Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1981 Planning MinutesT'^ ■J -—TV- -- AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1981 O Council Representative - Jo Ellen Hurr Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearings 2. 7:30 PM #639 John D. Watson, 3500 Togo Road Subdivision jr ■ ■■w 4,V' 3. 7:45 PM #640 Kenneth Weeks, 3884 Cherry Aver Subdivision 4. 8:00 PM #642 Lachlan Reed, 1500 Brackett's F Subdivision Action Items 5. #580 Robert White, 320 Woodhill Road Final Subdivision - Resolution 6. #618 C. Rex Welsh, 650 North Arm Drive Conditional Use Permit 7, #629 Allan C. Larson, 3852 Cherry Avenue Conditional Use Permit 8. #631 Richard P. Mich, 1373 Rest Point Road Variance 9. #637 Nordblom & Associates, 2535 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan 10. #643 Bruce Curtiss, 1920 Eagerness Point Road Variance m^', - V. •11. #645 Dorothy Forcier, 4780 North Arm Drive Variance Work Session & Sketch Plan Review r 12. #644 James R. Thaxter, 1065 Tamarack Drive Conditional Use Permit - Work Session 13. #646 Andrew Benson, 3542 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit - Work Session 14. #647 Thomas Crosby, Sr., 745 Spring Hill Road Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review ^ ’ V 4 • - r W' • - -V m. « » in-' J AGENDA o Information Items 4k 1 5. Planning Commission representatives to go to Council meetings for the month of September: September 14, 1981 - Tim Adeuns September 28, 1981 - John Hammerel 16. There will be no regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission for the first week of September. The next scheduled meeting will be September 21, 1981. Approval of Minutes 17. Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of August 3, '»■» MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following ATTENDANCE members were present; Acting Chairman, Gabriel Jabbour, 7:30 PM J. Diann Goetten, and Gloria McDonald. Absent were: Chairman Hammerel, Frahm, Rovegno, and Adams. Mabusth represented the City staff. Jo Ellen Hurr represented the City Council. Peggy Watson was present. No one was present from the audience to address this application. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Goetten asked if there would be any variances required for Lot 1? Mabusth explained that Lot 1 has an adequate building envelope that will meet all setbacks for future construction. JOHN D. WATSON 3500 Togo Road Subdivision #639 7:30 - 7:31 Goetten moved to approve John Watson's application for a subdivision subject to the following findings: 1 - All lot standards of the LR-lC zoning district have been met. 2 > The proposed subdivision qualifies for wetlands credit based on the standards of Ordinance 31.841. 3 - There is adequate area within the building envelope of Lot 1 to locate a house meeting all setback requirements. 4 - Adequate sewer and water service off Togo Road to serve newly created lot. 5 - All existing structures to remain on Lot 2 meet the setbacks from the newly created lot line. 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 Road to be approved by the Orono Public Works Department. 4 - Payment of Park Dedication fee of $440.00 for newly created Lot 1. 5 - The iiTimediate removal of the outhouse on Lot 2 prior to Council review for preliminary approval. 6 - Adequate turnaround be provided on Lot 2 as setback of northeast corner of garage is only 21' off Shadywood Road right of way. 7 - Also a flowage and conservation easement over the wetlands. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). f )ANCE >M ). WATSON I Pogo Road vision • 7:31 ' -M , ■ : : ^ •V • . ::.• =.: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 2 Applicant was present. No one was in the audience for this application. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Hurr noted the fence encroachment on the City's property. This did not involve the area involved in the subdivision application. Goetten asked what the total area was? Mabusth noted that it was a minimum 2,000 sf and again this was a lot line rearrangement. Jabbour moved to approve the Kenneth Weeks application for a subdivision subject to the following findings: 1 - Proposed subdivision does not create a substandar buildable lot. 2 ~ The parcel to be exchanged is minimal in size and will have no real effect on remainder of McCullum lot. 3 - The proposed lot line rearrangement coincides wit the owners actual yard usage over the year. ET and subject to the following condition that parcel B must be combined with the Weeks' homestead lot to the east. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Lachlan Reed and Gordon Coffin were present. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Neighbor George Pillsbury was present from the audience. Mr. Pillsbury found no problems with the proposed subdivision Jabbour noted that one of the lots is on the edge of an additional subdivision. Mabusth noted that there was 3.59 acres in the referenced lot, and that unless a future Council was willing to grant an area variance that this was not a problem. Mabusth reviewed the septic testing that would be required prior to the scheduled Council meeting for preliminary approval. Jabbour moved to approve the Lachlan Reed subdivision application subject to the following findings: 1 - All lot standards of the LR-IA zoning district have been satisfied. 2 - All existing structures meet the required setbacks from all newly created lot lines. 3 Each lot abutts a public road. ^^4 - Existing septic systems serving each residence satisfy all standards of the septic code and that a preliminary review of the soils makeup of the area reveals suitable soils and adequate area for future septic expansion. KENNETH WEEKS 3884 Cherry Ave. Subdivision #640 7:45 - 7:48 ■V.-i V "T- •••V LACHLAN REED 1500 Bracketts Point Road Subdivision #642 8:15 - 8:20 t-r-f Vi;- 2;MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 3 1 WEEKS lerry Ave, Lsion 7:48 U : 'Z’m- subject to the following conditions: City will not grant setback variances to Lots 1, 2, and 3 for any future construction. 2 - Prior to preliminary approval from Council the following testing must be completed and reviewed by staff: a) Complete set of septic tests (main & alternate) for future new home on Lot 1. b) Alternate septic site tests for residence on Lot 2. c) Main septic site testing (4 percs + 2 borings) for relocated drainfield for cottage on Lot 3. 3 - Approve conditional use permit for existing guest house based on the following findings: a) Lot 3's area has not changed from original Lot 8 Bracketts Point. b) Guest house is used only in the summer months. c) Guest house has existed for over 20 years. d) Guest house is a non conforming structure and governed by all ordinances dealing with non conforming structures. 4 - Noting that the guest house is in excellent condition and is assessed at $3,000.00 fair market value. REED (CONT.) i.0 VV.¥.;i I REED racketts toad Lsion 8:20 Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Applicant was not present. Planning Commission had no pro­ blems with the final subdivision application of Robert White. Jabbour moved to approve the plat of Edgewood Place subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the staff resolution. ROBERT WHITE 320 Woodhill Rd. Final Subdivision Resolution #580 Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). s Mr. Rex Welsh and Becky Comstock, applicants attorney, were REX WELSH present. Ms. Comstock reviewed with the Planning Cononission 650 North Arm Dr. the history of the application. She confirmed that in 1961 Conditional Use there was some dredging done. It was done with a DNR permit. Permit She stated that they were bringing it back to the Planning #618 Commission because they felt that they had met the standards for maintenance dredging. LMCD and MCWD have also given their approval along with the DNR for a maintenance dredge. Goetten asked if this property was dredged in 1961 then why wasn't it done again 10 years later? Comstock noted for the record the dock dimensions: 20' long 6' wide, meeting all LMCD requirements. Hurr aeked how will they rip rap it? Comstock noted that all DNR standards would be met. Applicant asks for a channel depth of 4*5'; it is presently 2*s'. i 3 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 4 CONT.) m i\ • WHITE »odhill Rd. Subdivision ition :lsh ►rth Ann Dr. ;ional Use Jabbour feels that the City is totally against dredging. He stated that any type of boat except for a big cruiser would make it in a channel of 2^5'depth. He doesn't feel that the City is depriving the property owner of his riparian rights either. He asked what about a dock length variance? Applicant explained that a dock length variance would obstruct lake access, also it would be physically exhausting for the applicant who is handicapped to walk an additional 100 plus ft. McDonald explained to the applicant that the lake is very low again this year. Mabusth stated that a longer dock would encroach on the neighbors property lines. City would have to consider both a dock length and setback variance. Applicant stated that he never knew that he could not apply for a dredging permit. Mabusth noted in the Council minutes it stated that the applicant was forewarned that dredging would not be allowed. Comstock questioned the owners riparian rights. She stated that once the DNR permit had been issued in 1961 this conveyed or recognized a certain property right of the owner. In approving a recent DNR permit for a 4' depth the agency determined what is navigable water. Does the City determine what is navigable water or do other agencies? Jabbour stated that he felt that the City should decide this not the DNR. Jabbour moved to deny Rex Welsh's request for a dredging permit in view of the City's policy of dredging and that there is 2V depth existing which is suitable for boat navigation. Applicant was also given a warning when he received a variance which forewarned about future request against dredging. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Allan Larson requested tabling of his application because he was not able to attend this meeting because of business reasons. McDonald moved to table Allan C. Larson's application at the applicants request. WELSH (CONT.) V Jabbour seconded. Vote; Ayes (3), Nays (0). CONT .) . LARSON : erry Ave. onal Use i I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 5 Applicant was present. Application was referred back to the Planning Commission for clarification of the accessory structures on the property. The structure to be considered IS a newly built sauna 1 ft. from the property line. Applicant stated that he had no problem in moving the sauna to meet all setbacks. In fact he had considered locating the sauna inside the existing garage. Hurr suggested that a building permit be taken out for the sauna. Goetten questioned the structure closest to Rest Point Lane? Mabusth explained that this would be removed. Goetten moved to approve the Richard Mich variance application subject to the following conditions: 1 — Relocating of gas line at the applicants expense 2 - Car access to subject lot may only be from Rest Point Lane. 3 “ Existing single car garage to remain for storage purposesonly. 4 - Sauna structure to remain if applicant agrees to move it to meet all setbacks. 5 - Building permit to be taken out for sauna. b - Removed existing shed closest to Rest Point Lane. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). RICHARD P. MICH 1373 Rest Point Rd Variance #631 Applicant was present. It was noted for the record that the revised plans submitted were approved by the City Engineer. Mabusth noted that the access to residential Lot 3 will be via a shared access with the fabric shop along the south property line. Applicant will have to grant 24* wide drive­ way easement and utilities easement in favor of Lot 3. McDonald was concerned t..at the commercial use will tend to make more traffic than a residential use. Also improve­ ment to the south should be limited to 1 access. Goetten asked when construction would be started. Applicant stated as soon as they get approval. Jabbour was concerned that a buffer area be recognized for the residential property to the rear and that it must be a 10 ft. buffer area. McDonald also stressed to the applicant the need for him to combine Lots 1 & 2. Nordblom was hesitant because this would mean he would have to reapply for a subdivision if he wished ^o split them. Staff advised this would be a simple pro­ cedure and not involve the regular procedure. NORBLOM & ASSOC. 2535 Shadywood Rd. Commercial Site Plan #637 ■i }\ 1 i P. MICH t Point Rd r ASSOC, lywood Rd. il Site ly MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 6 ^^Goetten moved to approve the commercial site plan of ^jNordblom & Associates subject to the following findings: 1 - Adequate sewer and water to serve the proposed facility. 2 - The commercial Lots 1 & 2 align with the commercial B-4 zoning line - all proposed commercial improvements on the site meet the required setbacks from the residential zoning district to the west. and subject to the following conditions: 1 - Access permits will be required by the Hennepin County Highway Department for access to commercial site and for shared access to be expanded for driveway to res­ idential Lot 3. 2 - Prior to issuance of building permit - Lots 1 & 2 must be combined. 3 - Owners of Lot 2 must grant a new driveway and utilities easement in favor of Lot 3. 4 - A loading berth or loading area must be designated on final plan to be presented to Council. 5 - Landscape plan approved per plan dated August 6, 1981. 6 - Approve site plan dated August 6, 1981, noting all setbacks and 41 parking stalls. 7 - Temporary erosion control plans required during construction. 8 - Only 1 access to serve commercial use. 9 - A 10 ft. buffer area to residential property to the rear. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Applicant was present. There was no one from the audience to address this application. NORDBLOM (CONT.) Jabbour noted that the application would bring about a far better environmental condition since the old garage and the existing paving to be removed is located closer to the shoreline. The new garage will be located closer to the road but it must provide adequate turnaround on the property. BRUCE CURTISS 1920 Eagerness Pt. Variance #643 Curtiss noted that the traveled road is 37 ft. from the front of his proposed garage but that the actual right of way is 20 ft. Applicant explained that they would be decreasing the hardcover 1700 ft. m.IfkL ^ 1 *■ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 7 ¥ • mim fe-::"mW: o Applicant was advised that the existing garage would have to be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. He stated that the garage was 50 years old and that it would be in the middle of the new improvements and it would not be logical to ask for special considerations to keep the building. Although he does ask that the building be kept for stc purposes just until the new garage is completed. Jabbour moved to approve Curtiss* hardcover and setbac variance application subject to the following findings 1 - Encroachm*. t into 75* lakeshore area would be reduced. CURTISS (CONT.) 2 - Reduction of approximately 1700 sf of hardcover. 