Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.10.11 PC MinutesMINUTES HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 2007 Call to Order Chairman Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Moore, Schumann (Moore arrived after roll call) ABSENT: Weidt, Rosenquist ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) Michele Lindau, Secretary Rachel Simone, Associate Planner Kendra Lindahl, Planner Approval of Minutes of September 27, 2007 Schumann made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 27, 2007 as submitted. All Ayes. Motion carried. Storage of Large Recreational Vehicles The Commission held a public hearing to consider a draft ordinance regulating the storage of large recreational vehicles. The Associate Planner explained the Code Enforcement Subcommittee, consisting of two Council members and three Planning Commission members, had been working on a draft ordinance and held a public workshop in March 2007 where six residents volunteered to join the subcommittee. The draft ordinance only applied to large recreational vehicles, six feet in height and 18 feet in length, and exempted Agricultural, Long - Term Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Future Urban Service Districts as well as lakeshore properties. The ordinance also restricted where the vehicles could be parked, allowing parking in the front yard provided it was on an established driveway, and on the side yard abutting a garage no closer than one foot from the lot line. The Committee had also written a guide on the storage of recreational vehicles. Schumann opened the public hearing. Michael Clyne, 14540 Geneva Avenue North, said he had contacted other cities inquiring on their recreational vehicle ordinances and found most cities had tighter restrictions on lengths allowed and setbacks from lot lines. He had concerns about the one -foot side yard setback because of safety concerns accessing rear yards, and he said it encouraged loading and unloading of the vehicles on neighboring property. There were no other comments, and Schumann closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 Page 2 Bailly did not agree with the requirement of the ordinance that allowed equipment to be stored in a driveway no closer than ten feet from the curb. She said a provision should be added that would allow it from Memorial Day to Labor Day and be setback 30 feet from the curb at all other times of the year. She also said the setback from the side yard could get very tight if both garages were next to each other. McRoberts said the ordinance was very generous and he asked why lakeshore properties were exempt. Bailly, who was on the committee, responded they received a lot of opposition from lakeshore property owners, and many of those living on the lake had many recreational items. McRoberts pointed out that most lakeshore lots were less than one acre, and he thought it was a gross inconsistency. Bear pointed out that residents living on the lake generally had docks and lifts that were stored on the property and have less room for storage of recreational vehicles. McRoberts suggested specifying where certain lakeshore equipment could be stored. Kleissler thought it was generous to allow storage of vehicles in the front yards, and she asked if anyone spoke to the fire department regarding the one -foot side yard setback. She said she liked the brochure. Bailly said the Committee had not spoken to the fire department on the setback. They were trying to allow the storage of vehicles on the side of garages where the garages were setback 10 feet from the side lot line. Moore said the ordinance looked okay, but he liked Bailly's recommendation regarding the setback. Schumann questioned the appearance of the neighborhoods. Bear said the City received some complaints about vehicles in front yards and parked on streets. He said he felt the vast majority of residents should be able to comply with the draft ordinance. Schumann asked if any of the subcommittee members in the audience wanted to speak. Dan Milbrandt, 13951 Fountain Avenue North, questioned the one foot setback when homes had two foot overhangs. He was not in favor of the ordinance and could not understand why lake lots were exempt. He agreed big vehicles should be stored on the side of the house and not be on the grass. He said he had 3/4 of an acre and it doesn't affect him much but does affect his neighbors. He said people live in Hugo because there are fewer restrictions. Don Rieck, 19891 Flay Avenue North, said he has lived in Hugo for 30 years and he was on the Committee. He said he owns a 32 -foot travel trailer and knew he would have to find a place to park it when he moved from a five acre lot into a townhome. He said he felt the ordinance was Planning Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 Page 3 trying to keep parking of recreational vehicles in control. Schumann suggested getting input from the Fire Department on the side yard setback. Kleissler made motion, McRoberts seconded, to table the item. All Ayes. Motion carried. 2008 Comprehensive Plan The Planner provided a summary of the work that had been done on the Comprehensive Plan, and she explained the future land use was based on the adopted 1996 Comprehensive Plan and the Everton Avenue Plan. She identified the categories that had been eliminated. The Rural Residential had been combined with Large Lot, the Urban Reserve and 2020 Urban Development had been eliminated and reguided for future development, and Parks and Open Space was reguided as Public/Quasi-Public. She also explained there were two new categories, Mixed -Use and Business Park. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines would need to be made a priority in 2008. McRoberts asked about creating another urban reserve district, and the Planner said it would be discussed during the growth and management plan. The Planner explained five specific requests made by individual property owners and asked the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council regarding the land use designation on those parcels. There was also a resident who had recently submitted a letter asking that his property along 170th Street North remain residential and not be guided as Business Park. The Commission discussed the request that came in the form of a petition signed by 16 property owners in the neighborhood near Bald Eagle Lake that was currently zoned Large Lot Single Family Detached Residential and guided for 2020 Urban Development. The Commission agreed the City should consult the property owners of the larger lots to see what their thoughts were. The Commission discussed the request from Pete Sampair regarding the property on the south east corner of Highway 61 and 130th Street North. Sampair requested to have it reguided to allow for a 50 -unit apartment building on the site. It was guided for Medium Density in the draft land use plan which would allow for eight units per acre but not apartment buildings. The Commission agreed it should be left as is with the possibility of changing it if someone came in with a proposal. The Commission discussed the Raster property at 15227 Greene Avenue North and the Seever property at 6822 Oneka Lake Boulevard. Raster did not want to be included in the future sewer and water district. The Seever property, located on the north and south of Oneka Lake Boulevard, was guided for services on the north but not on the south. Joyce Seever was requesting the entire piece be guided for City services. The Commission agreed to wait until the rural planning policy was discussed. The Commission considered the Waller property located at the south west corner of Homestead Planning Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 Page 4 Avenue and 140th Street. Waller was requesting it be guided as agricultural to match the rest of the property owned by the Wallers instead of the proposed Large Lot Residential. The Commission agreed to recommend it be guided as Agricultural. The Commission considered the property located at the intersection of 140th Street and Highway 61. The draft plan guided it as Low Density Residential however there were existing commercial uses on both sides of the highway and a residential use on the northeast corner. The Commission agreed to speak to that resident. The Commission discussed the land use planned for the northwest corner of the City. McRoberts had concerns about the Industrial being next to the Low Density, and Bailly thought there should be more housing next to the school and the Industrial concentrated in the northwest corner. The Planner stated she would identify these areas for the City Council discussion at their next meeting. Schumann made motion, McRoberts seconded, to forward the draft plan to the City Council for discussion. All Ayes. Motion carried. The Commission took a short break. Open Space Preservation Ordinance The Planning Commission continued discussion on revisions to the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. The Commission considered a simplified draft ordinance at their last meeting and table discussion. The simplified version required PUD approval and 50% open space. It also allowed for 80' setbacks from interior lot lines and 100' from the perimeter property lines as well as common driveways. McRoberts said he was okay with eight units per forty acres but a substantial portion of the land set aside needed to be buildable, and there needed to be a requirement for the maintenance of the open space. Schumann said with eight units per forty, it should not have to be buildable. The extra burden should not be on the property owner. He explained the intent of the ordinance was to set aside permanent open space, and the revised ordinance made it affordable to do so. Bailly asked about the requirement for a trust and whether the planting of trees for screening behind the homes should be required. Schumann agreed that screening would be necessary. The CDD explained the draft ordinance did not require a trust, just a third party easement holder, and there was flexibility on each project so it could be required. Planning Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 Page 5 McRoberts questioned what would happen if a third party easement could not be found, and he wanted to strengthen the language in the ordinance to state that failure to find a third party easement holder would prevent the development from happening. Schumann said he could not support that because it was possible they may not find someone to agree to be the third party easement holder. He suggested a list be created of third party arrangements that would be acceptable to the City, and the property owner would need to show they had done their due diligence in trying to find one. Schumann reconvened the public hearing. There were no comments, and Schumann closed the public hearing. Moore asked if the entire lot had to be buildable. The CDD said only the building site and septic area had to be buildable. Schumann made motion to recommend approval of the ordinance allowing individual or shared drives up to 1/4 mile long and 16' in width with a turnaround or hammerhead, density at eight units per forty acres, open space would not have to be buildable, and if an owner could not find a third party easement holder after due diligence, the development could still happen. Motion died for lack of a second. Kleissler commented that the City did not need an ordinance to preserve swamp that could not be built on anyway. McRoberts said criteria for finding a third party easement holder to be acceptable needed to be stated. Schumann objected to the requirement that it needed to be accepted by a third party. Schumann made motion, Bailly seconded, to approve the ordinance adding the condition that it must be shown in writing that due diligence was done in finding a third party easement holder. Aye: Bailly, Schumann Nay: Moore, Kleissler, McRoberts Motion failed. Adiournment McRoberts made motion to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Michele Lindau, Secretary Planning Commission