HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-09-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 9, 2005
Meeting held at the Hamel Community Building
PRESENT: TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD, LENNY LEVER, MARY VERBICK,
MARILYN FORTIN AND DOUG DICKERSON. ALSO PRESENT CITY
PLANNER ROSE LORSUNG, SARAH SCHIELD PLANNING
CONSULTANT, PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE
LARSON AND JANET OLSON. COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
ELIZABETH WEIR.
ABSENT: TOM CROSBY
1. Chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Before the meeting began Dick Picard thanked Sandie Larson for her years of service to
the City of Medina and the Planning Commission.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no comments.
3. LEAWOOD FARMS 2ND ADDITION HAMEL ROAD — LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT, PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT — PUBLIC HEARING
Rose Lorsung went over her report reviewing the proposal for lot line rearrangement.
The existing lot 6 and lot 7 will become lot 1 and lot 2 of the Leawood Farms 2nd
Addition. Lot 2 is the new home site (barn/caretaker residence) that the builder would
like to immediately build on. The applicant would also like to eventually build a primary
residence on lotl. Septic design and percolation tests have been provided and are being
reviewed. The property is guided and zoned Rural Residential. She also stated that the
survey did not show the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) easements and requested the
easement to be delineated on the Final Plat. Staff recommends the approval of the
preliminary plat for the lot line rearrangement of the newly -platted Leawood Farms
subdivision with the conditions listed being met.
Bob Gumnit: (husband of applicant Francis Graham) had no comments on the application
but wanted to take the opportunity to thank Sandie Larson for being so helpful during this
process.
Leonard Leuer asked about the riding area going over the lot line and if they were going
to put up an animal structure.
Rose Lorsung showed on the map that the riding area was not a permanent structure and
thusly was not over the lot line.
Bob Gumnit stated they were not going to put up an additional animal structure.
Planning Commission Minutes 1
November 9, 2005
Doug Dickerson questioned the status of the existing trails.
Rose Lorsung stated that the trails are not official trails but rather a friendly private
agreement that allowed for the use of the trails. And these trails will not be available to
use by the public due to other property owners wishes.
Tom Supel asked if the barn/residence is to be the primary residence.
Rose Lorsung stated that it will be build out as a primary residence although the property
owners will not live there.
Dick Picard asked if the soil tests have been reviewed.
Rose Lorsung stated that Metro West is reviewing them.
Dick Picard asked how many horses they own now.
Francis Graham replied that they presently own 4 horses and may be purchasing another.
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION/SECOND (Leuer/Supel) TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
VOTE: 5 yes 1 no MOTION CARRIED
Doug Dickerson stated that he is opposed to the motion because of breaking up of the
trails that exist.
Francis Graham replied that is not because of her wishes but rather the wishes of other
property owners.
Rose Lorsung stated that this will go to the City Council on December 6, 2005 meeting.
4. MANN ADDITION 2275 COX TRAIL — PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT -
EASEMENT VATION- PUBLIC HEARING
Sarah Schield reviewed the application of Mann Addition 2275 Cox Trail
Preliminary/Final Plat, and Easement Vacation. The purpose of the platting is to simplify
the legal descriptions of the properties. There is also a need to vacate the existing
drainage and utility easements along the eastern edge of Lot 2 Block 2 Cox Brothers
Farm and the western edge of Outlot A. She also stated that while located within the
Rural Residential zoning district this application is not subject to the moratorium as the
plat will result in the combination of lots where as the moratorium is for additional lots
created. Staff has reviewed the application and has found it to be in compliance and
recommends approval.
Planning Commission Minutes 2
November 9, 2005
Dick Picard asked about natural characteristics of the site in the report.
Sarah Schield said they were in the report for background purposes.
Steve Mann 2275 Fox Trail who is the owner of the property stated that he purchased Lot
2 Block 2 in 1999. And in 2004 he purchased the outlot to the East. He stated that he
does not plan to do anything to the land and wants to prevent any future building on the
land. He is requesting this to simplify the legal description.
Public Hearing was closed.
Mary Verbick stated that this is a very good application for this property and for the City
of Medina.
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Fortin) to recommend Preliminary Plat for Mann Addition.
VOTE: MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE
Rose Lorsung stated that this will go before the City Council on December 6, 2005.