3 - Future proposed improvements would be located further from the lakeshore. 4 - Aesthetic improvements and would enhance the entire site. 5 - Hardship is the narrowness of the lot. and subject to the following conditions: 1 - That adequate turnaround be provided on the property. 2 - Staff to make recommendation as to the best time to remove existing garage. a'; ; M'.V ' ;=v: I : V v: • • : . -V ■ - • ■ • . V McDonald t^r;ronded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Dorothy Forcier and her realtor, Mr. Cassidy, were present. Mabusth stated that a complete set of septic testing would have to be completed before a determination could be made concerning the proposed new construction. Goetten noted that this is .4 acre lot in a 2 acre minimum zone. Jabbour stated not only would you have to relocate the house but find additional area for a well. You will also have to meet a 75* separate setback between well and septic system. Jabbour*s opinion was that the proposed construction was much too ambitious for this size lot. The existing house is 24.4* by 28*. He stated that the new house should not be increased; the square footage should be the same. DOROTHY FORCIER 4780 North Arm Dr Variance #645 ■f-' n m Forcier asked if the new house would be 24* x 28* that be ok? would Jabbour moved to table Dorothy Forcier*s variance appli­ cation pending receipt of a complete set of septic tests. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). • *. .• V . . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 8 (CONT.) s .<si FORCIER rth Arm Dr e Applicant was not present. Mabusth noted that the following ^information must be submitted prior to any action taken by the Planning Commission: 1 - Exact area of the v^etlands 2 - Amount of spoils removed 3 - Metes and bounds legal description for the filing of a conservation and flowage easement 4 - Surveyor's sketch of the wetland area. No action required. Andrew Benson and Dave Moore were present. This application involves the proposed private raquetball club in a B-5 limited commercial zoning district. Applicants plan to limit the membership to 400. Mabusth.noted that clubs like this are only addressed in a residential district through a conditional use permit. How does the Planning Commission feel that this type of use fits in the existing neighborhood residential district? In review of the parking required for private tennis clubs, 49 stalls are required. Planning Commission noted that they were very much for this kind of application and that they :could easily see this use in the limited neighborhood ^commercial district, but that the lot is physically too small. They advised the applicants to look for another site. No action required. Mr. and Mrs. Crosby were present. Applicant reviewed with the Planning Commission the history of the 40 plus acre property. Access to the property is via an old public cartway 33' in width. The plat will involve a road outlot. The Crosby's stated that they would like to start building as soon as possible. Mabusth noted that though there were two legal different properties that the proposed house was located 20' from the property line. The zoning district requires 30'. The location of the caretaker house and the nearest of the proposed Crosby homes would suggest that there would be no problem with early removal of the caretaker house. Planning Commission should come up with a recommendation concerning the issuance of a building permit at the time of preliminary approval. r ifi public hearing was scheduled for September 21, 1981 at 7:30 PM. JAMES THAXTER 1065 Tamarack Dr Conditional Use Permit #644 ANDREW BENSON 3542 Shoreline D Conditional Use Permit #646 • . 1 THOMAS CROSBY ,SR 745 Spring Hill Subdivision Sketch Plan #647 8 THAXTER Tamarack Dr tional U3e W BENSON Shoreline D tional Use t S CROSBY pring Hill vision h Plan :>•=•. •c:. V^:. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 9 /^Goetten moved to approve the minutes of August 3, 1981, i ^^subject to the amendments and additions. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). ■ The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 PM. iHP : r-. ; T . ■ :• ■ > r;: V>^;. yfi::^^yyy • ■■ ;'V- 'iri-v-v' T ymwMm> m pr^«' .T* ■IP*-. 4-:/I v“»4S*;r. •• • i WgSa APPROVAL OF MINUTES ADJOURNMENT 10:30 PM .;>• •::■•-V/• Mg , V’- % y&yyym i-' . ;:• ■^m 'V. • •• ■■ .:^. V WWy wm wr--if ■• V-; .'=\:-^.;- iP