Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1985 Planning MinutesIFif?* L PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1985 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS OOUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Jim Grabek SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:30 p.m. #894 T.M. Crosby, 745 Spring Hill Road - Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement - Class I 2. 7:45 p.m. #895 T.M. Crosby, 1240 & 1260 Bracketts Point Road Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement - Class 1 3. 8:00 p.m. #896 James N. Anderson, 2300 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Class II 4. 8:15 p.m. #897 Janet & Chuck Peterson, 825 Old Long Lake Road Preliminary Subdivision - Class II ACTION ITEMS 5. #876 Randy Asplund, 3424-3444 Eastlake Street - Variance 6. #889 Eugene Nelson, Big Island Record Lots 16 & 22 - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 7. #900 James W. Ogland, Big Island Lots 25 & 26 Morse Is’and Park After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing 8, #901 Karl F. Johnson, 3393 Crystal Bay Road - Variance - Public Hearing 9. #898 Leroy Koehnen, 3360 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 10. #899 Paul Phillips, 2160 Sixth Avenue North Sketch Plan Review ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. Planning Commission approval of February 19, 1985 ..inutes. 12. Planning Commission to select representative to attend the April 8, 1985 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 1 ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM *394 T.M. CROSBY 745 SPRING HILL ROAD SUBDIVISION OP LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT CLASS I PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:40 PM The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chairman Callahan, Kelley, Goetten, Rovegno, McDonald and Taylor. Sime was absent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron and Recorder Naab represented the City staff. Council Representative Grabek was absent. T.M. Crosby was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained Exhibits F1-F3. FI being the existing property boundaries, F3 being the desired end point by split­ ting the lots so t: 3 caretaker house is on a separate parcel with approximately 8 acres of dry land. The main house being on a separate parcel. F2 showing the way this can be done by rearranging lot lines. Mr. Crosby stated that the smaller parcel shown on the map will be given to the Winstcns (who own property to the south) which will square off their property. Rovegno clarified that Pa r ce Is A, Dand Cwill be one lot of record. Parcel B wi 11 be one lot of record. Gaffron clarified part of what is shown as designated wetlands is part of meandered lakeshore and therefore owned by the State of Minnesota. There is no point in requiring dedication since it is already essentially dedicated. Rovegno questioned why dedication of roadway was not requested at this time since there are three houses involved. Goetten stated that this could be added in the resolution that any further subdivision of any of the involved parcels would at that point be required to dedicate roadways. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 2 «894 T.M. CROSBY Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision of lot line rearrange­ ment for T.M. Cror.by on Spring Hill Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Reviue survey to show parcels per staff recommendation in Exhibit F-2. 2. The appropriate access easements to be granted to the appropriate properties. 3. Combination of Parcels A, C and D. 4. Flowage & Conservation Easement over Parcel A. 5. Dedication of platted road would be subject to any future subdivision. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the process to Mr. Crosby. Item 4 wi 11 require a Flowage & Conservation Easement over the wetlands area of Parcel A which would mean a required description of the boundaries of the wetlands. Item 5 is saying at a future time when that property is platted down to its most intense zoning use, we would require a dedica­ tion of the existing roadways. Motion, Ayer (6), Nays (0). #895 T.M. CROSBY 1240 A 1260 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD SUBDIVISION OP LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - CLASS I PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:58 PM T.M. Crosby was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no o'e present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted this application is a lot line rearrangement. There are two parcels involved, one with an existing house on approximately .92 acre and adjacent properties total ­ ing 2.01 acres. The request is to make the smaller property a little larger and the larger property a little smaller. The properties are relatively low, in most places the ground is less than 5 feet above lake level. Soil testing has been done on the south­ erly end of the Pi 1Isbury property where they would need a specially designed mound septic system to make this buildable. It would fit within the setback requirements and would meet the City's codes. 