Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-1983 Planning Minutesf^- 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, JULY 18, 1983 Council Representative - Mayor Mary Butler Call To Order Public Hearings 1.7:30 PM #752 Michael Noel, 3125 Preliminary Subdivision 2.7:45 PM #754 Daryle L. Uphoff, Preliminary Subdivision 3.8:00 PM #755 Robert Dumas, 405 Preliminary Subdivision 4.8:15 PM #759 Leonard Mac Kinnon Preliminary Subdivision Action Items 1 5.#695 Guenther Roth, 1428 Baldur Variance 6.#750 Maurice Wagener & Charles r- *"' 'V.j;i 3400 Watertown Road ^ .■•v ■ )■ ■■ -;=4. •V . 7. #757 Charles Street Vacation 8. #760 Kent J. Norman, 538 Russell Avenue Variance William Ulrich, 1535 Bohns Point Road Conditional Use Permit i ^•■7' 9. #761 Douglas Smith, 3237 Casco Circle Variance 10. #762 Thomas Corson, 4195 Highwood Road Variance 11. #763 Milton Seifert, 1856 Shadywood Road Variance 12. Planning Commission to select delegate for Council meeting of August 8, 1983. Work Session 13. #764 Calvary Memorial Church, 2420 Dunwoody Avenue Variance & Conditional Use Permit 14. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 1983. ...iliiifc._JMT.- 1^: i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983. ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Acting Chairman Go(5tten, McDonald, Sime, Callahan, and Adams arrived at 7:33 PM. Planning Commission members Kelley and Rovegno were absent. Mayor Butler was present. Jeanne Mabusth represented the City staff. #752 MICHAEL NOEL 3125 CASCO CIRCLE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:35 PM Michael Noel was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. No one was present from the audience for this application. Mabusth reviewed the proposal with the Planning Commission. She noted the hardcover calculations that only considered the existing tennis court as the existing driveway will be removed. Sime moved to recommend preliminary approval of the two lot residential plat of Michael Nowl finding all standards of the LR-IC zoning district have been satisfied and that there is adequate sewer and water capacity within the existing municipal systems to serve the new residential unit. Approval is subject to the following: Newly created lot is additional hardcover. allowed 4,165 sf of 20* sewer easement to be designated as a utility easement on the plat and dedicated to the City. Future owner of newly created lot must make all repairs to tennis court located within defined utility easement if City must make repairs to existing lines. 4. Payment of $400.00 park fee for newly created lot. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). #754 DARYLE UPHOFF 2497 KELLY AVENUE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 8:00 PM 4 Daryle Uphoff was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. No one was present from the audience for this application. w 5.^3 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JULY 18, 1983.Page 2 .1 © UPHOFF (CONT) ,: ■:. . 'II' '■;''i;.;-V/ S-.V- •' : •• w':-k-v; I.- V :.. V" .•- .:'..•V , ;• •■ ’i. I #755 ROBERT DUMAS 405 OLD CRYSTAL BAY NO. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 - 8:12 PM Mabusth noted that this application was a renewal of the same plan approved by Council in 1981 which is a subdivision with PRD credit creating four condo units and 1 open space lot. Mabusth noted that a payment of $93L‘ .0P/ would have to be paid for the outstanding sewer and water charges. Callahan moved to recommend preliminary approval of Daryle Uphoff's PRD subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. PRD subdivision, 4 residential lots and 1 open space lot per August 15, 1980, survey. 2. Acces to 4 residences to remain on existing driveway with no new curb cut to Kelly Avenue. 3.Existing jo5nt use docks to remain where located and to continue as licensed joint use docks serving 4 residential lots of proposed plat and Lot 3, Navarre Cove. No dock will be permitted on Outlot A of proposed plat. 4. A single family residence may never be constructed on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). abstention. McDonald abstained. Robert Dumas was present along with his realtor, Jeff Martineau. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. No one was present in the audience for this application. Mabusth noted that Dumas is dividing off a two acre parcel so that he can sell his existing house. She noted that Dumas achieves access via a 33' wide pr ivate driveway easement that goes through two independent properties. i’y Dumas plans to combine the remaining 16 acre lot with his contiguous 40 acre property to the north and west. Mabusth advised the applicant that the existing house will have to have additional septic testing. 1 soil boring and 2 perc tests would be sufficient. She noted that the wetlands should be designated on the plat. