HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1985 Planning MinutesI
I
L
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 15, 1985 7:30 P.M.
1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Jim Grabek
ATTENDANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Earl Dorn
ACTION ITEMS
2. #852 Stanley Gregory, 1410 Shoreline Drive -
Conditional Use Permit & Variance - Second Review
3. 1927 Stanley Gregory, 1410 Shoreline Drive - Variance
Second Review
4. #876 Randy Asplund, 3444 Eastlake Street - Variance -
Referral From Council
5. #906 Shirley McWilliams, 1120 Willow Drive - Subdivision
Second Review
6. #929 Lyle E. Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail -
Conditional Use Permit - Second Review
7. #934 Robert Tschida, 1300 Fox Street - Variance
Public Hearina
8. #935 Wayzata County Club, 200 Wayzata Blvd. West -
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
9. #936 Lawrence Gardner, 1085 Tonkawa Road -
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
10. #937 Wharton Sinklcr, 2195 French Lake Road - Variance
Public Hearing
11. #938 Robert Nash, 1020 Townline Road - Variance
Public Hearing
12. #940 Ann Fisher, 774 Tonkawa Road - Variance -
Public Hearing
13. #941 Paul Nutt, 2739 Shadywood Road - Variance -
Public Hearing
14. #942 Arthur Finkelstein, 1740 Shadywood Road - Variance
Public Hearing
15. #943 Susan Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Point Road - Variance
Public Hearing
AGENDA FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 15, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
16. #944 James Lear, 3127 Casco Circle - Variance -
Public Hearing
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
17. Planning Commission approval of June 17, 1985 minutes.
18. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the
July 22 and August 12, 1985 ’’nci 1 Meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
?■
■f
■it'
Vi
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 1
ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM
' '
The Orono Planning Conunission met on the above date
with the following members present: Acting Chair
man Kelley, Goetten, McDonald and Taylor. Chair
person Callahan, Rovegno and Sime were absent.
City Administrator Bernhardson, Zoning Administra
tor Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron
and Recorder Naab represented the City staff.
Council Representative Grabek was also present.
Pamela Sutton was presented with a farewell gift
from the Planning Commission. Pamela introduced
her replacement, Pati Peterson.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - EARL DORN
Earl and Betty Dorn were present.
Chaiianan Kelley notified Mr. Dorn that tht Kokeshes
will be submitting an application for a conditional
use permit. That application will be at the August
19, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.
Dorn stated that he had made the very same com
plaint last year and would like to know why some
thing wasn't done then. Dorn also noted that it
was Administrator Bernbardson's suggestion to bring
the Kokeshes in for a conditional use permit.
t852 LTANLEY GREGORY
1410 SHORELINE DRIVE
CUP t VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory were present. Greg Kopischke of
Westwood Plann..ng & Engineering was also present.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the
application deals with the alteration of a de
signated wetlands of about 2.6 acres. The other
pond is within a watershed of about 2.6 to 3 acres
and is 80' x 80' in area. At one time it funtioned
as a retention area but is not really a wetland as
we know it today. The City does have a
Conservation & Flowage Easement over the area and
over the wetland. The City has never dealt with a
major alteration over a designated wetland before.
Kopischke explained that what is proposed is to
take the 1.3 acres and excavate out to a depth of 4
feet. There would bo some side slopes of 3:1 to
7:1 slopes, that would then reestablish themselves
with vegetation. The intent is to open up some
areas for wild life. There would be a shift of what
type of wild life that would start to use this
particular area since there would be more open
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 2
#852 STANLEY GREGORY water. The DNR, Corp of Engineers, Watershed
District, FWBl and the U.S. Soils Office have
reviewed this proposal and the general indication
is that there would be no detrimental effects to
wild life, overall drainage patterns or water
quality. A treated timber type of skimmer will be
used.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the City
Engineer, Glenn Cook has reviewed the proposal and
finds no problems with the proposed construction.
Kopischke noted that part of the application also
will involve a formal pond area on the southern
part of the site, that is part of an overall land
scape plan for the property, with a fountain and a
drain<ige channel.
Chairman Kelley questioned whether the pond will
hold water even in dryer years or whether water
will have to be added to the pond.
Kopischke stated that the fountain will eleviate
the algae but the water level should stay even
bused on the ground water elevations.
Taylor questioned the principal occurance that is
causing all the modification.