4 4T3-, rr-,—icrrr.F' MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 3 «895 T.M. CROSBY Mr. Crosby explained they wish to acquire additional property because their lot is very small and the added property would be used for a dock and protection. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron asked for Zoning Administrator Mabusth's comments on taking a lot of over 2 acres (in a 2 acre zone) and breaking it down to a smaller lot and making the adjacent lot larger, thus making two substandard lots. Zoning Adminisrator Mabusth explained this is an acceptable procedure as long as no harm is done to the original lot that you are taking land from, and if you are improving a substandard condition. There would be no new lot created or an unbuildable lot in an unsewered area. The septic testing has been done and found to meet all rural standards. Thus if you are assured you have a buildable lot you may rearrange lot lines to improve tne substandard lots. Goetten stated )ier concern that by doing this you would be in a sense granting a variance on the newly created substandard lot. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the fact remains that you arc improving a smaller lot building envelope and still not making the larger lot non- buildable. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the floodplain area on the Pillsbury lot below 931.5 can't be filled or excavated without Council approval. Further study should be done on this area to tell if filling would be a problem. If a house is proposed to be built in this area, (encroaching on the floodplain), then a review wou Id have to be done. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that by approving this lot line rearrangement you are pushing the building envelope on the Pillsbury lot further south, thus encroaching onto the floodplain. For future building a conditional use permit or variance would be needed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the DNR would have to approve any fill within the floodplain. Chairman Callahan reviewed the point that since you are taking away the highland on the Pillsbury lot, you are essentially forcing the future house to build in the floodplviin, whereas if the land were left as it is there would be no problem. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 4 1895 T.M. CROSBY Chairman Callahan moved, Taylor seconded, to table the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for T.M. Crosby at 1240-1260 Brackett's Point Road until the April 15th meeting so Mr. Pillsbur> can be made aware of the future building conditions. 1896 JAMES N. ANDERSON 2300 POX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS II PUBLIC HEARING 8:04 - 8:15 PM The two owners involved, Jim Anderson of 1900 Harbor Lane, Plymouth and Bill Leverin-^ of 2500 Woodhaven Drive wei.e present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this is a request for a two lot subdivision, existing width of the property is 365'. Required lot width in a 2 acre zone is 200', obviously without doing odd gerrymandering you won't get 200' for both properties but there would be no great benefit from doing this. Mr. Anderson noted that there is no other adjacent property to acquire. He also stated that this is the best way to subdivide because of the north section of the lot being wetlands area. Also, the land slopes from the front to the back of the lot. Taylor asked for clarification of further subdivision of the property in question. Mr. Anderson stated that there is already an easement over the wetlands from the original subdivision. Callahan expressed concern about 2 driveways coming out onto roadway. Mr. Anderson stated that the intention is to have one private driveway for both properties. Rovegno stated that this should be incorporated with­ in the resolution. J MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 5 1896 JAMES ANDERSON Rovegno moved, Tnylor ceconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision for James N. Anderson at property located at 2300 Fox Street subject to the following conditions; 1. Staff approval of the septic system testing information. 2. Staff review and approval of the driveway access location. 3. Plowage & Conservation Easement over the designated wetland areas. 4. Standard drainage and utility easements. 5. Park fee in the amount of $200.00 for each new lot. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). «897 JANET t CHUCK PETERSON 825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS II PUBLIC HEARING 8:36 - 8:41 PM Ward Krueger was present to represent the applicants. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publica­ tion. There was no one present from the public. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this application is a subdivision of approxi.aately a 4.4 acre parcel, excluding roadways. Thus making two lots of approximately 2.2 acres. The topography of this property makes this subdivision a logical division. Kelley noted that the houses would have to build behind the 200' lot width line. Kelley also ques­ tioned how many driveways would be incorporated. Mr. Krueger stated that two driveways would bo inplemented. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to recommend approval of preliminary subdivision for Chuck & Janet Peterson for property located at 825 Old Long Lake Road sub ­ ject to the following conditions; 1. Septic testing approval for both the new lot and an alternate site for the existing house. NINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 6 #897 CHUCK ft JANET PETERSON 2. Inspection and approval of the existing septic system for the existing house. 3. City Engineer/Public Works Director review of the access locations. 4. Applicant to execute proper drainage and utility easements. 5. Deaication of roadway on the plat if not excluded in the legal description. 6. Standard park dedication fee of $200.00 for the new lot. 7. Building envelope be at 200' wide or greater at the new building site. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). #876 RANDY ASPLUND 3424-3444 BASTLAKB STREET VARIANCE Randy Asplund was not present, neighbors were present: The foil owing Esther Addison of 3382 Bayside Road Barbara Huber of 3390 Bayside Retd Kathe Jukisk of 3280 Bayside Road Rovegno moved, Goetten seconded, to recommend denial of the variance applications of Randy Asplund for the fence and the concrete patios within 75' of the lakeshore based on the fact that the applicant has demonstrated no hardship for basis of approval of the variance as was recommended at January 21, 1985 meeting. Chairman Callahan stated that this matter has come up =»qain because the applicant had requested it because he couldn't make the previous meetings, therefore, even in his absence this matter wil 1 be acted upon. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). 1 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 7 •889 EUGENE NELSON BIG ISLAND RECORD LOTS 16 6 22 SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Jay T. Smedberg was present. There was no one pre­ sent from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this matter had been before the Planning Comm.'ssion previously. There has been more research done to find out exactly what the property rights are for Big Island. This application is a proposal to divide the long lakeshore strip into two pieces, one that would be combined with Record Lot No. 22, one that would be combined with Lot 6, 7 and 8 and Lot C into Record Lot 16 and that does exist in the zoning code as Record Lot 16. The question was brought up last time was why is Lot C included with Record Lot 16, CJrn it be or why can't i t be a separate lot? Gaffron stated that in Section 10.31 of the code it specifically deals with future happenings on Record Lots, so that when a single party becomes owner of adjacent parcels of land they become, from a zoning definition stand­ point, a Single Record Lot, and that definition does include parcels that are separated by a platted un­ developed right-of-way. Rovegno noted that the lot in question is not a record lot of anything. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that there is a mistake in the code, which should be corrected. Mr. Smedberg stated that the only request on his application was getting a separate tax number for the two pieces of land which are recorded as separate torrens property. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that he agrees that approval of the divisions appropriate, and delete the condition that Lot C combined as part of this division. He noted that for about half of the Big Island record lots. Resolutions have never been completed, dating back to 1983. He felt that if we give the applicants 6 months to resolve the paper­ work for the automatic variances, if within 6 months this has not been completed they would loose the benefit of the automatic variance and would have to come in for a variance with the standard fees and possibly not be granted the variance. MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 8 1889 EUGENE NELSON Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend approval of the subdivision for Eugene Nelson for property located on Big Island, Record Lots 16 and 22, as it is requested subject to the following conditions : 1. Parcel D must be combined with Lots 6, 7 and 8. 2. Parcel A must be combined with Lots 9, 10 and 11. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the reason the parcels must be combined in this manner is that the City will never allow a subdivision to create a new piece of land that is unbuildable where there is adjacent property in com ­ mon ownership that it is an integral part of. There ­ fore, a combination would be required. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). 