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18r 1983.Page 3 Q DUMAS (CONT.) ■ •■' . iy' F O 5-' tn-‘.’ #759 LEONARD MACKINNON 3400 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING S:15 - 8:20 PM Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they wished to address the future access issue at this point? She noted that the 33* wide private driveway that exists now would not be large enough to satisfy a residential plat. Goetten stated that she didn't feel that the Planning Commission was in any position to state exactly where the future access should be right now. Callahan moved to recommend approval of the subdivision application of Robert Dumas for a residential development subject to the following conditions: 1. To recommend consideration of access to east be delayed until property to the east is platted. Access to Lot 1 shall remain via the existing driveway easement. Wetlands to be designated on the plat. Pavfn.rnt of a $200.00 park fee for Lot 1. Applicant to have property septic testing as noted by staff. Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0) . •4^ Leonard MacKinnon was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present in the audience for this application. Mabusth noted that the septic test data revealed the lot capable of sustaining a principal and alternate septic system. She noted that the plat should designate the wetlands. Mabusth noted that the wetlands and the drainageway would be designated as drainage easements. Callahan stated that the applicant may have future problems with the drainage area. Sime moved to recommend approval of the subdivision application of Leonard MacKinnon finding all standards of the RR-IB zoning district and Orono On- Site Sewage Disposal Code have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions: it--.;.:-: i£iii MIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COHMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983. page 4 MACKINNON (CONT) Pi #695 GUENTHER ROTH- - - - - - J 1428 BALDUR PARK RD VARIANCE p :.pv';p;p.’= 'p :• ■ '• . •;,s : • .• • !•■• .: ,;■ ■•:•■.'." •• • ■ • • ; :- P^ " $'. ••■ '■; ■ {■■.■■.■=■■ •• = .:P. ■• P.-- ■‘■V\ t . •■■^^ . '4 ■•^••4 ■•• -. ■ > . -V; p.--;: •::■; " • P -PPv P-. -P Drsinagewsy and wetlands to ba designated within the outlot. Plowage and Conservation Easement over both areas. 2. Dedication of 33’ of right of way for Watertown Road. New curb cut to serve residence off Watertown Road must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Coordinator, John Gerhardson. 4, Payment of park fee of $200.00 for residential lot. 5.Applicant be placed on notice of the possibility of problems for a future subdivision of property caused by drainageway and the two acre minimum lot requirement in the area was brought to the attention of the applicant. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0) Curtis Fisk, the contractor, represented Mr. Roth. Mabusth noted the original application that was tabled by the Planning Commission. She noted that the Planning Commission gave the applicant specific guidelines from their meeting of July 19, 1982, which the applicant has followed precisely. She noted that this application was for a two stall garage, single story, and 10' off the street right of way. Goetten asked about the area in front of the house if it was still gravel. Sime noted that tb*i garage could be moved 5 7' back which would help the hazard of backing out onto Baldur Park. Mabusth noted that would be possible but that it would bring the garage closer to the wetlands. She noted the direction of the Plenning Coitunission in 1982 to the applicant at that point it was to stay away from the wetlands and to keep everything close to the road. Callahan noted that all the other garages in the neighborhood were on the main structure side. He noted the traffic pattern caused by those garages would be approximately the same but when you have a garage across the street from the main structure then it may pose a hazardous problem. He noted that Baldur Park is already a hazardous road. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JULY 18, 1983.Page 5 Mabusth noted that there already was an existing garage there. Goetten noted that her direction at that time in 1982 was to keep the garage on the house side of the street. McDonald noted that the wetlands are very fragile to build by and asked Mr. Fisk if Mr. Roth would consider putting the the garage on the house side. Mr . Fisk noted that Mr . Roth wanted it on the other side and that there probably wasn't enough room on the house side of the street. Goetten noted that Mr. Roth was going by the direction of the majority opinion of the Planning Commission but it was not one she shared in. She noted that she still has the same concern that she did in 1982. McDonald would like to ask Mr. Roth if he would put it on the house side. Callahan asked if they moved the garage on the main