Gregory nottid that it is the esthetics. It is a
particular piece of land - the land wasn't de
signated wetland until the partition of the pro
perty occured. The pond also smells a lot of the
time.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the pond
will still funtion to retain water in the low
areas.
Chairman Kelley clarified that since this is the
first time that we ire allowing to alter wetlands,
the performance standards that were or are being
developed, do not include reviews by certain
groups.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that none of the
othc'r reviewing agencies have specifically asked to
monitor except Dr. Hanson who is not really re
quired to do the monitoring.
Chairman Kelley concurred that we do not have in
our performance standards what kind of review
should be done by an outside specialist.
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 3
#852 STANLEY GREGORY Zoning Administrator Mobusth noted that the only
true performance standard within the analysis is
the Nutrient Analysis by the Rice Creek Watershed.
This is just one standard that judges water
quantity not quality. What other types of
performance standards could be in'^iuded?
Chairman Kelley questioned that hardships should be
included.
Goetten cited that maybe it is time to try some
thing new with wetlands - use this as a test area.
It would be better to have something well d me as
long as we have the opportunity to monitor this
project .
Kopischke stated that some things to be discussed
are the monitoring and the lengch of time the
monitoring is to be done.
Chairman Kelley concurred that the only problems he
foresees would be the maintenance of the fountain
and the skimmer because these two items could pos
sible break down. Kelley also wanted to know what
type of fountain would be used - a spray or bubble
type.
Kopischke stated the specific type has not been
determined yet but it would bo something that would
offer aeration. The intent is to keep the pond
free of algae. This intent will be made known to
the City Council.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the cost of
the monitoring would be the applicant's
responsiblity. There would probably be several
inspections made within the first year. Staff
shoulcJ determine the amount of monitoring.
Chairman Kelley moved, Goetten seconded to approve
a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Sub
division 19 and a variance per Section 10.55, Sub
division 8 to Stanley Gregory, 1410 Shoreline Drive
as a test case based on the fol lowing:
a) Developer's Agreement -
1. Completion of work at approved time periods
2. Posting of appropriate security so that City
can step in and complete if necessary or situation
is deemed an emergency.
k
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 4
#852 STANLEY GREGORY
#927 STANLEY GREGORY
1410 SHORELINE DRIVE
VARIANCE
SECOND REVIEW
3. Payment of fees for the many inspections to
be made by Orono staff during construction period.
4. Applicant tc hire outside agency to perform
water tests per City's monitoring schedule.
5. Written confirmation by applicants that FWBI
and Soils Office may perform required testa on
si*--.*
b) l.’o use of chemical agents in control of algae
and aquatic vegetation. In addition the City will
ask that all use of fertilizers, hericides and
pesticides in areas adjacent to ponds
c) City to approve type of dredging to be employed
with wildlife restoration.
d) Four agencies must approve the proposed
contruction: DNR, MCWD, U.S. Soils Office and
FWBI.
e) Base Line check to be done to check the
discharge currently from the culvert in Browns Bay.
Motion, Ayes (4), nays (0).
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory were present. Greg Kopischke
of Westwood Planning & Engineering was also pre
sent.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that there is at
least 1200 s.f. of inovative materials, proposed as
non-hardcover within the 0-75' setback area.
Kopischke has submit *.ed a plan for use of a comb
ination of grass and boards as non-hardcover.
Since the pool has been moved 5' away from the
lakeshore, it does not need approval from the DNR.
The closest point of the pool away from the lake-
shore is 53'.
Kopischke stated that the deck would be a
combination decking/boardwalk system - a framed
system grid. This same system is intented through
out the rest of the project. The end effect would
allow water movement through it. There would be
gravel underneath.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 5
1927 STANLEY GREGORY Chairman Kelley stated that his concern was what
happens if the house is sold. We have no control
over the new owners taking up this non-hardcover
and replacing it with cement.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that is why it
is important to recognize the innovative non
hardcover within the resolution to be filed against
the chain of title of the property. We are also
looking at lakeshore setbacks, hardcover and a
separation setback.
Chairman Kelley clarified t^the greenhouse and
the pool will be 5'4" apart -or a length of 16'.
He noted the 10 foot separation is required to
allow emergency vehicles access.
Kopischke stated that this area is very difficult
to access anyway, and this is such a small area.
Even if you cannot get vehicles there, the human
body can certainly funtion around the pool.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed the City
Engineer's report; he certainly wouldn't appro^’e
drainage going towards the lake, and would not ad
dress the hardcover issue at this stage without
adequate monitoring. Cook would prefer drainage to
qo towards the east or the north, but not towards
the lake.
