Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-1990 Planning MinutesMINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUAKY 16, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Brown, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Goetten attended and CounciImember Callahan was also present. #1486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3020 POX STREET REVISED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC BEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant wished to create an outlet for a tennis court. Mabusth noted that vne City had recommended that if such a use was proposed for that outlet consideration should be given to the future expansion of the septic system for the "exception” lot. Mabusth said in light of that consideration, the developer was asked to set aside another outlet for future acquisition by the owner of the "exception" lot. Mr. Gronberg said that the developer has received requests for tennis courts from potential buyers of the lots. Gronberg said Ms. Wildman thought it best to provide one tennis court for the development, rather than having several, individual tennis courts. Gronberg added that Ms. Wildman felt that a tennis court would more than likely be constructed on that lot if purchased by an individual. Gronberg said that the developer wanted to have more control over the tennis court and make it more attractive. Kelley said that individual tennis courts could still be constructed even if one is built for the entire development. Mabusth said that it was her understanding, from discussions with the dev^eloper, that covenants would be written to prohibit individual tennis courts. Gronberg said that the developer felt that the existence of the one court would limit the number of individual tennis courts, but did not want to prohibit them. Kelley asked if any restrictions had been placed on the tennis court constructed as part of the French Creek development? Mabusth replied that there were none. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE «1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Cohen asked Gronberg if the use of the tennis court would be restricted to the homeowners? Gronberg replied that he believed that would be the case. Kelley said that restriction could be a condition of approval. Mr. Joe Chadwick, property owner of the "exception" property, believed that locating the tennis court as proposed would detract from the rural aspect of the area. He asked Gronberg if they intended to cut all of the existing trees? Gronberg replied that a couple of trees would come down, but the big oak would remain. Gronberg said that the developer was proposing to plant trees along the west side. Kelley added that the Planning Commission had received a plan showing the proposed plantings. Kelley said that it appeared as though 5 spruce trees were to be planted on the westerly lot line. Mr. Chadwick asked what height the spruce trees will be? Kelley said that the tree height could be specified in the resolution approving the subdivision. Mr. Chadwick said that he will be able to see the tennis court from his dining room, living room, kitchen and bedroom and that he did not approve of that. Chadwick said that he would also lose the privacy of his back yard. Chadwick asked whether the location of the tennis court will be dug out or built up? Gronberg replied that the middle of the tennis court will be dug cut approximately 3' and the north end will be filled about 3* . Chadwick expressed concern about the 3' that would be filled. He said that would place the tennis court higher than his garden and drainage could be a problem. Gronberg said that more area is being cut down than filled. Kelley informed Mr. Chadwick that the developer cannot increase runoff from this property onto his. Chadwick objected to the tennis court being located near his property and suggested placing it in a more central location. Gronberg said that the shape of that lot lends itself best for the location of the tennis court. Gronberg said that the developer would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission asks in regard to screening. Gronberg also noted that the tennis MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE tl486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED court meets all zoning requirements. Kelley observed that a variance is really not required to proceed with the tennis court. Mabusth said that depended on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the various sections of code she has asked them to review with this application. Mabusth said that due to the new accessory structure ordinance, a lot coverage variance may be required. Mabusth said that lot coverage for an out lot was not specifically addressed. Kelley indicated that he would have preferred to see the proposal for the tennis court included with the original subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. Chadwick, he would not have allowed the creation of the outlot in that location. Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court or recreational facility for the future owners of the development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the tennis court as proposed because that location is least obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his main concern regarding this recent proposal is that it is after- the-fact. He said that if a recreational area is going to be created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons benefitting and using the facility. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for governing the use of the tennis court. Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek tennis court being used by non-residents. Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of the preliminary plat. Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great empathy for the neighbor. Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that one court would preclude the need for having courts on the I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1486-SUSSBX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED properties and reduce the density. Brown said that he prefer like the location of the tennis court and would f • It located in the interior of the project which would involve coining back with a revised plan. further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by PJanning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial. Motion, Aves-4 Brown, Nay. wuawn, «yes> h, PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS A. SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 3 B. SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C) PUBLIC HEARING 10s30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M. duly noted^^^^^^^'^ Publication and Certificate of Mailing were Mabusth explained the changes being proposed. Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area wns fine. The other Planning Commissioners con*.v* red. Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning Commission recommendation regarding inclusion of all pools as lot 4-h® Planning CommisriOi to clarify their Coverage Ordinance. ron's concerns are who^-w:’? a sufficient percentage if pooJs are included and whether the intent of the Ordinance was to limit visual encroachment of structures that stand above ground. The Planning Commission replied that was their intent. Gaffron noted that there are twc different types of pools should be treated differently. Gaffron said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. 4-h.4. concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool that IS 8 above ground and has an additional deck, that is a structure. i-jiau j t, a j understanding that the Planning Commission would )ike the Ordinance to remain the was it was written. they II:t\ndVcrit''?o^be."’‘“‘'’'’ at ® required around a pool and it is at least 5 high it should not be included in lot coverage? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS CONTINUED Kelley said that the first point to consider is whether the pool is in the ground or above it. The next point is whether any part of it extends beyond 6' in height above grade. Kabusth informed the Planning Commission that the reason this matter has been brought forward is due to the questions raised in the Peterson application for a pool. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend leaving the recently adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance as is. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 11457 ALAN CARLSON 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC BEARING 7:25 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Jerry Sunde and Mr. Gary Petersen. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application. Mabusth noted that Lot 2, Block 4, does not meet the required lot width at the 50' setback. Mabusth said that with the revised plan, there are no longer any flag lots and Lot 7 achieves access from the extension of the east corridor road. Mabusth recommended that there be a shared access for I.ots 1 and 2. Mabusth said that drainage pertaining to off-site improvements is still in the review process. Mabusth said that should there be a change in a lot line due to something that had to be agreed to as part of final approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Brown asked how the drainage easements were designated on the plat? Mabusth explained that the conservation and flowage easements extend out everywhere to the 970' elevation. Mabusth said that the area where the berm is to be located, the conservation and flowage easement will he amended to go to the 968' elevation. Planning Commissioner Hansor tasked why the cul-de-sac was being placed as indicated? Mr. Carlson replied that the cul-de-sac location was determined by the topography; the ground in that location is higher. Chairman Kel ley asked Mr. Carlson if he objected to any of the conditions of approval? Mr. Carlson indicated that he had no cSjections. Mabusth said that it should be noted that this is a 16 lot plat, not a 17 lot plat. Mabusth said the Outlet C is on the I minutes op the planning commission meeting JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINUED north side of the railroad track. entronoe ^^.nenis^ ana tle"n\u?hrarr„rwas “cirea!'’" appUcation ,1257 subject to star? recoZVn'^a^tions 1 ,b°' oondltion^crlatVo n' '^•'airman Kelley asked about a i-hrf a if cheating a homeowners association? Mabusth advised orivat® association must be established if outlets or private roads are created. Kelley added the creation of a «™^a”Ud!"°‘'““°'’ “• *vea-“Xy°s-o: m took a brief moment to thank the staff anH applio^lonr^®' involved with this §1469 CITY OP ORONO RIGHT-OP-HAY OP NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC BEARING 7:20 P.M. TO 7*23 P M and pX\"| X-e°d foc“at?on^’’o°rthr:iVi?'i^t\„"sT ‘?"*°" Mabusth indicated that the City has received lio d\rtct calls^ff^m teLi’ved 2®can°‘'®"‘ P^nparty owners, however. Chief rilbo had IT 1. Kilbo said that he received a call from Crant- s^?en;‘K?;ri-ate^dl^n%^;?roirc::Ue as ?o°whirtJrsi«rii /ctTvrted^’°''®"‘ P''PP®“i’ ““"^r inquiring and tJe'*r:birc%"earlnrwa ‘s%los;d‘'’* Chairman Ke\rov"lo‘’'' '’' = ""^'19 Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Pe?ml " for thi L'ti o5 ‘’.PP’^Py^’ °f ‘hn Conditional UseThf, s-tn! Orono to install a civil defense siren at the intersection of North Arm Drive and County Lad isf alumfnifnf Hanson questioned whether t^he anod'zedaluminum pole or the galvanized steel pole was oreferred hv ^hf l/Xarrh^ano^dised^Foje js preferred. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1469-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED passed. #1470 DAN 6 RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC BEARING 7:35 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M. Mr. Parten was present for tnis application review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron briefly reviewed the information pertaining to this application for a preliminary subdivision. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the applicant is now proposing a lot line rearra.ngement in lieu of a 3 lot subdivision. Mr. Parten said that he is trying to start over due to the frustration experienced in attempting to create the 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Parten felt that a lot of "neighborhood planning" was being included in this and reminded the Planning Commission that this is now a basic lot line rearrangement. Mr. Parten asked the Planning Commission for some guidelines as to what is required with a lot line rearrangement. Kelley explained to Mr. Parten that the objective cf the lot line rearrangement is to to provide enough land to make Lot 2 buildable, and to achieve access, via an easement from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Brown asked whether access would be achieved by way of an outlot or easement? Kelley said that it could be done either way. Gaffron interjected that in order to be consistent with City Codes, it should be an outlot, since it will ultimately serve 3 lots, the 3rd lot being the Reiersgord property which has an easement for access. Kelley asked whether it would be possible for Mr. Parten to grant an easement for Lot 2 without the approval of tne City? Planning Commissioner Cohen referred Kelley's question »o Counci Imtmber Callahan. Callahan opined that to the best of his knowledge, because Mr. Parten owns both Lots 1 and 2, he could grant an easement to Lot 2 without City ap'proval. Gaffron noted that the City's subdivison regulations technically require that the creation of an access easement must have City approval. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, said that after the last Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Parten was going to drop his option on this property and he was going to pick it up. He T MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 11470-PARTEN CONTINUED said that had he purchased the property from Mr. Parten, Mr. Parten could have granted him an easement to access that property without the City's involvement. Kelley noted that the Reiersgord property to the east has a 60' easement and that Outlet A is 40'. Gaffron said that the prelilminary plat drawings indicate the Reiersgord easement may be extinguished at some time in the future. Mr. Parten said that the future owners of the Reiersgord property would benefit from the vacation of the casement in that it will allow them enlarge their building site and build their residence in the location best suited to do so. Kelley asked Mr. Parten for his opinion regarding the width of the drainage easement, 15' versus 30'. Mr. Parten said that he preferred the 15' and felt that he "was getting the total weight of the municipal government" thrown on him. Parten said that this is just a lot line realignment, not a subdivision. Mr. Phil Asao expressed concern about the previous discussions regarding accessing his property and the Deter property. Ms. Asao said that he had given a letter from his attorney to the staff. He said that his attorney's opinion is that he has legal access all the way to Turnham Poad. Kelley informed Mr. Asao that access and his property are no longer an issue with this subdivision. Mr. Parten asked whether the Planning Commission thought that the road configuration set up the possibility of a future exchange that will be mutually beneficial to both property owners? Kelley replied, "I think you're awfully nice to do this; you don't have to do this. Reiersgord should be here to shake your hand, he's got a lot that he may or may not be able to build on, just like Lot 2." Brown questioned if Mr. Reiersgord was under the 5 acre requirement and that was his benefit for partaking in a future lot line rearrangenient? Gaffron said the question is, if there is a future equal trade, then Mr. Reiersgord does not gain anything, except a mere useful area, but no more acreage. Gaffron said that Reiersgord's property is between 3 and 5 acres now. Mabusth replied that the lot line rearrangement would open up the obvious buiding site. 8 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE «1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Brown asked what the pluses and minuses are of easement versus outlet. Gaffron replied that for a subdivision, the code requires that when you are serving 3 or more lots, there must be au out lot, not an easement. Gaffron said that the question here is whether we are serving 2 lots or more than 2. Gaffron said at some point it will be likely that there will be 3 or more. Gaffron questioned whether this is classified as a subdivision, or a lot line rearrangement? He said that because it is a plat, it fits the definition of a subdivision, but in reality, all it does is chaiigc the lot line between 2 properties. Brown said that an outlot should not be required. Gaffron said th:»t the City would take underlying utility and road easements for an f;utlot. Gaffron said that another question to consider is whether the out lot/easement continuing to the north should be subjer t to a City casement or should it stay as a private driveway without an easement, or should it be a separate outlot? Kelley suggested taking that question one step further and asked what would happen if Mr. Parten subdivides Lot 1 into 2 lots. Kelley said Mr. Parten will have to submit an application for a subdivision and. the outlot question will have to be raised at that time. Kelley said if Reiersgord comes in for a building permit to build a house, he will probably need a variance. Kelley said that due to the existing 60' easement, Reiersgord might get the area variance without anything else to do with the Parten property and have a sufficient access to that property. Mabusth asked the Planning Comitiission how they would feel about that. She said that issue of a private/public road is always raised by the Planning Commission. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that there is no difference between easements for access purposes or out lots - the areas of each are excluded from the dry buildable area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement with the modification that Outlot A be 50' in width to the eastern property line, and Outlot A (extending north) be at a width of 20'. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wished to keep Outlot A a single outlot or split it into two. Brown asked what the advantage of having two outlets would be. Gaffron said that from a legal description standpoint, if a homeowners' association is to take care of Outlot A, what does that mean? Kelley said that there should bo two out lots and Outlot A should extend to east property line and the northern extension could remain a driveway, designated as Outlot B. Kelley further recommended approval of a 15' drainage MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1470-PAR1'EN CONTINUED easement, through the middle of the lot. Brown asked if the 10.6 acres included the 60’ easement? Gaffron piesumed that, the 10.6 acre figure was exclusive of the 40' and 20' road outlots and the 15' drainage easement. Gaffron said that there is still adequate area for building since this is approximately 10 acres in a 5~acre zone. Brown said that he is trying to preserve the possibility of having two 5 acre lots. Hanson commented that he was uncomfortable with a 15' easement for the drainageway and prefer to see 30'. He asked if 30' would have an impact on buildable area. Mr. Parten said that he would r= o-i'er to proceed with this as simply as possible. He would basically like a lot line rearrangement and access by an easement. He said that the plan shows a lot more than what is actually required. Parten also said that he heard the Planning Commission make the decision that the Reiersgord lot is buildable and it is being counted as a third lot. Parten said that all that should be taken into consideration are two buildable lots served by a road. Brown asked whethei or not the bulldability of the Reiersgord property is known. Mabusth replied that it has not been determined whether or not the Reiersgord property is buildable. Parten said that the less the Planning Commission does at this point, the better. He said they should just look at this at face value and forget about the outlet and bulldability of Reiersgord property. Kelley said that if an error in planning is made, he would prefer to error on the side that provides for an outlet and easements to two properties. Kelley said that the probability is that Mr. Parten will trade land with the property to the east, and there will be third lot. Gaffron asked Kelley if he wished to include any of staff's recommendations in his motion? Parten requested that the Planning Commission consider removing the Outlot and just leave him the ability to serve Lot 2 with an easement. Kelley read the conditions of approval, l~y» forth in Gaffron's m.emo dated January 10, 1990. Kelley said that item. #7 should not be included. Kelley said that he would amend his motion to include a 50' outlot from Bayside Road to the eastern property line and a 20' outlot, Outlot B, from the southern boundary of Outlot A to the northern location indicated on the map, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 11473 JACQUELYNN KEU.Y 2056 SHAOYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Jacquelynn Kelly was present for this application, as was Mr. James Klien and Mr. Stewart Bear, attorney for the applicants. Mabusth explained that this application involved approval of after-the-fact variances for a two-ci.-.red deck that has been placed approximately 20' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Mabusth said the deck is 3' in front of the 75' setback line and 9' from the side lot line and there is approximately 3.5% additional hardcover as compared to the deck area of the original deck. Mr. Bear said that only a 2'-3' portion of the deck encroaches the 75' setback line, which is 0.0007% of the hardcover in that zone. Kelley asked Mr. Bear if he was disaareeing with staff's calculations which indicated that hardcov*. r in that area is 16 s.f. Mr. Bear acknowledged the fact that his clients did work without obtaining the necessary permits. He said that some changes did take place from what had existed, but that was primarily due to safety reasons. Mr. Bear said that the existing deck was in an unsafe condition and was a hazard. Mr. Bear said that the reason the appl icants worked after a stop work order was issued was because they had the untreated lumber lying on the ground. They decided to put the deck ui- and "let the chips fall where they may", because winter was coming. Mr. Bear said that the applicants are Intending to remove the rock gardens surrounding the deck to decrease the amount of hardcover on the property. Hanson referred to Mr. Bear's statement about the applicant's proceeding because winter was coming. Hanson noted that the citation was issued in September. Mr. Bear said that the work on the deck is not totally complete, the railings have not been installed. Kelley asked the applicants what their hardship to warrant the variance for the deck is? Mr. Klien explained that his original idea was to repair the deck and make some changes in the design of it. He said that once he began the project, he realized the condition of the deck and tore it down. Mr. Klien indicated that he had never lived on the lake before this and was unaware of the City's MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1475-HCDOWBLL CONTINUED Gaffron provided a brief summary of this two part application involving a lot line rearrangement between the existing Hayssen and McDowell parcel and a subdivision. Gaffron explained the dilema involving access for the McDowell subdivision and said that a tentative agreement has been reached by the parties involved, Kelley said that the existing access is best to serve the properties and the proposed outlet to Bayside Road is absurd. Kelley compared this with the Wear Subdivision. Gaffron noted that this varied from Wear’s subdivision in that there was a dedicated outlet going all the way to the Will property and the City had underlying road and utility easements. In this case, there is no outlet or existing easements. Gaffron said that the City would have to condemn land and look at the aspect of taking over a public road which would probably be very precedent setting. Kelley said that this is very unique and he has never run across anything like this. He said that it is absurd to give access to Bayside through the easement from Mr. White. Access to the McDowell property should come from the existing road. Cohen concurred with Kelley. Mabusth asked Mr. McDowell to identify the reason for the access being proposed. McDowell said that the proposal would offer a "win, win" situation for everyone. He explained that should the Council deny his application, he will go back to the Title Insurance Company and request access and the matter will go to Court. If Mr. White prevails and it is determined that Mr. McDowell cannot use the existing access, then the County will have to grant him access off of Bayside. Kelley said another option would be that the City steps in and takes over the road. Mr. McDowell said that the access being proposed onto Bayside is safer than the existing access onto Bayside. Gaffron confirmed that. Brown asked what the distance between the existing and proposed Bayside accesses will be. Mr. McDowell replied that is approximately 500'. McDowell added that he preferred this configuration, which will eliminate placing a cul-de-sac out in the middle of the field. Mr. McDowell asked the Planning Commission to vote on the lot line rearrangement portion of the application. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1475-MCDOHELL CONTINUED There were no comirents from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the Hayssen/McDowe 11 lot line rearrangement as proposed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. It was moved by Kelley to deny access onto Bayside Road for the proposed 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Owens, expanded on the reason for the access proposal. He Informed the Planning Commission that: a motion to deny could have disastrous results for everybody involved, including the City. Mr. Owens said that he had talked with the County regarding this matter. He said that if Tract A is split into 2 lots and if Mr. White prevails in litigation as to accessing those lots, then the Title Company will have to spend a lot of money to satisfy Mr. McDowell. Mr. Owens said that this access problem is due to an error made by the Title Company years ago. Mr. Owens said that the obvious access that Mr. McDowell will be entitled to is where his Tract A abuts Bayside Road. He said there is approximately 190* of property abutting Bayside. Mr. Owens indicated that Mr. White was not thrilled with the current proposal, but felt it was a compromise that would avoid the need to litigate the matter. Hanson said that he had reached the same conclusion that Kelley had. However, after listening to Mr. Owens, he was not He asked Mr. McDowell what exactly he wanted. Mr. McDowell said that basically he wanted what currently exists. He said that everyone using the existing road loves the way things are now. McDowell said that the only probler is that he doesn't have access to his property. He said that v.hat he wants is access to his property without the need to put in a cul- de-sac and destroy what now exists for the other residents. Cohen questioned why Mr. White would not give McDowell access to his property, since the road is already being used by Alt and Huyssen? Mr. Owens replied that Mr. White does not want the traffic that the two additional lots will create on his property. Mr. Owens also said that everyone involved agrees that they do not want the road upgraded, which would have to occur if the McDowell lots are added. Mr. Owens said that the road is enclosed on both sides by mature trees which would have to he removed. Mr. Owens added that he did not think approval of this proposal would set any precedent and furthermore, the County has aoproved the access being proposed onto Bayside. Drown indicated that he is compelled by a couple of things. One concern is that the City does not have an easement under the existing driveway so the City cannot do what it did in the Wear I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 31475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED subdivision. The other concern is that Mr. White might prevail in the lawsuit and the City would have an unsatisfactory access onto Bayside Poad rather than the one the County approved. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of Option A for access to Tract A across the White property, including staff recommendations 1 through 6 of Gaffron's memo dated 1/11/90. Mr. Owens asked that the Outlot running north and south be labeled Outlot "B”, rather than Bayside Ridge Road. Brown incorporated that into his motion. Kelley asked whether Outlot A is still required? Gaffron said that with the proposed easement, there is direct access through the easement to Bayside. If you have^ Outlot A, then Lot 2 would have possible future access to Bayside via the existing White driveway. Brown agreed that they should keep Outlot A. Hanson seconded the amendments. Kelley asked whether the Outlets would have any impact on the dry buildable area of the newly created lots? Gaffron replied that the dry buildable will be sufficient. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Cohen, Nays. #1479 DOUG WILLIAMS & LECY CONSTRUCTION INC. 1020 TONRAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. Mr. Jurgen Stielow was present for this matter. Gaffion provided the Planning Commission with the information regarding the revised plan proposed by Mr. Williams. Mrs. Marge Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, wanted to be sure that would occur to alleviate the runoff coming from this property onto her property. Mrs. Gasch said that all of the water coming from this property runs through her pumphouse. Kelley questioned whether it would be necessary to approve grading in the 0-75' setback zone? G^ffton said it. is not clear whether that may be necessary, he has asked the applicants to supply additional grading plans for the City Engineer's review. Gaffron said after talking to Mrs. Gasch, he is questioning whether it may not be better to bring the drainage to the center of the property and allow it to disperse from there. Kel ley noted that grading wi 1 1 have to occur once the existing house is removed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. ii I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COmiSSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1479-WILL1AMS/LBCY CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED It was moved by Brown, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot width variance conditioned on a drainage plan being submitted which shows drainage being brought to the center of the lot. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1467 CHARLES 6 ANN HOMMEYER 4125 OAK STREET AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. TO 9:10 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Hommeyer were present for this review. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained that this application pertained to an after-the-fact variance for retaining walls and a deck located within 75' of the lake. Mabusth said that the applicants are also requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 6' privacy fence. Mr. Hommeyer referred tc Mabusth's memo of 1/11/90 and clarified that be was the property owner that built the retaining walls. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to respond to staff's statement pertaining to his lack of a hardship for the after-the-fact phase of the application. Mr. Hommeyer said that the retaining walls were put in because in 1980/81, the hill slid. Mr. Hommeyer said that he was unaware of the City's lakeshore regulations and took it upon himself to address the problem. He said that he constructed the retaining walls and they have stabilized the land and need to be there. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to state a hardship for the size of the deck. Mr. Hommeyer said that the footings there tie-in with everything. He said that the size of the deck is not important, and, in fact he would have no objections to the stairs existing without it. Hanson said that he observed that removing the deck may make the situation of the sliding hill even worse because of the foundation structure for the deck. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to state his hardship for the proposed 6' fence. Mr. Hommeyer said that the new residence to the north is considerably higher than his property. Ho said that the deck that has been built to load and unload the tram extends beyond the average lakeshore setback. Mr. Hommeyer said that 12' of the MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE il467-BOMMBYBR CONTINUED fence would give them privacy from that loading platform. He said that the remaining portion of fence will give them privacy from the persons riding up on the tram. Kelley asked whether plantings could be used to serve the same purpose. Mr. Hommeyer replied that he did not think there was enough sunlight in that area to grow vegetation. He said if the property to the north put in plantings there would be enough sunlight. Kelley asked whether the neighbor to the north (Mr. Morse) was present this evening. Mabusth informed Kelley that he was not. Mrs. Byrne Peter indicated that she had been the neighbor to the north at the time that the Hommeyer's home was built. She said there was a lot of emotion and anger involved when that home was built. She presented pictures showing the building site and indicated that it was due to "miscommunications" that the cut in the land and the deck were allowed. Mrs. Hommeyer said that she and her husband and the City had been sued over that matter 9 years ago and the lawsuit was withdrawn. She said that the cut that was made at that time is not an issue now. Mrs. Hommeyer said that the deck has withstood a 100 year storm and was constructed in sucii a way to be as unobtrusive as possible. Mrs. Hommeyer added that the neighbor to the south, who is the most affected by the deck, has been in support of their efforts. Mabusth clarified that the cuts being referred to were the major cuts taken in certain setback areas. She said at the time they were done, there were no rules or regulations giving the building inspector any guidelines as to what was unusual grading. Since that time, the codes have been amended to provide direction regarding allowed excavation with building permits for residential construction. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approve’ of the application for an after-the-fact variance for the deck and retaining walls, the hardship being the undo damage that would be caused if they are re.moved, and to recommend approval of the current request for a setback variance for the fence. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. Cohen indicated that he voted nay because he felt that the size of the deck should have been reduced and he questioned the privacy issue. Kelley concurred. minutes op the planning commission meeting JANUARY 16, 1990 *1483 HAROLD VOGT 1342 REST POINT CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:11 P.M. TO 9:25 P.M. Mr. Vogt was present for this matter. duly noted^.^^^^'^^^ Publication and Certificate of Mailing were applicrtiirwa^rnuLleaf^®' of how this Planning Co^'i‘>°=^>'ouse for the pictures’■Jere^n ’?.??"''' 1" <=he Old.Mr. Vogt replied that he estimated them to be 50 to 60 years Brown observed that the windows looked new. Mr. Vogt replied that the windows are not new. lupbercon^trVotla?'"’^" «lth the treated Mr. Vogt replied that the deck was existing when he purchased the property in June, 1989. He replaced tie rotted timbers with treated lumber. Mr. Vogt said that he also replaced the entrance door and frame. repiacea struc?u?e Mri’''/ta ”no''dr® P" the front of the Mr. Vogt responded that the glass door existed when he latMcrho^H Mr. Vogt noted that he did nail the K around the bottom of the structure. He said that SI lTi6 \LVil had"S" property because of this stature' ^ ® complete title search of the property and there was no mention of the boathouse. Mr. Vogt said^hat approximately 40% of his property v^alue if thi removed. He further commented that if the boathouse were removed, that it would leave a sheer cliff that hll I extensively landscaped. Mr. Vogl said tha^ hi Shft i? boathouse and he determined Brown asked Mr. Vogt why he had not obtained a buildino permit prior to working on the deck of the boathouse? ^ 1-wn intended on replacing the projectteillng. Once he began pro3ect, he decided to replace the entire deck. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 11483-VOGT CONTINUED Kelley said thst the City has a dilema where these accessory structures are concerned. He said that the property owner has the right to cosmetically maintain the structure, but at the point structural repair Is required the City must decide if such a structure should be torn down? Hanson asF , V^gt to specifically identify what he replaced on the .cture? Mr. Vogt said that he did the lattice work around the bottom of the structure. He said that he also replaced the entire deck. Hanson asked him whether he also replaced the floor joists Inside the structure. Mr. Vogt said that he did not replace the interior floor joists. Hanson noted that the floor joists are also the supports for the cantilevered deck and that they look new. far. Mr. Vogt said that the floor joists did not go back that Hanson made a comment that the floor joists must extend to a certain point in order to offer proper support. door. Mr. Vogt said that he replaced a broken window and the rear There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure, the hardship being that the building already exists. Mabusth asked that the motion include a conditicn requiring the applicant to apply for a bui Iding permit for the work done to the deck. Kelley also suggested that a structural engineer look at the boathouse and render a written opinion to the City regarding its condition. Brown amended his motion to include those two items, Hanson seconded. Mr. Vogt said that he would come into the City offices tomorrow to obtain a permit. Mabusth suggested that Mr. Vogt allow the City inspector to look at the boathouse to determine what had been dene. Motion, Ayes-4, Cohen, Nay. Motion passed. #1484 ROXANNE STASIK 4470 FOREST LAKE LANDING VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 P.M. TO 9:37 P.M. Mr. Stasik was present for this matter The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 11484-STASIK CONTINUED duly noted. MaDusth said that the Planning Commission had previously reviewed and approved this property for a hardcover and average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition. Kel ley asked at what point the City requires that the house be pulled back to conform with the average lakeshore setback? Mr. Stasik said that the house has been there for years and the existing foundation is bowing in. He is attempting to raise the house and put in a new foundation. Mr. Stasik said if his application is denied, he won't purchase the property and it will continue to sit empty. Mr. Stasik said that the house doesn't meet the average setback because the neighboring property is located in such a way it brings the average lakeshore setback further back. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Hanson said that he has questions whether the structure is a viable structure at this point? Cohen said that question is not before the Planning Commission. Mr. Stasik noted that Kim Whitney received approval allowing her to add onto the property. He said that it would seem inconsistent to not allow his variance request since it is the same request. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances because the Planning Commission has approved the variances once before and that the applicant has sufficiently stated the other hardships. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1487 MARTIN SCHNEIDER 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:38 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. Mr. Schneider was present for this public hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained the purpose of this application for a Conditional Use Permit to continue the school use of this property. Kelley asked Mr. Schneider why he had changed his mind. Mr. Schneider said that when he proposed his duplex use at MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 41487-SCHNEIDER CONTINUED the Planning Commission Meeting back in March, there was considerable public outcry. He said that he decided to keep the structure available to the public. Kelley said that Mr. Schneider entered into a Developers Agreement as a result of the approval for single family use. The Developers Agreement sets forth several things that were to be done to the property. Mabusth clarified that it was the responsibility of the Art Center to perform those changes and provide appropriate security to assure those changes are made. Kelley asked if those changes had been done? Mabusth replied that they have not. Kelley said that it seemed that the Planning Commission being manipulated. Mr. Schneider replied that it was not his intention to manipulate anyone. He said that when time came to close on the property, it was discovered that the Art Center did not have a saleable piece of property. It was at that time that the Art Center submitted ar. application for a lot line rearrangement. Schneider said that it was his understanding that once the property changed ownership, the conditional use granted to that property was no longer in effect. Mr. Schneider said, "If I had my druthers, quite honestly. I'd like to see that as a two unit structure." Kelley asked Mr. Schneider if that was his intent for buying the property? Mr. Schneider replied that was his intent and that was why he came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schneider said that he does own the building. He said that there Wv.s no intention to get out of doing the improvements required i*i ►he Developers Agreement. Mr. Schneider said that he has be»-n cooperative in every step of the various applications involving this property. Mabusth said that the Art Centei should have a representative present, as they are the entity asking for the conditional use. Mr. Hanson indicated that he was thoroughly confused. Mabusth and Schneider briefly explained the various applications that had been submitted and reviewed for this property to date. Mabusth added that the City still had the $5,000.00 letter of credit received from the Art Center. She asked Mr. Schneider about the length of his lease with the Art Center. Mr. Schneider said that he had a two year lease with the Art I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 11487-SCHNBIDBR CONTINUED Center. Kelley asked if the letter of credit would continue? Mabusth replied that the City has the ability to request an extension of the letter of credit. Kelley asked whether the City would do that? Mabusth responded that the Art Center feels that the Developers Agreement will no longer be in effect and they wish the City to return the letter of credit. Mr. Schneider said that Mabusth is suggesting that he provide a letter of credit continuining the spirit of the agreement entered into with the Art Center. Mr. Schneider said that he in turn would enter into a personal agreement with the Art Center, but he would provide the guarantee to the City that the