structure side, would they need a variance? Mabusth stated that they would because of the 30* setback requirement. Callahan asked if the hardcover situation would be better if the hardcover in question is over where the house is and if it is closer to the wetlands as it now is. Mabusth stated that it probably would be. Sime noted that there is an existing structure there now approximately the size proposed now, and it would seem that they have not changes anything that is existing by approving his request in this location, that he is just replacing one garage with another and that it would remove an eyesore. Mabusth noted that the proposed garage is a little larger than the existing one. Adams stated that since the applicant has complied with the original recommendation of the Planning Commission and that they should approve it, but to allow a little more flexibility by maybe moving the garage a few feet back. But that he would also invite the applicant to consider building a garage on the house side. He stated that this way the Planning Commission would be giving the applicant the flexibility to go ahead and do what the Planning Commission stated at an earlier time. ROTH (CONT) mmm MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983. page 6 • ->r- ■;■ . •■: .. ::•<•• =' Z V ■■■ a. ;•/ • ■ •••: ::.• .•'v'. i Mabusth noted that what Adams suggested was a good idea. That the Planning Commission make a motion offering all of these alternative actions to the applicant, so that Mr • Roth has a choice, and then the Planning Commission would not have to table the application. McDonald asked Mr. Fisk how extensive the hobby shop was, if the garage was going to be heated, and if the garage would have plumbing? Mr. Fisk stated that there would be no heat and no plumbing and no room for a hobby shop. Adams moved to approve the lakeshore and street setback variances and a hardcover increase of 148 sf setback areas of Lots 8, 17 and 18 based on the following findings and hardships: 1. No additional land available. 2. Depth of dry area within lots* 17 and 18 is minimi. 3. Setback of proposed garage 10'-20', giving the owner the option of building right on the road as proposed or setting garage back. This approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner must obtain a demolition permit for removal of existing garage and must remove garage. 2. All roof drainage to be directed away from lake towards Baldur Park Road. 3. Building Official will determine if soil borings are necessary for a floating slab. 4. Owner is placed on notice that the City will not approve future improvements to this property if they require variances. 5. Owner is offered the option of destroying the existing garage and building on the same side of the house, (building on either side) 6. If he chooses to set the garage back farther than the other garages in the neighborhood then he hes to take away the gravel on the other side. Sime seconded. Goetten felt it was important that in Adams motion that if the garage was not placed on the house side of the street that the gravel be removed to decrease the hardcover on the house side. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983. Page 7 OROTH (CONT) r- a f^dams stated that he would still support the motion but that it wasn't his desire to add that. Adams noted his two concerns about it; 1 - He doesn't want to make things any more difficult for the applicant. 2 - He recalled that the Planning Commission had discussion before of hardcover in the Baldur Park area and he felt that the consensus was that the sizeable marsh area in back of Mr. Roth' s garage acts as a filtering agent for runoff that does runoff too.fast. He noted that this area was so close to the water table anyway that a large part of the rain that fal’ whether its grass or gravel or asphalt its going to rufioff of there. So its one of the parts of the lake that he personally doesn't have a lo'’ of concern about that. Goetten noted that the Baldur Park area is highly sensitive area and that whatever you can do to cut down on hardcover is important. Adams amended his motion adding condition #6 that a hardcover tradeoff be established using the gravel on the north side of the road. Sime seconded. Adams stated that if the applicant chooses to move the garage towards the marsh, then he would have 5 - 10' of additional driveway, then the gravel has to go. Point #5 to read - offering applicant the possibility of construction on other side of road meeting all the same conditions. Vote: Ayes (2), Nays (3). Motion Failed. McDonald, Callahan, and Goetten majority opinions. McDonald noted that when they have a chance to clean up an area that they should take advantage of that. Secondly it had less impact on Lake Minnetonka and thirdly theres enough area on the lot with the main house to accommodate the garage. No reason to put a garage on the other