Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1991 Planning Minutes[■ r. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The O’.-ono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Planning Commission Chair Charlie Kelley, and Planning Commission Members Maureen Bellows, Jim Hanson. Planning Commission members Jonnson, Rowlette, Cohen and Moos were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabu.:th, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Schelfler. Council Representative Goetten was present, as were Councilmembers Jabbour and Callahan. Kelley opened the meeting at 7;L5 p.m., and stated to those in the audience that the Planning Commission did not have a quorum this evening. He explained that the members present would review the applications on the Meeting Agenda, and would take public comments, but would be unable to vote on the applications this evening. Kelley further explained that the applications scheduled for review this evening, would still go to the Apri.. 8, 1991, Council meeting. Kelley asked Mabusth if it would be possible to notify all of the applicants in time to re-convene this meeting, with a quorum present, later in the week. Mabusth replied, "The applicants will be notified by telephone of the re-convene date." Kelley apologized for the inconvenience, stating that such a situation had not occurred once in the past ten years he has served on the Planning Commission. Mabusth informed the persons in attendance, who were not applicants, but interested in applications on the Agenda, that they would have to contact City Staff to learn the date this meeting would re-convene. (#1)ZONING FILE #1457-ALAN G. CARLSON 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD AMENDED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION-PUBLIC HEARING Alan Carlson and Gary Peterson were present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m., and asked Mabusth to provide a brief summary of the issues involved with Mr. Carlson's amended plan. Mabusth stated that the revised preliminary plan presented to the Planning Commission this evening, responded to concerns raised by Staff. She suggested that Mr. Carlson be given an opportunity to explain the revised plan. Carlson explained that the revised plan nov/ shov/s a road that would provide a future east/west connection. He said, 'That - 1 - 1 I'r* PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1457-ALAN CARLSON CONTINUED was the major change in the plan. Tne revised plan now sho\/s a temporary cul-dc-sac, as well as a drainage easement between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. The original plan showed terming in the septic systems on Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3. That was an error, there is no terming on the wast side. Tnere will be a slight berm on the other side, extending down to the pond. On the original plan, VJe showed two outlots, Outlot B and another below it, Outlot C. Staff suggested that those Outlots be combined, and the revised plan shows that." Kelley asked Carlson to explain the purpose of Outlot B. Carlson replied, "Outlot B will provide access to Outlots C and D. I do not intend to develop Outlot C at this time, but am trying to obtain permission from the Corp of Engineers to put bike trails in that area. I would like to have a tennis Court on Outlot B." Mabusth added that Staff had requested Carlson to re-route the drainageway along the east border so that it no longer intersects a proposed house site, and septic site. It is now shown along the edges of the property line at a 15 root width up to the 970 foot elevation. She asked Carlson if the area calculations for Lot 3, Block 3, take into consideration the drainagev/ay. Carlson stated that the drainageway was excluded from the dry buildable area for that lot. Mabusth also asked easement serving Lot 2, buildable of Lot 1. Carlson if the areas of the driveway Block 2, has been excluded from the dry Carlson stated that he had asked his engineer to do that. Mabusth asked Carlson where the bike trails would be located in relation to the driveway easements. She noted that the bike trails must also be excluded from the dry buildable. Carlson replied, "The bike trail is located within that 13 feet, south of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and is excluded from those lots." Bellows asked Carlson how he intends to access Outlot C if it is developed. Carlson replied, "I am not sure at this point where the access point will be, but I would locate an access wherever it is possible to do so. There are a number of properties to the east that may be used for access. Outlot D increases the access - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE 11457-ALAN CARLSON CONTINUED opportunities to Oi.tlot C. There are six properties that could be used to gain access to Outlet C. 3y providing a future east/west road, as requested by the City, I have added another means of access. I understand that the resolution would state that I could not develop Outlot C until I can provide access." Mabusth asked Carlson to indicate where, in Outlot B, the 970 foot elevation is located in relation to the proposed tennis court. Carlson indicated the location of the 970 foot elevation Mabusth said, "If it is where Mr. Carlson has indicated, the tennis court would encroach into the wetland area." Kelley asked Carlson if he intends to install monuments at the entrance to the development. Carlson stated that he so intended and referred the Planning Commission to the plan showing the monuments. Kelley asked Carlson if ha intends to place lights on the monuments. Carlson indicated that he had not given any thought to lighting. Kelley asked Staff if Carlson will obtain private easements for the maintenance of the monuments. Mabusth replied, "That the resolution approving the original plan had included language regarding the monuments. If the monuments are placed not within the road outlot, but on the adjacent residential lots, it will be necessary for Mr. Carlson to obtain easements from the future land owners." Bellows observed that the change in elevation may pose a problem if the monuments are placed too far out of the road outlot. She stated that the elevation on one side of the road differs from the other, and was concerned about the need to raise one monument higher to equal the height of the other. Carlson stated that he would cut into the ground on the west side to reduce the height to be the same as the monument on the east side. Kelley suggested including language in the resolution that would allow the monuments to be no more than six feet from the grade level of Outlot A. He asked how far back from the road the monuments must be placed. - 3 - M ^ AA M Mi ^ ‘ -ii — *' M fi^ ^ m aaii iJMrMa Mat' ^ i n i rw i ^ i . a m » k. ^ JA* ^ tMir , •‘■‘a I ^ ItftaffI ^ *Mai 'iil. a ■ .. k> rtfliOV ki .. — PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1457-ALAN CARLSON CONTINUED Mabusth replied, "At a height of five and half ^ feet, monuments wou .d be subjeot no sighting standards intersections." the for Kelley indicated that he had no objections to Mr. Carlson s revised plan. Bellows stated that the revised plan is much more favorable than the first plan. Hanson agreed with Bellows and Kelley. The Public: Hearing was continued. (#2)ZONING FILE #1630-ALAN G. CARLSON 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. Mabusth stated that Mr. Carlson wishes to construct a tennis court on Outlet B. She said, "Normally outlets are deemed unbuildable, and would, therefore, require special approval. It is still not certain the degree of filling below the 9 0 elevation that will be allowed by the Corp of Engineers." Carlson explained, "The