HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1983 Planning Minutesy; ■
^-'■^r='.':, ■ v; -i-•*«. ' • ■
f' ~
:f‘:
■ % ►'
“*“'■ «™gs Pj.
'“™"‘ - ,,,
CALL TO ORDER «ammerel
action items
f * »
2* l70n _.
i
■7'
‘ *
2#7
»7sr D»-v. . *"3•■'sr Ri^h., *'■‘"*'■3
R,,e«oo. «,,,
»790 R.______ ®
^,vf:
',: V. :■ . ■ ; ■f^
|V/;.^:a^\:;-;--
^ ' .v= v: a
■'i;
r' -'>.
^ ' '^-4 i- '
4 P Hiiii
670 Tonkawa Road
♦791 Bruce Clark
Variance""*'' Ly„,an Avenue
_•♦ORE SESSION
2/’"OISCUSSIOII Permit - pRp _
3- Discussion of Drn„- -W
proposed revfe« ^
■ ...r.: :i
OF MINUtbs "** ‘Council meeting of
..:.:.;;;-K ■; •
•• A •.V-..,
?
•;-:J
» ,>
- r j.y
*PPROVAt OF minotbs
*' Approval of P1,„ ,
"»»«««« /
^®Ptember
i' .'
1983
rr'i.
v->
;. . .;••.•• v:
/*. • ' ••'
■'>i
•:*
r *.
■ ' tv
. ■ ■?•
• :*:|
<••-1
. ••
A-i.
HIHOTES op the planning COHMISSION NEETING held OCTOBER 17, 1983
attendance 7:30 p.m
#761 DOUGLAS SMITH
3237 CASCO CIRCLE
VARIANCE
■' '-.1
.'if*
. ■a:'"-- .=.
Planning Si^fjn m^"mber‘^Ke\fey" °p™s!
Council Representative Ha^^el was
Administrator Mabusth represented citr"tafff°""’
3241 Casco CiroTe%nd*JaneR^ f"** Tuthill of
were present from tht audien«
trator Mabusth reviewed with the oi,
the history of the Smith anoi Commission
that the Smi?h aPDlicetin?^r. 1 noted
in the LR-IC zoniig dis??ict? ” ownership
anf n fri“o°mbinlV. ^6
crM^?TmiTh-s iofisri/2.‘';='='® T^t ^
that she was oppoLd to tht varlanoV
noted that req^rdlLs of thf ^ request. Remien
that the iot’st^l\^?oe°/n^^;e%Tc^°rn"rf?in^al?l^!
stiidards ln*'effect^ow\^n7unu7th^’c^^^ ownership
l^JloVt^c“rrenl'’s%^ Planni‘^g ‘^c:mmis"sfo"
ml"" ”f• ''■•• •“•-.€r:V“"variance for such a substandard lot. t^P*^oving a
flnow'thrcurrenfA'’® ‘’^"""^"9 Commission should toxlow the current common ownership issues.
Adams stated that the common ownership issue wasn»t ar.i" “7-££;V
'/
A : ;V y^=:
•>-v
of
1
•-■I
f
MIHOTBS of the PLAHMIHG commission meeting held OCTOBER 17. 1983 PAGE 2
4"i ”0“G“s smith
Goetten stated that if this lot was single separate
ownership that the variance request would be
^ negative effect on theexisting neighborhood.
buildable if the commonownership issue was solved*
Sime stated that when the owner purchased the lot the
common ow^nership wasn* t a problem and the owner wasn't
aoie to foresee the common ownership in the future.
;• *1
a;
' V -
•r*< 'n
I
Mabusth stated that Smith purchased the lot from
effect^^th^ti^e^^ ownership was in
Rovegno noted that if the common ownership hadn't been
f application probably wouldn't haveany trouble receiving variance approval.
Adams moved to approve a variance request made bv
Douglas Smith based on the 100% standards with a lot
area variance of 5,032 sf or 23% lot area and lot width
45% based on the following findings:
1. No available land - lots are developed on both
S1Q0S *
2. Sewer and water are available.
3. House and improvements to be constructed without
need for additional variances.
4. Applicant purchased property not knowing that the
ordinance limitations on development of Lot 18.
5. Variance being granted despite the common
ownership issue.
</
6.By granting this variance there will be no
negative effect on the public health, safety and
X n d IT 0 •
7. By granting this variance it is consistent with
the development of the area.
8. By granting this variance there should be no need
for future hardcover and setback variances.
Planning Commission would like to note that the
garage is a non conforming structure and subject
to all pertinent ordinances.
The special conditions applying to the structure
of land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property.
9.
10.
