The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-18-1980 Planning Minutest AGENDA i I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 1. Call to Order/Roll ACTION ITEMS ^2. #545 Bruce Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road SUBDIVISION ^3. #576 Robert Mortenson, 3280 Watertown Road - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #578 Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive - VARIANCE WORK SESSION 5. #568 Daryle Uphoff, 2497/99 & 2501/03 Kelly Avenue - SUBDIVISION 6. #579 Fred Harvey, 3580 Wayzata Boulevard - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OP MINUTES 7. Minutes of August 4, 1980 INFORMATION ITEMS 8« Reschedule September 8, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. # ■7 O MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1980 The Planning Conmiission met on the above date. Present were the following members: Chairman Hcunmerel, Adams, Frahm, Goetten, Jabbour, McDonald and Rovegno. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.M. Bruce Hepp, Russell Baumgardner, John Hannah and Thomas Lowe were present to address this application. Jabbour announced that he would have to vacate his seat due to business conflicts. The site plan designating the buildable area for the proposed house was reviewed by the Commission. The lot is 1 acre exclusive of the 2 private driveway easements but in reality the intersecting driveways allow for only 3/4 acre area and this area is further restricted by a 75' lakeshore setback from lagoon area. Staff noted there are no standards in the Code for setbacks from private driveway easements. Planning Commission determined that at least a minimum 10* side yard setback should be required for all structures. Baumgardner noted that our code stated all houses must face the public street and that a house could not be placed on that lot and meet all the standards just discussed. Planning Commission advised that other standards affect a house location on a lot for example, view, lakeshore, topography, limited access and minimum lot width required along front line of house. Lowe questioned how this proposed division meets the standard in the platting code that requires all lots abut upon a public road. Mabusth noted that 14' of the 40 lineal feet abutting West Lafayette Road was devoted to the Hannah driveway easement and 26' remained to serve the two lot subdivision. BRUCE HEPP 2605 West Lafayette Road SUBDIVISION (#545) A review was made of previous two lot plats that employed the use of private driveway easements and of subdivisions that have taken place since the original Shore Hills Plat was filed. Rovegno noted the similarity between this application and the William Mernik Plat. In that application we approved a two lot plat that abutted only 30' of public road. ifti lit jfci ■ 1 .! f MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1980 - PAGE 2 Planning Commission raised the question of a private road being created off the cul-de-sac to serve the three houses. Staff advised because of the City’ services involved, a private road could not be considered. An extension of the public road could be considered, but that again would minimize the buildable area. BRUCE HEPP 2605 West Lafayette Road SUBDIVISION (#545) Cont. H£unmerel moved to recommend denial of the two lot plat on the finding that the subdivision does not meet all of the required platting standards and that sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant. Motion Seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (2), Nays <4). y Rovegno moved to recommend preliminary approval based on the subdivision meeting all of the necessary platting standards and subject to the six conditions cited in staff memo dated August 13, 1980. Motion seconded by Frahm. Mr. Hepp interrupted the proceedings to announce he wished to change his subdivision request by platting a 20* corridor for Lot 2 based on the 280* of lakeshore abutting the main lake and 140* plus abutting the lagoon. Frahm moved to table the application pending receipt of preliminary plans designating the riparian rights for both lots. At this point in the review, Frahm suggested the issue of three accesses being serv^ed by a 40* public road corridor be reviewed by the City Attorney and if a variance would be required in light of recently approved two lot lakeshore plats. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Mr. and Mrs. Mortenson were present. The following neighbors were also present to address the application: E. C. Graham, Jr., 95 Leaf Street Carolyn G. GrL.ham, 95 Leaf Street Richard G. Markland, 3415 High Lane Julie Ferris, 3415 High Lane Gregory Young, 3520 Watertown Road Almond Kreb, 3445 High Lane Cy Ducharme, 3405 High Lane Ward Ferrel, 3405 Watertown Road ROBERT & JOANNE MORTENSON 3280 Watertown Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#576) t, MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1980 - PAGE 3 ^ was submitted by the neighbors in attendance from Betty & Wes Wolverton, of 3120 High Lane, stating their opposition to "the granting of #576". The following is a summary of concerns cited by the neighbors: ROBERT & JOANNE MORTENSON 3280 Watertown Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ’ (#576) Cont. i. 2. 3. 4. 5. Encourage commercial traffic in an area that has a record of traffic problems. Kilbo's comments in the Zoning Administrator's memo were challenged by Ducharme. Kilbo contends a change in the access will alleviate the additional vehicular traffic created by the greenhouse use. Ducharme claims there have been several accidents in this area. )^l®nning Commission noted that the property could be divided into three residential units creating even greater burdens on the neighborhood Neighbors stated that they would prefer this to a commercial greenhouse. Questioned Council's role in directing the Mortensons to this specific site. Commission stated that Council had not directed the applicants to this specific 6.7 acre lot, but in general to seek out the rural areas of Orono for a 5+ acre site. Is it the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to allow commercial greenhouses in a 2-acre residential zoning district? Planning Commission advised according to the Zoning Code a commercial greenhouse would be allowed in 1/2 acre zoning district if all other standards could be satisfied. The Comprehensive Plan specifically designates the rural area for non-residential developments like greenhouses. It does not distinguish between the rural 2—acre or 5—acre zones. Dimunition in the neighboring residential properties as a result of the commercial operation. Greenhouses produce contaminating wastes. In a non-sewered area what controls do you put on the waste water from the greenhouse operation? How could this be a feasible location for a greenhouse so close to a wetland and creek? mm-" ut/ :• .