Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-1982 Planning Minutes'i* ^ 1^- o AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, JULY 19, 1982 Council Representative - Willicun B. Van Nest, Mayor Call to Order 1. Call ^o order/roll Public Hearing 2. 7:30 PM #685 Charles Krogness, 185 Brown Road South Preliminary Subdivision 3. 7:45 PM #692 Douglas Aabel, 1580 Long Lake Boulevard Preliminary Subdivision Action 4. #585 Schlee Builders, Inc., 3660 Shoreline Drive Review of Revised Approved Preliminary Plans 5. #603 Willl^un Wear/Richard Raiche, 2910 Watertown Road Final Subdivision - Resolution 6. #657 Michael Pluhm/William Mernik, 2710 Walters Port Lane Final Subdivision - Resolution 7. #694 Thomas Serenpa, 1670 Shadywood Road Variance 8. #695 Guenther Roth, 1428 Baldur Park Road Variance Work Session 9. #693 Theron Hineline, 1565 Orono Oaks Drive Conditional Use Permit 10. #696 Hildur Hollander, 250 Hollander Road ^ Subdivision Information Items ■ '* ■ j ■ i' S'. 11. Planning Commission to select Planning Commission Representative to attend July 26, 1982, Council meeting. Approval of Minutes 12. Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of June 21, 1982. i.'' ■ L -J MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman Hammerel, Kelley, ^>etten, McDonald, Rovegno and Opheim. Mayor Van Nest was not present. Jeanne Mabusth and Tom Jacobs represented the City staff. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present in the audience for this application. The applicant was present. Mabusth noted .a slight lot line realignment and also noted the Hennepin County letter requesting 7' additional right of way for Brown Road. Rovegno questioned the County's request for the additional 7* of right of way when they already have 66' existing. Mabusth noted that they were probably requesting the additional right of way because this property is very close to the luce line bridge. She noted that in other applications that the County has requested additional right of way before bridges. Rovegno stated that he felt this was not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan as South Brown Road is classified as a collector road. Hammerel moved to approve the preliminary subdivision Charles Krogness located at 185 Brown Road South Vwcnding that the proposed subdivision meets all septic standards setforth in the Orono On-Site Septic Code and the standards of the RR-IB zoning district and that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single fenrily residence without the need of any setback variahcos, such approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 - m Wetlands to be described on the plat as drainage easements and dedicated to the public - a conservation and flowage easement shall be required over, under and across the wetlands. 2 -Proposed house and all accessory structures on Lot 1 must meet all setback standards of the RR-lB zoning district. UV V 3 - Future Owner of Lot 1 must obtain an access permit from Hennepin County Highway Department prior to construction. 4 - Park Dedication fee of $100.00 for newly created lot. 5 ' L -J Planning Commission recommends to Council, that the additional 7' requested by the County should not be enforced to this application. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM CHARLES KROGNESS 185 Brown Road So. Subdivision #685 Public Hearing 7:30 - 7:31 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 2 Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mr. Truman of 1570 Long Lake Boulevard ^^d Mrs. Severtson of 1586 Long Lake Boulevard were present Tfrom the audience. Mr. and Mrs. Aabel were also present. It was noted for the record that Mrs. Severtson is the owner of Lot 12. DOUGLAS AABEL 1580 Long Lake Blvr Preliminary Sub. #692 Public Hearing 7:45 - 7:51 r Goetten noted the shed which is too close to the lot line and asked if this shed met all setback requirements. Mabusth stated that it didn't meet the 10' side setback. Applicant stated that he would eventually rempvs the shed and if rebuilt it would meet the required setback. Kelley noted for the applicant that no expansion of bedroom and bathroom additions would be allowed on Lot 11. Opheim moved to approve the metes and bounds division as opposed to a formal plat for this lot line rearrangement based on the following findings: 1 -The proposed subdivision wLl secure the existing front yard of Lot 11 for septic upgrading and the newly acquired area for offstreet parking. The proposed subdivision will permit the upgrading of the existing structure on Lot 11 and permit owner occupied residency as opposed to the rental user. There is nothing in the code that defines a simple legal description and the need for platting if that description is more than a single sentence. The triangular parcel could not be described in a more simple description. ■ 4 -The subdivision application will be withdrawn if the expenses of a platting are incured. 