Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-1982 Planning MinutesHP MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 The Planning Commission met on the above date. The fol­ lowing members were present: Chairman Hammerel, Goetten, Rovegno, Kelley, Callahan and McDonald. Mayor William B. Van Nest represented the City Council. Jeanne Mabusth, Tom Jacobs and Michael Gaffron represented the City staff. Michael P. Gaffron review with the Planning Commission the current expertise of standard and innovative, shallow trench and mound, septic systems ^n the area. Hammerel moved to approve the final subdivision of Lindgren properties subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the staff resolution. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Judd Ringer, Graydon McCulley and Gary Gabriel were present. Mabusth noted that this was now a 15 lot plat rather than a 9 lot plat. Staff had recommended that the loop road was to be a paved public road. All septic systems were to be mound systems upon review by Gaffron, and all wetlands were designated on the plans. Rovegno wanted to know the status of Outlot A? He questioned if would be subdivided sometime in the near future and have a cul de sac? Mabusth noted that they had no plans for any future development and that there was no need for a permanent cul de sac at the east side of the plat but possibly a temporary gravel cul de sac. Staff is not aware of any plans on the part of Sid Rebers for residential development to the immediate east of subject property. Rovegno noted that on Lots 2, 3 and 4 the lot line terminated at the cattails, and asked if they should be platted like this? Mabusth noted that the lot lines go through the marsh or wetlands area. She noted that a flowage and conservation easement would be taken over the retention pond. Kelley questioned who would be in charge of maintaining the retention pond? Mabusth stated that the Homeowner's Association would take care of this and that the City Engineer stated maintenance of the facility would be minimal. Goetten asked how often would it need maintaining? m Mabusth noted at sometime between 5 to 10 years span. Kelley questioned the setback line for the proposed houses from the wetlands and the retention pond? Mabusth noted 26' from both. L. ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM MICHAEL P. GAFFRON APPEARANCE 7:30 - 8:05 PM LINDGREN PROPERTIES 4505 West Branch Final Subdivision #588 JUDD RINGER 2280 Wayzata Blvd. Preliminary Subdivision #615 ■P O, ». -3 3... = Rovegno Blocr^because Sf the ^operty anHhtt°?he°exist?ng barn is not X50' from all prope lines. (RINGER CONT.) Mayor asked if the f ”J^rciiusSroenLr?’'®^^^^ development . y-^Qj-g were aware of the propo suUvilion and that the neighbors who appeare af thrmeetingf all approved the plat.at .tne — -- • 1 i at Rovegno moved to approve the l^ot -||ifSn"?he'’following (including Outlot A) ot uuu findings: 1 . All lots meet the standards of the RR-IB zonrng 2 - All lots meet the °|or*'l3°i°ts and shallow ' coL approving |°iLs for 2 lots withtrench systems for alternav existing residenc ^lart of this scheme but 3 - outlot A i? "^.P^^toninrs?andards for a >^esidential it meets all RR-IB ^onxiiy developed m the lot in the rural must*meet all zoning and CMp'^rUuireLntra^^^ alTow^now^^r in^ the'’future any typ^ordevelop^nt ^ ^ unsewered rural ,pp,oprilte reviewing 4 - Preliminary approval of th PP agencies. following conditions: such approval xs subg 1 • ■» ^ <- k ^ ^ ■'<7 . *»I ^ m ordirion on th%pxat^,33; of right^of^w^^^ for Willow Drive and additional rig Highway 12. 2 - 3 - 4 - Highway xz. , ^ the road. Dedication Dedication on the plat ° ,.4-iiitv easements. Tthe plat f^^«^;:rofdrainage"easements. Dedication on the p -,„«r the designated conservation and *^°''2^®3®|ck"'2? Outlot A, extensive wetland areas te®(area below the 936 contour . marsh area ^'^^ttmg slock 1.retention pond on Lots 3 and ^ Tested septic sites °"® jading process, and protected during the J P The barn on Lot .®^?°g^ructure does not meet the animals as the s"^3eot structurecreated lot lines, required 150’ setback from all y of 2.4 acres ^^addition. requiilmLts for the keeping and does not meet the area reg of animals. 