Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-1983 Planning Minutes, 1^ * / PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1983 95 >v... !:m:. 'j m & ■ t ■♦V* * . V» I rj COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Tim Adams CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 7:00 - 7:29 P.M. - Subdivision Regulations City Attorney Malkerson to address Planning Commission 2. 7:30 P.M. #788 Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit, PRD Subdivision, and Rezoning 3. 7:45 P.K. #794 Michael Pluhm, Franklyn Dailey and William Mernik Vacation of Pence Lane 4. 8:00 P.M. #795 Paul Elmer, 3980 Dahl Road Subdivision ACTION ITEMS 5. #796 Lachlen Reed, 1500 Bracketts Point Road Variance 6. #799 Bruce Clark, 1180 Lyman Avenue Variance 7. #800 Thomas Burnevik, 3640 Northern Avenue Variance 'Hr> 8. #802 John Munsell, 4100 North Shore Drive Variance SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 9. #601 Painters Creek Development, 4680 Bayside Road Subdivision Ilk! W- DISCUSSION V p 10. Planning Commission to select a member to attend Council meeting of December 12, 1983. APPROVAL OP MINUTES 1-^ 11. ‘Approval of Planning Commission minutes of October 17, 1983. INFORMATION 12. Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to be held December 19, 1983, concerning common ownership. (7:30 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT fx ■i- 4 ki -- . i -i ■HiMi i . r MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 1 [ (Attendance 7:00 p.m.The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman Rovegno, Sime, Adams, Goetten. Callahan arrived at 7:02. Kelley arrived at 7:24. Adams arrived at 7:35. McDonald was absent. City Attorney Malkerson arrived at 7:03. Zoning Administrator Mabusth represented the City staff. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REVIEW WITH CITY ATTORNEY MALKERSON — PAGES 1—18 Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the subdivision regulations set up the procedures and standards for the applicant. Mabusth noted that the City can't use metes and bounds like we used to, everything has to be a plat. ■ '• V- Chairman Rovegno asked how the City of Minnestrista is doing with this code? City Attorney Malkerson stated that they are doing very well. Callahan noted that with the City's current problem concerning common ownership that the City should specifiy in this subdivision code under section 67 some additional language with common ownership. Adams noted that on page 7 if a more accurate definition of the City Council might be "the elected representatives of City government". City Attorney Malkerson stated that he would check the statutes because the definitions in the subdivision regulations must meet statuatory requirements. Callahan noted on page 2 (item #4) instead of reading “to protect the character in the social and economic stability of all parts of the City.." since we always seem to be talking about not all the parts of the City but about the individual areas maybe it should read "to protect the character of the land being subdivided as well as surrounding land and social and economic stability of...." Callahan stated that everytime tney are making decisions about variances or subdivision the Planning Commission takes into account the surrounding property owners and/or neighborhood. Chairman Rovegno stated that in the subdivision regulations that it states "Community Management Plan" but the name of the City* s book is "Comprehensive Management Plan". ■i -V a.'' MINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 2 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (cont.)City Attorney Malkerson stated that once again he would check the statuatory definitions to see if that is the way it is defined. Callahan noted on page 2 concerning public access to the lake that it should read "to provide reasonable access to public waters.." Overall the Planning Commission felt the subdivision regulations (page 1~18) were ok. #788 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRD SUBDIVISION, & RBZ0NIII6 PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 ~ 8:20 P.M. Zoning Administrator Nabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. II..: » .. John Shardlow, Elizabeth Close, Joe Rossillon, Geoff Martin, and Dennis Purcell, represented the Freshwater Foundation. Norm Paurus was present from the audience. John Shardlow noted that the Freshwater Foundation is proposing three duplexes and two single family residences to be completed in three phases. Shardlow noted a mistake in the legal description was made when the property was deeded to the University of Minnesota a line was left off and they plan correct that in this plat also. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the reason for the creation of Outlot E. John Shardlow noted the following Outlots: Outlot A is open space; Outlot B is open space; Outlot C is the access easement that provides for the change in the service entrance to the Freshwater Biological Institute and provides access to the three duplex lots; Outlot D is open space; Outlot E is intended to provide acccess and utilities to Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2. Shardlow noted that Outlot E could be made a part of Outlot D. Kelley asked if the University will take just the land underneath the buildings. Kelley noted the University could build up to the lot lines. Mabusth stated a 10' setback must be maintained from each lot line. 1 A MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 3 . i Q 788 PRESHWATER POUNDATION (cont.) m , i-': .V 'i-' Mu im. V \..JflM •C>■ ••>•:/:> ■ - ■•' ' -V ";!v’ Shardlow stated that' they are including just the portion of the property around the units which will be landscaped and be maintained as part of the University's ownership. Shardlow noted that not unless the City approved the expansion of the buildings could they build up to the lot lines. Shardlow noted that that point will be conveyed in the title as a negative easement over the property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked what percentage of the land is wetlands? Geoff Martin stated it is about half and half. Mabusth stated that this must be confirmed. Norm Paurus asked what the zoning would be? Chairman Rovegno stated that the current zoning is B-4 and would be rezoned to LR-IB, a down zoning. Elizabeth Close noted the floor plans of the duplexes. Close noted that the houses and duplexes would be camoflauged from the road by the landscaping. Close noted two kitchens in the duplexes. Norm Paurus asked if this design was layed out for the single student. Close stated yes because it would be University students. Kelley asked if the students were going to be allowed cars? Close stated that they hoped the students would walk to work but that they did provide a parking area for residents and visitors. ••i ■ •J i i ,1i* Shardlow noted that the landscape plan was designed as a type of screening and they located the entrances along to minimize disruption of natural vegetation. Chairm'in Rovegno closed the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. Adams asked that the City consider waiving the park fee because when this project is completed it will look like a park and in a sense it seems unfair to take an educational institution and charge a park fee. Chairman Rovegno suggested that the Park Commission review this development and waiving the park fee. % -wrm MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 4 a 88 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION (cont,) V - • \ •,vv» • Chairman Rovegno moved to approve the preliminary PRD subdivision, duplex credit and rezoning application of the Freshwater Foundation finding adequate sewer and water capacity within the existing municipal system and that all standards of the PRD and LR-IB zoning district as directed in the code have been satisfied and that approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. City to require the University of Minnesota to enter into an agreement with the City providing for the payment of local fire and police protection, share in upkeep of municipal sewer and water system, schools, etc. City Attorney to decide which parties of the University to execute such an agreement. 2. Written affirmation that University of Minnesota will obtain all necessary permits from the City for all construction and improvements to residential units and FWBI sign-off on resolution, separate agreement. 3. Shared access location to single family residence must be approved by the County Highway Department. 4. City to require an underlying road and utilities easement over Outlot C. 5. Dedication of right of way for County Road 19 and Old Beach Road if necessary. 6. Wetlands to be designated as drainage easements on the plat and if permitted by Hennepin County Surveyor, flood plain to be designated on the plat, flowage and conservation easement to be required over all areas designated as drainage easements. • i, •1 wm 7. Rezoning from B-4 to LR-IB to be formally approved at the same time the PRD plat is approve. 