Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-1980 Planning Minutes' ■ . . . • . . •m;■ ;... -V . •r.t:II- y *■', ... -■mm m ¥ ] solution^ SION ' Vi.*- = .‘. •>. w- 7;^ t-ym-. 1:: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 The Planning Commission met on the above date. Present were the following members: Chairman Hcunroerel/ Frahm, Jabbour, Hannah and Wilson. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.K. Hammerel announced the Public Meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Hepp were present. Mabusth stated she had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing. The following residents were present to address the subdivision application: Tom Lowe, 2630 W. Lafayette Road Helen Lyman, 2635 W. Lafayette Road Russ Baumgardner, 2601 W. Lafayette Road John Hannah, 2607 W. Lafayette Road A petition was presented to the Planning Commission by Thomas Lowe with the neunes of six residents opposed to the Hepp subdivision. Mr. Hepp presented a petition signed by four residents in support of this application. Mr. Lowe and Mr. Hepp designated on a plat map the location of the lots where each of the signers reside. It was noted by Mr. Lowe that of the four neighbors on the Hepp petition, not one could see the proposed subdivision lot. Adams arrived Mr. Hepp responded to the seven opposing points cited in the Lowe letter. In summary, Hepp noted he would not be creating a new riparian lot. As for the question of 40' frontage on Lafayette Road serving three residences, he noted Lots A, B and C, just to the south of the subject area, are served by approximately 40' of that same cul-de-sac. Lowe responded by stating that the referenced lots are served by one driveway where the proposed subdivision would permit three homes served by two driveways. Mr. Lowe restated his concern for precedent setting in the neighborhood and the impending loss of the integrity of the existing neighborhood. Hannah, Baumgardner and Lowe agreed they would disapprove of a subdivision granting both lots riparian rights and increasing the usage ^ t>ay that has been deemed environmentally sensitive. Mr. Hannah stated he was not against the proposed plat as long as the one lot did not receive riparian access. BRUCE HEPP 2605 W. Lafayette Rd Public Info. Meeting 7:30 - 8:25 P.M. (#545) 7:45 I Fi- - \GE lA 'I'i r 'WtS MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 1 Lyman Lumber Cempeny the professional buihfer's supply center 5E AVENUE • MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 40 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612-474 599 THOMAS P I OWE President R. L. DePAUW Vice President mm April 28, 1980 TO: The City of Orono Planning Comrnission and Council RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 & 10 SHORE HILLS The undersigned are opposed to the proposed subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 for the following reasons: 1 Lot 9 has 40* of frontage on Lafayette Road. If this proposed sub­ division were allowed it would mean that three single family residences would be using driveways fronting on a 40 lot. 2 1 understand that Mr. Hepp's proposal calls for the inclusion of lakeshore which would mean that we would have a seriously gerrymandered lot line to allow lakeshore to be attached to the proposed subdivision. • 3. Almost all of the lots in Shore Hills, at one time or another, had or have now, a deed restriction providing that only one single dwellinq be built on a lot. It is obvious that the intent of the developer and the buyers of those lots were, that the area would remain devoted to large lots with only one house per lot. 4 The Hepp property has only one sewer and water assessment. If the Intent of the Council were to allow higher density in this area, it would have provided sewer and water at an earlier date for more connections. 5. Lafayette Bay is an environmentally sensitive bay and additional population pressure would only add to this problem. 6. ' If this subdivision were granted it would set a for sub­ division on other lots in the area. There are Presently two or three lots on Lafayette Road which could be subdivided into additional lots. If the Council were to allow this subdivision we would f^en want the Council to go on record that it would allow additional lot in the area along the same lines granted to Mr. Hepp. 7 We believe that a subdivision of Mr. Hepp's lot would not be in the b^t interests of preserving the integrity of the existing neighborhood. We ask that the Council and Planning Commission deny this application. cerely. •li' -v. Mm Thomas P. Lowe MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1380 - PAGE 1C • A RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 & 10 SHORE HILLS Russell Baumgardnep^;^wner erf Lot /J , Shore Hills John Hanna, ov/ner of Lot , Shore Hills Helen Lyman owner of Lots TShore Hills E. S. Dygert, owner of Lot , Shore Hills T, William 6. Phillips, owner of Lot .Shore Hills Thomas P. Lowe, owner of Lot , Shore Hills •< i . : H v*'- *•••*■- ' ’ ‘ ■—tp” 1^ MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON *MAY 5, 1980 -PAGE ID . . . .m irt ■ RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 & 10 SHORE HILLS Russell Baumgardner, owner of Lot , Shore Hills John Hanna, owner of Lot , Shore Hills E. S. Dygert, owner of Lot , Shore Hills Phillips, owner of trbt i . Shore Hills # / Thomas P. Lowe, owner of Lot |, Shore Hills •\/Xr ................ o © MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 2 Lowe and Baumgardner reflected on the original restrictive covenants that controlled the area and the limited density desired. Hammerel asked Mr. Hepp to review the background of the "Hannah driveway". He explained that the easement was created before he was the owner of the property and that the 14' easemeiit was created to allow access for a landlocked parcel created in a lot line realignment. BRUCE HEPP 2605 W. Lafayette Rd SUBDIVISION Public Info. Meeting (#545) Cont. Hammerel moved to table the application subject to the applicant submitting a preliminary plan designating the following: 1.Designate existing structure and setback from lot lines for both lots. 2. 3. Access easements - note width of each driveway. A proposed house site (house to be of comparable size of others in neighborhood) showing setbacks from lot lines. ■ V I ■ VrV •' V f 4. Area of each lot and of each driveway. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Dr. & Mrs. Seifert, Roger Freeberg (applicant's .architect), and Curtis Pearson (applicant's attorney) were present. Also in attendance were Woody Taylor, 1880 Shadywood Road, and Ewald Gustafson, 1890 Shadywood Road. Mabusth reviewed the application and the condition agreed upon by commission members at their last meeting that the lakeshore cabin would have to be removed before they could recommend approval of the hardcover variance. Mr. Pearson represented the applicant and reviewed the Seifert's position briefly summarized as follows; MILTON SEIFERT 1856 Shadywood Road VARIANCE (#548) 1. Proposed project will improve the existing hardcover condition - reduction from 41% to 32%, ;; 2.Proposed project will improve aesthetics question of the property and as a result benefit the neighborhood. m f « « ■"^yjRv MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 3 3.Neighbors on both sides have signed petition stating approval of the improvement and benefit to their property values (on file City offices). 4.Property was charged four sewer units and four water charges and all of the residential units are connected to the municipal sewer and water systems. MILTON SEIFERT 1856 Shadywood Road VARIANCE (#548) Cont. 5.The residents on the subject property have never carried on activities inconsistent with neighbor's use of their property "as being a high quality residential area". Adams questioned whether the removal of paved parking area and portion of the driveway turnaround will create even more violations and hazardous conditions. How will the resident's parking needs by satisfied? Freeberg said there is still enough area by the main house to allow adequate turnaround space since all parking by residents will be located near the garages on Shadywood. Each unit will have an assigned stall in the garages and there is a gravel parking area that can serve five cars. Adams asked staff to have the City engineer review the proposed layout to make certain that there is a satisfactory turnaround area. Jabbour noted that additional sodded areas could be paved without the City being notified because building permits are not required. He strongly suggested a formal C.U.P. be required to continue the non-conforming use of 4 residential units on a single residential lot. Wilson noted the difficulty in reviewing this proposal given the persuasive presentation by Mr. Pearson, but he is still troubled by the lakeshore cabin. He felt the Planning Commission would be neglecting their responsibility if the issue of removing the lakeshore unit was not addressed. Pearson noted that his client could consider removing the subject cabin in five years but asked if at that time the substructure could remain to serve as a boat house. r KAh -- -W - f’'- /’n" s.-:..1 r ^ k j MINUTES OF A PLANNING COI4MISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 4 > '4 Hammerel stated that the City would like to see the applicant address the question of three rental units. A single family residential lot would not only satisfy the ordinance requirements, but indeed benefit the neighboring properties. He questioned if the applicant has any plans ir. the future of removing all three units. Pear-son responded that Seifert could walk away from the property and rent all four units but that his good faith is clearly reflected in his effort to improve the property and by pressing on with the variance application. Wilson moved to recommend approval of the hardcover variance application of Milton Seifert for a 21' X 14' addition on the lakeside of the house, razing of the house 4' and the removal of