Corp of Engineers will allow an individual to fill, under a Nation-wide Permit, up to 1"), 000 s-f. Beyond 10,000 s.f. a special permit is required, but it is nearly impossible to obtain. I have been fighting like crazy to 9-^ approval for bike trails. The Corp has indicated that they wi^l not aoprove the bike trails, but I am still fighting the issue. The tennis court will only require filling approximately 2,000 s.f., and the Corp has indicated they have no problem with that." Mabusth asked Carlson if he knows how many cubic yards of fill is being placed in the area where the tennis court would be located. Carlson stated that he did not know how many cubic yards of fill would be required, but that he did not intend to bring in new fill. Bellows indicated that she did not look favorably on the aspect of setting a precedent by allowing an accessory structure to be placed on an outlot. She questioned how a tennis cejurt could be justified when the City has consistently denied requests for lake access from outlets. Mabusth stated that she would look into the issue further. - 4 - Wfi ^1 ill aim fi d PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD T^ARCH 18, 1991 (#2)ZONING FILE #1630-ALAN CARLSON CONTINUED Bellows agreed tliat would be necessary to have m.'>re information before she could consider a recommendation on the tennis court. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to comment on the bike trciils being constructed through the wetland area. Kelley responded, "I am in favor of it." Carlson stated that he was doubtful that the Corp of Engineers would approve the bike trails. Mabusth asked Carlson if the Corp would grant him a National Permit for 10,000 s.f. Carlson answered affirmatively. Hanson indicated that he did not object to the bike trails. Bellows stated that she would like to see the plans and proposed location for the bike trail. Carlson said, "The bike trail would be 16 feet at its base, with a hydromat, and would then narrow to eight feet. I intended to construct the trail much like the Luce Line." Mabusth cautioned Carlson that the grading and filling he proposes for a trail system within the outlot designated for future development .aay further limit dry buildable area for septic use. Carlson acknowledged Mabusth's warning. He added, "I would just like to say that from a practical and hardcover point of view, having one tennis court makes more sense than having several throughout the subdivision. Kelley asked Carlson if he would intend to have a homeowner's association continue to maintain the tennis court, even if the City, at some future point, takes over maintenance of the road. Carlson stated that would be his intention. The Public Hearing was continued. - 5 - <4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE #1621-TERRY & JONELL JOHNSON 1045 LINDEN LANE VARIANCES-CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Terry Johnson was present. Kelley re-convened the Piiblic Hearing on this matter at 7;40 p.m Gaffron briefly reviewed the Johnson's noted in his memo dated March 11, 1991. revised p.lan, as Terry Johnson noted that it was not h;.s intention tn encroach into the side yard setback area, and that tne deck behind the garage would meet that setback. Kelley stated that he would not deny the applicants' need for an attached garage. He said, "I an concerned that if we weigh the reduction in the 250-500' setback area against the increase proposed for the 75-250' area, that it would still be possible for the applicants to request additional hardcover in the 250-500' at some Ister date. Hardcover in the 250-500' setback area would only be 23%, and 30% is allowed. Gaffron suggested that the resolution could state that hardcover on the entire lot cannot exceed 25.2%. Kelley asked Johnson if he would be amenable to entirely removing the deck on the back of garage. r Johnson replied, "If we could keep the deck along the front of the house, we would not mind excluding the deck on the back of the garage." Bellows asked Gaffron if he had received a grading plan from the applicants. She said, "As I recall, the driveway will be like a watershoot. There is a very steep grade change from the road down to the house." Johnson stated that the previous owners had devised a method for diverting water around the side of the garage. Bellows said, "With the changes you are proposing to make to the driveway, it will become a water channel. It will take all of the water coming from the street, and dump it into your house. It is necessary to see the grading plan. Another reason this concerns me is that I foresee some elaborate grading plan coming being prepared that will channel all that water around the house and dump it in the 0-75' setback area." Johnson stated that he would provi e more information in accordance with Bellows' concerns. - 6 - F' m '1 j- % 7^-- 'Pl .. . ■ f 'r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD fdARCH 18, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE #1621-TERRY JOHNSON CONTINUED Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion of the rest proposal if the water channelization can be addressed. of the Bellows replied, "I normally do not like to see decks proposed for the front of the house." Johnson noted that there is a small boathouse structure on the property, which would have approximately the same square footage as the overhangs. He stated that he would be willing to remove that structure in exchange for the decks and overharigs. Bellows and Kelley stated that it may be necessary for the boathouse structure to be removed without any trade-off. Hanson indicated that ho shares Bc?llows' concerns, and added, "There see.ms to be a great deal propos«;d for such a limited area, and the potential water problem compounds that situation." Kelley suggested that Mr. Johnson come back before the Planning Commission with information regarding the contours and drainage on the property. He said, "It seems that Jim and Maureen still have some questions about the development of the property. I, personally have no objections as long as the deck on the garage and the newly discovered shed/boathouse is removed." Bellows said, "I would prefer to see the deck on the garage remain, in lieu of the deck on the front of the house." Hanson agreed that he preferred the garage deck to the front deck on the house. The Public Hearing was continued. (#4)ZONING FILE #1622-JOHN F. HARDIN 1496 PARK DRIVE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING John Hardin was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m., and asked Gaffron to make his opening presentation. Gaffron reviewed Mr. Hardin's proposal to construct a two story entryway arid a one story covered porch. He showed where the other houses in Mr. Hardin's neighborhood are located in relation to the front yard setback. Kelley asked Hardin to state his hardship for the Variance he is requesting. - 7 - I III tf'" -, • it f. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD M-^^RCH 18, 1991 (#4)ZONING FILE 11622-JOHN HARDIN CONTINUED Haj^din rsplisd, "I would first like to clarify that the front porch will be open, not enclosed with screen or 3lass. My hardship is that I am marrying this summer and need more room in the house. There is no closet space on the first fioor and the master bedroom is very small. The addition is proposed for the front of the house because that is where it works the best. Only the northwest corner of the house will encroach into the setback area. The addition would actually be 44 feet away from the traveled surface of the road.” Kelley stated that proposal. he had no objections to s -^iu • s Hanson said, "I was out there earlier today, and from what I could see, this plan would have no impact whatsoever on anyone else in the neighborhood." Hardin added, "The neighbors look favorably on this plan of mine." Bellows said, "The proposal seems fine, however, it would be helpful to better assess Mr. Hardin’s hardship if a floor plan had been provided. When an applicant is basing his hardship on the configuration of the house, a floor plan shou..d be submitted." Kelley informed Hardin that it appears as though he would get a favorable vote on his application. He added, "An I recall, this house was constructed prior to the establishment of the 35 foot front yard setback requirement. The resolution could include language prohibiting any further encroachment toward the road." Bellows added, "We may also wish to include a statement that would require the porch to remain open." The Public Hearing was continued. (#5)ZONING FILE #1623-KEENAN & JEAN RICHARDSON 2500 WOODHAVEN DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PUBLIC HEARING Jean and Keenan Richardson were present. The Public Hearing was opened by Kelley at 7:56 p.m. Saffron reviewed the information pertaining to the Richardson's application, as outlined in his March 13, 1991 memo. He stated that the City Engineer has reviewed this application and has indicated that he foresees no impact on neighboring properties as a result of the filling on the Richardson property. - 8 - J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#5)ZONING FILE #1623-KEENAN RICHARDSON CONTINUED Kelley asked Gaffron how many cubic yards of fill ware placed on the Edwards property, directly east. Gaffron asked Kim Edwards if he recalled the amount of fill placed in his yard. Edwards replied, "I do not recall how much total fill v;as placed in my yard. I did not do all filling, some was done by the previous property owners." Bellows asked if the Richardsons ware aware that the City Engineer did not believe the fill would solve their drainage problems. Jean Richardson replied, "In our opinion this will help." Keenan Richardson said, "Mr. Edwards was required to put additional fill on his property to protect his septic site. The filling that he did displaced water that normally drained on his property onto our property." It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present, that they would recommend approval of this application. The Public Hearing was continued. (#6)FILE #1624-DAVID CARLSON (SHORELINE MARINA & YACHT CLUB) 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-PUBLIC HEARING David Carlson, applicant, and Steven Fichtel, Architect, v/ere present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. and asked Mabusth to present her opening comments. Mabusth reviewed the changes proposed in this site plan from those proposed with application #1592, which was approved in October, 1990, with Resolution #2891 (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated March 13, 1991). She noted that she had recently been informed by the applicant of his intention to use the lighting plan approved with application #1592. She said, "There v/ill be no changes in the lighting or landscape plan. Tne only changes proposed involves the clubhouse structure. The Variance application is still in effect. Kelley expressed concern regarding the underground gas tank. He asked Staff if they are aware of the elevation at which the tank now rests, and the date the tank was first installed. Carlson stated that he did know the elevation of the tank. - 9 - •v: I J1 - ‘XT** .1- " •. ;;PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#6)ZONING FILE #1624-DAVID CARLSON CONTINUED but that h-3 did know it was inspected and tested last fall. He said, ''The testing was required by the Bankruptcy Court when we purchased the property last fall." Mabusth asked Carlson if he would provide the City with a copy of the test information. Kelley asked if there is currently fuel in the tank. Carlson replied, "Th->r ■; is not any fuel in the tank at this time." Kelley asked what standards and safety regulations the City has to address underground gas tanks. Mabusth replied, "vmen the fuel extension was placed on the docking facility, it was required to meet fire code regulations. I also believe that the L^lCD v;as involved in that review process. Kelley said, "I am talking about more than just fire standards. I am concerned about upholding environmental standards." Mabusth replied, "I am not aware of any agency that makes annual, or periodic, inspections. I only know that if there is a break in the gas line, the PCA is the responsible agency to contact." Kelley suggested that it may be appropriate for the City to look into this issue further and establish standards for fuel pumping docks. He said, "I am concerned that a boat may run into the dock and somehow cause a break in the gas line. Is there something that requires the property owner to have a shut-off valve somewhere so that he can limit the amount of gas that leaks into the water." Hanson stated that such a provision would be included in the fire code. Mabusth added, "This is the most recently constructed dock in Orono. It was constructed based on the current marine standards for fueling docks." Hanson said, "It is my opinion that we do not need to throw another level of obstruction into the process, in terms of a community level. I think there are sufficient agencies to handle this issue." Kelley agreed. He said, "I an concerned about the tank because if it is sitting at lake level, it is more than likely - 10 - ♦ •• idr>f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#6)ZONING FILE #1624-DAVID CARLSON CONTINUED W3tGC* Du0 to thdt, I WOUid SUSp6Ct tildt th0 11^6 expectancy of the tank v/ould be cut in half. The City needs to do whatever necessary to make sure that the tank is not leaking. The standards that the City may require for gas tanks such as this, may be higher than the fire code standards." Mabusth asked, "Are you suggesting that the City establish a method to inspect and certify these tanks on an annual basis?" Kelley stated that Staff may wish possibility. to explore that Mabusth suggested giving the applicant's architect opportunity to explain his proposal for the clubhouse. Steve Fichtel showed the Planning Commission the various elevations of the clubhouse building. He said, "We tri»‘d to design the bu.ilding with a more residential character. We have a two-story plan, but the building will actually be a story and a half. V7e used dormers in order to achieve required headroom in t.he second level. The side walls on each end of the building would have a height of 14 faet." Kelley asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, suggested that a public phone be installed on the premises. He said, "I brought that up the last time this was btaing discussed. It is not a big deal, but a lot of people stop in this area if thay are having car or boat trouble and they come to my house asking to use a phone. Other than that, I have no objections to what is being proposed. I think it is an improvement over the last proposal." Art Torangeau, 2060 Spatec' Avenue, suggested designating one of the two entrances to the property as an exit only. He said, "Over the years, I have seen a number of rear-end accidents occur, especially with traffic heading v/est from Wayzata. There has been quite an increase in traffic on Highway 15 in the last few years." Kelley stated that it may be appropriate to have the City Engineer's opinion on the access points to the property. He asked Crear and Torangeau to give their opinion of the proposed clubhouse structure. Crear replied, "It is difficult to tell hov/ the structure will actually look by the drawing and the model. I have tried to envision how it will look in the neighborhood, and this