Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1981 Planning MinutesCall to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearings 2. 7:30 PM #585 George Hussman, 3660 Shoreline Dr# PRD Subdivision 3. 7:45 PM #615 David Myhre, 2590 Casco Point Rd. Subdivision Building Official*s Report - Action Items 4. #622 John C. Ericson, 1620 Shadywood Rd. Conditional Use Permit 5. #623 John Nordstrom, 541 Spring Hill Rd. Variance 6. #627 Gary E. Beito, 1141 Elmwood Rd. Variance 7. #628 Hans G. Weiler, 1137 Elmwood Rd. Variance Zoning Administrator's Report - Action Items Resolution - Final Subdivision Resolution - Final Subdivision 8.#594 9.#603 10.#616 11.#624 12.#625 13.#629 14.♦ 630 1. 'i Conditional Use Permit A iiwiiicis II • ixLicici^ XV 4*D onojroxxri0^ Conditional Use Permit(^C’(ir\ttil^j Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit ■■*:A ■ AGENDA (cont.)= :-:V^ Work Session 15. 1^626 C.E. Van Eechout, 1025 North Brown Rd. Subdivision W Ki ^ - .-gA M. * Information Itp;ns 16. July 6, 1981, meeting of the Planning Commission has been canceled. 17. Planning Commission representatives to Council meetings for the month of July: Gabriel Jabbour George Rovegno Approval of Minutes July 13, 1981 July 27, 1981 fVTJ 18. Approval of the minutes of June 1, 1981. m .. - V t- if ^ V. w ".j: • • I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 The Planning Commission met on the above date. The fol- ^\)wing members were present; Chairman Hammerel, Goetten, ^*^dams, Frahm, Jabbour, Rovegno, Jeanne Mabusth represented the City staff. Norman Paurus was present for the City Council. The applicant was present. Mabusth noted the certifi­ cate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one from the audience to address this application. Mabusth stated that the preliminary subdivision was again reviewed by the Park Commission. They felt that the neigh­ borhood park, known as Daniels Park, was sufficient to serve proposed PRD. Jabbour noted that the sewer units are to be paid with each twin home building permit. Rovegno stated that he was appalled by the amount of the Park De lication Fees since the City was taking an addi­ tional 15 ft. of right of way on Blain Avenue where the City refused direct access and that they were taking an additional 7 ft. of right of way on Shoxeline. This is where the City has consistently fought to keep a two lane road width. 0 Adams was concerned that the sewer system in the area s inadequate. Hammerel moved to approve this 24 residential unit FRD subdivision of George Hussman subject to the following conditions: 1) Plat road, to be named Wiley Place, is to be a pub­ lic road (30' pavement, 80' diameter cul de sac, 7 ton capacity). Obtain new permit from Hennepin County Highway Department if necessary - right turn lane at west end of property is required. Holding Pond designated as an outlot with 15' ease­ ment designation for storm sewer network. City to require a flcwage and conservation easement over retention pond. M.C.W.D. must review this proposal. Developer must submit grading, planting and erosion control plans. Dedicate 7' of additional right of way on Cty. Rd. 15. Dedicate 15’ of additional right of way on Blaine Avenue. Dedicate 5' for walkway. Dedicate drainage easements over entire pond area. Developer is responsible for extension of sewer and water service to each unit. 0 ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM GEORGE HUSSMAN 3660 Shoreline Dr PRD Subdivision #585 7:30-7:35 PM MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUI^E 15, 1981 Page 2 Developer to submit copy of proposed Homeowners As­ sociation Articles of Incorporation by laws and pro­ tective covenants providing for common ownership and maintenance of pond and walking outlots. Enter into a Subdivider's Agreement (to be completed before improvement construction begins) to include construction cost estimate, commencement and completion date estimates, performance bond or letter of credit and warrantee bond. Payment of the following fees: 1 - Park Dedication fee - 3.14 per/acre = $1,300/bldg X 12 = 15,600. 2 - Street signing: 1 name and 1 stop sign ($75.00 each) = $150.00. 3 - Legal review fees and filing fees in the amount of $275.00. 4 - Sewer and water fees to be paid: a) sewer and water assessments - none required b) sewer interceptor levi 3302 - fully paid c) sewer lateral - installed by developer - no new fee d) sewer units - 24 x $225 = $5,400 to be paid with building permits e) water lateral - installed by developer - no new fee f) water units - 19 commercial units assessed ex­ ceeds 24 residential units Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1). Minority Opinion - Frahm - His position remains the same; he will not approve of a new development where the sev;er service is so inadequate. Mabusth noted for the record Mr. Johnston's recent request was to realign the plat road by shorteninq it 175'. Adams moved to approve the realignment of the driveway based on the findings that it would decrease the hard­ cover and also create less disturbance for the sensitive land peninsula. Frahm seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). David Myhre and Steve Woodrich, the owner, were present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mr. Paul Raster of 2600 Casco Point Road, was also present. David Myhre presented a topographical map of the new created lot showing the new house location. The new house would appear to be positioned on the lot line. Planning Commission advised the applicant that a ^realignment of the lot line was necessary so that the re­ quired 10 ft. side yard setback was met. Applicant was advised that the property would be subject to lakeshore nardcover regulations of the LR-lC zoning district. H.R. JOHNSTON 925 Willow Dr. So. Subdivision #582 DAVID MYHkE 2590 Casco Pt Subdivision #614 7:45-7:50 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 3 kdams moved to approve the subdivision of David Myhre subject fc^o staff memo noting all the conditions of preliminary ap­ proval in addition that the lot line be realigned so that the 10 ft. side yard setback is met: 1) The newly created lot and the remaining homestead lot meet all the standards of the LR-lC zoning district. 2) Adequate sewer and wLc.er service for site and stubs available for hook ui?. and subject to the following conditions 1) Access to both lots shall be via the existing driveway - no direct access onto Casco Point Road Lot A must grant an access and utilities easement in favor of Lot B. Lot B is non riparian to Lake Minnetonka. City will not approve nor recognize in the future an access ease­ ment to the lake via Lot A or any abutting lakeshore property. All new construction and improvements on the site will be limited to the hardcover allowance of 25% within the 75' - 250' setback area and 30% within the 250' - 500' setback area. Before a building permit can be issued the City staff will review all proposed filling of the site along Casco Point Road for adequate sizing of culvert and approved ratio of slope. Payment of Park Fee for Lot B in the amount of $440.00. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). John C. Ericson, the applicant, was present. Rovegno noted JOHN C. ERICSON for the record that there was a sink in the subject assessory 1620 Shadywcod Rd. structure that was draining into the yard and that it is necessary to correct this condition. Jabbour noted that the assessed value was under $3,000 and by right this should have been removed by 1978. Structures like this, he noted, are allowed the normal aunount of maintenance to keep the building safe but this kind of repair involves major structural repair. This is not consistent with the City's policy on non-conforming structures, and the City has dealt with similar problems in other Conditional Use Permits and this body has always been consistent in this interpretation of policy. Conditional Use Permit #622 Adams noted that this building consists of. 250 sq ft. of area and according to the fair market value of the struc :ure it should have been removed by now. Goetten noted that this is definately major structural repair and not maintenance repair. _J • • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 4 d abbour noted that in 1978 the code never recognized this s a legal non-conforming structure but six years after, this is clearly an illegal non-conforming.structure and we could not issue a Conditional Use Permit for this struc­ ture. Rovegno asked if the applicant would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to fill in the hole if the struc­ ture is to be removed? Mabusth noted that if this was a condition of denial then it would be covered by the original Conditional Use Permit. Jabbour moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit of John C. Ericson for major repair work done to his lakeshore pagota, a non-conforming structure, based on the following findings: According to the Orono Zoning Code this building should have been removed three years ago because it was assessed for under $3,000. No demonstrated hardship to allow for a variance to this non-conforming use section of the code. This was not a case of normal maintenance but a major structural repair done to an illegal non-conforming structure. ^ -ui. JPrahm seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2). Minority Opinion - Adams - Insignificant findings made in 1975 to determine that this structure was under $3,000 in value. Disagree with majorities opinion that the code does distinguish between normal maintenance and major repairs. This is just repair to a structure. Minority Opinion - Rovegno - Applicant is just replacing foundation which is just normal maintenance. It is un­ reasonable to ask the applicant to tear the structure down because the City never gave clear direction concerning the enforcement of this section of code in 1978. Also the drain should be properly plumbed to meet code requirements. Tim Peterson, the contrr.ctor, was present. There was no setback problems. The applicant has a 14 acre parcel of property. JOHN NORDSTROM 541 Spring Hill Rd. | Rovegno moved to approve the size variance for the garage structure of 20 sq ft. subject to the condition that the proposed garage must be 150 ft. from all property lines. Variance #623 Frahm seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). .