Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-1980 Planning Minutes■ ■; • •• ........................ ;• 3 J ITIONAL BRMIT k* 4^' MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 The Planning Commission met on the above date. Present were the following members: Chairmem Hammerel, McDonald, Adams, Jabbour, Frahm, Hannah and Wilson. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE Hammerel announced the Public Information Meeting. Mabusth stated she had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing. Mrs. Mertz was present. Also present was William Waldron, 1880 Fox Street, who was in favor of the subdivision. Wilson moved to recommend approval of the two lot plat as it complies with all Orono Ordinances contingent upon the following: 1. Payment of a park fee for Lot 1 of $200. 2. All new septic installation to conform with the On-Site Manager's report and recommended septic design of consultant. 3. Curb cut on Fox Street for Lot I's driveway subject to Public Works Coordinator's review. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0) . Motion passed unanimously. E. T. MERTZ 1820 Fox Street SUBDIVISION Public Info. Meetii^ 7:30 P.M.-7:32 P.M.i (#557) TIONAL DIVISION r Mr. Klitzke was present. Mabusth stated that there was no change in the original drainage easements designated in Stielows Addition and that the Flowage imd Conservation Easement is still in effect. All conditions of final plat approval have been met. Ad2uns moved to recommend approval of the lot line realignment to accommodate the new house location of Mr. Klitzke and to provide adequate area for the two lots to meet the septic ordinance requirements. Motion was seconded by Wilson. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unatnimously. LOREN KLITZKE 555/575 Oxford Rd. FINAL SUBDIVISION (#482) Mr. Brooks was not present. Septic testing has been done and the On-Site Systems Manager recommends approval. JOHN BROOKS 795 No. Ferndale Rc SUBDIVISION (#551) eet Meetin 32 P.M. MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 2 « f Hannah moved to recommend approval of the two lot plat contingent upon the following: 1. Flowage and conservation easement taken over the designated wetlands. 2. Lot 2 to grant a private driveway and utility easement to Lot 1. 3. Septic installation shall conform to the On-Site Systems Manager's report and septic design to conform with the consultant's recommendation. 4. Payment of a park fee for Lot 2 of $200. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays Motion passed unanimously. (0) JOHN BROOKS 795 No, Ferndale Rd. SUBDIVISION (Cont.) (#551) >rd Rd. aSION ndale R( i m Mr. Cloutier was present. He was given a copy of the staff memo to read before ciny discussion commenced. No public comments were heard. Mabusth stated the applicant is not requesting additional deck, but only screening. Hammerel asked the applicant if he was aware that his building permit has expired; Mr. Cloutier said that was what he had been informed. Hammerel further brought to Mr. Cloutier's attention that the Planning Commission may not legally grant a variance to the standards set forth in the non- conforming use sections of the code. McDonald stated she felt this application was not increasing the hardcover which already exists and that adding a roof was not expanding the usage. During further discussion, it was stated that use, not hardcover, was the issue. At that time, Mr. Cloutier stated he never intended to use the structure as a guesthouse; he was more interested in finishing the screened porch. Hammerel noted that he felt an interpretation of the non-conforming use sections of the zoning code by the City Attorney is necessary before th.e Planning Commission can make a proper recommendation. Wilson noted the difficulties in distinguishing between non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures in the zoning code when determining if this application really involves an intensification. Does the addition of a screened porch to a non-conforming structure involve an intensification of a non-conforming use? The Code seems to distinguish between the two. Jabbour noted that at the June 9th meeting, he had asked staff to interpret the non«-conforming use sections of the Code. In review of that interpretation in the staff memo dated 6-19-80, a screened porch and guest apartment is eui expansion of a non-conforming use. This body cannot legally grant a variance to this section. It should also be noted for the record that installation of the utilities were done without permits. CORTLEN CLOUTIER 2480 Casco Pt. Road VARIANCE & CONDITION. USE PERMIT (#555) ’AGE 2 rndale Rd. (Cont.) OUTIER Pt. Road CONDITION. mm - ■ ■•: .'E r ►'a' ,/.. - • *m\ ^ MINUTES OP A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 3 Jabbour moved to recommend denial on the grounds the Code specifically prohibits us from expanding a non-conforming use and no hardship had been shown for the variance. Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (3), Motion passed. McDonald was opposed as she felt the varicuice and conditional use permit should be approved based on the following:' 1) trees screen the structure from adjoining neighbors and does not interfere with their sight line, 2) neighbors voiced no objection, 3) there will be no additional hardcover, and 4) the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare. Hannah was opposed to the motion as he favored tabling the application pending receipt of more information from the City Attorney. Hammerel was opposed to the motion as he also favored tabling of the application until an interpretation from the City Attorney could be obtained. CORTLEN CLOUTIER 2480 Casco Pt. Road VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Cont.) (#555) ./.•r ■’* Mr. Hawkinson was present. Mabusth stated the On- Site Manager feels it is unnecessary to delay preliminary approval of this plat as testing has provided sufficient proof that the designated lot lines will provide adequate and suitable area for drainfield. Wilson moved to recommend preliminary plat approval of the Hawkinson plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conservation and flowage easement over designated wetland. 2. Road and utility easement over the 25* private driveway corridor - length to equal distance of adjacent Moore easement. Applicant to supply metes and bounds description for driveway. 3. Dedication of additional right of way for West Branch Road. 4. Park dedication fee of $200.00 for Lot 2. RICHARD HAWKINSON 4625 West Branch Rd. SUBDIVISION (#556) © m MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 4 , ‘rf/-m 5.Before final approval, the following must be submitted for On-Site Manager's review: Site plan for Lot 2 designating location of house, driveway, well, primary drainfield, secondary drainfield, and other proposed improvements. Test information for alternate drainfield site for existing holise on Lot 1. c) Applicant to designate and preserve secondary drainfield site if need for mound system arises. d) Applicant enter into an agreement with the City to affirm the above items (a-c) • Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Mabusth informed the applicant that the City Engineer had measured the culvert for the Moore division as 48". The required culvert for Hawkinson's plat would also be 48". There will be two separate culverts for the Hawkinson and Moore divisions. Mr. and Mrs. Mortenson were present. No public comments were heard. It was noted that no wetlands are involved in this application. The main issue was the suitability of a semi-commer% '.al operation in a residential neighborhood. Adeuns questioned the need for a more detailed site plan. Mabusth stated at this point the issue was if this use is compatible before the applicant invests more money into detailed plan'.. General concensus was in favor of the use although there was concern over traffic and the number of driveways. Hannah moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit based on the following : 1.The property (3.7 acres) seems sufficient for the operation. (By current zoning standards, the property cannot be divided.) 2.The operation is primarily hobby with some profits attached. 3. 4. No unfavorable responses from neighbors. The conditional use permit covers the current application, as well as the proposed addition, although proposed addition shall not exceed 50% or 2,520 s.f. total operation. RICHARD HAWKINSON 4625 West Branch Rd. SUBDIVISION (Cont.) (#556) ^ '>1 ROBERT MORTENSON 1205 Arbor Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIH (#560) %If-1 r-fe- . M mm r^- , Af . a minutes of a planning commission meeting held on JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 5 5, The conditional use permit shall expire upon sale of the property. 6. All four lots must be combined. Motion seconded by Heunnmerel Nays (3). Motion passed. Vote: Ayes (4), ROBERT MORTENSON 1205 Arbor Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT («560) (Cont.) •‘A ^■1 Frahm was opposed (especially with the proposed future addition) as he felt it was inconsistent with the neighborhood - commercial/residential. He also had concerns regarding increasing traffic on Arbor Street.■' If'-.: Wilson felt the proposed use was alright and was in general agreement with the motion, but he was opposed to approving any future addition at this time. He would prefer to review the addition at a later date when the City has had the opportunity to observe the operation. He also favored a restriction on the permit be that traffic generated by the operation be no more than that generated by a normal residence. ... . -'Pa..)- .a.,'- >■ ■ A Ai i.