proposal seems to fit well. It is a nice looking building. If it is a - 11 - A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#6)ZONING FILE #1624-DAVID CARLSON CONTINUED traditional si^ory and a iialf, it will ba no buildings across the street." taller than the Torangeau asked what is happening with the property across the street. Crear stated that he \/as unable to attend the last Council meeting when the gas station property was discussed. He expressed concern regarding the increased traffic on Spates Avenue. He said, "That is an issue that should be addressed no natter what happens with the gas station property. Torangeau suggested blocking off Spates Avenue just before ••.he railroad tracks- He stated that the majority of traffic • _ ^ A 1— — 1 — 1 A ^comes from people attempting to avo .d the back«id up traffic trying to get onto to Highway 15 from County Road 51. Kelley stated that approval of the previo-us application included a 40' x 30' building envelope. He suggested that Planning Commission could require the building to be constructed entirely within that area, and it would be up to the applicant to size the building accordingly if he wished to have the decks. Mabusth noted that the 40* x 30’ ouilding envelope, as approved v/ith application #1592, did not include the decks. She said, "40' x 30* included only the structure itself." Kelley observed that the original proposal did not include a second-story deck, only a grade level deck. He said, "We did not consider the aspect of a second-story deck with the last application." Bellov/s said, "I am inclined to agree with the neighbors. I think this structure is so much closer to what anyone living in that neighborhood would want to see, that I hesitate a bit to want to change it. VJhat concerned me about disallowing the deck on the second level is that the retail business cannot logically be moved upstairs. Without the second-story deck, the clubhouse looses any kind of exterior space. In my opinion. this structure, with the deck, is very much in keeping v/ith what our lakeside structures oiight to be. I have no objections to this plan." Hanson stated that he had no objections to this application. The Public Hearing was continued - 12 - n ■ .f I. i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#7)ZONING FILE #1625-DON OLSON 4590 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Don Olson v/as present. Kelley opened the Pablic Hearing at 8:24 p.m., and asked Mabusth to make her opening comments. Mabusth provided a brief review of Mr. Olson's application, as set forth in her March 8, 1991, memo. Kelley asked if any of Mr. Olson's neighbors were present. None of Mr. Olson's neighbors were present. Olson commented that he personally had spoken to his neighbors and they indicated they had no objections. It was the consensus of Bellows, Kelley and Hanson, that they would recommend approval of this application. The Public Hearing was continued. (#8)ZONING FILE #1626-TIM & BETH TRAFF 2683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Tim Traff, and John Blumentritt, v/ere presej't for this matter. applicant's contractor. The Public Hearing was opened by Kelley at 8:26 p.m. Gaffron e: plained that the Traffs request approval of a side yard setback Variance, as well as lot width and lot area Variances, to replace an existing residence. He said, "This is a one acre lot located in a two-acre Zoning District, and the lot is sewered. The existing house is only two to three feet off of the side lot line." Gaffron displayed a sketch of the proposed residential structure, as well as a sketch shov/ing the location of the average lakeshore setback line. He said, "'With the exception of a grade-level patio, the proposed house will be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The neighboring driveway that encroaches on the Traff property was excluded from the hardcover calculations." Traff stated thac James and Patricia Mitchell had sent a letter to the City expressing their opposition to this plan. He said, "We are not requesting a Variance from the Mitchells. Roily Lacy, ray neighbor to the east, is in favor of the plan. The Mitchells state in their letter that we have no hardship to warrant Variance approval and that we have sufficient property across the street to build a house. VJe would like to construct a home in the location where we now live, and have put the property - 13 - L I .. . . .I Afl* iwjini *- -■^'***^ -I —■■ i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD lMARCH 18, 1991 (#8)ZONING FILE 11626-TRAFF CONTINUED across the street on the market for sale. Tne hardship is that the existing house is too small, and because it is located on the lot line, we cannot add onto the house. The plan v;a have submitted seems to be the best solution." Bob Mitchell, Attorney, stated that he is not related to Jim and Patricia Mitchell, but that he is here this evening, as their lawyer, on their behalf. Mitchell stated that the Traffs plan has been revised in that it no longer shows an addition encroaching toward the Mitchells' residence. He said, "Tha Mitchells' main concern was the side yard Variance that v/ould have been required with the plan we received. They are still concerned about the size of the Traff's lot and the placement of the proposed house toward the front of the lot. They would prefer to see the house pushed back further on the lot." Traff responded, "In answer to the Mitchell's concern about placing the house back further, I would agree to push the house back five feet. Roily Lacy and I re-configured the average setback line to extend from the middle of the Mitchells' house to the Lacy house, which brings the line back approximately five feet." Rollin Lacy, 2555 North Shor^' Drive, stated that he had no objections to the Traff's proposal. He said, "I would suggest to the Planning Commission that you look at how properties are laid out in relation to adjoining properties when considering the sight lines." Kelley agreed with Mr. Lacy Bellows stated that the Traff's plan is an improvement over what currently exists. She reiterated her position on the importance of seeing a floor plan with applications such as this. Bellows stated that it is difficult to substantiate the hardship in this case without seeing a floor plan. Hanson stated that since it is the applicant's intention to start over from scratch, he cannot justify approving the side yard setback Variance. John Blumentritt stated that he has started drawing the floor plan schematics that would support the Traff's position. Bellows supported Hanson's statements Kelley stated that he is indifferent. Traff stated that the Planning Commission had looked favorably this evening on several requests for Variances and - 14 - 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#8)ZONING FILE #1626-TRAFF CONTINUED questioned what made his application unique. Kelley responded that the Planning Commission looks at each application in a unique light, and that each must have a proven hardship. He said, "We are already granting you the lot area and lot width Variances. If your lot was undeveloped and had not received municipal sewer, it would probably have to remain that \^ay. From my point of view, this is a buildable lot, and you will either add on to the existing house, or start over. That is why I am indifferent. I nave no problem with the Variance for that matter. I do not want to see you compare the way in which we address your application with what we have done in other cases. Traff asked Hanson if his opposition stems from the concerns raised by the Mitchells. Hanson replied, "No. I have done enough building to know that something can be constructed on this lot without requiring a Variance." Kelley