5 -The existing structure could be expanded (upward) without the need of a variance review - both Orono Code and State Building Code contain no condition that would require review by the City if an expansion exceeds 50% of the assessed market value of a structure. The subdivision is the only vehicle available to the City that will allow controls over future expansion of marginal property. and subject to the following conditions: 1 - Owner of homestead lot. Parcel A, must combine said lot with Parcel C. 7^- Owner of homestead lot, Parcel B, must combine said lot with Parcel D. 3 - All future expansion of combined Parcels B & D must be limited to non-bedroom and non-bathroom expansion. V : H' •. ‘ . •: / ■■■■ •,jI I - * MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 4 -e 0wn6ir mus't ir©inov6 or relocsit© th© sh©d to m©©t all 8©tbacks and zoning r©guir©in©nts upon coxnpl©tion of construction of hous©. K©ll©y s©cond©d. Vot©: Ay©s (6), Nays (0). Mrs. S©v©rtson not©d for th© r©cord that sh© agr©©s to this m©t©s and bounds subdivision. Russ Fi©rst r©pr©s©nting Schl©© Build©rs was pr©s©nt. Th© following n©ighbors w©r© pr©s©nt for this application: Mr. and Mrs. Johnson of 3508 Lyric Av©nu©r Mr. and Mrs. M©y©rs of 3585 Livingston Av©nu©, Jo© Hud©rl© of 3590 North©rn Av©nu©# Mr. and Mrs. Stallman of 3520 Livingston Av©nu©, Kar©n Gab©rt of 3572 Livingston Av©nu©, Harv©y Red©r of 3598 Livingston Av©nu©» Alic© D©rry of 3559 Lyric Av©nu© and Albin Paterson of 3473 Livingston Avenue. PierSt noted that th© Park Commission suggested a tot lot for th© last 48 unit application. Mabusth stated that the Park Commission would again review this tot lot for the new 24 unit plat. Kelley noted that the first issue to solve was the density. He noted that the density ratio met all code equirements. ..arvey Reder of 3598 Livingston Avenue stated that he didn't want lights and noise directly across from his house. cHa Opheim noted that the developers road will align with Livingston. Reder stated that the plat road should access off onto County Road 15 or be offset. Rovegno felt that this plan was less attractive than the original 12 twin home plan. Mr. Stallman of 3520 Lyric Avenue stated that the County did not object to accessing off onto County Road 15 per a meeting held with Commissioner Robb and neighbors this past weekend. Kelley noted that the majority of the people travelling those roads will not leave the house in the morning and access onto County Road 15. They may come home that way but they will not leave onto 15 in the morning because they wouldn't be able to get onto 15. & heim suggested a through road to County Road 15 rather an the cul de sac. I Page 3 AABEL (CONT) ! - i;!4 SCHLEE BUILDERS 3660 Shoreline Dr. ^ Review of Revised Approved Preliminary Plans #585 .. ■ ^ ^ II mJr II' I • "-"I Tf • r kV. I... i : MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 4 Fierst stated that the existing landscaping would have to removed and further noted that the City suggested this an. Opheim stated that future development of the lots to the west would also access onto Livingston and that the Planning Commission should consider also the future development. Donna Meyers of 3585 Livingston Avenue stated that all traffic will be coming down Livingston instead of Blaine. Haunmerel noted that everyone will not be leaving at the same time in the morning. He noted that his son lives in Huston in the same type of development and that there is no problem with the traffic because everyone doesn't leave at the seune time and everyone doesn't i^rk. Harvey Reder stated that the traffic should not bother County Road 15 then. Fierst noted that the County did have problems with the original access and they stated that it would take about $60,000.00 to fix the big hump that is across from the cleaners. He stated that he has fire and police letters from emergency offices that stated this plan would be the