-* 1 Adams was generally in favor of the concept, but was concerned that the investment would become substantial enough ^in the hobby to necessitate a more commercial operation. He cautioned the Planning Commission of "creeping commercialism". Mr. Hagen was present. Mabusth stated the Public Works Coordinator had problems with the location of the garage - nearness to the right-of-way. It was noted that this was the only feasible location and consistent with the neighborhood. It was noted that more turnaround area could be maintained if the garage was moved 5* closer to the deck. RUSSELL HAGEN 19(T5 Eagerness Pt. VARIANCE (#564) Adams moved to table the application to give the applic2uit and staff time to determine the exact location of the garage and the variance needed. Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. w mm lii I i firnraimnwiiiroiBifir^T f^rmirf nuiKWti •s MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 6 Mr. Dale was present. No public comments, were heard. Planning Commission had no problems with this application. Wilson moved to recommend approval of the variance based on the hardships of no adjao'vt.f land available, angle of house location on lot and ti^B deck on the rear of the house, subject to the review of the roof drainage by the inspector to verify that the drainage is directed south. Mrs. Haverberg was present. The screen porch has already been constructed without a building permit Duwayne Schibilla, 3235 Crystal Bay Road, was also present. He stated he was not opposed to the screen porch as long as it was not enclosed (he also sent a letter to that effect to the City which is on file). Planning Commission was very concerned with the enforcement of this condition, and requested that the applicant and Mr. Schibilla also work it out among themselves. Wilson moved to recommend approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Accurate survey of the improvement with setback encroachment certified for Council. Approve the variance for the screen porch with the express condition that it will not be enclosed in the future. Drainage from roof must be reviewed and approved by the building inspector. Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Motion passed unanimously. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Mr. and Mrs. Lynn were present. Planning Commission had not problems with this application. Adams moved to recommend approval of the variance for the tennis court based on the hardships of configuration vjf the lot and the location of the lake and street. Motion seconded by Hann^dl. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. ALAN DALE 2690 Pheasant Road VARIANCE (#565) STEVE HAVERBERG 3215 Crystal Bay Rd. VARIANCE (#566) ■I k'J MICHAEL LYNN 1265 Bracketts Point R VARIANCE (#567) r o MINUTES OF h PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 > PAGE 7 Mr. and Mrs. Ward were present.^ Planning Coimnission gave conceptual approval. A labile Information Meeting has been scheduled for July 21, 1980. Mr. and Mrs. Wisegarver were present with their designer Gordon Metcalf. Planning Commission noted for the record that the operation at one time involved both residential and commercial and now exists only as commercial. Planning Commission questioned whether the greenhouse, construction of proposed addition and meat department were an intensification of use. Wisegarver noted that the greenhouse already existed and a meat department could be located within the present structure and should fall under the original conditional use permit. It was the concensus of the Commission that rezoning was not a realistic solution. It had to be done through an interpretation of the non conforming use sections of the code. McDonald felt a comparison should be done to determine if this use is more of a burden to the septic system than a residential unit would be. If the addition was approved, the hill to the east of the building would have to be removed for parking. Planning Commission contended that non»conforming structures can be enlarged if uses are not intensified. Wilson noted at this time that the information of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision stated that this would be an intensification of a non~conforming use. Applicant was not present. Jabbour moved to table the application until the applicant can be present. Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote; Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. STEPHEN WARD 4695 No. Shore Drive SUBDIVISION Work Session (#563) KELLERS MARKET 3800 viayzata Blvd. VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Work Session (#561) •■wi \ -vr* h ■ ■■■ . • • *•! % •* ^ ' m . . . DARYLE UPHOFF 2497/2499 6 2501/2503 Kelly Ave. SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan Review (#568) •)M»H ^.Z:.Z: • iil«Bf^ZhZZi^r-3 1^: •^- . !. ' • ■ *• * ;.r' ■•. > ; .\ ■ ■•.•:. r^' ■ V. / '■j' /■ ■■;/../y-‘'*-=’-;-- •'■■"••%•'V'- •.•: ’ • •;. -'■■ ■ ••^• ... ■ ■.' ■■ . \- '■■■:. . ,y- : .!•’ "•• •■ ■:••• ■•..'•■ ■■ :;■■ ■... • .Vi" -• .;:^;,.V . . .••.•• .: : ; . A' ■. ■■.■^- ■■ ■ ^r. ■■' ■ '. ' r-- ' \ ’ . ■ : ■' ? ■■ 4' y. 4-S:l"S- i » <■■ Z:Z- '4- 7-::- ••::• isif ■■■■ f- --■ . '• ••. ••• : • I.;- : • ; ! VU..4- ^ •■ .0 . ••:■ = ^ 4 ^ :; ;-:-.4 7 4.:':. -. iSMk: I ' -