reminded Traff that in the event the Planning Commission does recommend denial, he cou i.d still talce the application to Council for their deciding vote. Bellows suggested that Mr. Traff bring back a schematic of the floor plan to give the Planning Commission a better understanding of his hardship. The Public Hearing was continued. (#9)ZONING FILE #1627-SAMUEL A. MCCLOUD RECORD LOT #22, BIG ISLAND AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING Samuel McCloud, and his Attorney, present for this matter. Carter DeLaittre, were Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:42 p.m., and asked Gaffron to present his opening comments. Gaffron summarized the issues involved with Mr. McCloud's application, as outlined in his Marvch 12, 1991, memo. He displayed a sketch and photo of the retaining wall/stairway/deck system that had been constructed on this property without proper permits. He added that the retaining walls were installed to restore damage to the bank that result«>d fr.m the 1987 Superstorm. Gaffron said, "The City Engineer has examined the structure in terms of the necessity of the retaining walls. He determined that the width of the bank does need some kind of a - 15 - ■ M~wi ri'MfciaTi II iMi ■kr: m-' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILS #1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED support system. He is suggesting that the walls with a height exceeding three or four feet be lowered and that some interior walls be added. The City Engineer has indicated that the stability of the existing walls is questionable. He also stated that the lower walls would be easier to screen from the lake." DeLaittre stated that there is a protected wetland that exists from the Minnetonka Power Squadron property to Mr. McClouds. He said, "Ihe 1987 storm washed out the existing stairway and took out two trees. A major portion of the hill washed away, leaving a bowl shaped depression. Following that, Mr. McCloud hired a contractor to build an addition on the cabin, and the contractor suggested that the bank should be restored with a retaining tvall system. He informed Mr. McCloud that he would obtain all the necessary permits. We found out, after-the-fact, that he had not obtain the permits. The structure is presently in place, and we believe it does control the erosion on the property. This structure does meet the intent of the City's Hardcover Ordinance, in that it allows water to percolate into the ground. The horizontal members of decking do have spaces in between them, which allows the rain to filter through. The stairway was constructed in a zig-zag manner to limit the distance one would fall if that were to occur. There is quite a bit of vegetation that would screen the structure from the lake in the Summer. The structure has a natural wood color. Because of the sharp drop on the hill and the terracing of retaining walls, the railings on the top and second level serve a safety purpose. Without the railings, someone could fall off the edge and fall quite a distance. There were no complaints from the neighboring property owners about this structure, and I do not believe there have been any since then. Mr. McCloud does have a fairly significant financial stake in this structure, and would like to receive approval for it to remain." Hanson questioned whether McCloud would have any recourse, financially, through the contractor. DeLaittre replied, "Mr. McCloud has tried to contact the builder, but has been unable to locate him." Bellows stated that she could not possibly approve such a structure in this location. She said, "I am sorry, but I believe it is an owner's responsibility to make sure that a contractor has in fact obtainad the necessary permits. The City requires permits to be posted on the construction site. I believe this structure is extremely over-built and appropriate. It should be cut back to provide a minimum stairway access and w.hatever retaining walls are necessary to support the bank." Hanson stated that he totally agreed with Bellows. - 16 - r iiilMMifitififiliiTiiii mill III I I ■ai ifirfti H ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD I^IARCH 18, 1991 {#9)ZONING FILE #1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED McCloud asked f )r tiie ooportunity to make s^me additional points. He stated that the flooring of the decks are at ground level, and, therefore, are invisible from the lake, and that the only portion of the structure that is visible, is the retaining walls. He said. "The City Engineer has recommended that I keep only the retaining v/alls, which are definitely requirt'd to prevent the bank from further erosion. T'ne design of the floor decking is such that it traps small quantities of water in between each plank, which prevents water from just running down the bank. It promotes percolation of rainwater throughout the whole system. The City Engineer also recommended leaving at least a portion of the steps. The only other aspect of this that may be disturbing to view is the storage area. T.he retaining v/all does extend behind the storage area. I v/ould be hap'py to remove the front wall of that area, but there will still be wall behind it." Hanson interjected, "I would just like to say that I am not concerned about the visual impact of this structure." McCloud explained further. "The railings, or some other form ef restraint, will have to remain in place to prevent someone from walking off the edge. A barrier will be necessary regardless of whether or not the floor decking remains. I guess my question then is what would you v/ant me to remove?" Kelley explained that the City': Hardcover Ordinance does view decking as hardcover. Bellows reminded McCloud that the City Engineer has stated that the retaining walls are failing. McCloud said, "Neither myself, nor my engineer, could find signs of the retaining walls failing. I would have to respectfully disagree with the City Engineer's opinion in that regard. I v/ould also note that the City Engineer states that the floor decking enhances the stability of the walls. If in fact, the v/alls are failing, I v/ill of course repair them." Kelley said. "In ny opinion, some hardcover can remain, including access to the lake. You are entitled to have access. The decking however should be removed." McCloud asked Kelley to address the railings. Kelley replied, "The railings are needed in accordance with the retaining walls exceeding a certain height." Mabusth stated that railings are needed when the wall height exceeds 30 inches. - 17 - in TuYim iiitiijtj PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (g9)ZONING FILE #1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED Kelley sl.ated t’nat there are s;?veral e.