^jS « % f MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Both applicants were present. Mr. Weiler reviewed the pro- j||blem with the lift station's location within the right of ^way of Elmwood Avenue. Rovegno noted that Mr. Heit's garage is on the right of way. He also noted for the record that there were two docks on 6 & 7 where there is no principal structure. Applicants both proposed to build their own earth shelter homes on the subject lots. Weiler and Beito live on the other side of the neighborhood divided by Elmwood Avenue. The property could never be combined because of the loca­ tion of the unimproved public right of way. A Jabbour noted both lots are sewered and could meet all the setbacks of the zoning district and that the hardcover will not be a problem since it will be a shared drive­ way and that some credit should be given to the portion that is covered by earth. Rovegno asked staff if they had any standards where earth shelter structures could be credited against the hardcover. © Frahm asked why can't the lots be combined as one building site? The code does note if vacant land is available the owner of the substandard lot is responsible for acquiring the additional land. Jabbour moved to table these applications giving the ap­ plicants time to come back to the City with a joint site plan showing where the proposed driveway will be located, how the access will be to the property via Elmwood Avenue and what portions of the structure will be classified as earth shelter. The Planning Commission will meet on the site to determine if two building sites are feasible for the location and with pattern of neighborhood development. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Planning Commission has asked the City Planner to present any imput he may have about future earth buildings. Bruce Dayton and Fred Herfurth were present. Rovegno questioned the location of the cul de sac noting that an earlier plan showed it located at Lot 6's driveway. Mabusth noted that that was an incorrect drawing stating that the standard of the City requires that the cul de sac be moved to the end of the private road and that the up­ grading of the road will be made only up to Lot 6's driveway. r •Hammerel moved to approve the final subdivision of Bruce Dayton subject to the conditions and findings setforth in the staff resolution. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Page 5 GARY E. BEITO 1141 Elmwood Rd. Variance #627 HANS G. WEILER 1137 Elmwood Rd. Variance #628 Jm i t.I J V ... i“ ■ . •*;. ■ t" BRUCE DAYTON 550 Long Lake Rd. Final Subdivision Resolution #594 V • •MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 6 d The applicant was present. Staff noted that the applicant as decided not to enter into a developers agreement with he City and will complete the required improvements prior to final plat approval by the Council. The required im­ provements consist of a new plat road to be constructed along the west edge of the property and the existing road removed and seeded. Goetten moved to approve the final subdivision of Richard Raiche subject to the findings setforth in the final resolution. Frahm seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Conrad Schmit, Pat Meyers, and Harry Garrish were present. Many neighbors were present in the audience but basically had no comments. Planning Commission began their review of the information received from staff, for a comparison review of a proposed 42 bed facility compared to a 10 lot residential use. The Planning Commission made the following findings: O Traffic Comparison - The facility would propose great­ er traffic demands but with the design of plan #6 des­ ignating access to the facility just off Highway 12, would alleviate traffic concerns for Willow Drive. The traffic use demand would be twice as much for the pro­ posed in-patient facility than for a 1.0 lot residential use. The Planning Commission advised that the in-patient facility would generate 200 trips and a 10 lot residential plat 100 trips. Density - The Planning Commission stated that a 42 bed facility was much too intensive a use in comparison