side of the street without a pertinent structure. Callahan moved to table Roth's application until Mr. Roth can meet with the Planning Commission and also until the Planning Commission members that were members in 1982 to voice their views. Callahan withdrew the motion to table and move to deny it. Callahan moved to table Roth's application until thft next Planning Commission meeting. V. %\I 1 •1 ! ‘ O’ MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JULY 18, 1983.Page 8 it ■.. •" /•• • t- V: r?' k r Mm-lii. jHHk) McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (2), Nays (3)• Motion failed. Goetten moved to approve 2 stall garage, 22' x 24', single story for Guenther Roth, and to approve a street setback variance and a hardcover increase of 148 sf within the 75-250' setback areas with a 10' setback and doors facing the street based on the following findings and hardships: 1. No additional dry contiguous land available. 2. Setback of proposed garage co* *?oC»/*nt with setbacks of existing garages on Baidu. Park Road, This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1, Detached garage to be placed on Lot 8. 2o Owner must obtain a demolition permit for removal of existing garage on Lots 17 and 18. 3. All roof drainage to be directed away from lake towards Baldur Park Road, 4. Building Official will determine if soil borings are necessary for a floating slab. 5. 6. Owner is placed on notice that the City will not approve future improvements to this property if they require variances. Applicant must tear down existing garage prior to issuance of building permit. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). Callahan abstained. #750 WAGENLR t DETTLOPP PETITION FOR CHARLES STREET VACATION Ross Thorflnson was present, Mabusth noted that the City was in receipt of Woodhill's response that completely supports the vacation petition, which was requested by Planning Commission at their June 20, 1983, meeting. Callahan moved to approve the vacation of an unused portion of Charles Street as described in the plat of Orono Orchards and as described in applicants' vacation petition based on the following findings: 1.33' wide right of way does not standards for City road. "’current MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983.Page 9 O WAGENER/DETTLOFF (CONT) 2. #757 KENT NORMAN 538 RUSSELL AVENUE VARIANCE i I flll M ;• Based on the existing pattern of neighborhood development, there is no need for a public road linking Lyman anu Woodhill. 3.the request to vacate is made by all abutting property owners, the Wageners, the Dettloffs and Woodhill Country Club. 4.The surrounding property owners are in support of the petition. 5.Wageners placed on notice that as the owners of contiguous parcels that although the subject lots are not legally combined as one unit, the City considers them as one unit that if a parcel is sold independently, Wagener is advised that the RR-IB zoning district requires 2acresofdry contiguous land for each residential unit. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). m Mrs. Kent Norman was present. She noted the size of the addition was 15' x 15'. McDonald moved to approve the rear 31* setback variance application of Kent Norman to permit the construction of a 15* x 15* addition to the rear of his residence based on the following findings and hardships: 1. Lot is one acre in area and subject to standards for two acre minimum rural lots. 2. The property is sewered. 3.The depth of the lot at the house location is approximately 110', the existing structure could never meet the requited setbacks. The approval is subject to the following condition: 1. Owner/applicant quit claim deed to City portion of Russell Avenue that intersects his property. Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). ; V ■ Hi^^ Ji rViift'- 'ii■ 1 r 2. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983.Page 10 ; e #760 WILLIAM ULRICH 1535 BOHNS POINT RD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A !v. . r ^ v;r ■ /• 7^- ■•' t william Ulrich and contractor, were present. Mr. Ulrich presented pictures of the lagoon area. Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission that the DNR confirmed that Mr. Ulrich’s property is being damaged by muskrats. McDonald noted that when Mr. Ulrich's property is fixed by putting the seawall up that the muskrats would go to the neighboring properties. Mribusth noted that this application was similar to the Switenki's muskrat problem in 1980. Goetten noted that by installing the seawall that th^y would be disturbing the area. She asked what type of machines would be used. Shawn, contractor, stated that a jackhammer would be used. He noted the section would be 9" wide and the thickness would be 8" aluminum. Shawn presented an example of the seawall structure that is proposed. Applicant's contractor stated that the wall would be constructed 20" above