Taylor noted that even if the material is accept
able as non-hardcover, the slope of the drainage
might determine whether or not it was adequate.
Kopischke explained that what is trying to be done
is to set up an underground system such that the
water is going to move through the decking and down
through the gravel and underneath the gravel will
be a technical fabric which will allow water to
move through. We anticipate that the grade will be
relatively flat such that it will allow the water
to move down as much as possible. The pipe was not
intended to take all the water out - but merely to
keep bottom dry.
Chairman Kelley moved, Goetten seconded to recom
mend denial a setback, hardcover and accessory
structure variance for Stanley Gregory, 1410 Shore
line Drive finding that the ordinance permits 75'
setback and the proposal is 53', the hardcover in
the 0-75' should be 0? and also finding that;
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 6
#927 STANLEY GREGORY
#876 RANDY ASPLUND
3444 EASTLAKE STREET
VARIANCES
SECOND REVIEW
1. The material discussed is not considered non
hardcover .
2. Early planning decision made by applicant or
authorized agents of applicant created the need for
the variance.
Kopischke noted that the architect has worked with
this property; a very unique piece of property with
a very limited area because of the sloping and
vegetation. The pool had been located, as noted,
in the septic area, what was finally approved as
the primary septic field, and this has created a
hardship in that another area had to be found.
Motion, Ayes (3), Nayes (1) McDonald voted nay
because of the following;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The topography of the property
The removal of trees
The septic system location
The pool is a reasonable use
Does not consider the pool hardcover
Randy Asplund, the applicant, was not present. Mr.
& Mrs. Monge, the owners of the property, were
present.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the
application. Council recommended the patio to be
removed by the end of July and referred the item
back to the Planning Commission to look at separate
locations or to look at a special type of "floating
deck". A floating deck is a structure built of
2x4's sitting upright with spacing, sets on the
ground and is mobile. It is not anchored to the
ground but is probably too heavy to be portable.
One of the options of staff is to consider a deck
attached to the house that is treated with certain
spacing and certain base materials that would be of
less of an encroachment. We now have the hardcover
numbers - 75-250' just the area within the lot line
38.5%; if credit is to be given for Out-lot B it
reduces the percent to 28.6%. Outlot B holds the
septic system drainfield and serves as the access
roadway for the three properties.
Taylor noted that the slope from the house to the
lake is very shallow.
:
'I
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 7
*876 RANDY ASPLUND Monge noted that when it does rain, the water
actually pools in the front yard.
Goetten reminded the Commission that the reason
Council approved Asplund's project in the first
place was because they wanted to get rid of the
marina in a residential area.
The Monges stated that they are willing to make
compromises. They are concerned about the de
valuation of a property which was very costly.
Asplund valued the concrete and boards at $2500.
They would remove all of the existing cement and
possibly have the same size patio as a floating
deck .
Chairman Kelley stated that he doesn't believe the
floating deck should be viewed as a portable
structure. Once it is put down, it will become
permanent. We should view this as hardcover, but
give the owners a variance for hardcover because
the structure was put in illegally by the builder.
Maybe the builder should be fined and not penalize
the owners.
Taylor moved, McDonald seconded to recommend
approval of the after-the-fact hardcover variance
for Randy Asplund, 3444 Eastlake Street subject to
the following conditions:
1. Retain patio and walk to house.
2. Walkway from patio to shore be removed.
Goetten moved, McDonald seconded to add the
following to the motion:
1. The expense of removing the sidewalk be paid by
the builder.
Chairman Kelley recommended that a fine to the
builder should be reviewed by the Council and pos
sible be increased.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nayes (0).
§906 SHIRLEY MCWILLIAMS
1120 t 1130 WILLOW DRIVE
SUBDIVISION
SECOND REVIEW LaDean McWilliams was present,
was currently out of town.
Shirley McWilliams
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 8
#906 SHIRLEY MCWILLIAMS Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this
application involves a lot line rearrangement.
It was tabled pending the Crystal Bay Sewer
Project. The new line is 29' from the old line.
There is a 16' wide utility easement.
#929 LYLE E. RAHN
1146 HILOHURST TRAIL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SECOND REVIEW
#934 ROBERT TSCHIDA
1300 POX STREET
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
9:21 - 9;24 PM
L
McWilliams sited that the driveway will not be
shared.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated for this review
City is asked to grant a permanent variance for
< ^thv•r a detached or attached garage. The City has
p^aceu additional limitations on this property with
the creation of a utility easement along the
’"ealized shared lot line.
