The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-22-1980 Planning Minuteso t. •■^. -.i. :C-' -. • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. ;; I* CALL TO ORDER 1. Call to Order/Roll ACTION ITEMS 2. #492 Louis Smerling, 2683 Casco Point Road -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3. #541 Ministers Life Development Company, 1484 Shoreline Drive FINAL SUBDIVISION (Resolution) 4.' #555 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road - VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5. #578 Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive - VARIANCE 6. #579 Fred Harvey, 3580 Wayzata Boulevard - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #581 Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road - VARIANCE7. WORK SESSION 8. #580 Robert White, 320 Woodhill Road - SUBDIVISION 9. #582 H. R. Johnston, 935 Willow Drive South - SUBDIVISION 10. #583 Development Group, Inc., 3701 Shoreline Drive - REZONING APPROVAL OF MINUTES . i 11. Minutes of August 18, 1980 i t m # « N MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 Plar.ning Commission met on the above date. Present ATTENDANCE were the following members: Chairman Hammerel, Frahm, 7:30 P.M. Jabboui, McDonald and Rovegno. Goetten arrived at 7:35 P.M. and Adams at 7:45 P.M. Mabusth represented the City staff. Mr. Smerling was present. Mabusth reviewed the original application and the need to amend that application. The applicant has been advised by his contractor that due to severe slope of the bank that two retaining walls 20' in length, one 18" in height and the other 24" in height must remain in place. Smerling had hoped to have a completely submerged soil retention system. LOUIS SMERLING 2683 Casco Point Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S VARIANCE (Amendment) (#492) Robert Hunt, 2691 Casco Point Road, stated he had no objection to the improvement. He felt it did not affect his property nor impair the aesthetic character of the lakeshore. Frahm moved to recommend approval of Smerling's request to amend his original conditional use permit and variance application based on the hardship of 60% slope of lakeshore bank and City Engineer's original anticipation of the need for this type of retaining walls, on the condition that disturbed area is replaced with proper plantings. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Michael Flannagan represented Ministers Life Development Company. Mabusth reviewed the six lot plat for the new members. Rovegno questioned Outlot A, riparian outlot for Lot 6. Planning Commission advised that the three non-riparian lots were given riparian rights based on the total lineal frontage of lakeshore. MINISTERS LIFE DEV. 1484 Shoreline Drive FINAL SUBDIVISION Resolution (#541) Hammerel moved to recommend approval of the Ministers Life Development Company plat subject to the findings and conditions cited in the staff resolution. Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. exa ^4 r 0 ^h MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 - PAGE 2 mi. Cortlen Cloutier, Wilbur Anderson (3555 Frederick) and Michael Wallman (3565 Frederick) were present. The applicant reviewed the new material submitted at the meeting. In summary of his written statement, he challenges the dates referring to scope of the original permit and period of construction cited in Scheller & Anderson affidavits. It is Cloutier's position that the original permit covered the two storied structure just in review of the costs of materials back in 1971. CORTLEN CLOUTIER 2480 Casco Point Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE (#555) Anderson once again claims the original permit covered a single story boathouse to be capped with deck. The dates referenced in affidavits were approximate estimates. Wallman questioned the status of the existing building within 75' setback area. If the second story was constructed out of the scope of building permit, then how can that portion be allowed to remain in consideration of the legal non-conforming sections of the Orono Code. Jabbour questioned the assessed valuation of $1,200.00 on the subject structure. It is obvious that the boat house is worth more than $1,200 and how does the City resolve this issue. Staff advised that with an application of this type, an inspection of the non conforming structure is part of the normal review. Staff makes an evaluation as to the condition of the structure. In some instances, applications have been denied because of the rundown and unsafe condition and advised removal. Cloutier asked if he could move the structure, or build a new guest house out of 75' setback area and maintain boat house or single story structure. Jabbour stated he would prefer the entire structure being removed and asked staff if a newly located guest house would be able to meet zoning standards. Staff advised there was eunple area and width to satisfy code. Jabbour moved to table the application for no more than a sixty day period in which the applicant must submit a survey designating the location and setbacks of guest house with the condition that second story of boat house would be removed or moved to the new location. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission noted for the record that: they would prefer removal of the entire structure. i \smBi »yiir< feTO#] p.-.-\;Vr-=-W:-^ ^ V ; •:• v5W\^v’.^Qv Nw roiC«i ‘v... ■■/'>.■ "‘ • •r ■"■ ":• ' =••' ■' '• •: cr ^ v •• :• • -,. • .-. • -• .• • •; L^-- •; •••; •. .■ ■ Mif l"l ^‘v:4;Sv;; 'W'Bi“fe'vi'V,:•«wa-K •f^f# ^v>-- • ^•liM MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 - PAGE 4 ^ \ i ’fesi Rovegno made a motion to reconsider an addition to the approving motion: That a condition be added that no additional hardcover be allowed within the 0-75' setback area. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (1). Rovegno made a motion to add the following to the above noted condition that until County right of way is vacated, additional variances will not be granted to the property. Motion seconded by Adaims. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (1). Motion passed. Minority Opinion - Frahm felt the application should be denied based on the following: CHARLES CARL 3685 North Shore Drive VARIANCE (#578) Cont. 1.Addition of 12% hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. According to our standards, this application should be viewed as new construction (more than 50% of the assessed valuation). It would be better to delay until the vacation is completed because the majority of improvements could be located out of protected area. Carl asked that the application be scheduled for action at the October 14, 1980 Council meeting. O Mr. Lorge and the following neighbors were present: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hunt, 2691 Casco Point Road Mrs. Sam Child, 2715 Casco Point Road Raoul Schander, 2745 Casco Point Road The following is a summary of the applicant's position: 1. Lots on both sides are occupied. 2. The proposal is typical of existing neighborhood development. 3. On purchase of property, applicant was informed that this was a buildable and separate lot - fee was based on that assumption. 4. Properties have been taxed separately - nevet receiving benefit of homestead relief. 5- House is located solely on Lot 4. 6. He recognizes the code requiring 100' in width, but he notes that the DaMart site plan proves even an ambitious house can conform to all the zoning standards. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE (#581) Its r' f^GE 4 Drive : Road I MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22 P ^ I" ■ Jabbopr reviewed for applicant the implications of common ownership when both lots ' He noted how difficult it was for him to imagine this was not a buildable lot in view of previous applications. % Frahm questicned the Braun application and the reason for denying it. The neighbov’s concerns are summarized as follows: 1 Drainace - additional hardcover on Lot 3 will overbuiden an already limited drainageway. 2. Code clearly requires at least 80% of width and Lot 3 has only 60 • 3. Challenged applicant’s claim that Lot 4 has always been retained independently. a. access for Lot 4 via Lot 3 b. water lines serving house runs through Lot 3 c. both lots are maintained as one yard 4 If Lot 3 is deemed buildable, how are the following considerations to be resolved: a. setback of existing house is located 6' from the side property line. b. access to lake impeded by steep slope and wall. c. If 115' lakeshore setback is maintained, the house would be located on top of retention area. d. new owner of Lot 4 would have to grant driveway and utility easement and agree to shared use and there is no written proof that new owner agrees to this. Hammerel moved to table the Lorge variance subject to staff reporting on the following points: 1. Braun subdivision application - reason for denying 2. Review background of RLS1333 3. Review background of Winship Subdivision 4. Review background of H. Johnson application. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point VARIANCE (#581) Cont. k V;,-. ^ c V N'-Vr a ■■1 •- "f V- Vv.'./ ii* ■ •T^T«l MiC* r«TOic«i ^:='.'•■•■??&' A-j."- ■■■■::-^ ■•>■■■'••S v^;.-:•;;; .,v;:.= r«liT« mti«i ^.*••••'.=; >V^; /•mu U-Ur :m: r’*i AGE MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 PAGE 7 ; Ro 3, 200' to align with commercial use on lot to 3 east. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 7:30 P.M. on October 6, 1980. Adams moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT GROUP 3701 Shoreline Drive REZONING Work Session (#583) Cont. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1980 'I Meeting adjourned ADJOURNMENT 12:10 A.M. K-j'va It L m Z. mm )UP Dri ■V - •V ; 4-; '• a’ ••m"-: : ' ■' ■ ■: • •:'•• VV ■■ • V • " ■■ .4-. •■ .• • t' --' "■•A- ; /:• r-4.v;-- > m ;a=:=;'-: ,* * ' I*.' *.* ■•■•..:= ■ vZ -v :•v^ . . ■■ .■.• :.■■■ .■■ ■ \ '■■■■■:' " • S':..::.•■•;:•■•••-i'V- = Ay- '-r-AxA jr.. • : ;.v M. . t-i' mL 4