Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.07.26 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, McRoberts, Moore, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt ABSENT: Kleissler ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Secretary Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Approval of Minutes of June 14, 2007 Rosenquist made motion, Schumann seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 14, 2007 as submitted. Ayes: Bailly, McRoberts, Moore, Rosenquist, Schumann Abstain: Weidt Motion carried. Wolkerstorfer CUP for Shared Driveway and Variances The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request of Joseph A. Wolkerstorfer, 16730 Jeffrey Avenue North, for a Conditional Use Permit for a shared driveway and variances to permit a property line adjustment. The applicant owns four adjacent parcels generally located on the west side of Jeffrey Avenue (County Road 57) and south of 170th Street. Three of the parcels are under the 10 acre minimum lot size required in the Agricultural Zoning District, and two parcels have less than the required 300 feet road frontage. The property line adjustment would result in four parcels with two parcels less than 10 acres and one parcel with less than the required frontage. Hugo City code states that where a property line adjustment causes properties to remain or become out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, a variance is required. The applicant requested variances to allow a five acre parcel, a nine acre parcel and a parcel with no road frontage, which required a CUP for a shared driveway. The Associate Planner explained that it was staff's opinion that the results from the property line adjustment will be better than the current situation since the applicant is lessening the nonconformity. Schumann opened the public hearing. The applicants Joe and Marsha Wolkerstorfer said they bought the property 35-36 years ago from the Gessners and later purchased the 2+ acre strip of land to ensure access to the pond. The home was built around 1976 and they later bought additional acreage to the south. He said they had recently built a home on the property and their daughter would like to build a home west of that which would share a driveway. The wetlands make it nearly impossible to put in a separate Planning Commission Minutes — July 26, 2007 Page 2 driveway. Where the driveway was now, a farm road had existed for years. Schumann questioned how they could have created the lot in 1976 because he believed there were state statutes in place at the time that prohibited creation of land locked parcels. McRoberts asked about combining the two northern parcels into one parcel and talked about reconfiguring the northwest lot to make it 10 acres. He questioned whether another parcel was being created by changing the property lines. Wolkerstorfer said the parcel to the north had been perked and is a buildable site. If the property line was moved, the driveway would end up being shared or would require a new one to be put through the wetland. To move the west line would prevent the north parcel from having access to the pond. Bear explained they would be eliminating two land locked parcels. There are many land locked parcels in the agricultural districts, and the applicant was trying to straighten out the property lines to create buildable sites. Schumann said the pertinent factor was that access would be provided to the land locked parcel. Weidt and Moore talked about moving the proposed property line on the south parcel to provide more road frontage and make it a legal lot. Bailly asked about the driveway maintenance and the legalities about the property owner living closest to the road. Wolkerstorfer explained the attorney was drawing up legal documents regarding the driveway which would be part of the deed. He said the lots were very wooded, and the driveway was far from the house. McRoberts asked about the creation of the drainage and utility easement on the south. Wolkerstorfer said he did it to protect the wetlands. It is not a DNR easement. Moore suggested putting two driveways to the north of the south properties, one along the side of the other. Wolkerstorfer explained that the driveway would be on the side of a ridge. Schumann said he could understand the north parcel and the desire to have access to the lake but thought the land locked parcel should have access to Jeffery Avenue to alleviate potential problems in the future. Rosenquist pointed out there was nothing to gain by it because it was all swamp. Schumann said from a practicality issue, the County preferred shared driveways for safety reasons, and having less than 300 feet road frontage was less of an issue. Having a land locked Planning Commission Minutes — July 26, 2007 Page 3 parcel could be an issue in the future. Schumann closed the public hearing. McRoberts made motion, Schumann seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the property line adjustment. Aye: Bailly, McRoberts, Moore, Rosenquist, Schumann Nay: Weidt Motion carried. Multi -Feeder Variances and Site Plan The Commission considered the request of Neal Nordling, 4821 White Bear Parkway, White Bear Lake, for site plan review for a building on 7.05 acre site located at Lot 3, Block 1, Bald Eagle Industrial Park 4th addition. The plan consisted of a two story building totaling 28,331 square feet for use by Mutifeeder Technology and showed two future building sites that would not be approved as part of the site plan review. The Associate Planner explained that when the applicant was ready to develop the rest of the site, they would need to subdivide the property or apply for a conditional use permit for a campus development to allow three buildings on one parcel. The Associate Planner explained the applicant was also requesting approval of two variances. The first variance was from the north and south side yard setback requirements to permit the two future buildings to be built 10 feet from the side property line where the ordinance required the buildings to be set back at a distance that is at least equal to the height of the building, and in no case less than 10 feet. The second variance request was from the front yard setback to permit a sign to be located at the property line where a 30 foot setback from the property line was required. McRoberts asked if the infiltration basins were on low ground and if the pond could be pulled back to have the sign in compliance. Bear said there was some flexibility to redesigning the infiltration basins. Schumann said there were minimum sizes to these basins, and he asked if it would be appropriate for the