Chairman Kelley concurred that one option is to
build a detached garage to cut down on required
setbacks or add an attached garage with a 25' side
setback variance, which wij1 be taken care of right
now.
Chairman Kelley moved, McDonald seconded to table
application #906 Shirley McWilliams, 1120 Willow
Drive for a subdivision so applicant ran discuss
with City staff the issues.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
Lyle Rahn was not present. He had requested to
have his application tabled at this meeting.
McDonald moved, Taylor seconded to table the
application for a conditional use permit for #929
Lyle E. Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail.
Katherine Tschida was 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 explained
that the Tschidas were proposing to enclose a small
entryway, approximately 4'x9.8'.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 9
1934 ROBERT TSCHIDA Goetten stated that the Tschidas are neighbors and!
she finds no problems with this proposal.
McDonald mov^d, Goetten seconded to recommend ap
proval for a variance to enclose a small entryway
for Robert Tschida, 1309 Fox Street based on the
following findings:
r-'
■m :■ J,’ •
1. The entryway enclosure will create a more
energy-efficient home.
2. The entryway enclosure will likely not affect
any neighbor's views, etc.
3. Neither Fox Street or Hanlon Avenue are deve
loped roads at this location, and the applicant has
maintained the Fox Street right-of-way as yard area
for a number of years, hence the proposed entryway
gives the appearance of being setback nearly 60'
from the edge of the yard.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nayes (0).
#935 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB
200 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING
9:25 - 9:35 PM Jim Lindblad, Grounds Superintendent, was 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 explained
this application is regarding the pond that was
constructed last winter. It was suggested to the
applicant to bring in an overall landscape plan for
a short review and for overall approval ot small
projects. The pond constructed is approximately
25x75' and approximately 5 feet deep. The bank
slopes are about 3:1 to 4:1.
Lindblad noted that when they dug the pond on
Highway 12 four years ago, they were brought before
the Planning Commission at that time and were told
that they had a grandfather clause that exists from
the day of construction back in 1956. A permit
would not be required each time some dirt was
moved.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15» 1985. PAGE 10
#935 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that
the Planning Commission in 1981 recommended that
this be handled on a staff basis.
Lindblad stated that the City now has record of the
Country Clubs long range plan, so if they apply on
a regular basis that should satisfy everyone
involved.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that
the City Engineer has not reviewed this pirn and
any recommendation for approval should be based on
his approval. This is the final pond on this
overall plan. The other items on the plan are
extending of tees, changing of sand traps, tree
planting and some berms going in.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that they must
come in and got a land alteration permit - thus we
would be able to monitor the projects.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron clarified
that the applicant would come in once a year and be
given an overall permit for that years projects -
then they wouldn't have to come in for each small
project.
Chairman Kelley questioned whether the ponds were
designated wetlands and whether the ponds were
chemically treated.
Lindblad explained that the ponds are not being
treated because they dump into Lake Minnetonka.
They are decorative ponds.
Goetten moved, Taylor seconded to recommend
approval for the conditional use permit for the
Wayzata Country Club subject to the following
conditions;
1. To construct a pond adjacent to the 5th
fairway.
2. To grant approval for future projects on a
yearly basis.
3. To notify staff at the beginning of 1986 and
each year thereafter, of pending projects and if
staff deems it so necessary, applicant must go
before the Planning Commission for review.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nayes (0).
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 11
#936 I.AWRBNCE GARDNER
1085 TONAKWA ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING
9:36 - 9:50 PM Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Gardner were 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
that the applicant is requesting a conditional use
permit to do some grading within the 0-75' setback
to remove a foundation from an old cabin (the cabin
had been removed prior to this application).
Essentially they would be turning the property back
into the original contours. Glenn Cook, City
Engineer has reviewed this grading plan and fore
sees no problems with it as shown. Also, the
applicant is requesting approval of removal of
certain trees, anything that is 6" or larger are
noted on the plan.
Gardner stated that basically the trees he wishes
to remove are a group of cottonwood trees and a
couple of trees that are presently hanging right in
the water. Also, on the other side of the plan
there is a rather large cottonwood that they would
like to take down because it appears to be dying.