best in case of emergency. Qpheim asked if the City Engineer has looked at the significant increase in traffic and increased load that Livingston will handle with this type of development and also with the future development of the other lots. Fierst stated that the Tonka Toys owns the property to the west and that this should have no bearing on Sbhlee project. Kelley asked about the cement trucks going down these streets. Fierst stated that all trucks would be directed down Blaine Avenue and that if they didn't obey the rules that the truckers would be fined. Karen Gabert of 3572 Livingston Avenue asked who would be maintaining these new roads ans who would have to pay for the upkeep. Mabusth noted that it would be the City's responsibility Opheim asked if a car was parked on the curb legally, cpuld another car m£Uce it through? If not, then maybe e City should make one side of the street no parking.Q SCHLEE (CONT) K Jr ' ' y .. f MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 5 Fierst stated that if they can't drive through there safely with cars parked on the side now, then it is l^^safe now, even before this development goes through. Opheim asked the developer why he didn't go ahead and build when they first got approval ^.n 1978. Fierst stated that they fUdn't like the plan and that it was economically unfeasible. He felt that the 48 single feunily units were better and financially more feasible. Rovegno noted for the record that through all the plans that Schlee has submitted to the City, that Schiee has been most responsive and are always willing to conform to meeting City standards. Donna Meyers of 3585 Livingston Avenue stated that the people would have to come down Livingston or Blaine to catch public transportation such as a bus and would this not be an inconvenience or poor planning. A neighbor stated that fire trucks can't make a turn onto Blaine from 15 with an emergency vehicle. Why only have one exit for this development? Rovegno stated then there are already access problems ^<And that these problems would be upgraded when this ^^^velopment goes in. Fierst stated that Council will address the access onto County Road 15 for future development of properties to the west when that time arises. He noted that this is not the property to have access onto County Road 15 but maybe future development of those other lots. Don Stallman of 3520 Lyric Avenue asked why the road keeps going, eventually there will be development. Why don't they put a cul de sac at the end of that road too? Fierst stated that the City doesn't allow this. You have to have a road to future development on any property. You can not land-lock any property which has a possibility of being developed in the future. He noted that the City Council will address the County Road 15 access issue when development on that property arises. Opheim stated that he wasn't comfortable with approving this concept yet with assumptions being made by expertise. As is, physical layout is adequate. ^cDonald noted that all of this development traffic IQ. 11 be dumped onto this neighborhood and that the City shouldn't nuUce new developments onto existing ones. SCHLEE (CONT) i-mmm. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMI4ISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 6 Rovegno moved to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision for Schlee Builders subject to the following MBfendings and conditions: “ The developer has carried out to the letter the City's recommendations and requirements. SCHLEE (CONT) Park Commission has approved the tot lot before and they will review it again for this new 24 unit plan. 3 - All subject lots meet requirements of Orono Zoning C 4 - Density ratio is less than the requirement. They propose 2.6 units per acre. 5 - Proposed hardcover is less than what is allowed. They propose 65,972 proposed hardcover or 16%. Access to plat — Recommendation of preliminary approval subject to the condition that proper analysis of traffic flows not affect health, safety and welfare, such measures to be addressed more specifically by Council. Said improvement not to be assessed against abutting property owners but to the developer. These improvements include whatever improvements in Navarre Heights area such as "no parking" signs, curbing or whatever is required on Livingston Avenue, Lyric Avenue, Crystal Place or Blaine Avenue. Lot configuration and layout is to the letter per City Council direction. Lot 7, 8, 9 & 10 to be noted in the chain of title that this may not be subdividable as area was credited against this PRD application. r: - ' - 'r'l. -! 