The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-19-1981 Planning Minutes# si^ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30.PM MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1981 Council Representative - Mary Butler Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Action Items 2. #614 David Myhre, 2590 Casco Point Road Final Subdivision - Resolution 3. #656 Richard Speeter, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Conditional Use Permit & Variance 4« #658 Steven Coddon, 4015 Dahl Road Variance O 5. #659 Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Road Conditional Use Permit 6. #660 Mark Holmquist, 1140 North Arm Drive Conditional Use Permit Work Session 7. #657 Pluhm/Mernick, 2710 Walters Port Lane Preliminary Subdivision Information Items 8. Cancel Planning Cononission meeting of November 2, 1981. 9. Winter schedule of Planning Commission meetings: November 16, 1981 December 7, 1981 January 18, 1982 February 15, 1982 March 15, 1982 Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of the October 5, 1981, Planning Commission minutes. -i, mMm ^ ^ ^rV I A'' ’V" .. V / • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1981 he Planning Commission met on the above date. The following embers were present: Chairman Hammerel, Goetten, Rovegno, and McDonald. Adams arrived at 9:04 PM. CounciImember Mary Butler was also present. Mabusth represented the City staff. Applicant was present. Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission the final plat of Navarre Woods. The Planning Commission found no problems. Hammerel moved to approve the final subdivision of David Myhre subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the staff resolution. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). Richard Speeter was present. The Planning Coinmissjon wanted to compare the City Engineer's comments with Mr. Gray's, applicant's engineer, comments. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that there was no written comments from the City Engineer but that she had talked to him. Mabusth reviewed Cook's comments noting that the environmental standards of the City would have prohibited the construction of the flume if an adequate review had taken place. He asked to review all the data that the applicant's engineer must have compiled to make his recommendation. At this time he feels a more etailed study of the watershed and storm sewer system should e made to afford adequate review. Goetten asked the applicant what the purpose of the construc tion of the retaining wall was and if there was a building permit issued? Applicant stated that a building permit was not taken out because he didn't know that one was required. The purpose was to extend his back yard. Rovegno asked the applicant if he had placed hay bales along the shoreline yet? Applicant stated that he had moved a pile of debris over to protect the shoreline, but that he had not used hay bales. Rovegno asked the applicant about the apparent tire tracks on the cement slab? Applicant explained that those were the tire tracks of a bobcat he had rented to pick up six cement slabs near his shoreline. Applicant stated that he could or would never use the slab as a boat ramp. Applicant stated that if the drainageway does stop his ^Hank from eroding why would the City ask him to tear it ^^ut? He stated that his engineer told him that now that it is already done, it is best to leave it alone. ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM DAVID MYHRE 2590 Casco Point Final Subdivisior #614 RICHARD SPEETER 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane Conditional Use Permit & Variano «656 1 1 > 1 \ « MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1981 Page 2 Point Lvisio] SETER >nka Lane L Use irianc( iiiii]. Goetten stated that this slab was placed within the 75* setback area and was very unattractive. She felt that this was a perfect place for a boat ramp. Applicant again stated that he couldn't get his boat down there if he had wanted to in the first place. Rovegno stated that the hay bales should be placed along the shoreline. He felt that the debris pile was unsightly. Rovegno asked Mabusth if the applicant shouldn't have a conditional use permit for the retaining wall and a building permit for the gazebo. Applicant wanted to know if the City was going to go in everyone's back yard and penalize them for not having building permits on every structure every constructed? He felt that it wasn't fair just to penalize him and not penalize others. Planning Commission explained that they only deal with the current applications before them. ^vegno felt ' that the applicant had centered the drainage in one area. He felt that this means of protection for the shoreline was not feasible. Goetten moved to deny the conditional use permit and variance application of Richard Speeter subject to the following findings and conditions: 1 - Council to consider review of drainage study. 2 - Applicant to submit walkway and open space easements before the next Council meeting. 3 — Hay bales to be placed immediately along the shoreline. 4 - Council to reconsider the original application to be opened for review if signed easements are not received by the Council meeting. Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). McDonald asked the applicant if he was going to place hay bales along the shoreline immediately. Applicant stated that he would. Richard Speeter then asked the Planning Commission members to explain individually why they denied his application. - She noted that the slab was in the 75' setback area. Also that this was the second "after application within one year. Her meeting with him stating that he had an erosion problem and telling him that he would need permits for any improvements he had in mind. SPEETER (CONT.) ■■ . ^ 1 mm flWiW •T#T«I r#Tir«i •nr» MfTAI r#iK«i r«v« •;v"'. '.V r#wr#i r«r*w r« VO • v« r#cd#i • V* •V»1 • f:4« :ONT.) )DDON L Road I ' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1 g||pplicant was present. Mabusth reviewed with the Planning ^Vonunission the changes that would occur. Goetten asked about screening the area for neighbors. Mabusth stated that there had been no complaints from any of the neighbors. Rovegno moved to approve the conditional use permit application for Loren Butterfield subject to the following conditions: 1 - Removing two old greenhouses and replacing with one new 50 x 92 storage building (side setback 53.8* vs minimum 50* required in RR-lA zone) 2 - Relocating two existing greenhouses further into the center of the property. 3 - Add a new 49 x 90 greenhouse addition to the west side of his existing main greenhouse. This addition 1 is instead of the 60 x 190 separate building proposed in 1980. ^ b' I Planning Commission would exhort applicant in the planting of evergreens. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes(4), Nays (0). Applicants were present. Mabusth noted for the Planning “"pmmission that the applicants do not intend to live on le prop'jrty located at 1140 North Arm Drive. Mrs. Krotzer wanted to know why the City wouldn't make the same consideration as they made for the Duehn's and/or Katcher's. She stated that it was a mere technicality in the resolution. Her problem was paying the taxes on the place. She asked the City if they could make an exception? Mabusth stated that according to Lhc Resolution if Keith Katcher did not move to the house on the property that a conditional use permit should have been required for him to continue operating the repair shop. Rovegno noted that in Resolution #1114 there was an agree ment made, specifically #1, of the conditions of approval. He suggested that they could operate the repair shop if one of the owners of the business lived in the house. There were some neighbors in the audience who were all in favor of the boat repair shop to be back in business. Rovegno moved to deny the conditional use permit application requested by Mark Holmquist based on Resolution #1114 stating that any non-conforming commercial use must only be carried _on by the residentof the property either an owner—occupant . a resident renter-occupant.m t Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). ■ -r :••• . •:•••• •• .. ■ u [•HI# ;:e :. . .-,‘ ' ■: '■• i^"'v:‘-- i- ••vy. ■ .=• • ■ ■■ - * •• • •. ; t: ■^^j^'-ii- ;■= ' C- ■ ^ H: ■ '3 :;'>?^Wv>: L'llcTiM^ fe: U'li i^-'M W-u- * *•' .*. .* : ''•‘ ~ V £;r.vU: : ,- mrm ■MyMm 3' •• . ■ ••C'S ? ■".■■‘ /'V* ■:■■■■:.■’.•■■ ■;■;■■. ;?« • . ■ . : • ■• '•■■■ ■.- ■■•• I •»£