<isting retaining walls within the City of Orono that would provide examples of how the issues of safety and erosion control can be addressed. Kelley explained the options available to ilr. McCloiid for proceeding or tabling his appl n. Mc;Cloud ask^id the Planning ..'ommission if they concurred with the Staff recommendations presented in Gaffron's memo. Gaffron reviewed the recommendations included in his memo. McCloud stated that he would work ftirther with Staff to pj^0p3j7{'» a revised plan, and reguest^T’d that th-; Planning Commission make a motion at their re-convened meeting to table this application. The Public Hearing v/as continued. (#10)ZONING FILE #1628-MARK & SARA FINNEY 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 9t05 p.m., noting that Sara Finney was present. Mabusth showed the plan for the replacement foundation and the proposed addition, stating that an average lakeshore setback Variance would be required. Sne said, "I was advised tnis evening by Jim Hanson, v/ho d..d go beyond the fenced area, that there is structure within the lakeshore yard." Hanson said. "There is a complete stairv/ay with bench Beating, and intermediate storage area, not entirely dissimilar to what we saw in the McCloud application. I v/ould approximate that there is 1,300 sf. of ground cover in the 0-75' area. I discussed the structure with Ms. Finney who informed me th^t the structure was installed two owners ago. Permits were not obtained, nor were any Variances granted for that structure. In this case, I whole-heartedly support the addition plans the Finneys are proposing, but I would ask for trade-offs." Kelley asked Finney to state her hardship for the requested Variance. Finney replied, "The house has one bedroom and is one and a half stories. The basement is functional as a swimming pool at best. We have tl»e same circumstance discussed in an earlier application this evening, with our dr.lveway being above the level of the house. \Jhen it rains, the water comes down the b-.ck sidewalk into our basement- We are hoping to put in a solid v;all foundation. The square footage of house now is 900 s.f. The - 18 - m f f - } 'V ? ‘ PLANNING COMfllSSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#10)ZONING FILE #1628-FINNEY CONTINUED addition would accommodate c’uildren wo intend to have in future, as well as extended family that may reside ^/ith us.” the Mabusth added, "I believe that the topography is a definite hardship. Also, the addition will not impact any neighboring views of the lake." Kelley asked how far the Fairview cottage to the west is located from the Finney residence. Hanson stated that you cannot see the Fairview cottage from the Finney property. Bello\/s stated that the Finney house is located on a point, which should also be considered as a hardship. Kelxey directed Sr.aff to make a site inspection of the structure within the 0-75' setback area to determine \/hether it is excessive, and whether it meets safety standards. He said, "Pending determination on the lakeshore structure, I v/ould recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback Variance." Bellows agreed that the hardship runs v/ith the land in this case and that she too would approve the Variance. Hanson concurred. The Public Hearing was continued. (#11)ZONING FILE #1629-MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION 1700 FOX STREET VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING James McNulty, Contractor, and Hugh MacMillan, were present. At 9;'5 p.m., Kelley opened the Public Hearing. Gaffron provided a brief review of tie history of this property, as well as an explanation of issues involved v/ith the applicants' present request t«D enlarge an accessory structure (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated March 11, 1991). Hanson stated that he had voted to recommend approval of the tennis court structure wht3n the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission. He acknowledged that the City had, since that time, adopted an Accessory Structure Ordinance, and that makes him a bit uncomfortable about recommending approval to enlarge the sasae structure. He said, "I do believe that the building in a greater success than v/hat the original plans indicated. I think the building is well suited to its location." - 19 - s PLANNING COrWISSION MEETING HELD J4ARCH 18, 1991 (ill)ZONING FILE #1629-MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Bellows stated that she wr.s consistently^ opposed to the structure from the beginning, and that she coutd not recommend approval of enlarging it. Kelley stated t’nat he had also been opposed to the tennis court structure whan the application v/as first introduced to the Planning Commission. He added, "This structure sparked quite a bit of interest in the Planning Commission and Council, and after reviewing our escisting Ordinances, v;e drafted the naw Accessory Structure Ordinance. I have to stand by that ne>. Ordinance. Jim McNulty showed a sketch of the building plan that was approved by Council, and stated that due to budget decisions, a smaller building was constructed. He then displayed a sketch of the proposed addition, and explained that the square foo«_age of the addition is approximately 1,000 sf. lass than the area that was approved in the first plan, but not constructed. fl>-Nulty said, "Vie are now asking permission to construct a portion of the original plan that was approved. The structure has been successful and has n.it proven t ■> bn an inconvenience to tne neighborhood. The owners went overboard to meat the landscape requirements." Kelley stated that he drives by the structure twice a day and agreed that it has a pleasing appearance, but addsd that he must adhere to his principles. The Public Hearing was continued. (#12)RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Kelley referred to a draft memo dated March 11, 1991, that was prepared by Staff, summarizing thn Planning Commission's comments and recommendation stemming from the two February Public Hearings. He said, "In my opinion, this memo is very close to vhat we discussed." Hanson stated that he had hoped all seven members v/ould be present when this recommendation was discussed. He suggested to Kelley that it may ba appropriate to explain, for the benefit of those in the audience, the nature of the six to one vote. Kelley stated that the difference in opinion focused mainly on consideration of County Road 6 being upgraded. Hanson added that Planning Commissioner Rowlette, who registered tiie minority vote, did not wish to sae the existing Highway 12 corridor selected for the proposed upgrade. Kellay read a portion of the March 11, 19^1 dra:t which - 20 - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (112)HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED sununairized the Planning Cornrnission s corridor recommendations. location Bellows added t at the recommendation based on a series of policies and goals, such as the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission consensus that they did not wish to undertake rezoning if areas along the corridor. She said, "We also recognized that though we wanted to siipport the views of our residents, it is our responsibility to look at the proposal within the context of immediate and future transportation needs for the Community. Tho Planning Commission agreed that some upgrading of Highway 12 is required to a.idress safety factors. We strongly encouraged the improvement of all levels of communication between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono. We felt it v/o*.s necessary to establisn a corridor to eliminate the uncertainty for those washing to buy or sell property within the area. Th^* Planning Commission indicateid the need to limit residential impact and protect the natural environment." Bellows suggested that it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to state soecifically that the Lece Line corridor is not to be considered." She said. "We do not want to give any implications that may lead MWDOT to pull the o.ld c<»rridcr plan out of their drawer." Hanson reiterated the importance of limiting the number of corridor considerations to only one. Kelley informed tliose present that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to encourage the City ot Orono to work with MNDOT and the City of Long L.ake to expedite comprehensive safety improvements to Highv/ay 12. He advised that MNDoT is planning to upgrade Highway 12 with specific safety improvements in the year 1993. Kelley summarized the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the design of the upgraded road. Hanson compared the recommended design to the old, four-lane Highway 12, though he notsd that the Planning Commission did not specify four-lane in their recommendation. Kelley stated that the traffic counts have not been provided, and that it is difficult to make a recommendation on number of lanes without that information. Mabusth stated that George Johnson and Councilmember Goetten confirmed that the current level of traffic on Highway 12 is 15,000 to 20,000 c-irs per day. She added that a four-lane road design is required for highways exceeding 10,000 cars per day. She asked the m«3robers present if they would still like their - 21 - .JIL^ 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18. 