The total amounts of trees to be removed would be
seven. He stated that they had been informed that
these trees are dying and it would be better to
replace them at this point rather than later.
Chairman Kelley cited that his concern is the re
moval of the ones hanging over the water because
they aren’t that dangerous, however the ones that
are dying should be removed. The ones that are
vertical over the water may be removed.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained
that if some of the trees are allowed to remain,
they may cause more problems. The entire pro
perty, obviously needs to be rip-rapped at some
point in th future, that is why the trees are
tilting. The rip-rapping will not help those trees
at all. The large cottonwood and the oaks should
be analyized by an expert to find out if they are
dying.
Taylor questioned the Gardners as to whether they
would be taking out the root system.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 12
#936 LAWRENCE GARDNER Gardner noted that some of the trees may have the
root system removed but most will remain.
1937 WPvARTON SINKLER
2195 FRENCH LAKE ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
9:50 - 9:58 PM
Chairman Kelley moved, Taylor seconded to recommend
approval for a conditional use permit for Lawrence
Gardner of 1085 Tonkawa Road to regrade within the
75' setback lakeshore yard to conform to the
original contours and removal of various trees in
the lakeshore yard (4 trees) with the stipulation
that 4 new trees be planted on the property in th*=*
0~75' setback zone and this is conditioned upon the
applicant rip-rapping the lakeshore.
Chairman Kelley asked the applicants if they under
stood the hardcover stipulations within the 0-75'
zone and within the 75—250' zone. The applicants
indicated they understood fully the ordinances.
Chairman Kelley moved, Taylor seconded to add one
condition to the previous motion: the City to be
notified the day of grading and the sodding must
occur within seven days (hay bales to remain until
the codding is completed) of that notification.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
Wharton Sinkler was present. Randy Rosengren, the
builder, was also present. Zoning Administrator
Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the
affidavit of publication. There was no one present
from the public for this application.
Sinkler presented the Planning Commission pictures
of the goats.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she has
received a written comment from Jim Johnston (the
developer of the property in ques*-;on) stating that
he has no objections to Mr. Sinklt ‘j plans.
Sinkler noted that the goats start out at about 25
lbs. and full grown are about 150 lbs.
Chairman Kelley noted that per ordinance 10.02 - 3
goats are one animal unit. Per Section 10.20,
Subdivision 3(K) 2 acres are required per 1 ar.imal
unit. The subject property is in the 2 acre zone
and therefore up to three goats are acceptable.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 13
#937 WHARTON SINKLER The lot is 152 feet at the widest point. A barn
could never be constructed to meet the 150'
setback.
h
#938 ROBERT NASH
1020 TOWNLINE ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HPJUlING
9:58 - 10:00 PM
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated the barn would
be 62' from the road or 128' to the other property
line on the other side of the right-of-way of
Willow Drive. No complaints from the neighbors
have been received.
Sinkler noted that the only property owner that
boarders the subject property is Jim Spencer, who
had been at the meeting earlier but couldn't stay,
has very favorable comments about the project.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that there is
another section of the code that discusses that
animal barns would have to be 150' from any
adjacent residence. This application certainly
satisfies that standard.
Rosegren explained that the only two boundaries
that the structure would encroach upon would be the
road and the wildlife area.
Sinkler stated that they wil 1 not be requesting any
more goats than the a 1 lowed 3 goats and they had no
intentions to add on to their house.
McDonald moved, Goetten seconded to recommend
approval of the 88' or 22' variance setback for the
proposed 12'xl6' animal shelter for Wharton Sinkler
and Margherita Gail Harris to house their two pet
goats based on the the hardship of the narrow lot
width at a maximum width of 152 feet.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
Robert E. Nash was present. Assistant Zoning
Administrator Gr.ffron 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
that Mr. Nash has a 5.8 acre lot of which 5.5 acres
is buildable in a 5 acre zoning district. Nash is
proposing to build a pole barn near his north lot
line.
*«W«#»Hitv
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 14
#938 ROBERT >U^SH Nash stated that the house to the north is probably
400' from the proposed structure.
Taylor asked if there is an advantage to having the
structure very close to the lot line opposed to
further south.
Nash commented that the back is already pastured
and fenced and from where the detached garage is
from the house, for visibility purposes the pro
posed site is the best location. If it were moved
further to the south, it would be screened from the
garage.
Chairman Kelley noted that the basic hardship is
the lot width.
Assistant Zoning Administrator noted that the
structure should be at least 10' from the lot line.
