The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07-1980 Planning Minutes6 ‘■A r.;, M aw ..V'. •-, •?• :•:•*•• ' .A*.; HR*' mp:' jhM AGENDA Xr -rd ■.- ■' Plemning Commission Meeting Monday, July 7, 1980 Council Chambers 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL 1. Call to Order & Roll ACTION ITEMS 2. #561 Kellers Market, 3800 Wayzata Boulevard - Variance/ Conditional Use Permit 3. #569 Peter Switenki, 4510 North Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit WORK SESSION 4. #570 William Z. Mernik, 2715 Kelly Ave. - Subdivision 5. #571 Gregg Hannah, 3185 North Shore Drive - Subdivision SKETCH PLAN * I 6. #568 Daryle Uphoff, 2497/2499 & 2501/2503 Kelly Ave. Subdivision INFORMATION ITEMS 7. Orono Comprehensive Plan - Pl€uining Commission Comments ,r' ^ 1 8. Zoning Administrator's Update of the Cortlen Cloutier Application #555 Variance/ Conditional Use Permit APPROVAL OP THE MINUTES 9. Meeting of June 23, 1980 ••‘J*.* MINUTES OP A planning COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 1, 1980 ;r?%/.4U p.M. Mabusth represented the City staff. annovmced that the applicants for ~s.s-r.s..'s • refused the original DNR permit for a seawall and suggested rio rannin^ The applicant was advised that the citv would not approve a seaSaU f^^SL proper because it did not abutt a channel * Mc^nald questioned whether the seawall was «■>.« solve ttrp?obl^ ‘*‘® fs »" hSur he caSgSf just skiJel tKrfac:f“'°" ‘>® *>*<' co^L‘*“^''° °‘>^-tion\V?S:VSposed"-' probl^. =°"hrol the muskrat ISr Zt“?i?^tl:®® P>^°hlem with this method Enfino2^ K muskrat problem. The City effeSn o^ abu??f°''®‘* questions the^ abutting owners. Staff advised that frorthe°a““ina®S°“^*’ solicited by Switenkiopinions of property owners noting theiropinions of the seawall construction ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.M. PETER SWITENKI 4510 North Shore Drive CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#569) ■ KI hore Drive USE PERMIT minutes op a planning commission meeting held on JULY 7. 1980 -PAGE 2 and de8??ucUon‘’Lusld''2“ ™uskr^““"L®f?®^°" acquatic fauna. ^ musKrats or similar 2SSS!t?o„rufe"?e™ir?r ‘' °* ‘•’® seawall “ong ?S0 SLf a based on the"fi!Ui“rfinX°f !• Unsafe and hazardous condition, '■ destruction only method available to solve problem.3. Stating they Le awar« Property owners to their property and dn Potential hazard tor “• IfM. to adequate*review%iTO-^Sat°w subjectseawall for a 150> ^ “® approving a City has never granted one on «bere the ?i:^ssi^e":o^l^|’'r? ®“vtions a^d'it heard comments from neiSrin^prSpert? o^ers! te.' Pred"Hoiasek?®382s’^sixth f'"®®®"*=- * neighbor, also present. Chai^L was alternatives of action ^^® Commission. He felt th<a^r»ni ° Planning of action was realistic course replacing thi exis?LTs%ruItu^^^^^^ IS in complete violai-irtn \ ^ ^ that Planning Commissioi ag?eef thal theuse appeared to be tied in w??h greenhouse type vegetable operation and tu original fruit- would be required. ^ conditional use permit PETER SV7ITENKI 4510 North Shore Drive condiwonal use permit(#569) Cont. wmm • V V, , '% ■ .t:‘\ > ■ w KELLERS MARKET 3800 Wayzata Boulevard ^^nditional use permit n ^GE 2 lore Drive ^SE PERMIT Ur^ . MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 1,1980 - PAGE 3 Jabbour questioned if it would not be to the applicant's advantage to apply for a separate conditional use permit for greenhouse use and with the conditional use permit and non-conforming use application. He noted tt structure was destroyed in natural disaster that the entire non-conforming commercial use/structure would not be allowed to be replaced. It was his opinion that a separate greenhouse conditional use permit in a residential zone could be replaced legally. Mabusth advised the views this as a multi-commercial non-conforming use package and envisions the greenhouse, as do the^ Wisegarvers, as ^ integral part of the commercial operation and this ^ the application before us. Holasek stated he was for the project and could not understand how the property could be zoned residential. He remembers a fruit/vegetable on that corner when he was just a boy. Mrs. Wisegarver and McDonald disagree with staff opinion that this commercial use of water is comparable to a residential use in regards to burden on septic drainfield. Mabusth raised the question of the need for a front yard setback of 21* for greenhouse if Planning Co^ission approves of proposed location on site plan and advised that structure could be relocated to requirement of 35*. Planning Commission