1900 JAMES W. OGLAND RECORD LOT NO. 38 - BIG ISLAND VARIANCE - AFTER THE PACT PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 - 8:48 PM James Ogland was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that Mr. Ogland is planning to build on his property. Big Island - Lots 25 & 26 Morse Island Park, and in reviewing the file it came to staff's attention that an illegal deck and small building had been constructed on the lakeshore sometime between the Summer of 1982 and September of 1983. (Gaffron pre­ sented teh Planning Commission with photographs of the decking and shed, originals in Big Island file. Lot 38.) Gaffron stated these structures were built without permits. Gaffron noted that Mr. Ogland was requested to bring this matter in as an after-the- fact variance application or that he tear it down. Mr. Ogland stated that one reason the decking was built was that the shoreline is very steep and muddy. Mr. Ogland noted that he had tried to plant grass but the property faces east and nothing would grow. Mr. Ogland did mention that there is a sand/dirt base under the deck, thus should not be considered hard ­ cover. Rovegno noted that in other cases where there has been a problem with a steep shoreline, the City has approved lock boxes. 1 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 9 #900 JAMES H. OGLAND 1901 KARL P. JOHNSON 3393 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 - 10:02 PM McDonald mentioned that the applicant did not do any grading or remove any vegetation and kept the land as natural as possible. Kelley moved, Taylor seconded, to recommend approval for an after-the-fact variance for James W. Ogland for property located on Big Island, Record Lot 38 based on the following findings and conditions; 1. The applicant has shown a hardship to exist. 2. The applicant has not removed any vegetation. 3. The applicant be put on notice that no further development of hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). Sherri Si Karl Johnson were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. The following neighbors were present: Greg Long of 3359 Crystal Bay Road John Kust of 3355 Crystal Bay Road Aline Ogland of 3345 Crystal Bay Road Jay B. & Beverly J. Keiser of 3375 Crystal Bay Road Jerry wheeler of 3399 Crystal Bay Road Chairman Callahan read the petitions from the Plan­ ning Commission packet opposing the storage ordinance. The following signed such petition, which were submitted to staff and will be kept on file inthe zoning file #901; Mr. & Mrs. Geo. A. Moss of 3335 Crystal Bay Road Richard Siakel of 3325 Crystal Bay Road Dick & Donna Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Read Eunice & Bob Nichols of 3407 Crystal Bay Road Joseph R. I.ofrand of 3365 Crystal Bay Road Karl F. Johnson of 3393 Crystal Bay Road Jay B. & Beverly J. Keiser of 3375 Crystal Bay Road Greg & Pam Long of 3359 Crystal Bay Road Dirie Leo Weeks of 3329 Crystal Bay Road Chairman Callahan read a letter, enclosed in the Planning Commission packet, from Dick & Donna Carl opposing the boat storage ordinance. J. NINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 10 #901 KARL P. JOHNSON Chairman Callahan then read a letter from Jerry Wheeler enclosed in the Planning Commission packet opposing the storage of Johnson’s boat and the way City staff enforces the ordinances. Callahan read another letter sumbitted by Wheeler (attached to these minutes. Exhibit A) which express his opinion regarding Johnson's variance request and the way s-.aff and Council have dealt with this matter. Callahan read a letter written by Planning Commission member. Bill Sime, asking the Planning Commission to enforce the ordinances an deny Johnson's variance <letter attached to minutes. Exhibit B). Crystal Bay Road residents submitted a petition agreeing not to restrict any type or size of boat, nehicle and/or trailer within the confines of their property (original petition attached to minutes. Exhibit C). Kelley noted that the diagram provided by a neigh­ boring property owner seems to indicate tnat the retaining wall is within the 75' setback. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Karl Johnson did a sketch and the area calculations were done from a boundary survey done by Mark Gronberg a year ago. There is no certification of the 75' setback. Staff went out and took the tape and determined where the 75' setback area was. Planning Commission may require at this point that the 75 feet setback line be certified by surveyor. Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified the events surrounded by Sandra George application. The City staff went out to tag Mr. Johnson for excavation and found out the City was responsible for the moving of the dirt. Mr. Johnson had been given a stop work order back in 1982 for filling along the lakeshore. The fill was taken from a bank along the west side of the house. At that time staff advised Mr. Johnson to put in retaining walls to stop the erosion problem. Mr. Johnson noted that he had come home one day and the City had put in rip rap along the lakeshore. Chairman Callahan stated according to staff's review the applicant has placed gravel over approximately 440 square feet of an area located within 75' of the lake. MlNUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1985. PAGE 11 #901 KARL P. JOHNSON Mr. Johnson commented that he feels that he has graveled less that 200' because there was a driveway already on the area in question. Therefore he feels that he hasn't added any hardcover that wasn 't already there. Mr. Wheeler disputed that there was never a graveled driveway and submitted pictures to the Planning Commission showing no gravel take' about 2 years ago (pictures to be kept in zoning file #901). Chairman Callahan clarified that the applicant feels that he did not add hardcover because the driveway had already existed, from 30' back from the road to the retaining wall the applicant did excavate and put gravel where none was before. Kelley questioned whether the gravel is considered hardcover if it is driven on. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant claims this gravel is used for landscaping and erosion problems. Mabusth stated that there is a difference between gravel used as a base for a drive­ way and gravel used in landscaping. Chairman Callahan suggested the Commission deal with this application in two separate parts. First the hardcover issue; part of the retaining wall is within the 75' setback area and it is within the 10' setback. However, the retaining wall was put in at the specific instruction of the staff. Rovegno moved, Kelley sf-conded, to recommend denial of a hardcover variance for Karl F. Johnson at 3393 Crystal Bay Road. Recommend removal of all gravel hardcover within the 0-75' setback area that was added in recent times based on the fol lowing findings: 1. Based on the evidence submitted and the pictures it appears that as of about 1982-83 there was no driveway serving the George house coming across that area. 2. This gravel is hardcover, it looks like driveway aggregate base. 3. Installed without a hardcover variance. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 12 1901 KARL P. JOHNSON Rovegno stated that the next matter should be the 75' to 250' setback area. Presumably there is approximately 317* of hardcover in this area. If there is an excess of hardcover in this area, then whatever portion of th*. gravel area within th 75' to 250' setback area be removed. Rovegno moved, Callahan seconded, that if there is any hardcover within the 75' to 250' setback area, that should also be removed. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0), Callahan moved on to the second half of the variance which included the retaining wall and excavation. Rovegno moved, Gcetten seconded, to recommend approval of the retaining wall on the finding that staff did indeed recommend its placement at some point in the past, presuming it was beyond the 75' setback area and needed for erosion problems. Kelley also added that even if it is within the 10' side yard setback, this should be approved. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). Callahan moved on to the issue of the boat storage, which has already been discussed in previous matters before the Planning Commission. He also noted that a number of the petitions being circulated relate to the question of whether or not the boat ordinance itself ought to be changed, it is not the province of this group to decide whether an ordinance should be changed and it should not be discussed at this time. Mr. Johnson stated that he would like to leave the boat at its present sp>ot and not be treated any different than anyone else in Orono. Kelley moved, Rovegno seconded, to recommend denial of the variance for Karl F. Johnson to permit the storage of an oversized boat on his residential property based on the following findings: 1. The applicant has indicated no hardships. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). Callahan noted for the record that no member of the Planning Commission appears to be in violation of the boat storage ordinance as was indicated in a letter submitted by Jerry Wheeler. MINUTBS OP THE PLAMNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 13 #901 KARL P. JOHNSON Mr. Wheeler noted that he had also submitted to Council at their February 25, 1985 meeting a petition by residents of Orono who wish the ordinance to be enforced. 1898 LBROY KBOHNBN 3360 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Leroy Koehnen was present. Mr. Koehnen stated that he is requesting to put up a canopy on the east end of the building, add one extra underground tank and put in a single stall drive-thru car wash. The car wash would mean opening up the south side of the building with a door, lining up the cars so that they enter from the north and exit out the so.’th doors which would enable them to enter on to County Road 19 or 15 or enter the alley and into the parVing lot behind the building. McDonald asked if the Environmentalist-2 car wash would be used to conserve on water. Mr. Koehnen stated that he would be using fresh water method because of bad reports about recyling the water, thus leaving in harmful salts and chemicals. Kelley questioned the status of an annual inspection of the field tanks. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that Thomas Jacobs, Building Inspector, handles all inspections involving Uniform Fire Code. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to recommend approval of the commercial site plan by Leroy Koehnen for installation of fuel tank, canopy over existing gas pump and installation of single stall car wash at service station at 3360 Shoreline Drive subject to the following conditions: 1. New tanks installed per standards of Minnesota State Fire Code. 2. Payment of $10,620.00 for total SAC and sewer unit payments with permit for installation of car wash. 3. Approval of setback variance for canopy finding nothing detrimental to traffic visibility. 4. Traffic flow signage provided on site upon completion of car wash. 5. Field tanks and lines must be inspected every 3 years. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18r 1985. PAGE 14 1899 PAUL PHILLIPS 2160 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. & Mrs. Paul Phillips were present. APPROVAL OP MINUTES Zoning Administrator Mabusth questioned the applicant about another division of the northern part of the land located in Medina. Mr. Phillips stated that they had purchased half of the parcel and that division would have to be resolved with the City of Medina. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this is the first time that a subdivision would be seeking a minimum area credit by asking for crediting land in another City. Any other subdivision had always immediately satisfy the area standard within the City and remainder is just additional land. She noted that there should be no problem with this. The assessor has confirmed that there will have to be no separate PID or legal description. Majority of the lands will be credited to Orono. She noted that the accesses to the site were the only real problam to be resolved . Kelley stated that he had no problem with this proposed subdivision. Chairman Callahan noted that the comments made by Lynn Adams to the Council at the February 25th Council meeting was that there had been a motion presented to the Planning Commission in relation to absenteeism. He noted that absenteeism is on the adgenda for the joint meeting to be held March 25, 1985. He also noted that to his recollection, there was a question raised about absenteeism but no motion was made regarding this issue and in fact it was ruled that it was not the Planning Commissions busi­ ness. He wishes the minutes of February 19th to reflect this. Chairman Callahan also noted that Council had questioned the fact that only 3 members were present at the February 19th Planning Commission meeting and the validity of that meeting for that reason. City Attorney at that time suggested that there was no quorum. Callahan noted that Item 6 on the agenda for the joint meeting of March 25, 1985 is in regard to the quorum issue not absenteeism. McDonald stated that the Planning Commission does not need a quorum because they are only a recommending body. MINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 15 APPROVAL OP MINUTES Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the City Attorney noted that Robert's Rules of order defines any quorum for any group including the Planning Commission. Roregno stated that Robert's Rules have never been adopted by the Planning Commission according to the ordinances. He also noted that they are following Robert's Rules because a quorum is defined in the rules only if a quorum is defined as being required. If it is not required then it is ^c^i^tcable. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advis^ jhat she was not aware that adoption of Roberts Rules of Order would have to be legally adopted by an ordinance but that certainly the City Attorney would respond. Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 19, 1985. Motion, Ayes (6), Nayes (0). REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING Taylor volunteered to attend the Council meeting of April 8, 1985. ADJOURNMENT 10:42 PM Rovegno moved, Goetten seconded, to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:42 p.m. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). M«rch l4» 1985 .TO I Plannini^ Commission City of Orono PROMi Jerry V* Wheeler 3399 Crystal liay Rd. Weyseta, Nn. 5S391 REt PAl^SB INFORMATION regarding No* 901 i Karl Johnson On Monday* March 16th** Mr* Karl Johnson Is scheduled to appear before you reffardlne TWO variance applications* I have a couple MAJOR concerns with the information sur~ rounding this case* My first concern is that the "public notice" in this matter indicates that Mr* Johnson has NOT been directed to apply for variances for ALL of the vio­ lations that he was susposed to have filed for* My second concern is FAR MORE SERIOUS* My concern is that Staff's January 22* 1985, "Update" to the City Council on this matter is FULL of nEFINITBLY FALSE INFORMATION. I would like to address my concern with the "public notice" first and then the January 22nd* "Update"* The public notice which was in the "Laker" on March 5th** states that Mr* Johnson has applied for ONLY TWO VARIANCES (See attached)• 1*) A variance to store an oversised boat in his front yard* and 2*) A variance for hardcover that he has brought in within 75* of