improvements would be done. Schneider indicated that he would have no problem in meeting the requirements asked for in the Developers Agreement. Kelley asked Mabusth to identify the specific conditions of the subdivision approval. Mabusth said that ull of the gravel parking area to the rear would be • -.moved and a new parking area would be installed in the northern portion of the Art Center property. Mabusth said that a privacy fence was to be installed and some landscaping was to be done. Hanson asked about the tennis court. Mabusth replied that the tennis court is to remain in the domain of the Art Center. Brown asked about the sewer hookup. Mabusth said that the sale of the Kill School was to pay for the sewer assessments that the City had assessed. Mabusth said all that is remaining is for the structure to be connected to sewer. Mabusth said the only issues left to be resolved are the existing Developers Agreement, the letter of credit and making sure that if the Art Center ceases to exist, the required improvements are made. Mabusth said that Mr. Schneider has offered a solution in that he has agreed to provide a letter of credit and would execute the Developers Agreement. Ke1 ley suggested that once the conditional use permit expires it would trigger the requirements of the Developers Agreement. Kelley also suggested that the length of the conditional use permit coincide with the length of Mr. Schneider's lease. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16r 1990 ZONING PILE tl487>SCHNEIDER CONTINUED Mabusth said conditional use permits usually are not written in that manner, but could be. Schneider said that he would prefer to have the conditional permit run as long as the Art Center leases the property. Mabusth suggested reviewing the property every two years. Cohen suggested tabling this matter until the next meeting to provide the opportunity to ascertain any limitations or options the City may have. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to table this matter until the February 20, 1990 meeting. It was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that provided the structure was hooked up to sewer, and there is a guarantee of the improvements being made should the Art Center cease to exist they would recommend approval. Schneider said that after speaking to an excavator, he was informed that a sewer hookup would not be possible until later. Hanson suggested June 15, 1990. Mabusth asked that a representative of the Art Center be present at the next meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nuys-O, Motion passed. #1485 K-P PROPERTIES, INC. 340/350 NORTH ARM LANE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mabusth explained that this is a proposed lot line rearrangement of Lots 1 and 2 of the North Arms Estate, 2nd Addition. Mabusth said that lot width variances were approved with the subdivision of this property and the developers are now asking the Planning Commission to approve an additional lot width variance of 70'. Mabusth said that the purpose of this subdivision is to provide additional septic area for Lot 1. Mabusth said that if the City asks for 17' of right-of-way from this property that the right-of-way would encroach into the drainfield area. Brown and Hanson indicated that there seemed to be sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the lot width variance. Kelley said that he had some reservation. Mr. Don Peterson, one of the developers, clarified that he had no agreement with Mr. Clson, owner of 4590 North Arm Drive, at this time. He said that Mr. Olson is not interested in subdividing and therefore is unwilling to grant 17' of his property for the City right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said that the two lots involved with this lot line rearrangement are very desireable, 4 to 5 acre lots which were ert-ated by a subdivision. Mr. Peterson said that he owns I.ot 2 and has a purchase agreement for Lot 1 contingent on approval of the lot line rearrangement. Mr. Petersen said if the City takes the additional 17' of right- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1485-K-P PROPERTIES CONTINUED of-way, it will render Lot 1 useless. Mr. Peterson noted that the property on the east side. North Arm Estates, and the Armstrongs, have already dedicated 33' of right-of-way. He felt that any additional right-of-way should be taken from the west side. Brown asked why t^e septic sites could not be moved 17' to the east? Caffron repli<;i that there are steep slopes in that ]ocation. Mr. Peterson said that he has had an on-site septic evaluator examine every possibility and in their opinion, if the sites are moved at al 1, there wil 1 be a problem. Kelley said that if the City requires the 17', nothing can be done with lot 1. Mabusth told Kelley that nothing more than a two bedroom home could be constructed on that lot. Mabusth said however, that Mr. Peterson's comment regarding 33' of right-of-way taken from the parcels on the east side of North Arm Lane was a fact that she had not known. Mr. Peterson said that he searched the chain of title on this property and the 33' was never owned by the owner of 4590 North Arm Drive. He said that he went approximately six deeds back and there is no indication that the 33' was ever owned by the people on the west side, it was taken out of the property on the east side. He said that if the City was to take another 17' of right-of-way from the east side, that all of the right-of-way would come from one side. Mr. Olson said that the reason the right-of-way was not taken from his property is because he does not r.se the road. He said that his access is off of North Arm Drive. He said that there is no reason for his land to be used for that road. Mabusth explained to Mr. Olson that if he ever does subdivide his property, the City will ask for a dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Olson said that he will deal with that when he decides to subdivide. Mabusth advised Mr. Olson that even though he does not use North Arm Lane, the City would still ask for 17' of right-of-way because the new lot created from his property would be served by North Arm Lane. Cohen asked if there was anything that could be done if the City decides to take the 17' with this subdivision? j