential.
There was discussion on parking. Subd. 832.05, Subd. 9 was discussed - parking in
UC1 next to residential may occur up to 50' from line with appropriate buffering and 25'
from commercial to commercial.
T. Supel wanted to know if the owners of residential properties that abutted commercial
property were aware of the fact that they were next to the commercial property.
Jerry Jubert said that he had signs on his property (commercial) stating that fact that it
was zoned UC1.
E. Weir said she was uncomfortable with 50'.
L. Leur said that the current is 25' with buffering.
The consensus was 50', residential to commercial with buffering and 25' commercial to
commercial, for parking.
The commission went thru Ron's entire list: telecommunication towers would be added
with conditions; existing adult uses would be put in; Section 832.04 would be left as is;
Section 832.05 to be made clearer; Section 832.06 to be re -worded; Section 832.07
subd. 1 (h) to be left as is, (p) to be re -worded; (ff) change - - the owner may be
5
allowed to reduce - - - ; Subdivision - define medical waste; Hospital - need to add
standards.
T. Supel clarified the `proof of parking' on page 12.
It was discussed that the focus would be `cleaning up' the draft for the next planning
commission meeting.
L. Leuer said UC and UC1 should go together for the public hearing. He said before the
public hearing he would like to go over it again, even if online.
The next revision would be emailed to the planning commission for review.
E. Weir said lets aim for December for the public hearing.
Terry Schneider, Project Developers, Inc., 600 Hwy 169, said he would put his
concerns in writing for the next meeting and will also have some real examples for the
commission to look at.
3. OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN - 10:50 P.M.
Paul Robinson went over his memo outlining other issues that would need to be dealt
with for implementation of the comprehensive plan.
4. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
Page 2, L. Leuer, yes, probably at the - - - ; T. Supel, - -exactly what is there - - -; pag
4, B. Workman said because - - -
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
6