Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-04 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on September 4, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: John McLean Ray DeVine Brian Hanson Rob Sheppard Barry Brainard Tom Wilharber ABSENT: David Kilian. COUNCIL: Linda Broussard Vickers STAFF: Acting City Administrator/Public Works Director Palzer I. CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1.Mr. and Mrs. Jeremy Bates, 1977 South Robin Lane – Variance Request Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Mrs. Bates read a section of the Ordinance and then asked if, based on what she had read, she and her husband would still need a variance to construct a 20 x 20 garage. Chairperson Hanson explained that she was reading from the M1 section of the Ordinance and told her she was in a residential district and, therefore, would still need a variance to construct a structure bigger than 200 square feet or 2% of her lot size. Mrs. Bates indicated that without a garage they have items out in the elements that are also subject to theft. Commissioner Devine inquired as to the size of the Bates’ lot. Mr. Bates indicated it was 7,500 square feet. Page 1 of 16 Commissioner Wilharber noted that the original application for the variance indicated a request for a 24 x 20 structure. He then asked for confirmation of the size of the garage. Mr. Bates indicated that he would like to construct a 20 x 20 garage. Commissioner Wilharber then noted that the notice in the Quad Community Press had listed the address of the property as being on North Robin Lane rather than South Robin Lane. Chairperson Hanson explained that the Commission had taken a lot of time discussing what size accessory structure to allow on lots in the R4 district and had determined that adding the 200 square feet would be appropriate. He then inquired as to whether Mr. and Mrs. Bates had considered attaching the garage to the house. Mr. Bates indicated that the construction of the garage would be easier if it were not attached to the house. He also indicated that the current location of the driveway interferes with attaching the garage to the house as they would lose the use of a good portion of the driveway. Commissioner Wilharber noted that Mr. and Mrs. Bates would not meet the setback requirements if they were to attach a 20 x 20 garage to the house. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers inquired as to whether Mr. and Mrs. Bates had received a list of the requirements that need to be met in order to be granted a variance. Mrs. Bates indicated she had not received the list of requirements. Commissioner Devine explained the requirements for a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Bates. He then noted that there needed to be special circumstances involved in order for the Commission to grant the variance. Mrs. Bates indicated that she and her husband are not asking for anything other than what their neighbors have. Commissioner Devine indicated the variance would allow Mr. and Mrs. Bates to build a structure that is 400 square feet versus the 200 square feet allowed by Ordinance. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that when looking at the R4 district the Commission had determined that a 200 square foot maximum was appropriate which is a little more than 2% of the lot size as allowed in other districts. Commissioner Wilharber stated he believes there have been variances given to other homes over the years and said he thinks one of the problems with the Royal Meadows development is that the houses were not put off to one side of the lot, they were all centered which has created a problem. He then stated that he feels Mr. and Mrs. Bates could meet some of the hardships with their situation. He further stated that he did not think the City planned right when it put the development together and said when a homeowner wants to put up a building to clean up the yard it helps the overall appearance of the City and increases property values which, in turn, benefits the City. Page 2 of 16 Chairperson Hanson asked if there were any other houses in the area without a garage. Mrs. Bates indicated there was one house without a garage by the park and another one further down the street. Mr. Bates then indicated that the resident at 1971 South Robin has a detached garage that is 24 x 24. Mr. Tracy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive noted he was on the agenda for the meeting under appearances to discuss the variance process. He then stated that with the current setback requirements for corner lots he would not be allowed to build the two-car garage he wants to build. He then asked the Commission why the setback on corner lots is 35 feet. Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Tratar had seen the new version of Ordinance 4 as the amendments recently made may solve the issue. Mr. Tratar indicated he had come to City Hall three weeks ago for a building permit and was told he would need a variance in order to proceed with the planned garage. Chairperson Hanson asked that the discussion of Mr. Tratar’s setback issue be heard later in the meeting. Mr. Bates asked if he would be able to meet the setbacks if he went with an attached garage. Commissioner Devine inquired as to how far from the property line the house was located and then explained that the garage would need to be 10 feet off of the property line. Mrs. Diane Olson of 1983 South Robin Lane indicated she lived next door to the applicant and was concerned for the distance from the property line. Chairperson Hanson indicated the garage would need to be 10 feet off of the property line. Mrs. Olson indicated she has a big tree, planted by her now deceased father, which hangs over onto the Bates property that she does not want to have to cut down. She then asked how the tree issue would be handled. Commissioner Devine indicated that, if the tree hangs over onto Mr. Bates property, it would be his responsibility to trim the tree for construction. Mr. Bates then stated he and his wife had no intention of cutting down Mrs. Olson’s tree and told her they would contact her to discuss how to handle the trimming of the tree. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. 2.Mr. and Mrs. Tom Schlavin, 1862 Main Street – Rezone Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Page 3 of 16 Mr. Schlavin provided the Commissioners with copies of a plan for how his residence would look after some modifications to make it appear more commercial. Commissioner Brainard inquired as to whether Mr. Schlavin would be occupying the home after it is rezoned and Mr. Schlavin indicated he did not intend to occupy the residence for very long after the rezone. Commissioner DeVine asked Mr. Palzer what the stipulations of the commercial codes were for someone who rezones. Mr. Palzer indicated the building would need to be brought up to commercial building code standards. He further indicated there would need to be a buffer between the residential and commercial properties and noted the Comprehensive Plan would need to be updated. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if Mr. Schlavin would need to install a sprinkler system. Mr. Palzer indicated that the building is small enough that a sprinkler system would not be required. Commissioner Brainard asked if the recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan allowed for commercial use in the area. He then inquired as to whether the Staff had determined if Mr. Schlavin would meet all the setbacks. Mr. Palzer indicated he had not yet reviewed the plans to determine if the setbacks would be met. Commissioner Wilharber noted that Mr. Schlavin would need to consider the number of parking spaces that would be required. He then noted that, years ago, the whole strip of Main Street was zoned commercial but was rezoned in the early 1960’s. He further noted that the City has begun rezoning parcels along Main Street to commercial as the issue arises. Mr. Schlavin indicated he felt that parking would be his biggest issue and said he would need to have a driveway to the back of the building for people leasing the space and customer parking in the front. He then noted he intended to lease the space to a business that does not require a lot of parking. Commissioner DeVine indicated he was in favor of starting to switch some of the lots back to commercial as it seems to be a more natural fit for the area. Mr. Drilling of 7185 Mound Trail indicated he thinks a rezone to commercial would be a good use for the property but asked the Commission to require that Mr. Schlavin go through the site plan approval process before giving a blanket rezone in order to ensure that issues such as traffic in the area are addressed. Commissioner DeVine noted he felt it would make sense to make the rezone contingent on site plan review and approval. Page 4 of 16 Commissioner Wilharber stated that he felt the City should check with its attorney to determine whether the City, through some type of agreement, could limit the types of businesses allowed to go into the facility in an effort to prohibit a high traffic business. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if Mr. Schlavin would be willing to sign a waiver of the City’s time limit in order to give the City more time to research and gather the information needed to make the decision. She then explained to Mr. Schlavin that the City has 60 days to either approve or deny the request and noted that, without all of the necessary information, and without a signed waiver, the request would be denied and Mr. Schlavin would need to reapply. She further noted that the signing of the waiver does not waive anything other than the City’s time frame to either approve or deny the request. Mr. Schlavin indicated he was not opposed to signing the waiver. Chairperson Hanson indicated he felt the rezone was a good idea and noted he thought the building may need to be ADA accessible. Mr. Palzer confirmed that, if the building is open to the public, it would need to be ADA accessible. Commissioner DeVine suggested Mr. Schlavin look into the ADA requirements and determine whether or not it would be feasible. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Brainard to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 3.Mr. and Mrs. Stan Hasiak, 6994 Centerville Road – Variance Request Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Hasiak of 6994 Centerville Road indicated he is seeking a variance for an addition to the pole barn as he has no dog kennel and would like to keep a dog outside. He further indicated that he thinks the kennel would be a good idea to protect the neighborhood from the dog. Commissioner Wilharber noted that, in the application, Mr. Hasiak had requested a variance for an 8 x 24 structure but in the paper it had stated 8 x 12. He then asked Mr. Hasiak what his request was for. Mr. Hasiak indicated he was requesting a variance for the 8 x 24 structure. He then indicated he would be willing to tear down the silo on his property if the City would agree to give him the variance for his 8 x 24 structure. Chairperson Hanson clarified that Mr. Hasiak has two accessory structures on his property, a 30 x 45 pole shed and an old silo. Page 5 of 16 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked whether Mr. Hasiak intended to attach the 8 x 24 structure to the existing pole shed. Mr. Hasiak indicated that he did intend to attach the 8 x 24 structure to the existing pole shed. Commissioner DeVine asked whether the pole shed meets current code requirements. Mr. Palzer indicated the pole shed is oversized making it a nonconforming structure. Commissioner McLean indicated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Hasiak and would be abstaining from voting on the matter. He then explained that the pole shed was in existence when Parkview was platted. Mr. Hasiak indicated the pole shed was built in 1982. Commissioner McLean indicated that, as a neighbor, he is torn as he feels the dog kennel is a good idea but noted Mr. Hasiak already has a very large accessory structure that is nonconforming to City Code. Mr. Drilling asked whether the structure would be allowed if Mr. Hasiak were to tear down the silo. Chairperson Hanson indicated that Mr. Hasiak is only allowed accessory structures at 2% of his lot size and noted the pole shed is larger than 2% of the lot size. Mr. Palzer indicated that a variance was granted to allow Mr. Hasiak to finish the interior of the pole shed and noted that the final inspection has not been completed on that work. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that, at one time, the property was a farm and had a second pole shed which was removed. He then noted that the pole building should have been torn down and a garage built when Parkview was platted but it is there now and grandfathered in. He further stated he feels a kennel for the dog is a good idea and noted that Mr. Hasiak had expressed a desire to tear down the old silo and that would improve the appearance of the property. Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 4.Mr. Terry Hannah, Ground Development – Pheasant Marsh Final Plat Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Terry Hannah, Ground Development of 7575 Golden Valley Road addressed the Commission and explained that Ground Development is the developer of the proposed Pheasant Marsh development which is located south of Center Oaks and east of Centerville Road. Page 6 of 16 Mr. Ole Mersinger of 6936 Tourville Circle questioned why all the developments in Centerville and the surrounding area were similarly named rather than using unique names. Mr. Hannah explained that the name of the development is left up to the owner of the land subject to county approval. Mr. Mersinger asked what type of drainage was being planned for the development due to the heavy peat soil and the tendency of the water to pond in the area. Mr. Hannah explained that the lots are engineered which requires soil testing to determine the strength of the soils and determines whether house pads can be built. He also noted that both the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer had reviewed and approved the drainage plan for Pheasant Marsh. Mr. Hannah then stated that he and his company have stated and continue to state that all water on the property will remain on the property which means the new development will not contribute any runoff to adjacent properties. Mr. Mersinger asked Mr. Hannah to point out where the holding ponds on the map were located and Mr. Hannah did so. Commissioner Wilharber indicated he would be abstaining from voting on the matter as it directly affects him. He then noted he has an issue with the way sewer and water is being brought into the project. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that he feels it is normal procedure to bring sewer and water down a main road but this development will run the utilities through other properties by way of several easements. He further commented that, in his opinion, when the City has to rip up those yards to access the utilities people will be upset to lose landscaping regardless of the fact that they are aware the easement exists. Commissioner DeVine asked Mr. Hannah to explain to the Commission Commissioner Wilharber’s comment concerning the utilities for the development. Mr. Hannah explained that they intend to bring the utilities across Outlot C and then through a shared easement with the Metropolitan Council for its force main. Commissioner Wilharber asked how Mr. Schwartz would be connected to the utilities. Mr. Hannah pointed out on the map how Ms. Embly and Mr. Schwartz would be connected and noted it would be during Phase II of the construction. Mr. Mersinger asked how the previous greenspace issue was resolved. Mr. Hannah pointed out on the map where the greenspaces would be located. Motion by Commissioner Sheppard, seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 7 of 16 Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. III. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. and Mrs. Carlie Olson – Commercial/Industrial Districts (Dog Boarding Kennels) Mrs. Olson addressed the Commission and indicated that she and her husband are seeking a variance to be allowed to construct and operate a kennel operation. Mr. Gary Hughback indicated he was working with Mr. Rehbein to resolve the issue with the street that has not yet been named. Commissioner Wilharber asked if the ongoing issue with the Carpenters concerning the small piece of ground affects this matter. Mr. Hughback indicated that there is a small sliver of land in question and explained that a cash offer has been, or shortly will be, made to the Carpenters to settle the matter. Mr. Hughback explained that the Olsons are proposing to build a 4,800 square foot kennel which would be self-contained inside the building with a small retail office area for dog owners to pick up dog food. He then clarified that there would be no outside kennels and said the building would be designed for soundproofing. He further noted the estimated value for the project is between $500,000 and $550,000. Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. Hughback to point out on the map where the kennel would be located. Mrs. Olson provided a rough sketch of the proposed facility to the Commission for its review. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether this situation would be similar to the mini storage situation where the City would need an Ordinance amendment and a special use permit. Mr. Palzer confirmed that an Ordinance amendment and special use permit would be needed. Mr. Palzer indicated that the street in question is, or will be, named Fairview Street and noted it is the street that involves the issue with Mr. Carpenter. He further clarified that the applicant would not be able to start construction until the issue with Mr. Carpenter is resolved. Commissioner DeVine noted that animal kennels are not in the Ordinance at all and explained that the City would need to determine how it wishes to allow that type of use. Mr. Olson asked if any type of a wood exterior would be allowed for the building. Commissioner DeVine explained that the building would need to conform to industrial standards which require a brick or masonry exterior. Page 8 of 16 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers recommended the Olsons check with City Staff to determine what the industrial requirements are. Mr. Olson questioned why the exterior of the building needed to be masonry. Chairperson Hanson explained that requiring a certain type of construction ensures that the City will have buildings conforming to a certain dollar value in the industrial area. Commissioner Wilharber commented that he thinks the concept is a good one and the business is something the City needs. Commissioner DeVine indicated the Olsons should check with City Staff to be sure they are aware of all of the necessary requirements. 2.Mr. Tracy Tratar – Corner Lot with Two (2) Front Yards and Construction of a Garage Comparative to the Lot Line Mr. Tratar addressed the Commission and explained that he would like to construct a two-car garage on his corner lot and was told he could not do so because he would not meet the required 35-foot setback. He then stated he feels the Ordinance is confusing and does not make sense because if he were to build a detached structure the setback is only 10 feet. Mr. Palzer clarified that if the garage were attached it would become part of the principal structure and be subject to the 35 foot setback. He then explained that, if the garage were detached, the setback is 10 feet but noted the size of the structure would be limited by yard area and would need to be built in the rear yard not the side yard. Mr. Tratar stated there are many garages in the area that, in his opinion, do not meet the 35-foot setback. He then stated he had just applied for a variance in White Bear Lake and the fee was $80.00 compared to the $170.00 in Centerville. He further commented that it is very upsetting to have to pay twice as much for the same thing. Mrs. Tratar indicated there are homes with garages that do not meet the 35-foot setback in the area. She then questioned why those residents were allowed to build the garages that way and they are not. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the last sentence of the Ordinance creates the problem and asked why that sentence is needed. Mr. Palzer explained that, previously, the City had considered a corner lot to have two side yards and two front yards which meant they had no rear yard and would not be allowed an accessory structure. He then explained that the sentence may have been added to protect line of sight. Mr. Tratar asked why he could build a detached garage 10 feet from the property line. Chairperson Hanson clarified that any detached structure is an accessory structure and Page 9 of 16 noted that City Code requires that accessory structures be constructed in the rear yard which eliminates the line of sight issue. Mr. Tratar indicated he questions how all the properties that already have a garage were able to build them without following the 35-foot setback. He then stated some of the garages were constructed during the last 8 to 10 years and asked how that was allowed. Mr. Tratar stated that he feels the 35-foot setback is excessive. Commissioner DeVine asked if the Commission saw a legitimate reason why the Ordinance could not be changed. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the addition to the Ordinance was made to protect line of sight. She then indicated that the other structures were either built without permission or the Ordinance was different at that time and they are considered nonconforming structures. Mr. Tratar indicated he did not feel line of sight would be compromised if he were allowed to build his garage. He then asked who decided on the 35 feet and questioned whether it is a legitimate concern. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the City feels line of sight is very important to public safety. He then noted the Commission was willing to review it but was not prepared to make a decision at this point. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers explained that if Mr. Tratar applied for a variance and did not meet the variance requirements his request would be denied and he would lose his money. She then indicated that not a lot of variances are granted and the process is designed to be tough. She then suggested waiting for the Commission to review the Ordinance to determine whether or not it needs to be changed. Commissioner Brainard stated that, in his opinion, variances are supposed to be rare and few. He then noted a lot of cities have failed to make residents meet the requirements as set by the state but said Centerville is trying to require residents to meet those state requirements. 