Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1981 Planning Minuteso AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1981 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM' Council Representative - Mayor William B. Van Nest Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearings 2. 7:30 PM 3. 7:45 PM Action #634 Craig Winters, 4100 Sixth Avenue North Subdivision #638 David Stearns, 2171 Shadywood Road Subdivision 4. #616 Parkview Treatment Center, 2280 Wayzata Boulevard Conditional Use Permit 5. #629 Allan C. Larson, 3852 Cherry Avenue Conditional Use Permit 6. #630 Darrell W. Seward, 1140 North Arm Drive Conditional Use Permit 7. #632 Charles Hommeyer, 477 Park Lane Variance V 8, #633 Thomas L. Ammerman, 3458 North Shore Drive Variance 9. #641 Richard J. Segner, 4009 North Shore Drive Variance Work Session 10.#639 John D. Watson Subdivision 11.#640 Kenneth Weeks, Subdivision 12.#642 Lachlen Reed, Subdivision ’ v*:. [ % ir (2) t AGENDA r o Information Items 13. Planning Commission representatives to go to Council meetings for the month of August: August 10 - Diann Goetten August 24 - Tom Frahm Cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of September 7, 1981. Approval of Minutes 15. Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of July 20, 1981. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 O The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman Hammerel, Adams, Goetten, Jabbour, Frahm and Rovegno. Mayor William B. Van VJest re­ presented the City Council. Mabusth was present from the City staff. Mr. Winters' attorney, Fred Rosenblatt, was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the audience. The attorney stated that they had obliged the City by plat­ ting the entire property. Adams stated that he had assumed the plat would be completed as presented in the orginal preliminary plan. Rosenblatt stated that this was simply to show the involve­ ment of all properties and the final pattern of ownership. Rovegno stated he could not understand how the City could approve this application creating such substandard lots. Mabusth noted that we are not creating new lots that this is a lot line rearrangement and that we are creating parcels to be combined with other homestead lots. One of these lots severel'. substandard in the 5 acre zoning district. In addition she noted that the tax irregularities will now be clarified. Haunmerel moved to approve the lot line rearrangement for Craig Winters on the condition that it meets the code and does not create new buildable lots and subject to the fol­ lowing condition: 1 -Revised preliminary plat plan must be submitted prior to Council’s preliminary review noting the following: a - 4 lots to be designated per enclosed exhibit with all lot dimensions noted, b - areas of each lot Frahm seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). David Stearns was present. No one was present from the audience. Frahm moved to approve David Stearns subdivision application subject to the following findings and conditions; r 1 - All standards of the LR-IC zoning district have been satisfied. O ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM I *1 • ] CRAIG WINTERS 4100 Sixth Ave. North Lot Line Rearrangement #634 i \1 \ ' -■ 1 7:30 - 7:45 t -rv ;- m: ■i DAVID STEARNS 2171 Shadywood Subdivision #638 7:70 - 7:51 i n 2 - That there is adequate area, lot width and lot depth to locate a house on Lot 1 meeting all setback requirements. 3 - Adequate sewer and water service to serve newly created lot. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 2 and subject to the following conditions: 1 - Council will not grant setback variances to Lots 1 & 2 for any future construction based on the above findings. 2 - Dedication of 10' of right of way for Togo Road. 3 - New access off Togo to be approved by public works department. 4 - Payment of a park dedication fee of $440.00 for Lot 1. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). The following persons were present for Parkview Centers: Conrad Schmitt, Mr. & Mrs Judd Ringer, Graydon McCulley, Qene Tomlinson and Mr. Curran. Adams wanted clarification of the buffer area that was designated on the plans. Schmitt noted that this was in response to a meeting he had with two members with the Planning Commission where he suggest restrictive coven­ ants would control only an area instead of a number of patient limitatior. He suggested that the special restrictive area could only be developed under certain percentage. Adams noted that this would not serve the original intent for the bed limitation. Future operators could put any number of beds given that kind of control. Where is the protection to the surrounding property owners? Jabbour stated maybe there are other ways that the City could acquire controls if deed restriction appear too cumbersome and rigid. The City Attorney can properly advire Council as to the best method. Adams stated that the only way proposed commercial use of residential property could be approved are if there are effective controls for the future. Planning Cvommission agreed that they could not allow any more than 36 beds for the facility. That would be the maximum. Schmitt felt that this was a very unrealistic restriction because this type of deed restriction would control the property for the next hundreds of years. Jabbour stated that a deed restriction only lasts 30 years. 4 PARKVIEW TREATMENT CENTER 2280 Wayzata Blvd. Conditional Use Permit #616 ! 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 3 o Jabbour noted that just since you have presented this application you have made three changes in the maximum number of patient to be served by the facility^ PARKVIEW (CONT.) Adams reviewed the three conditions that he felt were nec­ essary if this application was to be approved: 1 - Access off Highway 12. 2 - Facility should be served by suitable on site septic system? 