the water line. He noted that crushed rock would be installed behind the wall so that the water on the back side from the soil will filter out through the crushed rock and out through the little holes in the wall. He noted that the hardcoat on the outside and stated that the algae will not stick to it. He stated that he has this type of seawall already installed in the City of Orono right now for muskrat control. He stated that in Pheasant Lawn (Bergess Family) this type of seawall is working beautifully. Also in Walters Port (Hartman residence) has aluminum which is holding up nicely. He noted that the DNR does approve these types of seawall installations and that the DNR does not like to try to trap the muskrats. He noted that these seawalls are installed in the bay marshy areas not right along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. McDonald asked him where the muskrats would go when they take their home away from them. Appl icant' s contractor stated that the muskrats would preferrably pick a marshy area for their new home. Goetten noted t! it the City Engineer should have some imput on this type of application and also that the neighbors should have some imput. She stated the she would like to hear some of the DNR's "other alternatives" to this muskrat problem. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983 Page il Q ULRICH (CONT) ■;.;:V-. .^-5:: - ” =5e( '- > ' #761 DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE ■' . . . . . . . . . . . .mm..T- » hm - V., © Mabusth stated that she had never been made aware of any other alternatives to muskrat problems from the DNR. She noted that this seawall method was an acceptable method to the DNR. Callahan noted that the Council minutes of July 28, 1980 reflect that there are no other methods for the muskrat problem. Goetten moved to table William Ulrich's application pending receipt of input from the City Engineer, the DNR's "other methods", and the neighbors. Goetten would like to inspect the other sites in Orono that have seawalls to see if the seawall solved the problem. Also for staff to check out the drainaqeway. McDonald seconded. Vote; Ayes (4), Nays (1). Adams minority opinion - Adams noted that he felt that the problem Mr. Ulrich has with the muskrats is very urgent. He noted that Mr. Ulrich has a very well thought out plan eliminating the safety problem he has on his property and to table the application may be creating a safety hazard. Anyone can step into one of the muskrat holes and break a leg or a small child could fall into one of those and drown. Mr. Ulrich stated that he did fill in the holes caused by the muskrats. Mabusth noted that when she took the application in it appeared to be a simple lot of separate record and it did not meet 80% of the standards. IVhile doing the review she found a problem of common ownership. Two neighbors were present for this application. Jane Remien and Pat Spilseth. The builder was present for Douglas Smith. Sime asked if there wasn't a common ownership problem would staff have any other problems with this application. Mabusth stated that if this was a lot of separate record, staff would still have a problem with this application. Goetten asked the neighbors if they had any comments. !j|^j Pat Spilseth stated that she would be opposed to this variance application because their lots are so close together and the noise level could be bad. Jane Remien stated that she too would be opposed to the variance application because cf the lots being so close together. She stated if the lot isn't right size how can you justify building on it?J ■ ^ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18r 1983 Page 12 SMITH (CONT) #762 THOMAS CORSON 4195 HIGHffOOD ROAD VARIANCE ^ ' V ’ K7.7:77 7 ft;-s - - - . ••••• ■» MM'.: Mm • ,y.- 7-.7 ^ The agent for the applicant was advised of the common ownership study being conducted currently by the City and that the Planning Commission would have to recommend tabling Smith's application until that study was completed. Mabusth advised that Smith should be given the opportunity to address the issue with staff and Planning Commission. • Sime moved to table Douglas Smith's variance application pending resolution of common ownership guestion and ask that the applicant please attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Mr. and Mrs. Corson were present. Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission Mr. Corson's request of a setback variance for a detached garage. He wishes to keep the same setback of the existing garage which is 9.6' and to put up a 32' x 24' detached garage in its place. Mabusth noted the applicants hardships as the severe slope and several mature trees. Goetten asked the applicant why he needed such a large garage? Applicant stated that he would like to put a double garage next to a single one used for a hobby shop. His basement is non existent and so its because of that. No plumbing will be installed. Callahan moved to approve the street sr* back variance application of Thomas Corson to permit the construction of a 32' x 24' detached garage based on the following findings and hardships^ 1. Slope of land to the south of the proposed garage. 