6 . park fee per current fee schedule: 13 new lots § $200.00 = $2,600.00 mmm- 5 - Im'H . mwim11 V • ^ • ■ • K -:i )r. MikuTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 4 Ton. Jacobs, the Building^Official. to the State „ three bedroom house you wouldbedroom house, enforce a^three be^^^ have to redesign the b e en closets (or the furnace room over to maintain a three bedroom other bedroom) is r^the City that only a three bedroom wo:^d"beteeded"?rr^aiy ^ in their motion. Gaffron pointed out the septic problems of^overl ^ a home. This particular system was a people. Hammerel moved toaPPro^e the street ®®tback^lot^^^^^ lot width variance application findings: 4-:« results confirming suitable ^ ■ on-titrseptir^tes for both primary and alternate systems. setback standards ■ ircomp«tnrioca??on of existing structure. ^ 3 - The proposed improvement will benefit the surrounding neighborhood. residence on the site 4 - There has been an established residence for over 40 years. such approval is based on the following conditions: 1 - City will grant no fut^I date!^ “ - (“.SKtoHS S. Si<ic..io~ building inspector. county Quit claim deed of 33- of right of way to the County for County Road 19.3 - ror a.- - -- 4 - Quit claim deed of 33' of right or way for North Arm Drive. 5 - 6 - riocatL ;; ;ell to the south side of the house. Primary and inspector^to^inspect sitedemolition of house - inspector prior to demolition. 4n . ’ - r? 5S!,r:f ty;= ““ 5K- •““SSiei pip »" “■> Bovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). (FORGIER COlW'. y ’■J.TlStiScJ 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 5 A V: * 5 v , Applicant was present. Hammerel asked the applicant approximately how many customers would be using the bait shop a day? Applicant estimated approximately 50 per customers a day. Fahlin 0xplained that he has a contract for deed with Reutiman for building and land and that Reutiman has a contract for deed for the land with Tourangeau. Kelley questioned the gasoline tanks and their durability? % Applicant replied that all the gas tanks were brand new as of last year. Mr. Tourangeau, the fee owner, was also present. Mayor asked the applicant to explain exactly what he would be selling? Applicant stated that he would sell some fishing gear, gas, bait, pop, cigarettes, and candy from the vending machines. Hammerel noted the parking problem to the applicant ©xplaining that the site was limited in space and could not meet the parking demands for such intense use. McDonald noted that the septic was adequate, but asked where the City draws the line on retail outlets in residential areas? Goetten stated that she felt that the applicant was expanding the conditional use permit application in the LR-IA two acre residential district. Mabusth noted that the ordinance will not permit expansion of a non conforming use. Mayor asked if this was a proposal to expand on the useage of the conditional use permit? Mabusth stated her review proposed that it was indeed. Rovegno noted that as a neighbor he was in favor of the application. He stated that the site was now a big improvement from before when the automobile repair shop was in use. He felt that a bait shop would be less use than an automobile repair shop. Mabusth noted that this was an intense multi-use of the property. PAUL FAHLIN 1960 Shoreline Dr. Conditional Use Permit #661 .19: ^ : i 0- i' w ■ MWures OF thf co«missio» MEerlHO OF mmiAFi u . iwi tw ‘ (FAHLIW CONT;^ • appUca?iorior"paurLhUn°Sated'Srthf lollowin findings: 1 - The additional use intesification°of^the rn^fnl^t^ng^uirirdV^io^rjon of the zoning code• , . • 2 - Proposal does not meet the standards of Resolution ’ - s r“(4«srSc., 4 - increase of traffic for an area already plagued by traffic problems. 5 - Fish tank would increase on the septic demands. 6 - The proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1)• M: nnrity ~ tton^tL^automobile repair,was a signiiiioantly less use tnan cn traffic. It and that there t° ‘'®^e a bait shop rather would be more He felt it would bewould oe more ue. felt it would beA than the automobile repair shop. He rext it • Ills non conforming than permited cacar repair use. h r»s".5rs“SvS ssiSs; Speeter noted that he just planned to dredge where it had been dredged before. Kelley read the fro™ the thf a;p?icant"lee^^e^h^d^Lt hL riparian rightsP ?e!rthL^?he%pp!icInt ha^Len warned that dredging nSt be atloied by this Planning Commission in | his application of last year. +.*nrt ranh^^hf a^feaf/Jlirar Lrurrd^ Other dock. RICHARD SPEETER 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane Conditional Use Permit #665 -i • L ■ P-MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 7 W -H Speeter stated that the lagoon area has filled xn from the erosion problems of his lakeside banks. He felt that the Hanson letter spoke mainly of the problems of dredging wetland areas. Planning Commission advised Speeter that his lagoon area was originally a wetlands. Mayor stated that his lagoon was always a wetland and has been returning to a wetland for the past few years. McDonald noted that if it was dredged it would disturb the wetland vegetation. iSv •Rovegno stated that he thought a building and grading permit was all that was needed for the retaining wall. Mabusth noted that a conditional use permit application was required by Ordinance. McDonald read the zoning code section 31.700 dealing with the requirements of the conditional use permit application for the construction of a retaining wall. Rovegno felt that the lakeshore banks erosion hadn’t been solved by the ''flume" structure, because that seemed to ^ have.centered the erosion into the middle of the lagoon. Habusth stated that the retaining wall could have channeled the drainage away from the lagoon banks. Speeter gave the following reasons for requesting dredging in his lagoon area: 1 - Navigation - He stated that it was dredged in 1967, r When he bought his property he could have bought three other lots but chose this one because of the navigational rights. He noted that this was a very long walk from his residence to the long dock. 2 - He felt this was maintenance dredging because of the DNR permit in 1967. If he didn’t dredge the lagoon area it would become very swampy aesthetically. Mabusth noted that the MCWD would not act on the dredging application unless sedimentation or erosion problems were solved first. Rovegno questioned the changes in the lagoon area created by erosion. He wanted to know where the actual dredging would be done. % Mabusth asked for verification of the area to be dredged as the permit suggests dredging in the Henninger portions of the lagoon. (SPEETER CONT..) • i • . . .• 1 ''B liii Jkrn '• • jf- : .'i,Jf ■' ; 4 4 i MkuUTES OF -he PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18. 1982 Page 8 area^at 659 Minnetonka Highlands subject to the following findings: gnch dredging is in complete conflict of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code of the City. - Such dredging would be completely against DNR regulation (6 MCAR 1.5022 A 1-3) - ProDOsed dredging would be detrimental to the public health? safety and welfare based on detrimental affects of dredging on water quality of lake. - Applicant has an established permanent dock on main lake. - Applicant has not lost riparian access to lake. - Hanson letter stating facts against dredging disturbing the nutrients and vegetation of a wetland. - At the Planning Commission meeting the forewarned about dredging. (November 3, 1980) Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). AoDlicant was present. Rovegno asked if the setback line was incorrect. Mabusth stated the pro^se location of the house would be behind the average line. Mabusth noted that the ^wo accessory^structures^are ^ount lITlft inciSdf^hl many walkways designated on the plan. loo sf subject to the following conditions; 1 - Demolition permit required for orior existing house - house must be removed pri to construction of new house. staff to determine average lakeshore setback line and possible need for a variance, j . Removal of existing garage and shed location within ^ City right of way. such approval is based on the following hardships: X - Substandard lot 2 - Slope of land. 3 - NO additional land available. (SPEETER CONT.) i V . MICHAEL SMITH 525 Park Lane Variance #668 • .r; •• t’' ;■ -.y v : • *’• • •• ■iiii ils# y.-iyyiy #670 t MfiNUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 9 Applicant was present. Mabusth noted that this was an CLIFFORD OTTEN "after the fact" variance application. She explained 3740 Watertown Rd. that the structure was originally used to shelter an outside Variance pool and that Otten did not think a building permit was needed to place the shell on the property. Rovegno asked if a permit for agricultural use or a conditional use permit was needed for planting? Rovegno moved to approve the size variance application for Clifford Otten for an accessorty structure of 2118.96 sf based on the finding that the proposed use is consistent with accessory agricultural use and that the alternative of relocating two 1,000 sf of structures is impractical based on hardship of low land location close to immediate site and subject to condition that applicant work with the Building Official to bring structures up to Code. In addition. Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the proposed tree and shrub nursery. Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Applicants, Gary Peterson and Gene Earnst, were present. Mabusth explained that this was a PRD for a peninsula p2^operty located at the end of Baldur Park. The following concerns must be addressed in this review: 1) hardcover, 2) flood plain, 3) roadway setback, 4) width of road, 5) setback for houses, 6) density. Applicants were not in favor of a Homeowners Association. The private road as designated would require a Homeowner Association for maintenance of such. Applicant explained that the lake was deeper on the north side and the south shore consists of a low wetlands. Kelley asked if there was adequate sewer service available to the property? Goetten questioned the width of the public road serving the residences. She noted that it was required by ordinance for 5 lot density for a public road to be 18‘ wide. Kelley asked who would maintain the road? Mabusth stated that the City would maintain up to the cul de sac but 5 lot owner would maintain the private road. Applicant reviewed his hardships as the 75' restriction, the 931.5 elevation and the peninsula. Rovegno noted that there was a definate hardcover problem. He stated that the whole peninsula would practically be covered with hardcover with this type of proposal. TONKA PROPERTIES 1340 Baldur Park Subdivision #669 ^ ;; I 1 Rd. “tiasfi:; MNOTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 10 : M V The Mayor advised that the ordinance would not permit any S^Uding below the 931.5 elevation. c; i:s " “• ns s*/wSS‘oi5Ss “etbacf line! along with the floodplain. 'siabusth asked for the average dimensions of each lot. ilCDlicant stated 100' x 217 . McDonald noted for the applicants that all PRD subdivisions have to meet code requirements. Sds"anfthat\he'l6-®slffi^ have to be maintained. Goetten asked if they were willing to reduce it to a 4 unit development? Mayor stated that hydrologies and the ability?Leshore itfth^ gS^ftion"! IZllly :ot ability to handle quantity of water. 1- 4- that the 24' wide standard would impede theasked the Planning commission what would be acceptable to them? McDonald stated that the City was variances r>roteetion of Lake Minnetonka and notec tnar no Soulfb^granted on lakeihore properties if at all possible. twyor noted that all 5 houses would need variances and that this was not feasible. theSf pro^"l"to°3 ?eridlntia? u^?ts"meeting aU codS requirements. NO action required by the Planning Commission. (TONKA CONTwV ■I 5^ i 1 «xwuxr.o ur inc. UUMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 11 Applicant's Scott Erdman and John Quam were present. They explained that the maximuin seating capacity was for 350 to 400 in the gymnasium-main assembly hall. They noted that the youth would use this gymnasium for their activities set up by the church. They stated that in the future they might use the gymnasium as a Day Care Center too. Applicant's stated that they are currently meeting in the Schumann Elementary School until the church is finished. They currently have 100 adults attending and expect to expand in the future. The church is approximately 4 years old. Mayor noted that the church structure was designed for general purpose use. He asked what types of uses were proposed for the building. stated that it was a multi—use design rightriow • Mayor noted that this structure could easily be converted to a commercial building j.n a residential zone. Some Planning Commission members questioned the class room type design for the church. Callahan noted that architectural design of churches are usually the school room type for Sunday School classes, etc. NEW LIFEv-BIBEB-' CHURCH 830 Old Crystal Conditional Use Permit #672 Bay f." m Goetten asked ^he ap|^-licants if they planned any future expansion c”j the 9 acres? Applicants stated that no definate expansion plans were planned except for a sanctuary, if the membership grew to the point of needing one. Hammerel asked if they had designed it so that if they did decide to add on to the church, could it easily be done to meet all setbacks and standards, and not have to build a separate building or apply for a variance? Applicants stated that they took that into consideration when they designed the church. Mayor asked how they managed the financing? Applicant stated approximately $400,000.00 would be the cost. Kelley asked what the existing zoning was surrounding the property? Mabusth stated that this was a 2 acre residential development. She noted the parking requirements for a church of this size. It would be 1 for every 4 seats and that they would only be allowed one access. II?.■ a f:. Ss. i m ■i -i -. ^ V. y 4 ’v..f 4--' ■ * •ItT* WfO jwmi liBf# -.;trV "*! •• :v,. •;*'•: ;;vA-. .*::y.m . ■ ^ ■•yy- .V :;-..---v. f-i ‘‘ -v*> wm ^Wy:/:: r '-;•.■.= j.- ■a..: -a-;^:. - a. /v a,r4' . a.r' --1aa:. V.,: - a- _ -,/•■ 'a.'yj ■ -/aa^ Vva:.- av a; :aa ■ J •* . ■ • •i ’ ■ a>^4i .?a:yai wa-":, ■•••■• -a-^ •'-/a'- ."-■: Y;S\ ;:^.av•: .^aa.-aj U^aa..; asci&fH ia-:a •■ a 'a ^t^va:,,:i^ a ■■;.. a v =a,.- .V '• A ':■ •'... ..^ .* • ;••• > I-. •. 'I - -a'i '.vay *. * :.:-aa wm a>' -I ■• ^.■aa-iai IW:M E.^ V ^'aTa iii :; .• -y.;.V-.,. ..; :^..v. • i. i^-'-. a a .«v;!;. ,v '.■ •• ..■■ ■ *•*« .. .. i. Ba V 'aa. - ;;aI.;.,:. :•-. aa-;vJ :a;-r;. -a :.:. •.. aSsa V. .*.•• V a- : .•••••• ■ r ;■ 'a ■■. .-aa^'V.: ■anaw :■-a a'^. iV'W•i ,. f.j aa|mS i-.'v:«' = a wmI*: W w a^' M ifea.- '• rrr-K