hardcover as specified on the plans dated March 28, 1980 dependent upon the City and the applicant entering into a contract that would require removal of the lakeshore cabin to include the substructure, such terms of said coi.tract to be satisfactory to the City Attorney and that a feasible and realistic time schedule be determined for complete removal but not to exceed maximum 5~year limit and that upon completion of demolition applicant to reconstruct area to natural state. Motion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1). Frahm was opposed as he could not approve of any improvement of the property until the lakeshore cabin is removed. It is true that there is approximately a 10% reduction in the hardcover within the 75' setback and rear property line area but 556 s.f. of hardcover remains within the 0-75' setback area. Mabusth reviewed the Wyndmere Plat and final resolution. The applicant was not present. Hammerel moved to recommend approval of the plat subject to the staff resolution. Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. MILTON SEIFERT 1856 Shadywood Road VARIANCE (#548) Cont. • a .1 s J ; j KERN HOPPE 950 Sixth Avenue No. FINAL SUBDIVISION (#464) Resolution 6lV • • u % I minutes of a planning commission meeting held on may 5, 1980 - PAGE 5 1 ^ y Mr. and Mrs. Moore were present. T|ie Moores have decided to return to their original two 7.ot pi t. Hawkinson will proceed on his own with a two lot plat to be reviewed at a later date. Mabusth explained that the Moore application had to be returned for preliminary approval because of this change. Hannah moved to recommend preliminary approval of the Moore subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1.Flowage and Conservation Easement taken over the wetlands. 2.Variance for animal barn of 80' from Lot 2's east property line - hardships: a) location of existing fencing along east/west property line and b) animal barn is located 130' from existing east property line of subject property. 3. L Dedication of right of way for West Branch Road of 40' and dedication of right of way for Highview Lane of approsJimately 30* (not designated on preliminary plat). 4. Park dedication fee for Lot 2 of $100.00. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Mr. and Mrs. Udell were present. Mabusth reviewed the revised site plan submitted by the Udells. The applicant proposes construction of an attached 24' X 22' garage that will encroach 3' from the north property line. Planning Commission asked if the attached garage could be located in any other area so that a variance would not be necessary. Mabusth noted that the building inspector har made an inspection of the site and confirmed that because of topography and location of mature trees this is the only feasible location to attach a garage. Adams moved to recommand approval of the side yard variance setback of 7' for Don Udell subject to the following conditions: 1.Before a building permit is issued, the following must be completed: a) Owner contact gas company to locate exact location of utility easement. b) Lot 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1 must be legally combined as one building site. WILLIAM MOORE 4701 West Branch Rd. SUBDIVISION (#538) L DON UDELL 1210 iiOma Linda Ave. VARIANCE (#542) ;i vt i « MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 6 Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 4 (8-117-23-23-0004) must' be legally combined as one building site. All outstanding violations on rental units must be removed - specifically the Oberg cottage and unlicensed car problem. Motion seconded by Wilson. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1) Frahm stated he could not approve any application where four dwelling units exist on a one acre lot that by ordinance is limited to one. m Duane Hall was present. The applicant seeks a front yard setback variance of 20' to allow the construction of a 24' X 25' garage. The garage will not be accessed off Shadywood but shall have a paved turnaround and entrance on north side of structure. The proposed garage location is similar to the existing garages along that area of Shadywood. Planning Commission had no problem with Hall's application. Jabbour moved to recommend approval of the front yard variance setback of 20' for construction of detached garage based on the hardships of location of mature trees and neighboring garages lo«^ated within similar setbacks along Shadywood subject to the condition that staff confirm that Lots 27 and 28 are legally combined before building permit is issued. Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes {BY, Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Hannah moved to recommend approval of the Minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote; Ayes (6) , Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. m ■'A'"- DON UDELL 1210 Loma Linda Ave. VARIANCE (#542) DUANE HALL 1860 Shadywood Road VARIANCE (#554) APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 1980 ADJOURNMENT 9:45 P.M.