2. Location of a mature oak i’lnd several small trees. 3. Proposed setback will allow use of existing gravel turnaround and cut down on additional hardcover. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Doors of garage must face away from the street. 2. Turnaround to be maintained on the site - no backing out onto Highwood Road. Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (5/, Nays (0). ' Ml #764 MILTOr SEIFERT 1856 SHADYWv 0 ROAD VARIANCE f ’ - MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983.Page 13 Dr. and Mrs. Milton Seifert were present with attorney, Stewart Perry. Mabusth noted two letters from neighbors which were read for the record and are attached to these minutes. The first letter was from Duane Hall, 1860 Shadywood Road and the second letter was from Durwood Taylor, 1880 Shadywood. Both letters opposing the extension r':'7v’'?sted by Mr. Seifert. ‘;>i/DUSth stated that she had a call from Glen TilletsoA who was also opposed to Mr. Seifert’s request. Mabusth noted that Mr. Seifert was asking for an extension for the removal of the lakeshore cabin to July 1, 1986. Callahan read the agreement signed by the Seifert's in 1980. Stewart Perry, attorney for Mr. Seifert, stated that he and his client were not there for contesting the agreement signed in 1980 but asking for an extension because of a set of circumstances which have come to the Seifert family. The agreement was entered into in good faith. The request that it be extended for 3 years is being made in good faith. Perry stated that he believed that there was an element of coercion in entering into the agreement but they are here today not to contest that but to setforth the history of it so that everyone will be aware why Mr. Seifert signed it but also be aware that when he did sign it he intended to abide by it. Perry noted that his client is in the situation where this is not possible at this time, and they don' t feel its causing any harm, that they ask for an extension of 3 years and they would honor that extension. Goetten asked what the undue hardship was? Perry stated that it was primarily financial. Goetten noted that the City doesn't recognize financial problems as a hardship? Perry stated that somehow financial hardships are not considered hardships. He noted that being c lawyer he could not believe that because most hardships are financial and by not consider ing a financial hardships they would be taking an unreasonable position for a Council. Perry noted that he has setforth the financial hardships of Mr. Seifert that is preventing * K - .* . ..w MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983.Page 15 9 SEIFERT (CONT) ik. :4 «W. ’-J . V ..-:V 1764 CALVARY MEMORIAL 2420 DUNWOODY AVENUE VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WORK SESSION Mr • Seifert explained that he is practising a new type of medicine and working with no income producing patients. He noted that he was given a grant to hire a research associate and to help in his research. Sime stated that he feels that Mr. Seifert has a moral obligation to live up the agreement he made in 1980. He noted that he would recommend that the building be removed. Goetten stated that Mr. Seifert did enter into an agreement to remove the lakeshore cabin in return for the addition that he was granted. She doesn't feel there are any new hardships since 1980. She noted that Mr. Seifert has had 3 years to remove the building already. Perry stated that there is morality that is due to citizens from the City, that citizens being misled. He noted that its not only the citizens in Orono that have the moral obligation but also the City that has the moral obligation.i Callahan moved to recommend denial of the variance to extend the deadline for removal of the lakeshore cabin by July 1, 1983, per resolution no. 1165. Actually the applicant is asking to change a contract that was made between the applicant and the City. The two letters opposing Dr. Seifert's request to be attached to these minutes. '•4 ■V fI Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0) Adams & McDonald minority opinions - Adams stated that they should give the applicant an extra year to remove the building. McDonald felt the same. Nick Real, applicant's architect, was present. Dale Carpenter, Roger Creamer, Steve Martin and William Scott McCurrey were also present. Mabusth asked for the proposed addition size? She noted that the Planning Commission wou>d probably like to see a landscape plan at their next meeting. Mr. Real stated that it was 81' x 104' . He noted that that the proposed