3 - Denisty limitation of some form that would allow for some modification in the future. Adams noted that future sewer service may create pressure on the City to rezone the residential lots to 1 acre or h acre lot sizes and that it would appear feasible that the applicant be able to make a density adjustment in the future on that rezoning. Schmitt as'"'d what if they wanted to use the house? Hammerel noted if they plan to use the house it must be specified in the conditional use permit and that the lot line should be realigned to meet the 100 ft setback if the house is to stay. Schmitt stated that the Planning Commission war: trying to place so many restrictions on them that they wouldn't be able to do anything with it. Rovegno noted that we must consider residential restrictions of this nature and degree since this is an intensive commercial use on residential property. % McCulley asked the Planning Commission if the owner would have to come in to Council if the owner proposes any new use of the building. Planning Commission stated affirmatively. Hammerel wanted to know how many patient beds were in the St. Louis Park facility. Schmitt stated that there were 35 beds in the St. Louis Park facility, 70 in New York, and 50 in Arizona. r.-. - ' -> r Jabbour stated that it wasn't so much a concern that the Planning Commission had about the size of the structure but merely the density and patient population. Frahm stated that he realized that the Treatment Center wanted more flexibility for the number of patients in the future that it was his position that 36 beds would be the maximum ever. r ^ to } i o o ff MINUTES CF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 4 Hammerel asked the neighbors if they had any appraisals of their property and if they had anything in writing to submit for the record. They stated that they had not. PARKVIEW (CONT.)- Frahm noted that parking lots must meet the 100 ft. set­ back line and that the west lot line should be moved to also meet the 100 ft. setback line. Planning Commission noted that if the controls were adjusted to identify with surrounding zoning that if sewer was to be served the area then could be as small as *5 acre lot sizes. That would be up to 154 units. Jabbour noted that a maximum would have to be set to 78 beds. Planning Conmiission agreed that 78 beds was the most feasible for the property. Hammerel moved to approve the conditional use permit fcr Parkview Treatment Centers subject to the following findings and conditions: 1 -Traffic Comparison - The facility would propose greater traffic demands but with the design of Plan #6 designating 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 proposed in­ patient facility than for a 10 lot residential use. The Planning Commission advised that the in-patient facility would generate 200 trips and a 10 lot residential plat 100 trips. 2 -Density - The Planning Commission stated that a 42 bed facility was rauch 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. The Planning Commission raised the number 36 to 39 because of the 3 live-in staffers. 3 'il' 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. 4 - O Security - The proposed facility will offer less security 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. ’4 b--., ■> MINUTl 3 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 5 Q 5 - Septic Use - Both the Planning Commission and the Septic PARKVIEW (CONT.) Consultant agreed that the treatment center will offer less hardcover and less use of the land for septic needs. 6 - Fire Protection - A residential development would require greater fire protection concerns than an in-patient facility. and subject to the following conditions: 1 -Density - The maximum density the facility could ever have would be 39. Bill f 2 3 4 5 6 Traffic - to access off Highway 12 only. Facility would be in-patient use only. Buffer area to be determined. Riparian no lake use for boating or swimming. Lot line between farm house be adjusted to meet 100* 7 8 setback. West parking lot to be 100* from lot line. Deed restriction in favor of abutting property owners _ _ _ A ^ mplaced against land to 36 beds - could be adjusted in the future but never to exceed 78 beds. O Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (Oi. It was at this time the Planning Commission started to review the site plan of the Parkview application when Conrad Schmitt asked that their review be tabled. Frahm moved to table the Parkview application at the request of the applicant. Jabbour seconded. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (0). Jabbour moved to table the application at the applicants request. Hammerel seconded. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (0). ALLAN C. LARSON 3852 Cherry Ave. Conditional Use Permit #629 Applicant was not present. A few neighbors were present DARREL SEWARD and had a few questions. Mabusth stated that the applicant 1140 North Arm Dr. called and formally withdrew his application. Condtional Use Permit #630 © am' W (CONT.) - -• , •. .■‘■'a ■^\i LARSON rry Ave \al Use SWARD th Ann Dr. ill Use f. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 6 Charles Hoinmeyer was present. The applicant seeks a 4 ft. side yard setback variance for his proposed residence. The section of the house that requires a variance is for a greenhouse which will extend 4 ft. into the setback area. CHARLES HOMMEYER 477 Park Lane Variance #632 Rovegno questioned the average lakeshore setback line/ questioning why the white house to the north was not con­ sidered in that determination. Mabusth explained that the vacant lot to the north had already been approved as a buildable site and it was the City's policy to only consider the lots on either side of the property. In addition, she noted that the white house was in a different zoning district. Goetten questioned the applicant as to the importance of the greenhouse. Could the greenhouse not be located in another area of the house? Applicant stated that the southern exposure was necessary. Rovegno asked why are they considering a lot area and lot width variance if there are vacant buildable lots to the north. Mabusth noted that the 2 lots to the north were approved ^5 buildable site in 1979. Jabbour moved to approve Charles Hommeyer's application for a side yard setback variance of 4 ft. in addition to the lot width and lot area variance, based on the following findings and conditions; 1 - location of the proposed house 2 - average lakeshore setback line 3 — narrowness of lot to the rear or street side of the property. 