5. SCHOON ADDITION 4612 BALSAM ST. — PRELIMINARY/FINAL
PLAT - VARIANCE FROM SHORELAND OVERLAY HARD COVER
REQUIREMENTS - FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK - PUBLIC HEARING
Sarah Schield provided a summary of the application for preliminary plat and variances
for property located at 4612 Balsam Street to combine two existing lots for the purpose of
constructing a new home on the lot. The applicant is requesting front, rear and side yard
setback variances and a variance from the impervious surface requirement in the Shore
land Overlay District. The property is zoned UR (Urban Residential) and guided UR.
The surrounding properties are also all zoned and guided UR. She stated that the two lots
to be combined are legal non -conforming lots. The new lot size would be 11,995 square
feet.
The driveway access will remain the same. This property is within 1,000 feet of the
ordinary high water level of Lake Independence which is a DNR protected water body.
The DNR has reviewed the application as required when shoreland variances are being
considered. She continued to explain the variances and the set back requests.
The applicant has stated their hardships are due to the unique shape of the lot and the
large maple tree in the front yard near the right-of-way. Therefore the buildable area is
limited. The applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard set back to 15'
(ordinance required 30') rear yard 5.9' (ordinance required 30') side yard 6.67'
(ordinance required 10') and impervious surface 46 %( ordinance required 25% and all
lots 60%) She also stated that the applicant is not acting on anything out of character in
relation to the other homes in the area as other property owners in the area have not been
held to these requirements. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat complies with
Planning Commission Minutes 3
November 9, 2005
ordinance requirements, and that the applicant has adequately shown a hardship created
by the particular unique characteristics of the specific parcel for the requested setback
variances. However, staff questions whether the increased impervious area due to the
pool request creates a hardship that complies with variance standards. Staff recommends
approval of the preliminary plat and variances for front, rear, and side yard setbacks and
impervious surface.
Mary Verbick asked what if another property does not meet requirements and requests a
pool.
Sarah Schield reported that she researched other communities and found that Plymouth
reviews on an individual basis and has the understanding that a pool holds and help
catches water instead of causing run-off.
Tom Supel asked about the 6th variance criteria — if the variance requested would be
detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance or to property in the same zone.
Sarah Shield replied that it would not be detrimental.
Peter Schoon, the applicant explained his proposal and the history of why he chose the
land and the plans for his house. He also explained how he has talked with neighbors of
the adjacent properties about his plans and how he would propose working with them to
help alleviate some of the concerns that they have. He reported that he thought that the
neighbors appeared to be ok with the project. He also stated that he would be willing to
put in a cistern to deal with the run-off and that he has used a cistern in the past.
Marilyn Fortin stated that she liked the idea of a cistern. She also questioned the sense of
saving the maple tree.
Carla Schoon stated that the previous owners requested they save the tree and that it
provides shade.
Ann Reif (4624 Brook Street) asked why the applicant could not build a house that fits
the lot? She questioned the height of the structure and also wondered if the City is going
to allow all these variances will you allow neighbors to do anything they want.
Vickie Keskitalo (2874 Lakeshore) stated last year she had asked for a variance to a build
a porch on an undersized lot and it was not considered a hardship. She stated that some
people are forced to build regardless to the size of the lot. It seems that the applicants
have more than an adequate size lot. She also added that she was happy to see the lots
improve but it causes her to wonder if a major project is treated differently then a smaller
project.
Dave Raskob (who owns 4585 Balsam) stated that there is the need to clarify irregular lot
sizes and the impact of the neighbors. He suggested that the neighborhood be looked at
Planning Commission Minutes 4
November 9, 2005
as part of the city although it is in transition and it is hard to please everyone. He
believes that this is a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Sarah Schield provided names of two neighbors who are supportive of the project and are
unable to be at the meeting but wanted to go on the record for being in support of the
project. They are Lloyd J. Anderson 4605 Balsam Street and Deborah and John Gabdois
4636 Balsam Street.
The public hearing was closed at 8:40PM.
Dick Picard has concern about topography and run off. He also does not see the hardship
of not having a pool. He stated he is happy to see the removal of the two existing houses.
Doug Dickerson appreciated seeing that the applicant has talked with neighbors. He
stated that he has concern about the water drainage east and west.