3.Mr. Bart Rehbein, Revised Concept Plan – 1475 Mound Trail Mr. Rehbein of 1659 Lakeland Circle addressed the Commission and indicated that Anoka County had denied his request for access onto Main Street and had revoked the right to use the existing driveway access. He further stated that Anoka County has plans to seek funding in 2005 to widen Main Street to a four-lane highway and, as part of that, the County would need to obtain another 27 feet of right of way. He then noted that he was told since the County is planning for a wider faster roadway through Centerville they want to limit as much access as possible. Page 10 of 16 Mr. Rehbein then explained he had gone back and redesigned the development to allow access from the interior. He also noted that there was an outlot created which is different from the previous plan. He explained the reason for creating the outlot was to allow enough land to meet the minimum frontage for two lots in that area in the future. Chairperson Hanson asked if the easement issue with Ms. Corr was resolved. Mr. Rehbein indicated that the property is actually owned by the County Park and a triangular driving easement has been granted to Ms. Corr. Commissioner DeVine asked whether any research had been done to determine if there was an Indian mound located on Lot 10. Mr. Rehbein indicated that he had the state archaeologist examine the area and the archaeologist had found nothing to indicate it was an Indian mound. Mr. Rehbein indicated that his agreement with the landowner states that no actual home construction would begin before next Spring. He then noted that if all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place they may do some grading and run some sewer pipe this Fall. Chairperson Hanson expressed concern for the small piece of property down by the waterfront on Lot 10. Mr. Rehbein explained that he is developing a unique piece of property that is wide and deep and explained he is trying to allow for as much lake access as possible. Commissioner Wilharber questioned what the access easement on the original plan was for. Mr. Rehbein explained they would run sewer in that area and had an agreement with Hal to give him a sewer stub up to his property. He also indicated that the easement area could be used for lake access for the homeowner’s association. Mr. Palzer indicated he had a problem with a 10-foot driveway easement as he feels it is too narrow for snow removal. Mr. Rehbein indicated it could be widened if necessary. Mr. Drilling noted that if Mr. Rehbein made the development into a PUD the road could be narrower and made a private street. Mr. Rehbein indicated that he felt a public street would be preferable. Commissioner McLean expressed concern for drainage onto Lot 10 from the existing residence. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1. Pheasant Marsh – Final Plat Commissioner DeVine inquired as to whether the engineer had looked at the final plat. Mr. Palzer indicated he believed the engineer had reviewed the final plat. Mr. Hannah indicated that the engineer had reviewed the final plat. Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Brainard indicated that it is common in developments to have utilities go through lots by easement. He then stated it is a fact of life that those property owners who purchase lots with the easement should be aware of. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Park and Recreation Committee would prefer to see the walkway on the east side of Lot 1 rather than the west side. Commissioner Wilharber questioned whether the Outlot would be excavated for a holding pond. The Engineer indicated it is a natural wetland and would not be excavated for a holding pond. He then indicated he would need to check with Rice Creek Watershed to determine whether rerouting the trail would be allowed. The Engineer asked if the trail could be located in the right of way. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers said she thought that would be okay and noted the concern of Park and Recreation was for the trail moving through backyards. Mr. Hannah indicated they may need new County approval but said he would discuss it with the surveyor. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated she would like him to ask the question and if it would not delay things to change the trail. Mr. Hannah indicated the trail would be owned by the homeowner’s association. Commissioner Wilharber questioned whether the homeowner’s association could then close the trail to other residents. Then both he and Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the trail needed to be owned by the City to prevent it from being closed. Mr. Palzer indicated that the trails are usually deeded to the City and the City maintains them. Motion by Commissioner Brainard, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to recommend to Council approval of the Pheasant Marsh Final Plat contingent upon review of the trail location as requested by the Parks and Recreation Committee. Vote: Ayes – 5, Nays – 0, Abstain – 1 (Wilharber). Motion carried. 2.Revised Concept Plan – 1475 Mound Trail No action required. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. 1977 South Robin Lane – Variance Request Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted the City had granted a variance previously in this type of situation to a property owner with a triangular corner lot with a creek running through. She noted the variance was granted due to the lot design. Page 12 of 16 Chairperson Hanson indicated he had tried to fit Mr. and Mrs. Bates situation into the criteria but does not feel the criteria have been met. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers reviewed the variance requirements for the applicant. Chairperson Hanson recommended attaching the garage to the house and meeting the 10- foot setback. Commissioner Wilharber stated that, in his opinion, the criteria could be met because the area was developed as a PUD which is unique in its own respect. He then said the homes were placed on the property with no allowance made for garages, and other variances were granted in the area so he feels not granting the variance to Mr. and Mrs. Bates would deprive them of something others have. He further stated that an improvement to the property would have the advantages of improved appearance of the property and tax benefits for the City. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers cautioned that if Commissioner Wilharber’s logic were applied to some of the larger lots in the City some very large structures could be built. She then questioned if this variance were granted whether the City would need to grant them for everyone else who asked. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether there was any other R4 zoning in the City. Mr. Bates indicated that, even if he were allowed to build the 20 x 20 garage, he would still need another building for storage. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that he would not be allowed another accessory structure. Mrs. Bates indicated she had called the City to ask if they would be able to build a garage before purchasing the house. She then indicated they would not have purchased the house if they had gotten accurate information from the City concerning the issues involved in building a garage on that lot. She further stated that she feels City Staff is the residents’ link to information and regulations within the City and she feels a person should be able to rely upon the information received. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that, unless you build the City exactly the way you want it to begin with, variances are necessary. He also said not everything can be black and white there needs to be some gray. Motion by Commissioner Brainerd to recommend Council deny the variance request for an oversized accessory structure at 1977 South Robin Lane. The Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner McLean to recommend Council approve the variance request for an oversized accessory Page 13 of 16 structure at 1977 South Robin Lane. Vote: Ayes – 4, Nays – 2 (Brainard/Hanson). Motion carried. 2. 6994 Centerville Road Commissioner DeVine asked Mr. Hasiak if he intended to attach the addition to the existing shed. Mr. Hasiak indicated that the addition would be attached to his shed. Chairperson Hanson asked if the addition was fully enclosed or chain link. Mr. Hasiak indicated it would be fully enclosed for his dog. Chairperson Hanson asked what kind of dog Mr. Hasiak had. Mr. Hasiak indicated he has a rottweilor. Commissioner DeVine asked if Mr. Hasiak is working on finishing the interior of the shed. Mr. Hasiak indicated it is sheetrocked and said he is making some corrections to the wiring as a result of the inspection. Commissioner Wilharber indicated the application was a request to build an 8 x 24 chain link fence enclosure 8 feet high and that is not what Mr. Hasiak had indicated earlier at the meeting. He then asked Mr. Hasiak what he intended to build. Mr. Hasiak indicated he intended to build an 8 x 24 enclosed area to contain his dog to protect the neighborhood from his dog. He then suggested that the Commission should consider granting his request because it may be partially the fault of the City if his dog should get out of his fenced yard and bite someone. Chairperson Hanson explained that, according to City Code, an animal is required to be under an owner’s control. He also noted that if that animal is not under the control of its owner and bites someone it can be declared to be a potentially dangerous animal and can be confiscated. He further stated it is Mr. Hasiak’s responsibility to control his dog. Commissioner Wilharber clarified that the pole building has not been through final inspection. Mr. Palzer confirmed that the final inspection on the improvements to the interior of the shed had not passed final inspection. Mr. Palzer indicated that, according to the Ordinance, the pole barn should have come down when the property was rezoned from agricultural to residential. He then suggested that, if a variance was not granted at that time for the pole shed, the shed could be torn down if it has been less than five years. Commissioner DeVine indicated that the City could not allow the applicant to intensify the use of a nonconforming building. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to recommend Council deny the request for a variance to construct an 8 x 24 addition Page 14 of 16 to the accessory structure at 6994 Centerville Road. Vote: Ayes – 5, Nays – 0, Abstain – 1 (McLean). Motion carried. 3. 1862 Main Street – Rezone Request Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested Mr. Schlavin speak to Mr. Palzer to obtain a list of all the commercial building code requirements. She then suggested Staff check with the City Attorney to determine whether the City can put a limitation as to the type of commercial use that would be allowed at the property as a condition of the rezone. Mr. Schlavin asked if there was a driveway setback as he needs to put in a driveway to get to the back of the property for employee parking. Mr. Palzer indicated that City Code does not specify a driveway setback. Mr. Schlavin indicated he was willing to sign the waiver extending the time the City has to either approve or deny his request. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Brainard to table the request for a rezone from residential to commercial at 1862 Main Street to allow time for more research by the applicant and the City. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Zoning Map Updates/Corrections Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to table this mater to the next meeting. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Commissioner Wilharber requested the following changes: On Page 1 of 6 the reference should be to Page 1 of “7”. On Page 3 of 7 change the reference of “Leibel” to “Corr” house. 1.August 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to approve the August 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes as amended. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain – 2 (McLean/Sheppard). Motion carried. Page 15 of 16 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sheppard, seconded by Commissioner DeVine to adjourn the September 5, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 16 of 16