addition would seat 524 people. Mr. Real stated that the one question that staff asked about was the hardcover problem. He noted that they It MIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING CONHISSION MEETING OP JULY 18, 1983.Page 16 © CALVARY CHURCH (CONT) *~r - • • • mm-mm ■■ \ V'" . V rf ■ V. m iC: hh.' PLANNING COMMISSION DELEGATE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1983 O APPROVAL OP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNMENT 11:15 PM have attempted to address the quality and quantity of runofff basically handling that with the drainage holding pond. Baffling structure will be installed to retain the water to carefully dissipate the water over time. He noted the grassy area as the holding pond. Goetten asked the depth of the grassy area? Mr. Real stated that the grassy area will be a 2' depth. He noted that the parking lot will drain into that holding pond and that area that collects has to run across grassy area and collects in the grassy area. Mr. Real noted the holding pond is approximately 20* wide and 150' long. He noted the main concern is the rate of flow of the water so that you don't have any erosion downstream. The quality is handled by the baffling structure. Adams stated that another concern is to have the water percolate into the soil. He asked the applicant if there was any possible way to provide a tiling system under the parking lot to cany some of the water from th<3 pond back underneath the parking lot. Mr. MuCurrey stated that they had been investigating a concrete surface for a portion of the parking lot that would be basically the overflow parking lot used for the special occasions. He noted that grass actually grows up through it. He noted that there is a safety factor with this type of parking lot because it is mainly used for flat shoes, high heels go into the surface. Mabusth noted that the drainageway drains into a large wetlands near the Casco Run Offices. Mr. Real noted that the final desir/n has not been resolved but the design he submitted is close. No action required.m Lynn Adams volunteered to attend the Council meeting of August 8, 1983. Goetten moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 20, 1983, subject to the changes as noted by the Planning Commission. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:15 PM. tel smut MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983 Page 17 Q -V PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF ORONO Re: Action Item 11 - variance for Milto From: Duane N. Hall, 1860 Shady Wood, Orono I live next door to Mr. Seifert and wish to share my views of his request with the City. # I object to an extension of the time granted Mr. Seifert for removing the out-building which stands near the shore of Lake Minnetonka. I object in general and for specific reasons. I support the city's efforts to remove structures built too close to the lake and the roadways. I'm convinced the 75 foot set-back from the lake is acceptable to Orono residents otherwise it would have been repealed years ago. More specifically, having lived next to an overcrowded lot, a 60 foot lot with four residential buildings, I can tell you it does cause problems. In this situation one can expect annual damage to adjacent property. For example, my fence is damaged annually by cars sliding off Mr. Seifert's driveway in winter. You can expect four, sometimes more cars, parked in front. Since this type of lot has no place for piling snow, Mr. Seifert's snowplower dumps it in front of my lot, six feet high, often burying my mailbox. This makes entering busy #19 hazardess since snow piled this high blocks the view of oncoming traffic. Do not misunderstand me. I do not blame Mr. Seifert; in fact, for the most part he is not even aware of these events. In addition, Mr. Seifert and his family have been good neighbors and I sincerely hope we can remain good neighbors. However, I recall Mr. Seifert stating during a Council meeting in 1980 that he would remove all three out—buildings immediately if the variance requested at that time were granted. I recall tbe Council felt that would not be necessary and proposed a phased removal plan. Mr. Seifert agreed. While Mr. Seifert had economic concerns, a workable plan was developed, and the City granted the variance to add on to his home. Now that Mr. Seifert has secured his part of the agreement I feel he should honor the City's part of the agreement. I think the city should know that Mr. Seifert's attorney called me and told me that if I did not support his extension efforts it would mean a court suit. Frankly, I cannot believe he was speaking for Dr. Seifert. I believe Dr. Seifert will honor his agreement with the City preferring to save the City legal expenses and, mostly, preferring to avoid causing the neighbors any additional problems connected with the overcroweded lot. « ii '■1 •f.;, 1 H:-’■ ■»