Gaffron requested a written statement from the
neighbor stated they have no objection to the
proposed location, prior to the Council meeting.
Goetten moved, Taylor seconded to recommend
approval of a side setback variance to construct a
pole barn for storage and for use as a stable for
horses for Robert Nash with the following
findings:
1. This property and that to the immediate north
are 5-acre lots in th 5-acre zone and are not
subdividable under current zoning regulations.
2. Both this property and that to the north have
established residences and both are currently main
taining a limited number of horses, which is an
established use for the properties.
3. The properties to the east and south are
developed and the proposed barn will be located
more than 150' from these lot lines.
4. The proposed barn will be located 400 feet or
more from the residence to the north.
5. Applicant has a hardship in that the property
width is only 223', hence a 150' setback from both
side lot lines is impossible.
And subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant to submit from adjacent neighbor
written approval for proposed site.
NINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COmiSSION MEETING H8LD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 15
•938 ROBERT NASH
#940 ANN C. PISRBR
774 TONKAWA ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
10:04 - 10:15 PM
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
Ann C. Fisher was present. Assistant Zoning
Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of
mailing and affidavit of publication. There was no
one present from the public for this application.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained
that the applicant is requesting a variance to the
average lakeshore setback in order to construct a
deck and screen porch on the lakeside of the
existing house. There is a steep bank from
approximately the 75* line to the shoreline. There
is some screening between houses to the south, and
a small amount between subject property and the
house to the north. The request is to exceed the
average house setback by approximately 15' with the
deck and screen porch. No neighbors have commented
on the project. There is no hardcover problem on
this property.
Fisher stated that Gabriel Jabbour (neighbor) had
talked to Zoning Administrator Mabusth and said
everything looked fine. Lajoys also had no
problems with the proposal. The hardships include
the fact the lot is so narrow and the hill is very
steep.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that
the existing houses on either side are set back
more that 75'.
Goetten moved, Taylor seconded to recommend
approval of the average lakeshore setback and side
yard setback variances for Ann C. Fisher finding
that:
1. The hardships to the property are locations of
the neighboring residences, and the angle of the
lakeshore in relation to the lot.
2. The neighbors lakeshore views will not be
affected due to topography and existing natural
screening .
3. The increase in hardcover is within the limits
prescribed in the zoning code.
I
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 16
1940 ANN FISHER 4. The proposed addition will retain a 95* setback
from the lake.
5. The side setback encroachment of the new addi
tion is less severe than the encroachment of the
existing house.
And subject to the following condition;
1. The applicant is put on notice that the present
hardcover is 23% and any future plans may have
limitations put on them within the 0-75* zone.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained
that in most cases where the building exter.tion
actually creeps farther away from the lot line,
staff handled the application and if all other
points were in order the building was permitted
without a variance. Technically speaking, there
may be some merit to bringing an application such
as that in for a variance, an issue the Council
will have to address. At this point, when you are
8* instead of 10* from the side lot line, should
there be a side setback variance requested? In the
past the policy has been to allow such an extention
on an existing house even if the extention en
croaches the setbacks.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that it improves
a substandard setback.
Fisher noted that an addition to the house is also
being planned. The plans have been turned into the
building office 1. Could the footings be allowed to
go in for the deck before the application goes to
Council, for economical reasons?
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that
this application could go the July 22nd Council
meeting which would speed up the process.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
#941 PAUL R. NUTT
2739 SHADYffOOD ROAD
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING *, • ^ _10:15 - 10;30 PM Paul R. Nutt was not present. Zoning Administrator
Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and
atfidavit of publication. The following from the
public were present:
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 17
#941 PAUL R. NUTT Mr. Thimmesh of 3430 Florida Avenue No.
Mr. Fleischhacker of 2775 Shadywood Road
Mr. Ogle of 2771 Shadywood Road
Mr. Eddows had been present but had to leave the
meeting early.
Ogle expressed that at the last Marina Committee
meeting the involved parties were informed they had
to file a variance b< fore the deadline date for the
Juiy Planning Commission meeting. The lack of
respect displayed by the non-resident owners is
disgusting. They are building docks without per
mits, cutting power across property lines, and the
parking on County Road 19 is a big problem. The
City should serve notice on those non-resident
owners should they not make the deadline date for
the August Planning Commission meeting and shut
down their docks until they comply with the or
dinances.