8 - 9 - l6 - city and developer to find a good traffic plan. Hammerel seconded. Goetten noted that the Planning Commission had not addressed the issue of the houses on Blaine Avenue that would access off Blaine. Fierst stated that the reason for this was for accessibility for building permits. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays H). ^heim minority opinion - Opheim felt that there had been ^Qadequate analysis of traffic study in the Navarre Heights Tfrea. Council's recommended access will affect City in maintenance and/or reconstruction of roads. :■■■ -ii ■ vx f.- • . • •:V^.' vv ^: .. •• ■ - •1.- . • , * • . . • !. 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 7 Applicant was not present. Mabusth noted the minor changes in the original resolution. Q etten moved to approve the Wear/Raiche subdivision subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the staff resolution. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Applicant was not present. Rovegno moved to approve the Michtael Pluhm/William Mernik final subdivision subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the staff resolution. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Mr. and Mrs. Sarenpa were present. Mabusth noted the existing garage encroaches 7* into the County Road right of way. Mr. Sarenpa stated that he didn't want to put frost footings onto the existing one. Mabusth advised the two story addition would require frost footings. ^^^etten stated that the proposed size is almost the V^ze of the house. She noted that it should be replaced because it is a non conforming structure which encroaches onto the County right of way. Kelley asked why the two story structure? Applicant stated that this was strictly for storage as his house has no basement and that his property was due for upgrading of the garage. Kelley asked if there were any comments from the neighbors and exactly what the applicant had in the garage stated that the garage was used for storage and a workshop. Since he doesn't have a basement for storage so he needs the extra space in his garage. Hammerel stated that no one can build anything on the County Road right of way. This would be adding onto a building that encroaches the County right of way which is already a non conforming structure. Rovegno asked according to Building Code, can you put it on a slab? ^^cobs stated that anything over 1000 sf or second story ^^^uires frost footings. WILLIAM WEAR/ RICHARD RAICHB 2910 Watertown Rd Final Subdivision Resolution #603 MICHAEL PLUHM/ WILLIAM MERNIK 2710 Walters Port Final Subdivision Resolution #657 THOMAS SARENPA 1670 Shadywood Rd Variance #694 LMiTi: •iir«i tv- l^m^: OOl«1 • V«I •f=i^r#rc: •i»rsT# •liar* •c^f# •)0f« •r#f« •liar#•)MMUC4#T0 fe:::r-o£; k ‘:!':r - ?v7.-.v. .' :■:;•■ • ■•.■^•■'' ••.'-. '.J •. ■ .: V ■ •■; /-^ ■ :: '.V..: vr ■/ ■■■■■ ■• -y-v :'^- •V asiy9,j^r-,^«!v.4 .-i.^-:... V: ;. ;:,• . •,. t;. = " ^ ■•••:,Ew : i'k--'-.*P MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 9 I" CONT)„ V, ^ -; ? V |l S;„r2rw S; S:t "■■ SV2iirx3nc© Kelley asked how much hardcover would be increased? #695 McDonald asked if Baldur Park was a private road or a City road? Mabusth stated that it was a City road up until Mr. Boar's property. McDonald stated that these parcels of land weren't legally combined for tax parcels with a street dividing them. Also she noted that you can't put a garage on a property unless a principal structure is on the property also. Mabusth referred to the plat map and combination forms dated 1979 that reflect the combination for tax purposes. Rovegno stated that the size of the structure seemed more like a house than a garage. He noted the building size of 25' X 52' which is much too large. Mr. Stodola stated that the applicant does a lot of wood work, has a few boats and noted that this is the applicant s summer cottage. /^^Donald insisted that the lots were not combined and stated Vhat the lot combination form came from the finance division at Hennepin County for tax purposes but that doesn t mean that the lots are legally combined. Mabusth stated that these lots are combined for tax purposes and was completed in 1979 well after Baldur Park Road became a City road. Goetten again noted the size of