applicant to withdraw the request for the variances Bear said they could do that and reapply in the future when they had a site plan. Schumann opened the public hearing. Bruce Schwartzman, 2680 South Shore Boulevard, White Bear Lake, said he was the architect for the Nordling property, and he had been working with staff and found the industrial park to be exemplary in design. The infiltration ponds had been designed with a gradual slope and a steeper pond would be more difficult to maintain. To move any of the ponds to the east would create more hardships to the lots. Planning Commission Minutes — July 26, 2007 Page 4 Schumann suggested they consider rain gardens. Schwartzman said to maximize the property to the fullest, it made sense to align the driveway to 134th street, which has created a hardship. They had worked with the property owner to the north to create shared utilities which now caused water to run on to the property causing the ponds to be larger than necessary. They did not realize the utility easement was on the north property line which limits the available land to be developed. Schwartzman said screening the trash enclosure would not be an issue and they were using due diligence to screen the rooftop equipment. The cost of screening was expensive and sometimes more distracting. He said he would work with the City on it. He also said the sign would not create any traffic hazard and the future building would not exceed the height of the proposed building. They wanted approval of the variances. Gail Nordling explained he had worked in construction and development. He said at the Council meeting in April, they had requested assistance in TIF and the Council said they could not provide TIF but invited them to apply for a side setback variance. He passed out to the Commission a rendering of what the proposed building would look like and how they would encroach into the setback. He pointed out that the future buildings would not align with adjacent buildings and they would commit that the building would not be higher than the proposed one. It would be of the same quality construction and they would provide a letter committing to that. He pointed out that in January of 2006, the Council approved a variance for the Atkinson property in the Peloquin Industrial Park and one was recently approved for Rick Burr (Gusset Design). Nordling asked for a 15 foot setback on the north and a ten foot setback on the south, feeling it was an appropriate compromise. Schumann said there were no dimensions provided for the granting of the side yard variances, and in light of that, he would like to see the request withdraw. Rosenquist said he would like to see the whole plan withdrawn and have the applicant come back with a total plan showing all the buildings. Schwartzman said they were under a considerable time crunch. Rosenquist asked about the sizes of the proposed buildings. Schwartzman said they would be 17,000 and 15,000 square feet, considerably smaller than the 28,000 square feet proposed for the Multi -Feeder building. Nordling said the value of the property would be affected by the kind of the building that could be built, and it would affect financing. Schumann asked they show modifications to the infiltration ponds and explained he felt they were limited to what they could approve without seeing a plan. Rosenquist asked if the water could be put into a pipe instead of the swale. Planning Commission Minutes — July 26, 2007 Page 5 Schwartzman said it was a cost issue. Rosenquist pointed out there had been two letters submitted to the City from adjacent property owners objecting to the variance. Schwartzman said the driveway/road was designed to City standard in case the property was subdivided. They could decrease the right-of-way from ten to five feet and possibly shift the buildings. Claudette Munson, 4952 132nd Way North, asked about the sign and if it would be lighted. She also said she thought the other buildings would be setback further than the one they were showing as a future building. Schwartzman said it would be designed with a steel plate with low light behind the letters. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded to recommend approval of a 20' setback with no other restriction. Weidt amended the motion, Bailly seconded, adding the condition the building height be no greater than 30 feet. Vote on Amendment - Aye: Bailly, McRoberts, Moore, Schumann, Weidt Nay: Rosenquist Vote on original motion - Aye: Bailly, Moore, Weidt Nay: McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Motion failed. McRoberts made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to approve the site plan and the variance for the sign. All Ayes. Motion carried. Rosenquist made motion, McRoberts seconded, to deny the variances for the side yard setback. Aye: McRoberts, Rosenquist, Schumann Nay: Bailly, Moore, Weidt Motion failed Approval of Weeds and Tall Grass Ordinance The CDD explained a review of the City's nuisance ordinance was one of the Commission's goals for 2006. As a result, a committee had been formed to consider several of the ordinances, including the City's weed ordinance, which currently prohibited noxious weeds but tall grass was not prohibited. The CDD explained the City was experiencing increasing complaints on weeds Planning Commission Minutes — July 26, 2007 Page 6 and tall grass on platted lots likely due to the increase in home foreclosures. The ordinance provided for the City to maintain the lots and assess the owner for the cost. McRoberts asked about the Victor Gardens Development that had large areas that were unplatted. The CDD said it applied to lots under five acres, basically where there were residents in neighborhoods. Moore asked if all lots in the Diamond Point Development would need to be mowed since most were still vacant. The CDD responded that they would. Schumann asked about the legalities of access property through a locked gate. The CDD said they would need to consider their legal options at that time. Moore pointed out that there was wildlife living in some of the overgrown areas. Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Ayes: Bailly, Moore, Rosenquist, Schumann, Weidt Nay: McRoberts Motion carried. McRoberts said he felt a five acre minimum was too large. Comprehensive Plan Update The CDD provided the Commission with an update on the Comprehensive Plan and informed them the next workshop would be on August 23, 2007. This would be a joint meeting with the City Council to refine the Land Use Plan and discuss future infrastructure. Adjournment Rosenquist made motion, Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission