Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1982 Planning Minuteswm ¥, S:. m^w mm . ■■■■:' :-^ ■ ' v; -V: -rlr-u-i : •: -. '•• • m ■■■: II m'-' ^ Council Representative - Mary Butler Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearing 2. 7:30 PM #686 Merrill Gibb, 3125 & 3135 Fox Street Subdivision Action Items 3. #654 DiCon, 155 Willow Drive South Preliminary Subdivision 4. #677 William Gregory/David Duff, 1410 & 1420 Shoreline Drive Preliminary Subdivision 5. #681 Doug DeMalignon, 1380 Arbor Street Variance 6. #688 Jerome Carlson, 2701 Kelly Avenue Variance 7. #689 Larry Langhans, 1374 Rest Point Road Variance 8. #691 Todd Robideau, 2794 Casco Point Road Variance Commercial Site Plan Review 9.. #690 E^in Martin, 3340 Shoreline Drive Site Plan Review Work Session 10. #685 Charles Krogness, 185 Brown Road South Subdivision 11. #692 Douglas Aabel, 1580 Long Lake Boulevard Subdivision Information Items 12. Planning Commission to select Planning C, to attend July 12, 1982, Council meeting. Approval of Minutes 13. Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 1982. .•J him lission Representative minutes of the planning commission meeting op JUNE 21, 1982 Commission met on the above date. The followino Su^“;s“o~2ei?' “<J.«°vegno. 'CoSncUm^mS^r'^iy ™e atrstaff! Mabusth and Tom Jacobs represented ^’’pnbli"a5on^*’%f;^el'»^i''®*'® mailing and the affidavit property? dedicated from the Gibbs Opheim asked if this cartway was a type of fire lane? Mabusth stated that it was a public cartway two rods wide and was never dedicated or recorded. ^ if the cartway was included in the filing ?Lt the neighbor^that abutted the cartway should have non-riparian riahta He also asked why the City would want to kter^Se «?^wly7 Mabusth stated it wasn't a question of what the citv warn-o^ but more of what they are required to uphold based on recent Qpreme court decisions involving public accesses t^ll^es? i?hl Stated that it was unfair of the City to take 5!?® Gibbs when the City didn't take it from applicant was suggesting to trim down the recommended width of right of way? again that Mr. Gibbs shouldn't ^rview lilt "" previ^s Callahan agreed with the applicant. Ms. Bacon stated that this potential public use of th* aenhetics!^^ affect the sale of the property and the cartway issue was ever resolved in the Council's previous discussions? Mabusth stated that this was never resolved. °f ^9^5 Farview Lane noted that in 1976 the 'Y ATTENDANCE 7c30 PM MERRILL GIBBS 3125 & 3135 Fox Subdivision #686 7:30 — /;b0 Public Hearing GIBBS 135 Fox ion MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 2 Rovegno noted that the cartway should have been shown ^|On the survey and that the City should submit a copy of Pjach a document that proves there is legal claim to this Wight of way. He noted that if the City didn't take it from the Farview plat, that they shouldn't take it from the Gibbs. Ms. Bacon stated that Mr. Gibbs shouldn't have to pay for the City's mistcUce in the Farview plat and also noted that the cartway was never maintained. Mabusth stated the cartway was used by the .public. Callahan noted that according to the papers in front of the Planning Commission right now it doesn't exist, but it still may exist. Marge Gasch of 1030 Tonkawa Road asked who had the legal right to use this portion of land? She also questioned why the access hadn't been used for about 4 years. Opheim moved to approve the two lot plat of Merrill Gibbs finding that all standards of the LR-lA zoning district have been met subject to the following conditions: 1 - Applicant execute a conservation and flowage easement ^ with the City over, under and above the designated Cj wetlands. 2 - Designate 33' of right of way for Fox Street. GIBBS (CONT) 3 - 4 - Shed within lakeshore protected area is a non-conforming structure and will be subject to all pertinent ordinances Payment of park dedication fee in the amount of $100.00 $100.00 for newly created lot and no charge for lot with existing house. Planning Commission decided not to recommend designating the 16.5' of right of way for the public access way based on the following findings: - This cartway may or may not exist at all. - 16.5' is not prudent for an access way and may create a safety hazard and would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 3 - Equity considerations for Gibbs - consistent with property owners of Farview plat. Callahan seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). ^ •« - ■ ► 5 m'g IP-- •ITI^ •itr# mM ES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 hf «®s.P>^esent. Mabusth noted the masterto the Planning Commission. master acreage. On the MCWD report it ianfLTno^^ei application the ant stated that it is 93.75 acres, asked If the cul de sac would be public too? ‘'rlad^'^ with the dedicated t he was concerned about access off Willow in ex of this application. He felt that all a internal roads rather than ig more traffic onto Willow and Watertown Roads. double*^facin^lots?'^°‘* impossible because it would Strongly recommended the use of internal roads ^sions^of^®^”^ off Watertown, which is already signs of increased traffic. ^ Tornlat ^ subdivision “meerl?l°fJnLT “/°e^"5 district and havl been r Standards of the Orono On-site Septic rural development subject to the following conditions newly created lots shall access from the plat road. r°thrp“d will be required sssement over Outlot A and ^ th^t\^n^olve ^^rSpSir oFo^vD^ ’ i° “f®"*'® shared maintenance epair of private road by abutting benefitted lots. irity'^if*lon’'®Sradina form of financial■letL L retention pond is not»ieted by final plat approval. e”?fviledf‘ ®’^®®® 1 plans to designate pond area as drainage easements. Page 3 DiCON 155 Willow Drive S Preliminary Sub. #654 23: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 4 I 8 - Preliminary plans to be revised, designating correct ^ side yard setback area for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, prior to Council meeting. 9 - Dedication of additional right of way for Willow brive South, Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. 10 - Paynent of Park Fees in the amount of $1,200.00 (6 lots @ $200.00) 11 - Ncuning plat road - City will submit a list of acceptable road names. 12 - Temporary erosion control during construction phase per MCWD report. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Larry Berg, applicants' attorney, was present. He gave some background on the applicants' situation. He noted that this was the only plan that suited the primary and alternate sites for septic testing which is needed for approval of the subdivision. He noted that it was in a 2 acre zoning district and each lot would have 2.49 acres. McDonald noted that they could just cut out one lot and en they wouldn't need the variances. DiCON (CONT) O Berg stated that then they wouldn't be able to have the subdivision. His client, Gregory, wants 4 lots and they would be improving the roadway and there is more than enough density for the subdivision. Rovegno suggested rotating the lot lines 30® or 40®. Berg stated that the steep slopes limited them to this plan. He noted that a variance on 2 lots would be needed. He stated that he had talked to Alan Olson, City Planner, and that he felt that the property would eventually be sewered and them maybe 1 acre zoning would follow. McDonald noted that the City has never approved of a subdivision with variances. There should be a way that they can rearrange the lot lines. Opheim asked if the two setback variances were needed on unbuilt structures. Berg stated that from a legal standpoint the County Road 15 issue must be resolved for the property owner this subdivision or they will be forced to bring th County and City into court over right of way issue. Mabusth stated that at the time of final plat approval the question of which governmental body must vacate Bracketts Avenue should be resolved. WILLIAM GREGORY/ DAVID DUFF 1410 & 1420 Shoreline Drive Preliminary Sub. #677 lORY/ rive Sub. k • • minutes op the planning commission meeting of JUNE 21, 1982 County partially vacated ^acketts Avenue except for a portion of pGiurroad thr?S? bSfnot^a^ga^agftoo/®^ “ Opli0iin f©Xt tlisti Du!f*f snd th© ssotic ‘'hy-o t oc?i • ortirp?at. t“ merits sss''.s'SoJi;:j iss gi;: Planning Commission also felt that just 1 dock anH i access would be allowed on Outlot A. orio~t?*toi:f j!*" - plat sSbdivi»lSS''t^ 'variances needed for this want to continue with the subdJv?sroror no^ ^Donald seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). foSr^h^d*'nJI5fH'’'®®®"‘- Applicant noted that a family of rour had moved in since the last meetina and tha^ '^'^’'^”9 ^l"a- “l aiSI nSteffletter Of the livinr roSm and ’'bedriom!’^°'’ ‘’® ®" expansion be“?^?eS?*'®‘^ “ 1°°» variance to Opheim felt the applicant had sufficient hardships. J2 ‘a.f2s's,3sr.'2s 1 - No additional land available. Established residence for over 50 years. ^ ’ existln«".''K^i ‘"'5®“$® additional demands on existing substandard septic system. : #*: {!V -r -V Page 5 GREGORY/DUFF CONT. \ ■.^- DOUG DeMALIGNON 1380 Arbor Street Variance #681 i-1 > v-r' Biliil x.-j. "I .•.>tv . '-r •j '-J ■ r. f * MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 6 4 - The proposed improvements will have no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. DeMALIGNON (CONT) proval is subject to the following conditions: 1 - Existing drainfield must be staked and protected during construction. 2 -Owner is placed on notice that based on the substandard lot area and inability to expand septic system, the City will not approve any future expansion of the principal structure. c • kF- 1 m i- Owner is placed on notice that if the septic system fails that holding tanks must be used. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ai*es (7), Nays (0). Applicant was present. Mabusth noted that the house has been there since 1902. Rovegno suggested moving the house over. JEROME CARLSON 2701 Kelly Avenue Variance «688 Mabusth stated that mature trees would be lost if the house was moved over and because of the narrowness of the lot would also require setback variances. ^lley ^i^llow moved to approve the variance subject to the llowing conditions: 1 -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must apply for a demolition permit to raze the existing structure. ' ■■.V 2 -City will not approve any future setback variances for additions to the principal structure or for accessory structures. V' 3 - All structural changes planned for existing dock must be reviewed by the Orono Building & Zoning Dept. Opheim seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Applicant was present. Richard Mich of 1373 Rest Point Road and Mrs. Sigafoos of 1365 Rest Point were present. i Rovegno noted that only a lot area variance was needed rather than a lot width variance since the 80% standard was met. LARRY LANGHANS 1374 Rest Point Rd Variance #689 Goetten moved to approve the lot area variance of Larry Langhans based on the following findings and hardships: - No adjacent lands available. 2 - Properties platted prior to existing zoning. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 3 - & The proposed building site appears consistent with the residential development of the surrounding neighborhood. 4 -The property has been assessed for 1 sewer unit and sewer is available. 5 - The development of the property will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. and subject to the following conditions: 1 - All proposed structures on the site must meet the setbacks of the LR-IB zoning district. 2 - Access to the site will be via Rest Point Lane *- the access location must be approved by the Public ' Works Coordinator. 3 - Development of the site will be limited to the hardcover regulations of the City - property is ■ location within the 75-250* setback area allowing « 25% hardcover or 6818 sf. 4 - O If garage structure remains it must be converted to storage shed or an other accessory structure permitted in residential district - it cannot function as garage since access will be via Rest Point Lane. Wm 5 - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner must submit proof of combination of Lot 14 and Part of Lot 15. 6 - Payment of the following fees with building permit: SAC $425.00 Plant Charge $225.00 $$50.00 Sewer assessment already paid. Callahan seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0)• Applicant was present. Mabusth noted a telephone call late on Monday from Mr. Ortenblad who lives across the street, who stated that he was in favor of the variance but didn't see the need for the staff recommended fire walls. Hammerel moved to approve the rear and side yard setback variances requested by Todd Robideau to permit construction of a 24' X 22' garage subject to the following conditions: 1 - Page 7 LANGHANS (CONT) f h r TODD ROBIDEAU 2794 Casco Point Re* Variance «691 «r- Applicant apply for a demolition permit to tear down original structure at time he applies for building permit. Fire walls must be constructed for rear and site (south) walls of garage. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). OTiT«l r#^iTcT* '.^•i',; k‘.|^T«rifi«j Ti m • ..■■> mm- m >itl« •If I* plil mm: F?^ - . •UK# •HM >)H»' r- ;• .' '. •• • .. ■ ■•.. ; .=• V fe:t-l im \ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 9 Rovegno felt it did not fit in the zoning and that it should at least require a conditional use permit. MARTIN (CONT) ^)allahan stated that a formal conditional use permit should be filed and a zoning amendment also. Applicant stated that this improvement would greatly enhance this piece of property. Rovegno asked if this wasn't an accessory structure in the B-1 district and if there were any restrictions on setbacks? Mabusth stated that all structures must meet the same setback. Another poll was teUcen from the Planning Commission as to whether they thought the applicants needed a conditional use permit: Rovegno felt that it required a conditional use and a zoning amendment. Opheim concurred with Rovegno. McDonald stated that they should just amend the code. H2unmerel felt it was compatible with the current plan. ^^llahan stated that they should amend the code. Goetten concurred with Callahan. Kelley felt this type of use was already compatible with the current zoning code. Rovegno stated that they should just add it to the list in the code as a compatible use and thereby requiring a conditional use permit. Kelley felt that the City should have as much control over tl storage as possible and then when a change in ownership occui it should be reviewed again. Also the City should define square footage for mini-storage uses for future reference. Callahan stated another suggestion would be to attach this use onto the original conditional use permit (gas) rather than amend the code. Hammerel noted to the applicant that soil borings should definitely be done because this would determine the type of foundation given the spec/ial fill problems. Kl. Planning Commission asked the applicant if he would rather have his application tabled. pplicant stated that he would rather move on to the Council and get started as soon as possible. 4.: -V V" • •• .* .•* •'» .*.«.V: vV/:v^’;V ^. . ... /■ I ■:-! ■ 4 -i :■ ■, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 10 Mary Butler, Council representative, was asked by the Planning Commission to give her opinion on the pending MARTIN (CONT) jQgplication. She stated that in past applications by ,dividuals with warehousing their own materials, most were denied finding it not compatible with the zoning district. She noted that the Council was not addressing the "mini-storage” at that time. She felt that "mini-btorage" is different. She noted that she would like to see it all in one building rather than five detached buildings. She noted that the zoning code does not address itself for this type of use. Kelley noted that this type of storage should be for residential use only. For excunple, apartmeni: dwellings with no storage facilities. Callahan noted that he too would rather have one continuous building rather than the five detached buildings. Rovegno moved to deny Erwin Martin's request to build five "mini-storage" iheds based on the following findings: w 1 - This type of use can't find a home in the B-1 district. 2 - Council should examine storage in the B-1 district for residential use as a possibility since it doesn't fit in the code. Qammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). (1) Abstention. McDonald abstained because this was only a sketch plan review. Opheim noted that staff should research on such a storage use and also the limitations to storage^such as fleunables. Applicant was present. Applicant noted that Sullivan's had two drainfields put in and that he would check with them to confirm this. Opheim asked about the existing drainfield on Lot 2. CHARLES KROGNESS 185 Brown Road So. Subdivision «685 Applicant stated that there was no problem with access. Mabusth stated that Hennepin County would be submitting a report on location of access for Lot 1. Applicant stated that if they ran an access into Lot 2 that it might destroy the turnaround from the garage. Callahan strongly concurred with the applicant. Planning Commission found no futher problems with the application and scheduled a public hearing for July 19, 82. uM MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 i»age 11 Mr, and Mrs. Doug Aabel were present. ope-tv? ^ the neighbors fence on Mr. Aabel's of ^ usually require subdivision becauseOf the encroachment of a neighbor's fence? DOUGLAS AABEL 1580 Long Lake Blvc Subdivision #692 neighbor put the fence up and that |o!nftr::i:p“ "^-^hbo^'^ property so^hey arf app?Sva! ?°rthl m?teTrnd^tou“I^1|“‘i“tr“ that the metes and bounds description an“l ?^gaf IS as simple as humanly possible for a triangular piece of property. *-iianguiar |Kte5?i:SiCKi's;; stated that it is unreasonable for staff to ask ®xceptions to the subdivision when the code does ot define simple legal descriptions. asked why the applicant couldn't just tear down the fence and move the driveway. stated ttot the drainfield is inadequate and he Qnts to upgrade the drainfield. He noted that perc ^:6sts are being done right now. ^ PlF'i ^busth added the additional parking area will secure the front yard for upgrading septic systemi. secure the SSnf ?Sr"j “y Ts. =^»>eduled airiS! l?S^“oSScrl"mel?iSg?"""‘' Rovegno wanted to note for the record that his neiahbor Migh^r stltfd*’?hlt®i.®'^^''^"^ Official and that the wat^thl pleased in which theway the Building Official handled the whole situation. REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MTG. COMPLIMENT FROM MEMBER TO CITY OFFICIAL af nr Conmdssion minutes Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0), approval of minutes The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 PM. 7-* " -.I*/!- s^!' • «•