A regular meeting/public hearing of the Planning Commission of Alexandria Township was held on the 22nd day of November, 2010 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 610 Fillmore Street.
Roll Call: Commission members present were John Knowles, Julie Haar, Russ Niskanen, Larry Steidl and Lyle Hammerschmidt. Also present was Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk, and Ben Oleson, Township Zoning Administrator. As said members formed a quorum and the meeting was called to order by Chairman Knowles at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: Niskanen, seconded by Steidl, made a motion to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes: Hammerschmidt, seconded by Haar, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 10/19/10 site visit as written. Motion carried unanimously. Hammerschmidt, seconded by Steidl, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 10/25/10 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Spinner Conditional Use Application. John and Marjorie Spinner, owners of the Broken Arrow Resort, are proposing to turn the portion of the resort comprised of cabins into a cooperative while maintaining the remainder as a resort. The applicant stated that the resort has been in existence for 50+ years, 31 years under his ownership.
There would be seven cabins for sale. People would purchase “shares” and own the buildings while the land would be owned “in common” with the Spinners. Commissioner Haar asked for a definition of the term “in common”. Tim Moore of Widseth, Smith, Nolting stated that the cooperative owners would own the buildings, and they would own the land “in common” with the Spinners. In essence, the cooperative owners would have access to use the land, but the land would not be traditionally “subdivided”.
Chairman Knowles asked about building onto the cabins. Mr. Spinner stated that the footprint of the cabins would not change. There was discussion about the possibility of adding a second story to the structure.
Commissioner Hammerschmidt asked who is liable for the land? Essentially, the Spinners since the “in common” portion assessed to each cooperative owner would be miniscule.
Commissioner Niskanen asked if the Spinners’ home would be independent of the cooperative and/or the resort. Mr. Moore stated that it would still be considered part of the resort. Niskanen also asked if the maintenance of the property would be shared by the cooperative owners and the Spinners. He also asked about docks, sewer and water. Mr. Moore stated that the use and the intent of the land stays the same, just the ownership would be different.
Commissioner Niskanen asked if the cabins could have multiple owners. The applicant stated that it was a possibility.
Commissioner Steidl asked about the seasonal aspect and if that would change. Mr. Spinner said the season has typically run from the beginning of May through October.
The commission asked if adequate parking was provided for each cabin. Mr. Spinner stated that there was; however, he would like to see a requirement of allowing one car per bedroom; i.e. a 2-bedroom cabin would be allowed two cars; a 4-bedroom cabin, four cars, etc. Zoning Administrator Oleson stated that his concern with the parking issue was the amount of impervious space allowable.
Commissioner Niskanen asked if parking would be in the covenants. Mr. Moore stated it would be included.
Commissioner Haar had questions pertaining to the declaration, which identifies the restrictions and the units to be included.
Chairman Knowles stated that he was concerned about density in relationship to the square footage of the land. Zoning Administrator Oleson explained that the footprint of a building could not be expanded. The current impervious and density allowances would be grandfathered in. The applicant may need to identify specifically where parking is to be located.
Commissioner Hammerschmidt asked if the language could be adjusted to reflect the number of cars per the number of bedrooms as stated earlier.
Commissioner Niskanen asked if we should have the township attorney review the documents. Zoning Administrator Oleson affirmed that and stated the attorney would have two responsibilities: 1) ensure that the zoning ordinance is being met; and 2) ensure the documents reflect general ownership and clear title.
Commissioner Niskanen asked about the timeframe for commencing this project. Mr. Spinner stated that his intent is to begin in the spring.
Motion by Niskanen, seconded by Steidl, to table the Spinner conditional use application for further review by the township attorney. Roll: Niskanen, Steidl, Haar, Hammerschmidt, Knowles – yes. Opposed: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Zoning Administrator’s Report: No comment.
New Business: Existing conditional use permits. Zoning Administrator Oleson asked the commission how they wish to proceed with existing conditional use permits that were granted by the county. He brought up the Oberg house-moving business, which has a conditional use for the business; however, the CUP does not include storing structures on the property. The commission asked Oleson to invite Mr. Oberg to the next meeting.
Oleson stated that all the zoning ordinance amendments the commission has been working on over the past year will be presented to the town board at one time after a final review.
2011 meeting calendar. Consensus was to change the December 26th meeting date to Wednesday, December 28th.
Old Business: Home business/home occupation ordinance amendments. The commission discussed the latest draft. In the chart of “Residential Uses”, they chose to change the wording for each category from “Visibility” to “Activity”.
Under 2. (1)(a), they struck the new language, feeling it was too restrictive. They chose to use the original language.
Under 2. (4)(b), they changed the language as follows: “…(500) feet, except that the Township may reduce this requirement to no less than two hundred fifty (250) feet should appropriate screening…”.
Under 2. (7), they changed the language in the first and last sentence to include: “Excessive and/or sustained…”. They also commented that the Noise Ordinance should be changed to include a clause for sustainability.
Under 2. (11), it was noted that the terminology should reflect “MAHO or HAHO” rather than MVHO and HVHO.
Under 2. (13), they proposed adding the following language: “…enter into a written agreement with the township…”.
Under (14), they proposed adding (14)(a), which would read: LAHO –- no employees unless otherwise approved by the Alexandria Township Board of Supervisors; MAHO -– no employees unless otherwise approved by the Alexandria Township Board of Supervisors; HAHO -– 1 – 2 employees unless otherwise approved by the Alexandria Township Board of Supervisors.
2011 Site Visit Schedule. Consensus was to designate the third Tuesday of the month at 12:30 p.m. for the months of January – May 2011.
Adjournment: Being no further business Haar, seconded by Steidl, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted…
___________________________________
Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk
Approved this ____ day of ___________, 2010
___________________________________
John B. Knowles, Chairman