1991 (#12)HIGHV7AY 12 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED recommendation to refer only to a minimum width right-of-way design in lieu of stating four-lane. Kelley answered affirmatively Hanson said, "I would v;ant to recommend a four-lane, but I am willing to concur with the recommendation as is." Kelley stated that the Planning Commission further recommended that HLghv/ay 1? not be tne only alternative considered to address Regional traffic flows and pressure from the communities west of Delano. He referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation to divert traffic to Highway 55, and Gaffron displayed an area map showing where a connection betv;een Highways 12 and 55 could occur. Rellows stated that she would like the recommendation m-.^mo to Council to indicate that the vote was six to one. Kelley stated that the only other addition to the memo would be Bellows suggestion regarding opposition to possible consideration by MNDOT to select the Ljce Line corridor. Howard MacMillan asked if the term "minimum width right- of-way referred to another design option other than freeway o>: expressway. Kelley explained that minimum width right-of-way could refer to an expressway or free\/ay design. He added that he is aware that at some future time, a tour-lane highway will be needed. Kelley noted the Planning Commission specifically recommended against a freeway. Hanson indicated that he does not want the Planning Commission recommendation to allow for a piece-meal development of a road tliat v;ill be large enough to address existing and future traffic needs. He would rather see consideration given to what will be required in the future, and a road constructed to address that requirement. Kelley urged those in the audience to contact the City Councilmembers and express their point of view. ^0 Bellows also encouraged everyone to attend the March 25, 1991, Council meeting where tht Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to the Council. George Johnson stated that he has not heard anyone speak of the City's responsibility to the suburbs west of Orono. - 22 - ,tf m PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 T (»12)HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Kelley replied. "The Planning Ccjmraission did address that. We agreed that the City has a responsibility to a certain extent. We did not specifically recommend against a four-lane express\;ay design, which means we are being responsible to the traffic needs from the V7est. However, wa also agreed that there are other alternatives and that Highway 12 shou .d not be considered the only alternative. I think if the Planning Commission had taken a "no-build" position, that would not have been responsive to the needs of the v;estern communities." Kelley asked Mabusth to incorporate the revisions noted this evening into the recommendation memo to Council. iv' (#13)ZONING FILE #1618-WILLIAM PUCEL BALDUR PARK PRD/SUBDIVISION-SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. and Mrs. Pucel were present. Mabusth displayed the Pucel's Sketch Plan for a PRD on Baldur Park. She said, "One of the issues before the Planning Commission is whether or not you v/ould recommend approval of encroachment into t.he 75 foot setback area." Kelley stated that he would not recommend approval of encroachment into t.he 75 foot setback area. Bellows and Hanson concurred. Mabusth asked if the- Planning Commission v/ou .d recommend approval of a hardcover Variance. Kelley, Bellows and Hanson unanimously replied- "No." ivelley said, "Every time I drive out on Baldur Park Road, I am awed at the thought of more development occurring out there, especially in the low-lying wetland area." Bellov/s and Hanson agreed with Kelley. Mr. Pucel noted that there is approximately 22,000 s.f. of buildable area that is above t.he flood plain. He asked why he would be denied the ability to develop that area. Kelley replied, "If you can present a subdivision that meets all the Ordinance requiremer.ts, setbacks and hardcover, I would consider your plan." Mr. Pucel stated that he thought the purpose of a PRD was to allow for unique developments, and the clustering of the residential homes into one area. - 23 - illhUi J -.1 jhMhL'1^^^ -1—« ■».—.M afUilii Siffi ■tiinA' !■ - —* M. --'.M 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#13)ZONING FILE #1618-PUCEL CONTINUED Kelley replisQ, "I siivision the clustecing/ this esse* to occur =it the top of the hill where the existing hour.e is located." Hanson indicated that he may be willing to consider a width y^j^iefjce • jr something on that order, provided the setback and hardcover requirements are met. Ms. P.,cel stated that the property i=> extremely unusual, v;hich presents an extreme hardship. Kelley stated that the hari^'^lr is on Lake Minnetonka, and that many of the Zoning Ordinan.'^^^ written expressly for the purpose of protecting the Lake. Bellows added, "There are some of ur, on the Planning Commission that are not about to see the use of that land intensified until something is done about the road." Mr. Pucel asked what his next course of action v/ould be. Kelley explained that after filing a subdivision/PRD application, this matter would again come before tho Planning Commission and would then be scheduled for Council review. (#14)ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION Kelley asked Council Representative Goetten, and Councilmember Jabbour, if either v/ished to make any comments regarding the role of the Planning Commission. Goetten stated that Council has been considering the role of the Planning Commission, and thought it would be helpful to have the Planning Commission indicate what they see as their role. Kelley said, "The last faw years have been completely different for me than the eight years before that. I think the next five to seven years ate going to be important. Orono is at a critical juncture, and decisions made in the next fev; years are going to determine the manner in which Orono will exist in the future. I think tha Planning Commission should be more geared toward planning in areas such as roads, public services, etc. There has been discussion in the past about giving the Planning i.’ommission more of a voice- in that applications v;ith an overwhelming majority v/ould not require Council review. The applicants would have the ability to appeal any Planning Commission decision on the Council level." Hanson stated that the City of Orono has more Variances per capita, than cities with higher populations, such as Bloomington. He said, "I also believe that the Council, for years, has spent - 24 - > % . >• ^ i;cf ■V- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD liARCH 18. 