Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-17 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on February 17, 2004, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: Chairperson Brian Hanson Commissioner John McLean Commissioner Jennefer Klennert Hunt Commissioner Michelle Lakso Commissioner Tom Wilharber ABSENT: None COUNCIL: Linda Broussard Vickers STAFF: Ms. Moore-Sykes I. CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. City Administrator, Ms. Moore-Sykes requested that Mr. Bob Roslansky, 7068 Eagle Trail, be added to the agenda under Appearances. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that staff had received an email and a formal letter from Mr. Roslansky regarding a POD that is currently in his driveway due to construction. City staff had received a complaint regarding the POD and subsequently forwarded a letter to Mr. Roslansky regarding outside storage requirements and his current violation of same. II. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. Special Use Permit Request for Chauncey Barett Gardens, Phase II Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing for consideration of the Special Use Permit request associated with the Chauncey Barett Gardens, Phase II project at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Michael Nelson (Miller, Hanson Parterners), architectural firm working with Anoka County HRA introduced himself. Mr. Nelson stated that the County desires to construct a new building on the current site of the existing Chauncey Barett Gardens. The building would consist of 31 units being 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom with a den and 2 bedroom units with the majority being 1 bedroom with a den. Mr. Nelson stated that they would be Page 1 of 3 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes expanding the service parking area by adding an additional 21 spaces for a total of 37 including a covered parking wing. Drainage will remain on site with ponding being increased and rain gardens. Mr. Nelson explained that the new building will contain a community room, exercise room, card room and library. Mr. Nelson stated that these features will be available for use by all residents. Mr. Nelson also stated that a second driveway/access will be added to Centerville Road. Mr. Nelson stated that vegetation will be installed along the roadway area, along the south property line and in the turn- around area. The County would be upgrading the site with a new sign being installed near Centerville Road. Commission Member Wilharber questioned the setback of the building on the south property line. Mr. Nelson stated that it would be approximately 30 feet plus the patio decks. Mr. Nelson guessed approximately 37 feet total. Commission Member Wilharber also questioned whether the proposed ponding for the site had taken into consideration the new building and parking lot size. Mr. Nelson concurred and commented that the civil engineer’s documents had been contained in the Commission’s packet for review. Chair Hanson questioned whether the current zoning for the area was Commercial and that he had questioned this before. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that it currently is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. Mr. Nelson stated that there was R-2 and R-2A zoning near by. Chair Hanson stated that at the last meeting there were discussions about the R-2A density requirements only allotting for 16 units. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the parcel is currently zoned R-2 and both R-2 and R-2A do not allow more that 16 units; however, residential facilities are allowed. Chair Hanson stated that they would exceed the maximum amount of 16 units. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the County is requesting a Special Use Permit because of the excess units. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt questioned whether the exterior of the new building would be similar to the existing building and blend in together. Mr. Nelson concurred and stated that masonry would be used on the facade and cement fiberboard siding would be utilized on the sides and rear of the building. Mr. Nelson also stated that the building had been pulled back from the existing building trying to be sensitive to the one level versus two levels. Chair Hanson stated that he had concerns regarding so many units on a residential piece of property and whether it could set a precedent for other areas in Centerville. Commissioner Lakso arrived at 6:47 p.m. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that this residential facility, group homes or senior living situations are allowed by Minnesota State Statute. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that residential facilities with a specific use are allowed by State Statute. Ms. Moore-Sykes also stated that if this were a commercial venture, it would follow a different set of rules. Page 2 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes Chair Hanson stated that he had concerns regarding how this would be rated compared to an apartment or rental units and the potential vulnerability that the City may be placed in if someone else desires to develop somewhere else in the community. Commissioner McLean stated that it was a large parcel of land encompassing two lots. Commissioner Wilharber stated that the parcel originally when purchased by the City was intended for two buildings with both buildings being similar in style. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he has been aware of the waiting list that they have been maintaining. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated that several discussions have taken place regarding senior housing and bringing more into the community. Chair Hanson stated that he did not have problems with senior housing rather that he was very concerned about problems with future requests for apartments or rental units on residentially zoned property within the City. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the proposal submitted by the County was a residential facility funded by Anoka County and public funds. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the County will be going out for bonds and the City will be entering into a joint powers agreement that allows them to construct the facility on the property. Chair Hanson questioned whether a similar project could happen in another area of town. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that if the County desired a group home (physical or mental health facility) within a residentially zoned area, by state statute they could not be precluded from constructing one. Chair Hanson asked if there where any other questions or concerns. Mr. Bob Mehsikhomer, 1890 Center Street, questioned the funding of the bonding issue and whether this would affect resident’s property taxes and at what level. Ms. Moore- Sykes stated that it was unknown at this time; however, the bond would be originated with the County so it is funded by the County or a County-wide bond. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that it would increase resident’s taxes somehow. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that it would be a County-wide bond. Commissioner Wilharber motioned and Commissioner Klennert-Hunt seconded to close the public hearing for the Special Use Permit request for Chauncey Barett Gardens, Phase II at 6:48 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Chair Hanson opened the floor for discussion. Chair Hanson stated that he has concerns in regards to setting precedent with other projects in the future and he did not have a concern with recommending approval of the Special Use Permit requested. Commissioner Wilharber motioned and Commissioner McLean seconded to recommend to Council to allow a Special Use Permit as per the notice of public hearing concerning Phase II of the Chauncey Barett Gardens. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Page 3 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes Chair Hanson questioned when this issue would be brought forward to Council for consideration. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that it would be brought before them at their next meeting on February 25, 2004 and 6:30 p.m. Mr. Nelson thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for their time and consideration. 2. Requested Rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot Split & Comp. Plan Amendment – 6867 th – 20 Avenue (PIMA Properties, LLC) Chair Hanson opened the public hearing for consideration of the Rezone request from I-1 (Industrial) to R-2A (High Density, Single Family Residential), lot split and th Comprehensive Plan amendment for 6867 – 20 Avenue submitted by PIMA Properties at 6:50 p.m. Mr. Paul Keleher, Project Manager for Sedona Homes/PIMA Properties, introduced himself and stated that he had submitted the application for consideration this evening. Mr. Keleher stated that they desired to construct residential townhomes which are similar to ones that were recently completed in Hugo. Mr. Keleher stated that the townhomes would be two-story style and they are planning to have 6 to 7 units per acre. Rezoning of the property was the first step in the process. The parcels that PIMA Properties desires to develop are Carpenters Auto Body, Reel Manufacturing and the larger parcel behind th Sumac Court. Mr Keleher stated that two parcels along 20 Avenue would retain the Commercial zoning status. Mr Keleher also stated that PIMA Properties is requesting th that 6867 – 20 Avenue be rezoned from I-1 to R-2A and the parcel south of Sumac Court from R-2 to R-2A to accommodate their townhome project. Mr. Keleher stated that a roadway would be brought into the building site through the parcel known as Carpenters. Mr. Keleher also stated that a pond exists on the parcel south of Sumac Court and that they desired to construct around same. Mr. Keleher explained that the exterior of the buildings would have a very residential look with gabled ends and front porches. Open space, ponding and trails would be included in the development. Mr. Keleher felt that they would have a strong base of individuals that would purchase within the development. Commissioner Wilharber questioned whether the trail would run along the road right-of- way. Mr. Keleher stated that there were several trails with one being brought in near the Pheasant Marsh development along the roadway and along the sidewalk, come down and th crossover to 20 Avenue. Commissioner Wilharber questioned the location of the current drainage ditch. Mr. Keleher showed the Planning and Zoning Commission on a map and stated that they have had discussions with Rice Creek Watershed District in regards to possibly relocating same. Mr. Keleher stated that Rice Creek was in favor of relocation. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt questioned the entrance to the development th from 20 Avenue. Mr. Keleher explained that the new road would be near the Carpenter Auto Body building and circulate throughout the development. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt questioned the amount of proposed units within the development. Mr. Keleher stated that the current proposal is 80 although the application Page 4 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes stated 85. Mr. Keleher stated with ponding and wetlands their original proposal had to be modified. Commissioner Wilharber questioned the selling price range of the units. Mr. Keleher stated approximately $188,000 to $225,000 and the units would be approximately 1,500’. th Commissioner Klennert-Hunt questioned the traffic impact of the development on 20 Avenue with a stop sign on the entrance/exist and were there any plans for traffic control th to assist residents on getting on or off 20 Avenue safely. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that th 20 Avenue is a County Road and the City has no jurisdiction over same. Ms. Moore- Sykes also stated that other than placing a stop sign at the junctions of the roadways, the City can not provide anything else unless the County determines that it needs other signally or traffic control measures. Chair Hanson stated that the majority of traffic would come from Center Street rather than the development. Commissioner Lakso questioned whether the development was required to retain some Commercial zoning or was that within the proposal. Mr. Keleher stated that previously they had brought a different proposal forward for consideration and subsequent to discussions with Council th it was felt in the best interest to retain Commercial zoning along 20 Avenue. Commissioner Wilharber stated that PIMA Properties is not interested in the properties that abut Center Street. Mr. Keleher concurred and stated that the development line is along the Carpenter property not the parcels that are owned by Center Oaks and BGL. Commissioner McLean stated that the proposed development was subsequent to the recommendations of Council. Mr. Keleher concurred. Chair Hanson asked for questions from the audience. Ms. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road stated that she strongly disagreed with any rezoning of Commercial property due to the high tax base, school taxes higher than surrounding communities and she felt that rezoning for any housing development was wrong. Ms. Essex stated that several years ago Rehbein desired to add more townhomes and the City Council did some research in regards to taxbase and townhomes versus the commercial taxing rate. At that time, the commercial property was proven to provide more benefit to the community. Ms. Essex stated that all residents need a tax break. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned the distance from Center Street to the proposed entrance of the development. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that they have been entering and exiting their residence from Center Street for 15 years. Mr. Keleher stated 320’ from centerline of Center Street and their proposed entrance/exit. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned whether there was State Statute, City or County regulation that this may be less than the required footage. Mr. Keleher stated that typical distance would be 600’ for County requirements. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that the proposal is for half of that and in close proximity. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned what would happen with the previously required watershed area. Mr. Keleher stated that they would remain the same. Mr. Keleher also stated that the existing ponding was a dedicated easement with the Rice Creek Watershed District and that the previous owner had received credits for those ponds. Mr. Keleher stated that the area would be treated as open space and trails would be constructed so that people could enjoy the natural ambiance of the surroundings. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that the Page 5 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes wildlife area currently in the area would have trails that would allow people to walk directly by his back door and provide those same individuals with access to his property which he did not like. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned how long it would be before PIMA Properties would ask to develop more in the future. Mr. Keleher stated that easements controled the property that Mr. Mehsikhomer was speaking of and they would not be asking to develop it in the future. Mr. Keleher stated that Rice Creek Watershed District has agreements with the previous owner and would not allow additional development on that property even if they desired to. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that they have experienced problems with snowmobiles in the past and this would just bring more congestion to the area. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned whether all the proposed trail ways were necessary. Mr. Keleher stated that the proposal is to have a connecting trail to the Pheasant Marsh subdivision trail along the rear of the existing homes on Sumac Court, over to the new th street and down to 20 Avenue. Mr. Keleher stated that it was designed as a walkway for residents to utilize. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that he moved out here for peace and quite and questioned the purpose of this development and its need. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that it was commerce, industry and someone was making a profit. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that the development would not help the tax base in this town and that same was out of control. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that his concern is the destruction and devaluation of his property and having people be able to access his property by a path with snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, etc. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the police have instructed staff and residents to obtain the registration numbers that by law must be displayed on the vehicles and a description of the vehicle because the police can not always respond in time to apprehend the offender due to the speed of the vehicles. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that he has done that and then the police state that he is a third party to the incident and nothing can be done. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that the ordinance allows snowmobiles to be on the road with a limited speed even though they may not adhere to these requirements. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that they should not be on private property and they should not be on the property behind his home unless they have permission to be there. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that she is very aware of the situation and that same has gotten a little better with the Pheasant Marsh subdivision and as continuing development occurs, will drive those individuals farther south from Mr. Mehsikhomer’s residence. Council Member Broussard Vickers explained that both Council and Parks and Recreation have actively supported trail ways within the community and connection with the Pheasant Marsh subdivision. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned why all the connectivity was needed. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that basically trail ways are believed to enhance the quality of life and recreational desirability of a community. Trail ways are through out the Lino Lakes area and grant money is currently being applied for by the City to construct a trail way with the City of Hugo. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that no matter what is constructed in th the areas of discussion this evening, there will be a trail way connected to 20 Avenue. Council Member Broussard Vickers also stated that there has been a standard for development for at least five years that require trail ways and their connection to existing trail ways within new developments. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned who was requiring Page 6 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes the trails. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that it was City Council and the Parks and Recreation Committee. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned what Council was doing about the tax base in the town. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that in years past, the tax differential between Commercial and Residential property had different taxing capacities with Commercial paying substantially more than Residential, a 3 to 1 ratio. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that the law was modified in 2002 and that the differentiation no longer exists. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that it currently is about one and a half to one ratio. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that it is only because Residential increased to meeting Commercial. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that what Mr. Mehsikhomer’s statement was untrue and that the state legislature changed how commercial property is taxed within the State of Minnesota right now so that the advantage that Commercial had in previous years to give cities more money no longer exists. Council Member Broussard Vickers also stated that on these particular pieces of property there are two very small, under developed commercial entities that are assisting the tax base very little and that the proposed development would bring in substationally more tax base than the existing properties currently do. Mr. Mehsikhomer stated that same is if there is no more burden on the City because of it and that he felt that this development would not increase the value of his property. Chair Hanson stated that the rear of the parcel in question, directly south of Sumac Court, was already zoned Residential and that the real argument was in regards to seven acres or less to be rezoned from Industrial to High Density, Single Family Residential with some of the existing property currently zoned for Residential and that PIMA Properties is th proposing to leave approximately three to four acres of the abutting property to 20 Avenue as Commerical. Chair Hanson stated that the rear piece or fifty percent of the entire development is already zoned Residential and did not need Council approval for residential development other than a developers agreement, etc. Chair Hanson stated that the only item needed would be access to the rear parcel and same could not be denied. Chair Hanson stated that he understand the concerns regarding the proposed roadway because he resides right off of Center Street and that he has experienced the same snowmobile traffic, cars in his yard, etc. Chair Hanson felt that there was no real impact on Center Street due to this development and that residents will continue to utilize Center Street to enter and exit their development. Chair Hanson stated that the City has no control over the proximity of the road, but Anoka County does and they will make that determination. Chair Hanson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council try to control development, find out what is best for the City and try to help mold the City into an image they and residents would like to see, but can not stop development. Commissioner McLean stated that the City gains Commercial from the proposal. Commissioner Wilharber questioned whether the Carpenter home would be removed along with other buildings. Mr. Keleher stated that they would be removed. Commissioner Wilharber stated that as the community grows, consideration is needed for safety regarding snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, and dirt bikes. Commissioner Wilharber also stated that other communities have banned them. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he Page 7 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes is not in favor of the location of the trail ways and that he is not a member of Park and Recreation. He however, has a concern with the proximity of the roadway to Center Street. Commissioner Wilharber stated that tax laws have changed, the property has sat for a long time and the buildings are getting older. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he felt this was a good project. Mr. Keleher thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for their comments and stated that they would be looking at their ideas. Mr. Keleher also stated that they would be working with Anoka County prior to submittal of any additional plans in the future. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he has a trail that runs directly along his property and at one time owned quite a bit of property and that naturally things change unless you own it all. Chair Hanson asked if there were any other questions or comments. An audience member questioned when construction would commence. Mr. Keleher stated it was anticipated to commence in May or June with the demolition of the buildings and then grading. Mr. Keleher anticipated that the building of model homes would commence this year. Commissioner McLean questioned whether if required by the County to relocate the roadway farther south, would the zoning of Commercial for the two lots need to be reconsidered. Mr. Keleher stated that same was a good question; however it would probably stay the same. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that safety vehicles needed to be taken into consideration also. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the roadway would not connect with the Pheasant Marsh subdivision. Council Member Broussard Vickers concurred due to a five to seven acre outlot parcel in that location. Chair Hanson asked for additional comments. Ms. Essex desired to discuss the snowmobile problems she has encountered with the creek and questioned who she should contact. She explained that she has contacted the Department of Natural Resources and Rice Creek Watershed and they directed her back to the City. Council Member Broussard Vickers state that the creek is public waters. Ms. Moore-Sykes concurred and stated that the City has no jurisdiction over it. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that when the Cities of Hugo and Lino Lakes modify their ordinances, the City would probably follow accordingly. Mr. Mehsikhomer questioned why Centerville needed to wait for others and why not be the leader instead. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she did speak with the Administrator of the City of Hugo and they have a snowmobile trail system that runs through their community and with the cooperation of the Washington County Sheriff’s office policing of those same trails. Snowmobiles are not allowed in residential areas and only on those specifically dedicated trails. Commissioner Wilharber stated that Council would be the group to discuss this issue with and they will direct staff to modify ordinances if so desired. Ms. Essex thanked the Commission for their input. Commissioner Wilharber motioned and seconded by Commissioner Lakso seconded to close the public hearing for the requested rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot Split and th Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6867 – 20 Avenue at 7:30 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Page 8 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Keleher’s presentation and the fact that the entire proposal and presentation contained all of the requested rezones, lot splits and Comprehensive Plan Amendments requested by PIMA Properties. 3. Requested Rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot Split & Comp. Plan Amendment – 6885 & th 6895 – 20 Avenue (PIMA Properties, LLC) Chair Hanson opened the public hearing for consideration of the Rezone request from I-1 (Industrial) to R-2A (High Density, Single Family Residential), lot split and th Comprehensive Plan amendment for 6885 & 6895 – 20 Avenue submitted by PIMA Properties at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt motioned and seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to close the public hearing for the requested rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot Split and th Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6885 & 6895 – 20 Avenue at 7:33 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. 4. This item was pulled from consideration. 5. Requested Rezone from R-1 to R-2A, Lot Split & Comp. Plan Amendment – Parcel South of Sumac Court Chair Hanson opened the public hearing for consideration of the Rezone request from R- 1 (Rural Residential) to R-2A (High Density, Single Family Residential), lot split and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the parcel south of Sumac Court submitted by PIMA Properties at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Wilharber motioned and seconded by McLean to close the public hearing for the requested rezone from R-1 to R-2A, lot split and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the parcel south of Sumac Court at 7:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed PIMA Properties proposal previously, they have taken into consideration the tax base, traffic concerns and she feels confident that Anoka County will address the road entrance/exit issue accordingly and that the project was a good fit with the community. Commissioner McLean agreed and felt that the zoning, roadway and trails were issues that would be dealt with. Commissioner McLean also added that he felt this was not spot zoning and that a fair amount of Commercial property was retained. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he concurred with previous comments of the other members. Commissioner McLean motioned and Commissioner Klennert-Hunt seconded to recommend to Council the approval of the requested rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot th Split and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6867 – 20 Avenue at 7:30 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Page 9 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes Commissioner McLean motioned and Commissioner Lakso seconded to recommend to Council the approval of the requested rezone from I-1 to R-2A, Lot Split and th Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6885 & 6895 – 20 Avenue at 7:33 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner McLean motioned and Commissioner Klennert-Hunt seconded to recommend to Council the approval of the requested rezone from R-1 to R-2A, lot split and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the parcel south of Sumac Court at 7:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Keleher thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. III. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Bob Roslansky, 7068 Eagle Trail appeared before the Commission and stated that he was in the process of remodeling his basement and that all of his tools and personal items needed to be moved out of the basement to allow ample room to complete the remodeling. Mr. Roslansky stated that he currently has an active building permit and that he has contracted with a temporary storage company who has placed a POD (“Portable On-Demand”) unit in his driveway. It was brought to his attention that someone in his neighborhood was not pleased with its placement and he received a letter from the City. Mr. Roslansky stated that he came to City Hall looking for further clarification. Mr. Roslansky stated that the current Ordinance #4 does not address temporary storage units. Mr. Roslansky requested that Planning and Zoning consider a temporary permitting of same to parallel a building permit if the resident desires. Chair Hanson questioned the size of the temporary structure. Mr. Roslansky stated that it is approximately 11’ tall and 8 – 9’ wide and 20’ long and that he did not have the exact measurements; however, when he parks his van near it, it is not completely dwarfed by the POD. Commissioner Lakso questioned the anticipated completion date of finishing the basement. Mr. Roslansky stated that the building permit expires within six months of the issuance and that he anticipated completion prior to that period of time and felt that it would be May or June. Commissioner McLean questioned when the permit was issued and the date of placement of the POD. Mr. Roslansky stated that the permit was issued in December of 2003 and the POD was placed at the same time. Chair Hanson questioned whether Mr. Roslansky had any other accessory structures or outbuildings on his property. Mr. Roslansky stated no. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated that PODs are fairly a new item on the market. Commissioner Wilharber felt that the POD unit was better than piling everything outside and that Planning and Zoning should consider a language amendment to Ordinance #4 to include such use. Commissioner McLean stated that the POD was no worse than an RV parked in a driveway. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that basically this issue is interpretation of the ordinance. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would contact the City Attorney regarding the issuance of a temporary structure permit. Chair Hanson stated that the permit should have an expiration date also. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt felt that it was a good idea to combine the permit with the building permit and felt that if Mr. Roslansky could have utilized a horse trailer and there would not have been an issue. Commissioner Wilharber stated that he felt that Ordinance #4, Section Page 10 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes 130-140, Outside Storage did address temporary storage of materials and equipment during construction and that he would not have forwarded a letter to Mr. Roslansky. The Commission concurred. Mr. Roslansky felt the section needed to be re-written. Commissioner Wilharber thanked Mr. Roslansky for bringing this issue to their attention. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Acceptance of Mr. Dave Kilian’s Resignation from the Commission – Purchase of Plaque Commissioner Klennert-Hunt questioned whether this item was accepted by Council. Ms. Moore-Sykes concurred. Chair Hanson questioned whether the Commission could utilize Mr. Kilian’s verbal resignation given to him. Ms. Moore-Sykes concurred. Commissioner McLean motioned and Commissioner Lakso seconded to accept the verbal resignation given to Chair Hanson by Mr. Kilian as his resignation from the Commission and to purchase a plaque for Mr. Kilian. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lakso questioned whether there had been any interest in the two available positions on the Commission. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated no. Commissioner Wilharber stated that Mr. Kilian had been on the Commission for approximately 4 to 5 years. It was the Commission’s desire to pass along to Mr. Kilian the Commission’s thanks for volunteering of his services. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Ordinance #4 – New Format Continues Next Month Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that this item would be discussed in April and she felt that it would be ready for approval in June. Brief discussion ensued regarding swimming pool fencing and the anticipated time that the State may look at this issue. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would discuss the issue with the Building Official. Chair Hanson stated that the City should look into the City of Lino Lakes and Hugo’s ordinances regarding ATVs and snowmobiles. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she contacted and left a message with the new City Administrator of Lino and has not received a response and that with the designated trails and cooperation of the Washington County Sheriff department’s check points, it was felt that no changes would be made to the City of Hugo’s ordinance. The City Administrator for Hugo stated that the snowmobile association has been instrumental in cooperation and policing of this issue. Page 11 of 12 Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2004 Meeting Minutes VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. February 3, 2004 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner Lakso to approve the Minutes of February 3, 2004, as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner McLean to adjourn the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting at 8:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Teresa Bender, City Clerk Page 12 of 12