Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1980 Planning MinutesV-Ai- r: - :/: .■-.V-:•••-.uv-v: AGENDA ik>i^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. *i¥'i CALL TO ORDER Call to Order/Roll ACTION ITEMS #557 E. T. Mertz, 1820 Fox Street - FINAL SUBDIVISION (Resolution) #545 Bruqe Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road - SUBDIVISION #581 Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road - VARIANCE h.' WORK SESSION #586 Richard Speeter/James Henninger, 659 Minnetonka Highland Lane CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #587 Steven Valek, Tonkaview Lane - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OP MINUTES • 'r. 'j' Meeting of October 6, 1980 INFORMATION Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for 8:00 A.M. on Saturday, October 25, 1980 at the Lafayette Club ■ ■■A--m *■. *: . •: ■. • 1 *• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 19S0 The Planning Commission met-on the above date. The following members were present; Chairman Hammerel, Frahm, Goetten, Jabbour, McDonald and Rovegno. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.M. The applicant was not present. Mabusth noted that Council raised the issue of the guest house and guestioned the applxcant as to its use. Council advised the applicant of the requirement that no payment or rent may be received for use of the guest house. The final resolution noted that condition. Hammerel moved to recommend approval of the E. T. Mertz subdivision subject to the findings and conditions cited in the Staff resolution. Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed uiianimously. Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Hepp, Mr. Russell Baumgardner, Mr. Thomas Lowe and Mr. John Hannah were present. Planning Commission advised Kepp that his new plan designating two riparian lots did not meet the standards of the LR-IB zoning district. The lot with the existing house does not meet the width at the shoreline and the undeveloped lot does not meet the width requirement along the building line. Hepp asked the Commission for their input concerning a property like his that has some 265' of shoreline along Lafayette Bay and approximately another 140' of shoreline along the lagoon. Staff advised the Commission that the lagoon is not navigable and functions more like a wetland. Rovegno questioned if the ordinance distinguished between navigable shoreline and non-navigable shoreline. Council previously designated the subject lagoon as part of Lake Minnetonka requiring a 75' setback. Rovegno added that a wetlands would only require a 26* setback. He asked staff for some kind of guideline to assist the Commission in making a determination for applicant so he may proceed with an acceptable plan. E. T. MERTZ 1820 Fox Street SUBDIVISION (#557) BRUCE HEPP 2605 West Lafayette Rd. SUBDIVISION (#545) r m o m m « MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 2 Tom Lowe asked the applicant if he signed the driveway easement serving the Hannah lot. Hepp stated that he did not know, but that he would check his records and report back to the Commission if they required this type of information. Lowe restated his concern that if Mr. Hepp required any variances that the hardships be stated for the record. BRUCE HEPP 2605 West Lafayette Rd. SUBDIVISION (#545) Cont. / Hammerel moved to table the application pending staff resolving question of lagoon area being credited as shoreline. Applicant will submit new plan once determination is made. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. “i ■ The following persons were present: Richard Lorge, Mary Butler, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt, and Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane, future owners of residence on Lot 4. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Rd. VARIANCE (#581) Mabusth reviewed points raised at staff meeting with Bruce Malkerson concerning the question of common ownership. Commission is advised that the standards set forth in Section 31.202 of the Ordinance only applies to single separate lots. Lots of common ownership are required to meet full compliance with the standards of the code. As to the question of ownership of Lot 4 and how we act on the common ownership question if Mr. Lorge is no longer the owner of subject lot. jEf the lots were in common ownership as of the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant is still legally responsible. Mabusth restated again for the record that late last winter, she advised the realtor for the property that a land use application would be necessary because of the common ownership question. M * Planning Commission reviewed the four previous applications that staff was to report on for this meeting. Two were subdivision applications on Casco Point involving substandard lot widths. One, an R.L.S. on Casco Circle was approved prior to formal subdivision review procedures and the other (Joe Braun), reviewed in 1978, was denied on the basis of substandard lot width. The remaining applications involved area and lot width variances. One involved approval based on substandzird lots being combined, the other (Watson) was approved on the basis that lot was not physically maintained as one and that lot was bought some ten years after applicant purchased their homestead lot. o 1' 2?;.V m MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 3 Lorge again reviewed his position and added the following comments: 1. If he were aware of the common ownership ordinance in 1975, he could have placed ownership in the name of another relative. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco VARIANCE (#581) Cont 2. The exclusion of common owr' !:i?hip lots from the code and the setting of different istandards for single separate lots is discriminating. 3. The code has no statutory protection for preventing this kind of condition. Mr. Lorge continued with a review of his plan of action or priorities. He would prefer to offer the lot at a lower price to the abutting property owners. If Council deems the lot unbuildable, he loses all bargaining power. If Council approves Lot 3 as buildable, he would still prefer selling to the abutting property owners. Bob Hunt said that the subject property has been in common ownership since 1942. Both lots have been maintained as one yard. Yard light and switch are located on Lot 3. Driveway, trees, in fact all improvements suggest use as one yard. A1 Kane, future owner of Lot 4, had the following comments: 1. Drainage problem exists and he worries about his investment if additional hardcover is added to overburden drainage basin. 2. Bought Lot 4 assuming Lot 3 was not buildable. 3. Questions area quoted in recent surveys. 4. He would never agree to a shared driveway situation with Lot 3. Frahm moved to recommend approval of Richard Lorge's lot width variance of 40' or 40%, lot area variance of 10% and common ownership variance based on the following findings: 1. Lot is 90% of required area. 2. Lots on both sides are occupied. 3. If Lot 3 were built or- it would be typical of neighborhood development. 4. When purchased, applicant was informed Lot 3 was a separate lot - price was based on that fact. . .TT * t “ If. • .'i - PAGE 3 * nt Road V,-. • i '. . :; ■' .7,.;. 1;. • ■ .••%■’••■'■ .c--- \ 'm^‘- f *■ MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 4 5. Property taxed separately - never received benefit of homestead relief. 6. New building site will nDt create; a new curb cut. 7. A house comparable in size to those in existing neighborhood could be located on lot meeting all setback and hardcover standards - even if additional 4' is required on left side yard. 8. Of some 24 homes in the Casco Point neighborhood 19 are 60' wide or less. and subject to the following conditions: 1. No zoning variances will be granted with a building permit. 2. Drainage and utility easements must be worked out between the two parties. 3. Engineering study of drainage area roust accompany building permit. In addition, Planning Commission recommends that the sections in the ordinance dealing with common ownership be reviewed specifically to address the issue of preventing misunderstandings of this type and establish realistic standards in consideration of existing neighborhood development patterns. Motion seconded by Rovegno. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1) Jabbour: "It is difficult for me to vote against the motidn, but our code is too specific in the case of common ownership. As a member of the Planning Commission, I feel that-I should vote against it as there have not been sever .1 examples which have given us a substantial guideline. If the Council sees it fit to grant the variance, it would do so very easily and possibly set a precedent to guide us with similar cases in the future." Mr. Lorge asked that his application be scheduled for the Council meeting of November 10, 1980 because of business conflicts. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE (#581) Cont’ i3^'-. ■. ' u-, ■. ■■ - PAGE 4 Lnt Road m V:; ^ JO MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 5 ^ »- - -If- m James Henninger and Richard Speeter were present. Mabusth reviewed need for the conditional use permit. Applicants in the process of rip rapping lagoon area that abutts their property removed a culvert that permitted water to flow from main lake. The culvert was always blocked and never functioned properly. The culvert area is now Ln open channel to the main lake allowing water to flow freely. Points to be reconciled by action meeting: 1. Did applicant lose access rights by creating island? 2. Does this proposed bridge block navigable water? -Lord Fletchers was made to take down their bridge by the DNR. 3. Are there simularities in this application to the Dunlap conditional use permit? 4. Is it environmentally advantageous to have water flow freely through lagoon? 5. If culvert had to be replaced by Council action, what will be the environmental effects? 'Chairman Hammerel advised the applicants that action would be taken on their conditional use permit at the meeting of November 3, 1980. He asked that a copy of the original DNR permit allowing the dredging be submitted for the City records. Steven Valek was present. Applicant reviewed his reason for changing from his original seven lot plat to the present three lot plat. The cost of bringing sewer service and construction of a paved city road was too great. Mabusth advised Valek that although lots exceed two acres in area, lots must be sewered. City would allow three lots to be sciviced by a graveled private road. SPEETER/HENNINGER j 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane COND. USE PERMIT i WORK SESSION ? (#586) STEVEN VALEK Tonkaview Lane SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#587) Hammerel jnoved to approve the Minutes as submitted. APPROVAIj OF MINUTES Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote; Ayes-(5) October 6, 1980 Nays (0). Jabbour did not vote as he did not attend the last meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M.