1991 ($14)PLANNING COM^MISSION ROLE CONTINUED entiroly too much tiiiie doing Planning Commission work.” Kelloy stated that parhap® Orono exists as it does today, because of the Ordinances the City has established to control development and protect natural resources. He said. ’’The City of Orono is not a commercial entity, and does not focus its planning on revenue dollars. I believe that is unique, and that it provides a corresponding benefit in that v;a have a high credit rating. Because of the fact that we do not focus on development for revenue dollars, v/e have developed a very strong financial position. That is a very unique position for a metropolitan, suburban community." Hanson agreed with Kelley, but stated that the City has had to pay in other areas because of that position. Kelley said, "That is true, it has been at some cost. T’r.at is what caught us a little off guard with the Highway ]2 and LMCD issues." Goetten commented that the Planning Commission was caught off guard because they were not given the option to be involved. She said, "It is not the fact the Planning Commission would not have betin more involved wii:h those issues, it is that you were not asked to do that. The Council would like to see that, and a number of other changes, occur. I, personally, would like to see the role of the Planning Commission expanded. Hen/ever• Council felt that we first needed ho get your reaction to see if you agreed to an expanded role." Kelley stated that he appreciated the opportunity to meet with the other Planning Commission membe.rs in a \;ork session atmosphere to discuss the Highway 1.2 issue. Bellov/s agreed that the process for the Planning Commission to discuss and consider Highway 1 ;> hts been very successful. Hanson stated that the Planning Commission is a well working group of people. He said. "I’ve not seen a volunteer group of seven people work this \/ell together." Goetten said, "I think I see a consensus of a Council that will support some kind of expansiv")n and involvement." Bellows said. "It is my opinion that there is far too much duplication in our existing process. Jeanne and Hike go through each application we go through it, the Council goes through it. That is an incredible waste of time and talent. Sovae kind of system has t ■> be put in p.lace that will a.Mow only a certain amount of repetitiveness. I would like very much for the - 25 - 1 t ''■r j,.-, K' r PLANNING COMtllSSION MEETING HELD MARCH 13, 1991 (#14)PLANNING COMf4ISSION ROLE CONTINUED Planning Commission to have an expandad role. I v/ould like the opportunity to finally get to pjan. I v;ou .d preier i.o see committees developed to discuss issues, because the discussion of major issues get postponed because our agenda is so full. I also need to look at the position of Staff. It is not only the poor v/orking conditions for the Staff that poses a problem. VJe have excellent Staff personnel. It seems to me that they have been forc^?d into a very difficult position r.n the Community. They have been put in a position v;here t’uey m'jst act an the citizens' voice for zoning applications brought befo.-e the Planning Commission and Council. Instead of them being aole to maintain their role and objectivity, they are put on the line and forced to do more v;ork than they should possibly be asked to do i.n this capacity. This is because of the structure of the existing system. If we v/ere to revise that system, there may be a number of applications that would not get beyond Jeanne and Mike. I have been to a lot of Planriing Commission meetings in cities of various sizes. I have never seen anybody that is as well * prepared as our Sr.aff is prepared for these meetings. I think that is asking a lot because I think thc.re is a lot o;: things they should not be asked to do." Kelley asked why it is not necessary for property owners to sign building permits- even if their contractor applies for the permit. He suggested that may be a way for homeowners to be sure that proper permits have been obtained for construction projects, and may reduce the number of after-the-fact Variances. Jabbour indicated that one of the main reasons he wished to be elected to Council, was that he believed something^ had to be done to get the City back on track. He said, "After I \ias elected I set about the task of trying to decide where it v;as that we v/ent wrong. W.ns it the Council, or the Sr.aff, or the Planning Commission, or something else^ I determined that one of the problems we have is that no one has ever really sat do\;n with the Planning Commissi.m or Park Commission, or any other volunteer group, and explained to them what it is they should be doing. Another point is that Staff has been placed in precarious position. They could not tell an applicant that their proposal to exceed hardcover limits in the 0-75' setback zone would be denied, because Council w?.s not consistent in upholding that Ordinance." v/ith regard to Kelley's suggestion about applications v/ith majority votes being reviev/»?d by Planning Commission only, Jabbour stated that Council should review all applications to ke?p informed.. but suggested that thoue v;ith *» Planning Comraission m-ajority vote could be placed on the Consent Agenda. He said, "The Council's intention is to re-focus your function to what it should have been all a.long. Docs the Planning Commission - 2G - Ml 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (»14)PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE CONTINUED really knov; what their function is?" Hanson replied, "In t\y opinion, our function has be«?n to deal w* th Variances and other zoning requests, and that is about it. It may be appropriate to have a Planning Commission body that doals solely with zoning requests, and another group to address planning issues." Jabbour stated that the Zoning Ordinances \;ore v/ritten primarily with re-development in mind. He said, ’’That is why.the Planning Commission sees so many Variance requests. T-ie City is experiencing the re-development stage now, and because of that, and t'ne fact that lakeshore is scarce, the City w.i.ll b«2 under even greater pressure for re-development. People will buy $450,000 homes, tear them down, and want to re-build. Kvseping in mind the new D.JR regulations, it is going to be interesting to see how cities such as Spring Park and liayzata approach their future re-development. Orono bit the bullet from the beginning." Goetten stated tiiat the City of Orono has a’\/ays been a leader when it comes to protection of Lake Minnetonka, and other environmental resources. She agreed w.ith Jabbour's comments regarding the pressure for re-development.- and stressed the importance of Orono maintaining its restrictive, protective position. Kelley stated that it is important for the Planning Commission and Council to work together. He said, ‘'I have found over the last month or so. renewed energies and hope in regard to the City and why I got on the Planning Comm.ission. I \/ould like to expand that further- The bulk of p.lanning for Orono too.k place in the 1980's. The next pivot.al piece of that bulk of planning is Highway 1.2 and a new facility. Once those two issues are resolved and are in place, the City will almo.st be on automatic pilot- v/ith tlie e.'ccaption of routine Variances and subdivisions." Bellows added that roads is another planning issue that must addressed by the City. MINUTES-FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PLANNING COrUlISSION MEETING This item v/as tabled. MINUTES-FEBRUARY 20, 1991 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING This item was tabled. MINUTES-FEBRUARY 27, 1991 WORK SESSION This item was tabled. - 27 - PLANIIING COMMISSION MEETING HELD fl^.RCH 13. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It v/as agreed that Maureen Eello\;s './ould attend the April 8, 1991 Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. ADJOURNMENT The March 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting adjourned at lOz.vO p.m. f ES; :J9 . • . •. .• . . •. .. ... “Wh V^. -... - is t k'j.,-,. ; ■ r- r :V|' -It' •- vV' - 28 - JiifiiiiiuiilAifiiiiih J