8. Surveyor to include the following in plat: 'i J a) Include remaining portion of property with PID 21-117-23-22-0001 as part of Outlot F. b) City recommends including property PID 21-117-23- 22-0014 within current plat. c) Surveyor to advise if property PID 17-117-23-44- 0087 has been affected by the creation of Outlot A and if so, the remaining portion muist be included in this plat. d) Dedication of right of way along Outlots B, C, D, E and F for County Road 19 and Old Beach Road, if such dedication or additional dedication is consistent with the City's Community Management Plan. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 5 #788 PRESHWATER POUNDATION ' 'cont.) I’ easement should be designated the fro2t property line and 10'^alongW Llt?V?nr2?^?o^rL“"® - the sT°8Bfl^n»rt deem a park fee necessary then feels that the Commission plrL^m^^*^‘^*hi?VuaVi4VrV•?ikrse^tlrtmay be an appropriate situation to waive the park fee? cr;dit'’to'hr^ of conditional use permit for duplex It to be conditioned on final approval of PRD plat* dr^/we?‘’i«d?" drawings to include Adams seconded. “?‘"‘='^“tor Mabusth read the Hennepin County lat they want an additional 7' for ^ - - -v.»i M Vevr A riaiy^u^^ur report which states that they County Road 19. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (0). m V. .V/ . •■•* r* t s Dailey Tere" aod Mrs. Pranklyn noted^the Administrator Mabusth pubHcatlon A n.Y®hK* ‘“‘d-vit ofpuDiicatlon. A neighbor, Tom Henry, was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that th« rlaht'*of® request to vacate an unimproved public Michael PIuhra stated they are asking for a private road ? "fl® ®.“'® be used as a^ccels for for old trucks. Pluhm noted that he owns that lot 1^2 ha«*«t^®^ *'^® that property and that that lot thl ®"®®® ®" Pluhm stateftha?the neighbors are concerned with Pence Lan. that it should go over into their ownership so that thev will have control over how the road will be used. °*‘l®y "ubed that when the house was owned bv Someone else they would park cars all Ainnn *-k j t, -i : -:-Mmm ■.'. ■■ ■''; 5v-'".-'r'.v| •■' .,i '. ■ hi P-v.:: -■ -i Cr .y •mw] ww »L^:iwrriT:T7 feimkk":i-^.iM V.-= ¥'■ : -*•.« .; • ,■ ..-St ■•■■:• -■ V ■ ■'■'••• V"\' • • • v*“. t • .•,ro-:'iv' vV/^:;; ■■•JC* >]|T« i^- ■■•;/•'.•-v' • •:' ijyp : •... ; ■ .-i.^ • ■■r# •Jilt l^m^^ wm •y.; . ■•' . 7;.^ ■ :':--i- :7:- ••'^ • 7' •. •.>;, wmf^. ■. .. . ■ -•• -r. .: :, i' ■=:• . • •• V •J«t •-. V -•. .;• . ••• B • - \GE 6 strict the icked. check irking Ion of their lying busth it of from ( in a aning Id be >t 2. e and o all 0 the .eras. Sion •wing r the 1 and for and iK-f.' ot . 1 NG COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983.PAGE 7 /J RD ■=r m 'r .“i flPS ■ ''Bij iB-VvC' v' : B B. < ' -•. • • ■ ■■.'■'■ A .:' •: ■ . ,. .'. • ■ • , • ..? ■; V.-' :bv. - *-;--pvX ■•••■:••• : ' ■ <!/ ••• ■ -1 ■:• :■; r- \ - i-. :•'•.. -b'BB-B -BB, iti ■■■;■•■•;< V'b'BB, :',. ' '(I B ;bb b..b:. mi V- •■•.■•:•. •i;;v..5 "'*• •.•.*• ! -i •*. •••• i ■ •■• " •. •’• -'v^^ VV-' ' . i :bb:>:bS:::jb:4 v,.-6b| ■ . ' ^ - J . . .* •: Loren Gardner, Lachlen Reed's contractor, was Administrator Mabusth noted that Mr. sfnro for two variances for office occupation likiln% on his homestead lot and that Mr. Reed is ® ®»"Ployee to be included. Mabusth noted that it would be a low volume office use. Gardner noted that no additional building would be anrf°M'^«f^ wants an office for himself Gardner noted that Mr. Reed would hin isn't bedroom Ipacef P'^®serve the from ?ho®n.f'’i!K there has been no reaction CUv hal V” ''‘“bating every code the ls*^okay!‘ ^ ® standpoint it think^hff stated that she didn’t hnf ^ proposed any type of signage, but that the code has specific standards for such use. Goetten read sections from the zoning code which to be within office occupation use has i principal structure and you can't have a paid employee. Goetten noted that this garage it right next to the Pillsbury garage. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that it is an this'*^3^ occupation section but thatthis wouldn t be on Mr. Reed's homestead lot. thai application was denied ann^w”^ ’ his office in the home that he could attach it to his home that would just require a homesteld^'Yo™?' increase hardcover on his Callahan noted that the garage could easily be turned state^d" because it has a bathroom. Callahan fho the garage is not on the homestead lot so the sections of the zoning code that allow a "home occupation* don't apply because this is not in the vaJi^inf Callahan stated that thevariance is for an accessory use and not the homestead cfeated"iif ?StT\hu7a"t\r*"' subdivision that MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE ®’•’I ta« 5k 0(796 LACHLBN REED (cont.) -r] * ./X - v/.: 'y- , . •• ..,■ •.:■■. ■ .