Goetten questioned why they were able to subdivide
these lots, after the Marina Committee had resolved
the issue.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth revealed that there
was never an agreement executed. Mr. Johnson never
abidded by anything he agreed to before the Marina
Committe when he asked the Chairman if he could get
a building permit issued for the boat.
Chairman Kelley mo'ved, Taylor seconded to table the
applicat.-v.ri for a variance and conditional use
permit for Paul R. Nutt because the applicant was
not r'rr: \‘
Chairman Kelley recommended to Council to set up
immediate action to be taken by staff if the non
resident owners do not file for a variance before
the August Planning Commission deadline date.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
#942 ARTHUR PINKBLSTEIN
1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
10:30 - 10:40 PM Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Finkelstein were present.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the
certificate- of mailing and the affidavit of
publication. No one was present from the public
for this application.
i
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 18
#942 ARTHUR PINKELSTEIN Assistant Zoning Administrator stressed that a
survey must be submitted before the application
goes to the Council meeting. Gaffron reported that
the applicants are rquesting a hardcover variance
to construct a garage addition in the 75-250' zone.
Existing hardcover in this zone is 34.5% including
gravel and paved portions of the driveway. The
garage addition will be in front of the existing
garage, covering mostly area that is already hard-
covered. A number of rock beds underlain by
plastic have been removed by the applicants since
they bought the property in June, 1984. They also
plan to remove portions of the existing graveled
area south of the garage as well as portions of
sidewalk, for a net reduction in 75-250' hardcover
of 86 square feet, reducing the percentage to
33.7%.
Chairman Kelley cited that the original hardcover
is 34.5%, there should be no additional hardcover
and this can be done by moving things around.
Goetten remarked that the applicant be put on
notice that the boat house is a non-conforming
structure in the 0-75' setback.
Assistant Zoning Adminstrator Gaffron explained
that the boat house is grandfathered with the
following conditions:
1. The boat house cannot be changed or upgraded.
2. Minimum maintenance can be done.
3. If it falls into disrepair, to a point that it
is hazardous, it may be ordered to be removed.
Chairman Kelley moved, Goetten seconded to approve
the hardcover variance to construct a garage
addition in the 75-250' zone from 25% to 34.5%
which is the existing hardcover percent for Arthur
Finkolstein. The applicants are to work with staff
to rearrange the hardcover on the property to
either reduce hardcover or remain at the 34.5%.
The applicants are placed on notice that no
additional hardcover within the 0-75' zone and no
additional hardcover within the 75-250' zone above
the 34.5%.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
-» . ^
,94l'^a^°l COHMISSION HEETINC HE14> aOL* 15, 1985. PAGE 1,
1975 PAGBRIIBSS POINT ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
10.40 11:05 PM Susan and John Purdy were 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 presented
the application to the Commission. The applicants
are requesting a hardcover variance in order to
construct an addition to their home. The survey
shows an addition that is on the road-side of the
house 10x24' and a deck and hot tub that is
proposed to be constructed this summer. Their
plans include adding to the garage, and
adding to the south of the house. Looking at the
hardcover from the traditional standpoint
0-75 existing is 1921 s.f. with no proposed
changes. in the 75-250' existing is 1499 s.f. with
the first proposal added would be 1776 s.f. and the
^ would bring it to 2640 s.f. which
IS 29.8%. The reason why this application was
brought as a variance is the Council has stated
that If the property is over the total allowed
amount of hardcover it must be reviewed as a
variance.
The Purdy's stated that they have submitted a
^airman Kelley announced that this Commission must
treat everything as hardcover until Council so
deems it not.
Johnsons. Some of the Johnson's hardcover falls on
that doesn't have to be added in
the hardcover percentage - which only avoids the
Johnson issue.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the
Commission that the Mortensons were allowed 1.66
imes the maximum allowed hardcover for their
entire property.
very similar in topoghraphy.
’MW:r«
MIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 20
§943 JOHN t SUSAN PURDY
‘F ’
, !
Mrs. Purdy explained that the Mortenson's deck was
not included within the hardcover calculations for
the Mortenson property and it was for the Purdy
property.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that
the difference between what the Purdys propose to
do and the 1.66 x is within a few square feet. The
items suggested in the memo to be removed would
bring the total to 3690 s.f. which is within 20
s.f. of 3673 s.f which is the 1.66 x's equivelant.
The whole proposed 5 year plan should be addressed
so the Purdys can determine whether they want to
stay on the property.