Leonard Leuer stated that there will need to be a certificate of closure for the well. And
questioned that the property to the west looks like it is over the lot line.
Sarah Schield stated that the adjacent home is located 1.8'from the lot line.
Leonard Leuer said it looks like the deck is creating a problem and with no deck the 6.67
foot setback variance would be alleviated.
Peter Schoon said that he could move the deck to the east and this would alleviate the
side lot line setback but not the rear setback.
Mary Verbick said that the lot combination is a plus to the neighborhood, though the
footprint appears large. However, this is more preferable than a two-story house which
would be more imposing on the neighbors. She also added that she appreciated
communication with neighbors to alleviate concerns. She likes the idea of the cistern and
wonders if they sell the property that future owners would have chain of title to maintain
the cistern. She also likes the idea of tree planting, swales, and the use of rain gardens.
The deck may be worked more creatively to reduce the number of variances. Variances
are inevitable in this area but the granting of variances need to be more equitable and not
arbitrary. She also questioned if the pool is a hardship.
Tom Supel stated that the precedence for variances is difficult because historically lots
have been undersized. This lot is an adequate size lot. He stated that all criteria must be
satisfied. He questions criteria #2 in relation to reasonable use of the property. There is a
full size lot and a pool is not necessary for reasonable use. Whereas criteria #5 which
requires that the variance be the minimum needed to alleviate the hardship is also
violated since the house could easily be built on the lot.
Planning Commission Minutes 5
November 9, 2005
Dick Picard stated he is concerned about the run off and the impact it will have on the
lake that is designated an impaired lake. He stated the home is an improvement to the
area but does not feel that the pool is essential to the plan.
Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION/SECOND (Supel/ Fortin) All setback requests be denied.
VOTE: 2yes 4 no MOTION FAILS
MOTION/SECOND (Leuer/Verbick) to grant the front yard set back variance from 30' to
12'and the rear setback variance of 8.9'only in area of the jog in the lot. The construction
of a patio instead of a deck will result in the elimination of a side yard variance and
another rear yard variance.
VOTE: 5 yes 1 no (Tom Supel voting NO) MOTION PASSES
Tom Supel stated he was not in support of the variances because the house is larger than
adequate and the lot could still have a reasonable use.
MOTION/SECOND (Picard/Supel) To grant a variance for the hard cover minimizing to
37% and without a pool.
VOTE: 1 yes 5 no MOTION FAILS
Discussion occurred on if a pool is truly an impervious surface.
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Leuer) to recommend approving hard cover variance as
requested with mitigating requests such as rain gardens, cisterns, and swales that would
negate the hard cover.
VOTE 4 YES 2 NO (Tom Supel and Dick Picard voting NO) MOTION PASSES
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Fortin) To recommend approval of Preliminary Plat
including variances as outlined in the previous motions.
VOTE: 5 YES 1 NO (Tom Supel voting NO) MOTION PASSES
Tom Supel stated he was not in support of the Preliminary Plat as it is tied to variances
that are inconsistent with the ordinance.
6. SIGN ORDINANCE
MOTION/SECOND (Fortin/Leuer) To table discussion on the sign ordinance.
MOTION PASSES by unanimous vote
7. WETLAND ORDINANCE
John Smyth from Bonestroo, the City's wetland consultant, gave an overview of the
background of the Wetland Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes 6
November 9, 2005
Discussion followed with questions and answers on the Ordinance. General consensus
was to have a work session on this ordinance.
MOTION/SECOND (Supel/Leuer) To table until December 13, 2005 and have a work
session from 6:OOPM-8:OOPM and convene the regular Planning Commission meeting at
8:00 PM.
MOTION PASSES by unanimous vote
8. MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 11, 2005 MEETING
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Fortin) to approve the minutes from the October 11, 2005
meeting as corrected.
MOTION PASSES by unanimous vote
Liz Weir gave a verbal report on the City Council meeting and entertained questions from
Planning Commissioners.
9. PLANNERS REPORT
Rose Lorsung gave her report stating that for next month the sign ordinance, erosion
control, and grading ordinance will be ready for review.
MOTION/SECOND (Supel/Fortin) Motion to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED by unanimous vote
Meeting adjourned 11:15 PM
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
Planning Commission Minutes 7
November 9, 2005