4 - steep slopes to the lakeshore side of property 5 - property is served with sewer. ^ Y .V.: • ; :vv :.•••= /.V V' ’0" : .. Frahm seconded. Vote; Ayes (5), Nays (1). Minority Opinion - Rovegno - He stated that he could not approve this application because of the substandard lot area and lot width and because of the vacant lots to the north. O Thomas Ammerman was present. The following neighbors were also present: Mary Erler of 3448 North Shore Drive; and Jon Nelson of 3460 North Shore Drive; Doris Stellmacher of 3480 North Shore Drive. THOMAS AMMERMAN 3458 North Shore Variance #633 ^4 MINUTES OP THE PL7VNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 7 O Jabbour reviewed once again for the applicant that since the proposed improvement was over 50% of the fair market value that he requires a lot area and lot width variance in addition the proposed application would require an approximate 6 ft. setback encroachment into the average lakeshore setback area. Jabbour noted for the applicant that the improvements could all be designed to be placed within the average setback The applicant stated that it would demolish the structure to move it back. In addition to demolishing several mature trees. Jabbour noted that he had at least 16 ft. to the nearest tree and that he felt that this was enough area. Ammerman presented to the Planning Commission a petition of 8 signatures approving his proposed variance. Mabusth read a list of violations that were observed on Mr. Ammerman's property. A list of violations acquired from several neighbors and staff observations 1 - Large boat being repaired 2 - Speed and pontoon boat being stored in winter 3 - SnctjT.iobile 4 - Red camaro without engine, being repaired. 5 - Sunday, July 26 four cars for sale. Applicant stated he was advised by the Orono Police that this was no problem. Mabusth explained that the reason for reading these is that its the position of the neighbors that they question the right of the City to approve another variance when he has not complied with the conditions of the previous variances granted by the City. AMMERMAN (CONT.) Jabbour moved to grant a lot area and lot width variance but to deny a setback variance that encroaches into the average lakeshore setback area and to allow an additional 100 ft of hardcover for proposed design changes noted by the applicant at the meeting and that the drainage pro­ blems be addressed on the property with this new construction. Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). © •’ '■ ‘ .M fV.- rr.' *» . 4 • , MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 8 (CONT.) r-. i. /*U rT X: VLi; •' A Mr. and Mrs. Segner were present. Susan & Richard Bilgar were present from the audience. 9 Mabusth explained that a site plan was accepted because of the delay in obtaining a survey and that a survey would be submitted for the Council meeting. Planning Commission had no problems with the proposed setback variance as there was adequate turnaround on the property. Goetten moved to approve the 18* front or street setback variance based on the following find? r-.;s; 1 - There is adequate 30 ft. turnaround on property. 2 - No site problems created on County Road 19. 3 - Severe slopes to the south and east of the property, and subject to the following condition that the applicant submit a survey prior to the Council meeting cind that the shed be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). RICHARD SEGNER 4009 North Shore Variance #641 Applicant was not present. Mabusth reviewed the site plan and noted the following must be submitted for the public hearing of August 17, 1981. 1 - Areas of setback 2 - Dry buildable areas of each lot exclusive of lot dedication 3 “ Location of house under construction with setbacks noted. Kenneth Weeks and John McCullum were present. Planning Commission saw no problems with the lot line rearrangement. A public hearing was set for August 17, 1981. Lachlan Reed and Gordon Coffin were present. Applicant reviewed with the Planning Commission the history of the property and the need for the subdivision. A subdivision is required before they can be allowed to sell their former residence. Staff noted that the guest house has its own septic system and that it is located on a 3^5 acre lot. The Mayor questioned why the subdivision could not be for just 2 lots. Coffin replied that the public road that serves the property created the 3rd lot. Rovegno stated that the additional area was available if the guest house lot had to be 4 acres. JOHN D. WATSON 1500 Togo Road Subdivision #639 KENNETH WEEKS 3884 Cherry Ave. Subdivision #640 LACHLAN REED 1500 Bracketts Pt. Subdivision #642 8 SEGNER th Shore MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 9 Planning Commission stated but then this would allow for a 2 lot plat some time in the future, we would prefer that the applicant retain the proposed plan as is and that the use of the guest house use be addressed in a final resolution. A public hearing was set for August 17, 1981. HcUiunerel moved to approve the minutes of July 20, 1981 subject to the amendments and additions. Frahm seconded. Vote: Ay^ 3 (6), Nays (0) . The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. REED (CONT.) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES ADJOURNMENT 10:30 PM WATSON o Road ion rT»* i. ■ r -;V-’ WEEKS rry Ave. ion REED cketts Pt. ion i.' i * ■ Sm.