Chairman Kelley advised staff to review the
Mortenson's property and take the multiplier and
use it with this application.
McDonald stated that this would be starting a
precedent and should be avoided. Just set an
amount not to be exceeded.
Goetten moved, Taylor seconded to recommend
approval of the hardcover variance for John and
Susan Purdy for their 5-year proposal based on
considerations as stated below:
1. Remove kennel hardcover 213 square feet
2. Remove trampoline area hardcover 360 squre feet
3. Remove plastic from 10x16 deck 160 square feet
4. Remove plastic from NW and NE house rock edging
165 square feet
5. Allow 10x24 addition plus 12x13 hot tub deck
6. Allow future 16x42.5' SW addition
7. Allow future 12x24.1' garage addition -
consider a rebuild to bring it within property
boundaries
8. No new plastic underlined rock beds allowed
along future or pending addition
9. Applicant must work with staff so the
applicants do not exceed 3700 s.f. overall of
hardcover.
ir
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 21
«943 JOHN & SUSAN PURDY
#944 JAMES LEAR
3127 CASCO CIRCLE
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
11:05 - 11:20 PM
Chairman Kelley reported that some additional
building is being allowed within the 0-75* zone.
The hardship being the lake on both sides of the
property, the configuation of the land and the
steep slopes.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the 1
year expiration date for the variance. Also, this
application will be taken to the July 22nd Council
meeting to speed up the process.
Chairman Kelly declared the expiration date still
is one year. The applicants, after one year, may
come and reapply for the variance.
Goetten stated that the applicants are to be put on
notice that they are at the maximum allowed
hardcover on their property.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
James Lear was present. Robert A. Swanson, the
landscaper, was also present. Zoning Administrator
Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the
affidavit of publication. No one was present from
the public for this application.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to the
applicant that the proposed setback from the road
to the fence is actually 2' from the road right-of-
way, not 15 ’ as the applicant had thought. The
applicant has installed a 6 foot high privacy fence
in the street yard of his lakeshore home. The
fence has been installed with a permanent
foundation and appears to function as an integral
part of the lakescaping for the street yard. The
fence actually creates no hazards - the trees that
were there before wore much more hazardous.
Lear stated that the fence was basically put there
for landscaping reasons. The fence is only 40*
wide instead of 48* wide. It covers less than half
of the frontage of the property.
Chairman Kelley stated that he found it very diffi
cult to leave the fence in the present location
because of the height of the fence, the neighbor
hood doesn't have a lot of fencing, and how far it
is back from the street. The fence should be in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 22
1944 JIM LEAR
W-I; ^
full compliance with the ordinances.
Lear noted for the record that the park across the
street is deteriorating the neighborhood because it
is so overgrown, the trees are dyirj of dutch elm
disease, and th»'re is garbage lying around. The
fence was placed on this property to enhance the
area. The fence doesn't block anyone's view.
Also, the sprinkler system pipes are under the
fence and would be quite costly to replace else
where.
Goetten moved, McDonald seconded to recommend
approval for the height and setback variance
application for a 6'x40' privacy fence located 2
feet from street right-of-way for James Lear based
on the following findings:
1. The current landscape project has already
removed the tres and shrubs that created viewing
and possible hazards to public safety.
2. The street yard fence is an integral part of
landscaping plan.
3. The fence or accessory structure location
appears to be consistent with setbacks of existing
accessory structures along Casco Point Road and
Casco Circle.
4. The fence does not block anyone's view.
Condition of the approval :
No further construction of any wood structure is to
be put up along the right-of-way.
Motion, Ayes (25, Nay (2). Kelley and Taylor voted
nay.
Chairman Kelley noted that he feels there are not
enough hardships for the application to receive an
approval for the variance.
Taylor agreed with Kelley's findings.
Lear explained the they have a security system from
Honeywell. Honeywell had advised the Lears that
the fence gives the illusion of more protection for
the property. Another point is Casco Circle is a
dangeroris road for children, and the fence helps to
keep them off the street.n
I
LlLii
1
i
MINtlTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 23
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Goetten moved, Taylor seconded, to approve the
Planning Commission minutes of June 17, 1985.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND
COUNCIL MEETINGS Taylor volunteered to attend the Council meeting
of July 22, 1985. Goetten voJunteered to attend
the Council meeting of August 12, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT 11;27 PM Goetten moved, McDonald seconded, to adjourn the
regular Planning Commission meeting at 11:27 p.ra.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).