to a potential 32 residential level use. The standard for selecting a maximum potential residential use was based on a maximum 10 residential use. Frahm noted that it would be unfair to use a 10 lot maximum ratio based on septic concerns. We should take the raw land of 28 acres in the area and subtract the plat road which would leave a potential 12 lot plat x the average family unit of 3.2 = 38.4 or approximately 39-3 night time staffers (based on 1 to 10 patient night time hours). The final limit with this type of reasoning was 36 maximum patient use. The Planning Commission agreed on this. In this comparison the residential use and the proposed facility would be equal. RICHARD RAICHE 2901 Watertown Rd. Final Subdivision Resolution #594 PARKVIEW TREATMENT CENTER 2280 Wayzata Blvd. Conditional Use Permit #616 i Use of the Lake - A residential plat would allow 3 lake- shore lots with a potential for 3 individual docks and a maximum boat density of 12. The in-patient facility there would be no docks. Lake access is forbidden for the facility. 0 * • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 7 Security - The proposed facility will offer less security PARKVIEW (CONT.) problems compared to a 10 residential lot area but Chief Kilbo has voiced concern for the runaway problems which would be the responsibility of the local police. But his comparison is based on his first hand experience with the halfway house in Long Lake. Both Minnetonka and St. Louis Park police departments have stated that they have no problems with the existing Parkview Centers in their area.M M o Septic Use - Both the Planning Commission and the Septid Consultant agreed that the treatment center will offer less hardcover and less use of the land for septic needs. Fire Protection - A residential development would require greater fire protection concerns than an in-patient facility. Age Factor - In regard to the age comparison, the Police Chief noted concern regarding a facility that just deals with 12 to 18 year olds as opposed to a 10 lot residential plat offering a mixture of adults and young adult population. The Planning Commission questioned the basis for the Police Chief's concern. His memo did not notu this. Jabbour voiced concern that given such a large commercial treatment center the surrounding residences must be protected. he primary intent of this zoning district is for residential use. i-'T ■a-:-.'..' TC « Adcuns stated the Conditional Use Permit is valid because the use of the land appears to be compatible, to assure that com­ patibility now and in the future special conditions of approval limiting the commercial use, must be inforced through deed restrictions. He agrees with Jabbour that a deed restriction, not only involving the subject property but the abutting pro­ perties, would be the only secure means of giving that protection. Any approval of this project must be based on this type of covenant agreement. He advises that a recommendation of approval from this body must be based on limitations via the deed covenants. Rovegno wanted to know what this will do to the land surrounding the treatment center. Mabusth noted it was open for residential development. Mabusth advised the neighbors in the audience that this body was very aware of their concerns but if they indeed feel that they foresee a dimunition of their property value that they please document this in writing for the public record. O • • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 8 o Q Staff advised the Planning Conunission that some kind of irection should be given so that the applicant ould now direct an architect to draft a site plan noting a.i 1 the physical improvements to the site. PARKVIEW (CONT.) Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 - abstaining Jabbour noted the following reasons for giving conceptual action approval. 1) Limit to a 36 bed facility 2) Access to facility must be off Highway 12, based on plan #6 3) Septic system to meet all state and local ordinances 4) No lake access such as docks or boats. 5) Deed covenants involving abutting property owners noting all these limitations. 6) Staff limited to the following 16 hours shifts: 16 hour period - 2 daytime shifts 1 staff person to 3 patients ratio 8 hour night shift (1 staff person to 10 patients) limiting staff to a total of 27 per day Rovegno, his abstention based on the fact that he had no substantial opinion at this time of the review. {^^ams moved to table the application to give the applicant ^Hbime to prepare a site plan and to meet all those require­ ments previously stated by the Planning Commission. Frahm seconded. Vote: Ayes.(6), Nays (0). Hammerel moved to table Thomas Rudd's Conditional Use Permit application at the request of the applicant. The application will be scheduled for the July 20, 1981 meeting. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Applicant was present. Mabusth noted that in review of the original plat of Underwood Farms there was no con­ servation and flowage easement at the time of the plat, but that we were dealing with a designated wetland. Veon described the previous condition of the area, that had snakes and misquitos and that a large portion of his property was unusable and that the wetlands were created by an old faulty drainage tile system. Originally the tiles were to drain under County Road 6 and into Long Lake. He was not aware of the need for a Conditional Use Permit, and he feels that he has created a more at­ tractive environment now advantageous to wildlife. Rovegno noted that there should be special fees charged for these "after the tact" Conditional Use Permits, not necessarily a penalty but a greater fee paid. PfP:- act; ' - • / a:;'' THOMAS RUDD 1325 Shoreline Dr. Conditional Use Permit #624 ROGER VEON 1330 Sixth Ave. No. Conditional Use Permit #625 # MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 oVeon advised that there was still some additional spoils on he side of the pond and wanted to grade them out. Staff advised that they would have to seek professional help as to what would be the best way to deal with the remaining spoils. Jabbour moved to recommend approval of the "after the fact" Conditional Use Permit for the dredging of a wild life pond and subject to the following conditions; 1) City require a conservation and flowage easement of the wetlcii.ds area. Applicant to furnish a legal description, 2) Applicc.r't to work with staff in regard to the remaining spoils .*nd proposed grading. 3) In the tacure, no maintenance dredging allowed. No alteration of the pond and that any new vegetation is to be left untouched. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). a Allan Larson and Mr. and Mrs. Nelson, the owners, were present. The applicant stated he was sorry but he was not aware that a Conditional Use Permit was required to construct a retaining wall along his lakeshore banks and to reconstruct his stairway leading to the lake. He was oncerned that any delay in this review would endanger his Iready unstable banks. Rovegno noted the existing boat house and asked what the assessed value of the structure was. He also noted that the reconstructed stairway area was far too ambitious and that he would have to trim his proposal down. Mr, Nelson, the owner, noted the need of the landing and the steepness of the stairs and his physical handicap. The Planning Commission advised Mr. Larson that if he pro posed building a new home on this lot, that the boathouse hardcover would take away the allowed hardcover for the home. Page 9 ALLAN C. LARSON 3852 Cherry Ave. Conditional Use Permit #629 Rovegno advised the applicant that the Planning Com­ mission would entertain the idea of separating the portion of the application dealing with just the retaining wall at this meeting and to consider all lakeshore improvements at their July 20th meeting. The applicant agreed to this. r .1 Rovegno moved to approve the "after the fact" Conditional Use Permit for the construction of the retaining wall ilong the lakeshore banks subject to the applicant sub­ mitting a plan signed by licensed engineer, and to post­ pone action on the lakeshore improvements until the applicant submits plans noting the Planning Commission's concerns as follows; Q) Possibl the 0-75' setback areaPossible removal of the boat house 3) Relocate dock so it meets i m c r.i dahho I^-M-C.D's setback requirements. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (O,. neighbors were^allo"present ^"m ® ^ew other the car he had for sl^le on the Keith'^K^? advised that illegal and contrary to the Conf3-i+-i-^ Katcher property was property ^^esol- SuV°^|^ard llliTt to%hrcon1-t-"previous resolution fir that ®®tforth in the Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (o). Van Eockliout was piTBsent the same application presented f« was pleted. The Planning Commission had^no^ never com plans and called fori Dub??o^h^ ° Problems with1981. ® public hearing for July 20, vi^ammerel moved to aDDrov#» «• Commission meeting if June if TgSff®® ^’lanning Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:05 PM. Page 10 DARRELL W. SEWARD 1140 North Arm Dr. Conditional Use Permit #630 C.E. VAN EECKHOUT 1025 No. Brown Rd. Subdivision #626 approval of MINUTES ■. • -A:-'..-"*:^r:'A?AA^^^ ^ ^-.v:^.:V.^C Av:AAvW^;v:^:y:'% • i- .■.V-':-; : . •y.V-:/'- •:' . •' ■ S--A: '-y • ^ v • ^ ‘••n • •• • '• ' • ■■ . ■■ -■ • ■. '••• ■ . : .•■ ■■-: •. . ;•• .■• •■.'••■■.rtJa ■• ■=- v. ■^A A’ \ A;'"-••••:• . - A'-!•AA.;A.;> adjournment 11:05 PM > i>\' if' .:vs .;v ■ A'aaa^feV'A^ ;A(veAA.wi: t-:ACA.'AA5^;r^ • ^: '.y j ■ ■ ,r yi. :S '-. Pfi'^iAyAyAiyyAi'A.y-' :;A:yAS::A¥:A;;AAAv--I .V ■A .'vy^ys'