B.
fi
,-:V. • ; ■.“•• ../ V : -,•••=,
."VV kv
V. ••.• ■ •;
i
•••■ •.: ■■}
■ '■ "-\ ■■' ■> :• V
■•' :'»tapj
} \
13.
3 COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 3
do not apply generally to other
land L located? «hlch said
Jhf granting of the application is necessary for
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The granting of the proposed variance will not in
comfort, moraJs, o?
the 2L°ing'cole?°" ''® intent of
serve?®?*"*"^"^ ?* ®“°'’ ''atlance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
Stfncui^y? demonstrable hardship or
Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2).
Opinions - Callahan and McDonald - Callahan
noted that the Planning Commission is looking at the
common ownership issue backwards and the City has an
Callahan%f«f Commission should follow.
^ u common ownership issue mustbe solved before granting a variance.
McDonald agreed with Callahan and she noted that there
IS some neighbor opposition and that the common
ownership issue should be solved first.
14.
’:1
w&bm
'-riy. yv
; •.: •* •
. . . ■■;; ■ ■ : •■•• ■■. .,• . '
j V'’- ■; • ■
li • ^
• .••• •■' •' • \ • ■■'•'
Mr. and Mrs. Overboe were present. Mabusth noted that
the applicant is asking for a variance to place a
detached garage in their limited front yard?
? granting this variance would be an
obstacle in the future if they plan on constructing a house on the other lot. i-iuccmg a
Adams moved to approve Ole Overboes request for a
aIvi??oh? garage to be placed 2' from thegiven right of way, 15' from the side and 38' from the
ravelled road based on the following findings:
1. Location of house on lot.
®>‘‘®*^i'’g - zoning district Standards asks for 140’ of width.
There is no additional land available.
The house has existed for 15+ years.
2.
3.
4.
MIMUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 4
<3 782 OLE OVBRBOE 5.Travelled road and sewer lines within 60' right of
way appears to be located 20+' from the
street/front property line of Lot 10.
6. The proposed improvement is consistent with
recent improvements on surrounding properties.
i:
7. The proposed substandard street setback for the
garage structure will not create safety or traffic
hazards on this residential, dead-end street.
8.Applicant is placed on notice of the current
hardcover limitations and that a future Council
may not approve future variances.
McDonald seconded. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (0)..1
#789 RICHARD HONELL
965 BDGEWOOD HILLS ROAD
VARIANCE Richard Howell and architect, Barry Petit, were
present. Mabusth stated that the Howells are asking
for a variance to construct a new residence.
Rovegno asked about the driveway plan and noted that
they should have a turnaround on the property.
Barry Petit, architect, noted that they would have a
loop driveway which would create the turnaround on the
property.
Sime asked if there was going to be a great deal of
filling because of the topography of the back yard.
Sime asked if a retaining wall would have to be
constructed to help the erosion problem.iip'-
Richard Howell stated that there would be extensive
filling in the back yard and possibly a retaining wall.
.1
Barry Petit stated that they were examining a pier
system for the back yard.
■51
Mabusth noted the private access easement that
intersects the property for 50' along the north
property line.
Rovegno moved to approve a variance for Richard Howell
to permit construction of a new residence based on the
following hardships:
1. Severe slopes on east portion of lot restrict
building envelope.
2. Only area available for on-site septic systems
intersects the building envelope.
3. The proposed development of Tract B is consistent
with development of lots within surrounding
neighborhood.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 5
&
789 RICHARD HOWELL 4.The proosed development of Tract B will create no
traffic hazards nor be detrimental to the public
health, welfare and safety.
The proposed development of Tract B is consistent
with the rural and on-site septic standards of the
City.
Applicant is creating turnaround on property by
constructing a loop driveway.
Such approval is based on the following condici
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant must submit septic design and final site
grading plan.■:a
2. Staff to ensure erosion problem will be addressed
at time of building permit issuance.
3. Applicant placed on notice that there are
hardcover limitations.
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).
Mr. and Mrs. Torkelson were present. Mabusth stated
that she had a call from a neighbor who had no problems
with the variance request.
Mabusth noted that the Torkelsons are requesting a
variance to construct a detached garage 24' x 26' to be
located 10' from the principal structure. Mabusth
noted that they have privacy fences on the sides of
their property. Mabusth presented photo Exhibits 1
and 2.
m '^1
.t
Goetten noted that in talking with Mrs. Torkelson that
they needed this garage for additional storage for
their boat and other things. Goetten noted that the
applicants would be very cooperative by removing
additional sheds and fences on the property to reduce
the hardcover.