> V: H GE 3 minutes of a planning commission meeting held on august 18, 1980 - PAGE 4 traffic hazards facilitv placing a conunercial on suc^Vdange^ous^’cSrve"" operation Jabbour noted that a subdivision of ->.vs orooertv ^?sts?®''®^ greenhouse Sir" fonlwTSrfiMi^ls?'™'®"’' "he values!*^ dimtnition in neighboring property vehicular traffic created with potential greenhouse operation. ROBERT & JOANNE MORTENSON 3280 Watertown Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#576) Cont. growt^tLlugh'^j^^ cSp^SiisS™"""^"^' thTll^!L^^^L? ^n^Jiudedxn the report to the Council. included Minority Opinions l^c^se^th^Mn^^® motion to deny the applicants of Mortenson's application satisfies Policf noting the® change in the access will relieve the increase in vehicular traffic created y the greenhouse use. If approved by Council he would recommend the following conditions; . """h the above and stated standard^ “PP^^cation satisfies all of the the orlfinai’^S*^ ''®®°l“tion #1167 that denied rSr»? application such as area, i^?oJ slrfer®"^ °f "«ifhborhood, access off a ' expansion and ^™P^® room for storage and proposed lines! ^ natural screening from property Goetten concurred with Frahm and Rovegno’s positions. 1 PAGE 4 MORTENSON oad PERMIT m • •.. .. i; \ i ... . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■• ■ = ■ .V MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1980 - PAGE 5 Mr. Carl and Mr. & Mrs. H. Sullwo .d, 3705 No. Shore Drive were present. Carl presented his lot area and hardcover variance application noting that the garage is not proposed with this application. The garage will be con structed as soon as the County vacates the western easement. The applicant stated that his home is the last one in the immediate neighborhood to be improved. The house is located within the 75* lakeshore setback area and the improvement will result in 1,800 s.f. of additional hardcover. The majority of the subject lot is located within the restricted lakeshore setback area. CHARLES CARL 3685 North Shore Drive VARIANCE (#578) Hammerel asked staff if all the homes have similar problems. Staff advised that a survey had not been done but an inspection of the site will reveal that all th^i homes have severe setback and hardcover concerns. Mr. Sullwold stated he was in favor of the proposed improvement to the property. He is "sick of the run-down condition of the property**. McDonald stated according to the plan the house could be sold as a five bedroom house. Isn*t this project a bit too ambitious for this lot? Carl objected to this statement because he plans to use it as a three bedroom house - 2 additional rooms in guestion are a study and darkroom. It was noted that Carl*s application involves the rehabilitation of substandard homes which is in direct agreement with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Jabbour moved to table the application pending a survey by staff of the setback and approximate hardcover calculations for the neighborhood. Staff was also asked to review previous applications that dealt with the same problem. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). iPfS’..-''*:-,- •• ■ '• •’ . ! . U’-A. ■ :■ •=•••• ■ -i •- ■■ T '. ‘ :v:. Vv; ' -V'"’ PAGE 5 Drive /; ■• A*"'*?-: : ••.. -^•■...^ V ••• ..;".'v...,v. ^ ■ - .. .•.'•■ .: : : .'V. :■•:■ l<- ' ■"'■■■ :■- ‘■■k ';' - - ■: ' ‘ '7-- ••'■•;:.■ ’•■; A . i' •’•■ •; •. •• •• V-,.-: - : If: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1980 - PAGE 6 Planning Conunission reviewed once again the PRD with duplex credit subdivision of Lots 1 & 2, Navarre Cove. The subdivision would create four residential condominium lots - zero lot line through existing structures to include a 5' land corridor. The remainder of the 2H acre area will be retained as open space area. Uphoff stated he would prefer going with his original subdivision request by dividing the property into four %-acre lots. Staff noted once again that the applicant's proposal would require a variance or rezoning. Rovegno stated he did not agree with staff's statement that all ordinance standards are satisfied. He contends the PRD density standards are not maintained. Mabusth advised that if the duplex credit was applied this allows for a change in the density level. Uphoff was to advise staff if he wished to continue with the application. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Harvey, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Harvey and Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Lurton were present. The applicant owns a 38-acre parcel and plans to grow apples and other varieties of produce. They plan to sell the produce produced on site next year but this year and possibly the next three years would like to sell apples that are grown in their Kilkenny and Maple Plain orchards. This condition would change as soon as the Orono orchard is producing in three years. Planning Commission advised that selling produce grown on other sites would require a variance to Section 34.047. McDonald advised a variance would also be required for the size of the retail building since it is over the allowed 200 s.f. Applicant was advised to submit hardship by action meeting of September 22, 1980. Frahm moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Goetten. Vote; Ayes (7), Nays (0). Meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. DARYLE UPHOFF 2497/99 & 2501/03 Kelly Ave SUBDIVISION (Work Session) (#568) '•tl FRED HARVEY 3580 Wayzata Boulevard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Work Session) (#579) APPROVTUii OP MINUTES August 4, 1980 -14 ADJOURNMENT