this proposed structure. She felt this was much too large for a garage. Kelley felt that the second story was alright but noted that there is a hardcover concern. He also noted that there is a swcimp behind the proposed structure. He felt that the neighbors shouldn't have any problems with the proposed garage because the structure is between the trees. He noted the solar second story which is very attractive. Opheim stated that this proposed garage is in the 0-75 setback and the real issue is the applicant wants a variance, he has sufficient hardships but the structure is much too large. Opheim moved to table Guenther Roth's application with the Suggestion that the applicant considerably reduce the i|pvoposed garage and therefore have substantially less hardcover. Kelley seconded. •r^ti •iiirti o«T«i • HsT« KW\[•W] V-I I.- •". . • :•••■•■ . •• ;-v.: ..-s:- . - v’' • ifT«■.;•■:■ 'y;*, ■I = :j-- ; ■:•■ ■•:. r. .; f-: .;■ ■■: .->« ••*.*'. V-• , • .,= ■ V:. ■ .. : ■••• ■ ■’■ ... ' Effl-.. • .•■ ^ ‘.il ::.♦■■ •I ..■■•' '. .;..y ■ iiiMM mm MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 11 fB. ■-'•4 f V Applicant was present. Applicant noted for the record that there was no water in the wetlands today. He noted *hat last year the water always remained high, has killed Iie6me trees, and the area is always a mess. McDonald noted that this is a designated wetlands. Mabusth stated that it is designated on the City wetlands map but not on the approved Orono OcUcs plat. Opheim asked which one governs. Mabusth stated that the wetlands ordinance applies to designated and undesignated wetlands - all wetlands -•?lthin the City. Goetten wanted to know the dimensions of the proposed excava cion. Hineline stated about 6,000 yards of dirt from the pond would be removed. He noted that the plan and proposed is based on DNR standards. Rovegno stated that this was 4 acres of wetlands on City maps but that it wasn*t designated on the plat. Applicant stated that he has owned the property for 12 years and that sometimes its wet and sometimes its Qt. Rovegno asked if the drain tile doesn't work and why hasn't it been repaired? Mabusth stated that this was not the City's responsibility the old agricultural drainage tiles are located within private properties. Ophiem stated that the pond would probably fill in if man would leave it alone. In other words if man left it alone it would probably become dry land unless they do something to keep it wet. Applicant stated that he would be upgrading the property. DNR stated they had no problems with it. He noted that the City Council didn't determine that it was wetlands in 1978 when they approved the plat. The wetlands were never designated on the plat but Council still approved it. Rovegno questioned the buildability of the two lots involving the wetlands. If they are tru wetlands than those lots are not buildable because they no longer fit the lot requirements of 2 acres dry bjuidlable land. ^plicant again noted that the Council accepted and approved the plat in 1978. He noted that all he wants to do is create a wildlife pond and when they excavate deeper it will be at the water table and stay full. THERON HINELINE 1565 Orono OaUcs Dr Conditional Use Permit #693 V' mL ■ ■ .-V-^V •' 1-v 7’.: / • • •• • •• iifr'v = ' ^ iir;: • ■ ■ ■ w • •KRI •IOiV«l •i»pr« •>lUfRf? ^ -r '■ :->.-v,v-' '.v ■ > v' \^E •^\:; ..'.' .4. fj -'v ^ ':" 1 :^;'V ^-*4.j-; v4'-'-:' 9 •« •• -Lv-^-yy" .= . ‘c ■ •.■•• :• ' iV. . . ••'.:•yfv--mM liKiT# .•jM»n •;u‘i :a' •.■■: •../-v- v-v>-- :.• •;•.=•■•.■-V;/V.;..:y.; ^ =V ' 'yy-\■:■./■ '■■■■. wyy BBTOR -'a;-:- iis'-vir. -vy:': : . . 4 ;,. ^:4-y/;.-?•• X- ■:; •■" •■■.:• y: :^ V■: ■' • :/■■ •';■•' ^wy,; V >;•;;; y . yy ■ ■': y-\ vf- '■■■■ :•• -^ ■ . :• . -..r- ■■: ^..rxiu-y-.■ ■; ■-■■■ ■ •;: •>■ = V, y;AV^Y..-;..y:X;-:•;=:>•• ■ =X f'•-■y-.; ; :^ .=. X-. : ' ;vy v.- :; ' m ■■■ ■ !•'.:•: • V;y ■ =/. X-.-V'T-::v; •;.v \ vv.y;: .'y-vY;;": ;.:./:.-/. •. .>■ Y"0 -V> = /;’- Y: YYi.v;fY--'YYY’;Y:Y ^ \.’ = :.C Jr'r”' • y^”Y;v. • •/: ^ . ■ V-Y :•:' ‘ .=' i:/:‘-::.'v .: vY’-- vy.';. -: . •* ■ ::’Wc ■ •. :: y .•■ • •• •'••:/■.: • . ^V..; i; : ■■ ■;•■ ■.. • Y. •: . -. Y '■• •■.•', ■• ■..’. .- ■ C v.f-} i-’V- "• y viX-” = ;•.!•=- yAy-. : -y’ y-; -: -V ;V ; ;y,:.;; v:/;ywY..:X''■ •/s.:;;-2'.-Y ^ y;. • Y ' " Y ;■■;:YYYySyYfsyjS^^-YiYYYY;.Yv;y;y y;: ' Y-:' Y Y •: YY g4j;: Y: 4 ■■ ■ y; Y Y Yy yY:;?- ■: V-T :y .-.v^; Y YYiX: •• ; .: •■ •• •- .■ms. ^4 r'% - “•« wm