•••:
••
J
Sime moved to approve
detached garage 26' x
findings:
a side yard variance for a
24' based on the following
1. The narrow lot width.
2. An established residence has existed on the site
for over 30 years without a garage.
3. No additional land available
*• ■ • •/r'!
IG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 6
le
:e
*:
■0lM
i:-VA;
r*':" ■ ,
4.
^iiS i.^1
Ifei
The proposed side setback for detached garage is
consistent with garage locations on neighboring
properties. ^
5. By approving this variance it will not affect the
public healthy safety and welfare#
Approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Shed and fencing to be removed as a tradeoff in
hardcover•
2. Applicant is placed on notice that future
hardcover variance may not be approved.
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Kays (0).
Bruce and Terry Clark were present. Mabusth noted
that the Clarks were tequesting a variance to
construct a new residence.
Rovegno noted that the more houses that are placed on
these lots the more the road becomes a problem.
Mabusth noted that additional septic testing will be
needed for this application but that the Planning
Commission could approve this application subject to
the additional testing being submitted before being
scheduled for Council action. ^
Goetten moved to approve a lot area variance
application of Bruce and Terry Clark to permit the
construction of a single family residence based on the
following findings:
1. There is no additional land available to combine
with subject property; to the west a single family
residence^ to the south more wetlands and to the
east, Woodhill Country Club.
2. Setbacks of the RR-IB zoning district can be
easily satisfied within the defined building
envelope. ^
3. The construction of a single family residence on
the property will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
Approval is based on the following condition:
1. Applicant submit additional septic test data and
adequate septic design for four-bedroom home
before application can be scheduled for Council
action.
■' • .
the
ire
on
:-i
HIHUTBS op the PLAMMIHG COHMISSIOM meeting held OCTOBER 17, 1983
#791 BRUCE & TERRY CLARK 2o
PAGE 7
Council''TcUon?"
#788 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
250f SHADYWOOD ROAD
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONAL USE &
RBZONING
Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).
V/; '
■ ■ "S..:• ! ....
li
M *
Elizabeth and Winston Close, Goeff Martin ir,hr.
Fr:shi:ter%o"undat?"“°^ P'”Pi«nn«K ^ n lon. John Shardlow, Senior
rommi<?«:i^n * Associates, gave the Planningcommission some background on the application^
There was no one present in the audience^ for this
application. Mabusth explained that she had
wi?h tL pro^pisaV.''™ problems
currentltTn ti"/n the Freshwater Foundation is
a^kino zoning district and that they are
rezone to LR-IB to locate the duplex units with shdTGd dccGss drlvGS*
be^S development willbe 8 units. Shardlow explained that the Freshwater
deedino^it Project and will beaeeding it to the University of Minnesota.
Rovegno suggested the retoning to be in the conference
conference center use zoning Standards are for rural development, ^
oS^r'^^SrSetl/nX" " conservation easement
John Shardlow Stated that Outlot Awill still belong to
the Freshwater Foundation. Shardlow stated that
and^if SV phases of the developmen*-and if it changes they will come back to the Plannina
Commission with another application. ^
Sime noted that this is a piecemeal sort of development
Sime^noteH^hh^^r? asking for.Sime noted they do have a total of 23 units possible forthis type of property. Victor
Shardlow stated that the current application
hav^^ ® by law theyve a legal right to 23 units sometime in the future.
The Planning Commission set a r>ublic hearing for the
rezoningi^and PRD (subdivision) for Monday, "wcfvember
• »
NINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 8
ROPOSED REVISIONS IN
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Rovegno noted all year the Planning Commission hasn't
seen any of the revisions and then staff expects them
to approve everything the first of the year.
M
Rovegno moved to table all in depth consideration of
recodifiying zoning and subdivision regulations
until after the first of the year.
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).
Adams suggested not delaying until the first of the
year and to take maybe a half an hour at each regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission agreed to meet at 7:00 each
meeting to discuss only subdivision regulations or
revisions in any other documents and then at 7:30 start
to review zoning applications.
m Rovegno withdrew his motion and agreed to meet a half
an hour earlier at each meeting to discuss revisions.
CJ
Rovegno moved to schedule discussion of subdivision
regulations or any other revisions from 7:00 ~ 7:30 at
each meeting until the Planning Commission has
finished with all revisions.
Callahan seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Mays (0) •
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER
TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING
OP NOV. 14, 1983 Goetten volunteered to attend the Council meeting of
November 14, 1983.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION NINUTES Sime moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes
of September 19, 1983 as submitted.
Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).
ADJOURNMENT 10:15 p.n.Sime moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting
at 10:15 p.m.
A
■4
Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).
^ —