the lakeshore* In addition to the oversised boat and the hardcover. Mr* Johnson has also excavated the hillside and built a re­ taining wall which is FULLY within the 75* lakeshore set­ back (Mr* Johnson also stores a pickup truck in this same area)* The retaining wall* the excavation, and the truck are ALL VIOLATING NOT ONLY THE 75* SETBACK BUT ALSO THE 10* SIDE LOT LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. I do not fully un­ derstand the variance procedure but. why hasn't Mr* Johnson been directed by staff to ALSO apply for variances for these other violations? Mr. Johnson is violating so many of our laws, it is inconceivable to me that he is only applying for two variances* To address ONLY these two vio­ lations totally distorts the truth* I am certain that I heard the City Council direct City Staff to ask Mr. Johnson to comply with ALL of these laws* There is elso no reference in the public notice to the fact that the two variance applications that Mr* Johnson has filed, are "after the fact" variance applications* It is customary to have this information as part of the public notice in as much as there is a larger fee involved. This gentleman has recieved such "special treatment" in the past that I am simply wondering if this is an "indication" that, once again Mr. Johnson has been allowed to "slip by" where other Orono Citisens are not* (See Attached) ■ f Now to address iqy second concern. Staff's January 22, 1905 ^Update" to the City Council regarding Mr. Johnson's vio­ lations is FULL OF UBFINITLY FALSE INFOHllATIOM M I I am concerned that this FALSE information is going to be pre­ sented to you* the Planning Commission* as an allegedly factual basis for you to base your decision on in this matter. It is imperative that you know the truth. The "Update" states that only a "smal1 portion of (Mr. Johnson's) retaining wall is located within 75' of the lake". This statement is TOTALLY FALSE. The truth is that AU- OF THE RETAINING WALL IS WITHIN 21* OF THE LAKE SHORE.* The "Update" states that "the bank that was altered is NOT in the protected area" (emphasis added). Once again* this statement is TOTALLY FALSE. The entire etcavation is within 21* of the lakeshore.* ——————— The "Update" goes on to state that a "major portion of.... (this storage area) was the bed of a driveway that served the residence on the (west)." This is literally HIUICULOUS. The "residence on the (west) side" just happens to be OURS. Not only is this information false* Mr. Johnson himself would NEVER have allowed us to drive over "a major portion" of his property to gain access to ours, lielieve mel to this false information* I have other serious concerns with this report. It is so biased in Mr. Johnson's favor as to give the appearance of OELIUEHATE PLANNING. It doesn't even attempt to mention ANY fact that could possibly have a negative effect on Mr. Johnson's applications (and there are many). It is possible that Staff is planning to submit additional information to you Monday evening but* in case they are not, I want you to have at least a few facts. First of all, 13EF0RE Mr. Johnson built the storage area in question* he ALREADY had a blacktop parking area in front of his DOUULB garage that measures 23'X68' .* ALMOST 1,600 SqUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE (See Diagram). Even though this parking pad doubles as his garage entrance* THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE ROOM for the storage of Mr. Johnson's pick up truck WITHOUT BLOCKING HIS DOUBLE GARAGE ACCESS IN ANY WAY WHAT—SO—EVER. In spite of this* Mr. Johnson stubbornly refuses to store his pickup* OR ANYTHING ELSE* on this parking pad. He insists on dumping ALL OF HIS JUNK ON OUR LOT LINE FOR US TO LOOK AT. • all measurements area* accurate as possible without going onto Mr. Johnson's property. The lakeshore measurements are based on ray recollection of EXACTLY where the lake- shore was last year. I believe all measurements to be accurate within a couple of inches. 1 The "Update" politely states that Mr. Johnson "MBHELY.... plac(ed)....gravel over existing grassed area...." (emphasis added) but there is absolutely no attempt to Inform you of Just how much hardcover Mr. Johnson has. Uy my calculation, which may or may not be correct. Mr. Johnson has Of Tus ^5 SETiiACK Ai^EA^ IN HAHlJCOVERe I wond6r how many of Orono^s residents are allowed to have 8k% hardcoverl Last but not least, this "Update" has missed no opportunity to "shed an unusually good light" on Mr. Johnson. It goes on to "observe", in passing, that Mr. Johnson "has placed no plastic sheeting under the gravel"! While this is indeed "a finding of fact" (and surprisingly true). HUW CAN ANY STAFF REPORT BB SO THOROUGHLY BIASED IN ANY PERSONS FAVOR? I am sure that all of the preceding can somehow be explain- away———one item at a time. Nobody is perfect. But. everything taken together paints quite a different picture, especially in light of the long term history of this dis­ pute. I can*t prove that Mr. Johnson has in fact continu­ ally received preferential treatment from "someone" in Orono. BUT. THE EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUSLY OVERWHELMING THAT "SOMEONE" lUS DISHONEST FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES IN OHONO. I am hoping that the Planning Commission and the City Council will see to it that such dishonesty does not un­ fairly or ILI.EUALLY "influence" the outcome of this hear­ ing. I would appreciate a fair hearing. Since SCALE TRUCK I approximated I7'X8* IT IS VERY EVIDENT- (especially when drawn to scale) THAT MR. JOHNSON CAN EASILY PARK HIS TRUCK ON HIS BLACK­ TOP PAD AND STILL HAVE ROOM TO SPARE CITV or OSONO NOTICI Th« Ptonmog Commiuion wtH hold a Publa IN* Ckjuncil Chambof* 4i 12/5 Soon BfRo4iJ Oft Morwlay March 18 1985onltM utallcf of n^ foiovting U hm J om appltcaltons 1 Island Lots 25 and 26 Morse IslarnJ P.if)t — ^ .After the l«K I hardcover .ut<1 setbar hs regulalKina tot nm curtbiructron ot a storage burldaig 2 No W)1 Karl F /oTwison JJ93 CrjrSftP Road—Variances to hard cower regiilations for placement of gr.i»ei a»tihtrt /t feet of tf>e laiieehore arnJ for tfie storage of a boat that ea ceeds 20 feet m length to hii laSeshore >ard A h persons anetang to be heard ei«i app«.v al lh*a time Aritten communts are soaciled HUm: are a«a*iat4e tor revew m the City offices C«t> of Orono Plamnng ComrnissUM Jean Matiosfh BiiiKJeig A Zoning Admirvi&trati < (Published m Tfie l aaer March 5 tg85i ,t)zer^/ A^WILLIAM J. SlME. Jr . ,<z^e^AK4^ 2106 Snadywoo O road • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55301 • *?71-0296 March 5, 1985 Mr. Fdward Callahan Planning Commission Chairman P.O. Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 C' d-r^'-xr c-a*.. V '■ /*/.J ./ Dear Mr, Callahan: Since I will be unable to attend the March 18th planning Commission meeting, lam enclosing a copy of a change I have requested Pam to make in the February 19, 1985 P.C, minutes. I was informed by Pam that Mr. Karl Johnson of 3393 Crystal Bay Rd. will be coming before you requesting a variance to keep his 25 foot boat in his front yard. This is very close to my home in an area my wife and I walk frequently. In my opinion, this situation is the most flagrant violation of multiple city ordinances I have seen. There are four distinct and separate violations: 1, Dirt has been excavated from a slope within 75 feet of the lake without a permit and a retaining wall constructed. 2. Crushed was put in this area which is considered by Orono to be hard cover. (Naturally, this is also within 75* of the lake.") 3, A Doat exceeding 20 feet in length has been stored there; as ®s a reol eyesore in the form of a rusted out pick“up truck. 4. The boat, pick-up, and excavated area are all right on the property line, even though our ordinance clearly specifies a ten foot sideyard setback — even in the back yard. I complained to the city council in 1983 when the area was being excavated, and was ignored. Mr. Wheeler of 3399 Crystal Bay Rd,—-Hr, Johnson s neighbor—— has been pleading with Orono to simply have the ordinances enforced for the past two years. n*U -rca* i.-justice hete is thac some type ot political pressure has been exercised to prevent the enforcement of our ordinances in Mr. Johnson s case. Even the similar "Eller matter" was disoatched with the comparative lightning speed of less than five months. (And that consisted of only ONE violation.) lam very sorry that I will not be able to voice my feelings personally Copied to all PC members. Sincerely, / / J- C [ 0^ Pc. 3-/S 2t k> h/-/ ^ £xlvb,-6 C The underslgn^Kl resicK^nts of Qryntal Bay Pd, a^ree ?(0J to restrict any type or of V>oat, vehicle and/or trailer within the confines of thtilr property. A vast variety of reasons can be given to uphold this doclslont but ours denotes the general feeling **In the past 33 years n^t one landowner has coniplained or made an issue oi their neighbor s storing policies." NAMli: %-hbT 3 G ^ A/I'/ ^:iss fiAy Jhir c.dysT/ti^ i y.M' A Ay 3Z <p 0. 16. 1CLo.>>-P __ IB. 19., 20. ■ Rdtiufd P.C. 3-H'2S ^Ofu'f\^ /ippl^^Ol i __ ^ HP*' AGENDA FOR SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTlIfG SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1985, 5:00 P.M. ^ATTENDANCE ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED 1. Ordinance enforcement for violators and the City's policy (City Attorney, Tom Radio to comment). 2. Proposed amendments to wetlands and floodplains ordinance requested by the DNR. 3. Boat storage ordinance - no specific reference to indivi­ dual applications will be made but discussion will be held on enforcement of boat ordinance and validity of such ordinance. 4. New interpretation of hardcover - concerning decks within 0-75' setback area. 5. Planning Commission to discuss their opposition on 2 year term limit for Planning Commission members. 6. Absenteeism on Planning Commission and need for quorum (City Attorney to com; •*•.). 7. Any other items Planning Commission or Council wish to discuss. r ^ ADJOURNMENT - 7:00 p.m. * Please contact John Gerhardson (473-7359) if you do not wish to attend the light dinner that will be served during the meeting.