-=:v.v.‘': ‘-.ji 5^a y # jOft; • • ^ • : ; .r • • . ' ■•:. '4 .*tr y- .;. •>4 T ■ ■■ ,.. V. ; •.- ■■•. ;.. ••• . ■ .!■.:■ ■. 1?^ • - ■• >. ■ W & t ^ . .? M:: ^i"j :;:-.x=K;|sx" r -x- ' Goetten stated that it is an expansion use of a garage and that they are asking for a deck too, Kelley asked what the hardship was? Adams stated that there are many legitimate reasons for denying the application based on the established regulations. Adams noted considering the area and spacing is such that there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood, and that he is basicly in favor of granting the variance. Adams noted that thcr.: are employees going to work on the surrounding properties (caretakers, etc). Councilmember Adams stated that coiisidering this individual and the area that it shouldn't be a future problem. Callahan agreed as far as it would be Mr. Reed but that a future owner could have two houses. Callahan stated that a future owner could tear down the caretakers house and garage and have another buildable lot. Callahan noted that it is a variance to an accessory use. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that where a new owner comes in is where the problem starts. Chairman Rovegno moved to recommend approval to the home occupation Section 32.340 based on the following findings: 1. Office space is in a building detached from the dwelling and on the separate lot from the owners homestead and owner does live on the abutting property separated by an unimproved public right of way. 2. Lack of ability to employee an assistant that this will provide for employment of a secretary. One employee only. Approval based on the following conditions: 1. Applicant to sign off on a resolution stating that this accessory use ceases when applicant/owner no longer owns both Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 - this special home occupation use is only approved for applicant while he owns both Lots 1 and 3, Block 1. 2. Any change in ownership would terminate this special accessory use and the new owner of Lot 1 would have to reapply for such use of accessory structure. 3. Remodeled structure cannot be rented out and shall not be considered a legal rental unit. . ^ .'i, 8 age new all *' J 1 H MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983.PAGE 9 796 LACHLEN REED '(cont.) fJHI-V' '■ V-':' ■ r. ; .X MMMm PlX^;K •••?:' - ; J Iliil •ii’T' V 'X'iu^i:'i z 7v ■'='- V^' •M.. T. v #799 BRUCE CLARK 118B LYMAN AVENUE VARIANCE .’->5 ..•* Bi'^ i.7^'. ■ - •r <• * :v.; ■■ / '.'(S^r^r.. =2:v V ■ \f. |i ir w fcv-l ■ 4. Limited to one employee only. oA-SufiL^ger? ‘"sP^ted for this use by the included in this approval and applicant to construct an external stair case to provide for fire dCC0SS• Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2). | f iied^SndVrV^ resolution would be Callahan and Goetten minority opinions. Goetten stated that this is not an accessory use to the homestead residence, it is a substandard f! 5*^2 garage, the occupation must be principal structure and no allowed in Section 32.340. Goetten noted this use^ be setting a precedent by approving Callahan agreed with Goetten and noted that it doesn’t City^"^ general area and long range planning of the • il r ir.‘s Goetten moved to recommend approval of the variance application of Bruce and Terry Clark based on the following findings: 1* No other land is available. 2. No other variances is requested. 3. A lot area variance was approved in 1977, Approval based on the following conditions: 1. Provide evidence of access/driveway easements to this portion of Tract A. 2. Satisfy the requirements of the on-site code for an on-site sewage treatment system. ^lai^deed the remaining portion that abutts their property for the cul de sac. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1^ - ■ •- ' ■** * 800 THOMAS BURNEVIK 630 NORTHERN AVENUE VARIANCE MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 10 Thomas Burnevik was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted for the record that the address is 3630 and not 3640 Northern Avenue. Kelley asked if the square footage of the house would be increased, beyond the existing foundation. Burnevik stated that the existing foundation would be removed and that the square footage would be increased to 26' X 28'. Kelley asked if the applicant would be proposed a garage at sometime in the future? Burnevik stated that he didn't propose a garage now but that at some time in the future towards the back of the lot. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that he is allowed 35% hardcover in this zoning district. Kelley moved to recommend approval of a lot area and lot width variance application of Thomas Burnevik subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Demolition permit must be obtained from City prior to the removal of exis^ing foundation. 2. Sewer and water assessments have been levied and are to be paid in full with building permit. 3. No other land available. 4. Hardcover limitation not to exceed 35%, including decking, patios, garages, etc. 5. If staff determines there is wetlands, then applicant to grant an conservation and flowage easement over the wetlands. 6. Applicant placed on notice that there are hardcover limitations. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). John Munsell was present. Mabusth noted that the applicant wished to construct a new home and that the lot is sewered but is lacking in area. Chairman Rovegno noted that the City owns four lots, an access alley and the state owns one parcel. Rovegno asked if the City lots could be sold to Mr. Munsell, since the Planning Commission would have a hard time making the finding th. w no additional land is available. 10 MINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983 PAGE 802 JOHN MUNSELL (cont.) ■■.••*• •. .f ■• ■■■■/ ' ■ ’WV^ m * V/w 'isfe *-: .••‘■^•■:v :v>^: -V .r Kelley noted he had a real problem with this variance. Goetten asked if the City could really deny the application if there was a residence there at one time and also if it was sewered. John Munsell stated that he is willing to trade his equity with another lot with the City to complete the City's park system. Munsell stated that he was willing to move to another site if the City wished to buy this lot from him. Rovegno recommended tabling to allow staff and the applicant time to explore the possibilities of acquiring additional City land. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the City made a committment as to the buildability of this lot when they assessed a sewer unit assessment just recently and also there was an existing residence on the lot at one time. Adams stated that other surrounding lots weren't assessed for sewer which meant that this one was intended to be buildable. Adams moved to recommend approval of a lot area variance of 77% and a lot width variance of 64% based on the following findings: 1. The proposed location of the structure meets all the required zoning setbacks. 2. The lot was assessed for one sewer unit in 1983. 3. The existing cabin was condemned by the City and removed by the owner in February, 1983. 4. Hardcover limitation of 35%. 5. Applicant placed on notice that there are hardcover limitations and that a future Council may not approve future variances. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (3). Sime, Goetten and Adams voted Aye. Rovegno, Callahan and Kelley voted Nay. Rovegno stated that he had a hard time approving a variance with park land on both sides of the lot. Rovegno noted that the City can be flexible with the applicant. Planning Commission suggested that the Park Commission review this application. .'.A A*-. -jL minutes op the planning CONMISSION meeting of NOVEMBER 21. 1,83.PAGE 13 0^801 PAINTERS CREEK (cont.) !v.v-v;,:.^f fur'.■'■':■ : V./ ■=. - ^-, •=..- n 4L' i *«^'... '?r::y'Vl( \A.■:■:■■■ .‘f.- » j a M ■ ■ r- '■, / ■: • ^ • • msM ■m ■«‘- t<>i • >■ ■’■ wmr A •V »..'■' i >■ ' , r ht i::' ' i''? M. • •* i m IriiMT ■' - • : : V-V,'. - ’S^ Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised fh»4- *.k4 peT;^?r?:Sur'" ^ ■H3-; H.n-“" s--“.i;.jj«. .„. .,^Th ;; 7^®ll®y stated that overall he wa^ in fa»» « ., rezoning and the subdivision. Adams noted he too was in favor of the application. JoaTijfllbrpSs® Ron Bastyr stated that Bayside Road wa- tak.n i... account when hh4o , r^^du W3w taKen into woul^be placed a!l a^^ Pl*"tlngs development. Bastyr st^ated^* that^* we‘re*?h:rgtinrtr'put'’it2 "® ”®''®" ®''‘’ ''»®- Adams asked how large the pond would be? 1 slands^Vn \hV®cen?e?." ‘'"'®® <J ““ters with tj ■HE SH-" m' : , ■’ % v;:i: • \ d. midk =/V. . V. ■' •..■ . V, ' ■*• • •. • . * ••• ’?• \ ;■ 'V; .• ^;v;