decided proposed location was acceptable because of the hardship of location of existing building on lot, greenhouse integral part of commercial operation and logical connection to existing building. Planning Commission will suggest a B-1 parking requirement ratio for new greenhouse of 150 s.f, to parking^stalls^ addition will require thirteen Adams moved to recommend approval of the following non-conforming use application for the Orton Wisegarvers: KELLERS MARKET 3800 Wayzata Boulevard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#561) Cont. 1.Conditional Use Permit for transfer of ownership The question of change from commercial/residential to c^ercial does not appear a .problem since the ability to create a residential unit is persons are present on the premises 18-20 hours a day. r?"m GE 3 minutes op a planning commission meeting held on JULY 7, 1980 - PAGE 4 Boulevard 5E PERMIT -i-r mm 2. Conditional Use Permit for greenhouse Planning Commission determined that the greenhouse use appears to be tied in with the original vegetable/rruit sales. 3. Conditional Use Permit for land alteration This is required for major land alteration of east hill - space required for irditional parking for greenhouse addition. Parking plans and engineering plems must be submitted. 4. Variance for front yard setback of greenhouse of 21 feet — hardships are location of existing structure on lot, greenhouse integral part of commercial operation and logical connection to main structure. 5. Issuance of building permit Building permit to cover only the new greenhouse and bring existing structure up to code. Motion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Frahm voted to recommend approval of the non- conforming use application, but has asked in addition that his concern and position be noted for the record. It is impossible for this body, given the existing ordinances, to deal with an application of this nature without appearing absurd. He is aware of Council's long standing but he still asks that they consider ®®fablishing a new zoning district (non—sewered commercial) that would establish standards to logically and adequately deal with applications of this gender. It is a good overall project and the Hisegarvers should not be penalized with a negative vote although reason demands one. KELLERS MARKET 3800 Wayzata Boulevard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT j (#561) Cont. - ■ / % 1 lilBi r • • , \ ■ ' ■ ■ -.n- • Mm ulevard PERMIT MINUTES OP A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON J Mr. Mernik was present. Mabusth reviewed the two noted there were two points to be clarified during preliminary revijw. A drainage area located somewhat close to the proposed lot line would have to be inspected by the City detemine if a Plowage and Conservatioi Second, it appears that a 30 X 150 tract accessing Mernik*s property is owned by the City. The City Attorney will advise on this issue. A Public Information Meeting is scheduled for July 21, 1980. Gregg Hannah vacated his seat and presented the Planning Commission. His subdivision, a metes and bounds division, will realign the lot line between his eastern neighbor, Darrell Stewart, to more closely conform to natural topography. Gregg har been maintaining the approximately 30* X 190' corridor for years. Planning Commission had no problems with the proposal. A Public Information Meeting has been scheduled for July 21, 1980. Mr. Uphoff was present. The applicant reviewed his application creating four 1/2 acre lots in advised the Commission of the ^i^^iculty of future buyers getting mortgage money on minimal sized lots if they insisted on a PRD instead of a four lot plat. He realizes a variance would be required with the subdivision. McDonald stated that a variemce for area would have to be granted if the application was for a PfU). Staff was asked to report on the ordinance requirements for this property and tc compile an update of the various applications the City has reviewed for this group of developers. mm - -r.' SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan Review (#568) * ! 5 MIHOTES of a planning commission meeting held on JULY 7, 1980 -PAGE 6 Drive following addition be inserted before his motion on top of Pag2 ^ "Jabbour noted that at the June 9th s.‘s:s.-v£ i™%Tcs;ss:‘g s!; to approve the Minutes as Navs Hammer el. Vote: Ayes (6?i“ays (0). Motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OP MINUTES June 23, 1980 : ^ V : ;-.. Tv Vt m.0m wm Mi ; ;v..: V • •‘S= ;^ . V i w-v t:v ■ : I-.. ., • ••..