The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-10-1979 Planning Minutesm AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Call to Order/Roll PUBLIC HEARING 2. 7:30 P.M. «498 Charles R. Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive - VACATION ' Ml ACTION ITEMS * #437 Larry Osgood, 365 Willow Drive North - FINAL SUBDIVISION (Resolution) #456 Wolsfeld Lake Company, Brown Road & County Road 6 - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION r ^[m #457 H.R. Johnston, 925 Willow Drive South - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #500 Timothy J. Petersen, 280 Orono Orchard Road - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE :.L #504 Robert Van Tassel, 1170 Loma Linda Avenue - CONDITIONAL USE permitaariance WORK SESSION 8.#507 Development Group, Inc., 3701 Shoreline Drive ~ CONDITIONAL USE permit./variance/building plan review SKETCH PLAN REVIEW _ V.s , 9. #308 Paul Scherber, 1410/1420 Bohns Point Read - SUBDIVISION 10. #510 Halley Land Corporation, Old Crystal Bay Road/Highway 12 SUBDIVISION/REZONING APPROVAL OP MINUTES i 11. Meeting of August 27, 1979 * i ***#■, ■ • ■ *4 utior:/ f ^ i. B 1i iijftM MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 The Planning Conunission met on the above date. Present were the following members: Chairman Wilson, Jabbour, Hanunerel, Frahm and Hannah. Mabusth represented the staff and Jo Ellen Hurr represented the Council. Mr. Carl was present. Mabusth stated she had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing. Boats are launched from a boat raunp across the street from the Carl's property and this access is used as a winter access for snowmobiles. After the vacation there will be approximately 48' of access remaining but this will be certified by the surveyor. Also present were Dr. and Mrs. Harold Sullwold, 3705 North Shore Drive, who were in favor of the vacation as long as the access remained open otherwise the snowmobiles would probably begin using his property. It was noted that a portion of the existing garage encroaches on lakeshore access and the public road. Fra^ recommended approval of the vacation request as it does not affect public access to the lake and served the good of the public by putting the ^property back on the tax roles, contingent on the applicant submitting a description of the entire easement. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (5) , Nays (0) . Motion passed unanimously Applicant was not present. The plan does not show the parcel north of the railroad tracks as an outlet as requested in the preliminary approval, however, it is an unbuildable lot. Hannah recommended approval of the subdivision in accordance with the resolution (Page lA) with the understanding that the parcel north of the railroad tracks (not shown on the mylar, but a part of the property) is unbuildable. Motion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.M. CHARLES CARL 3685 North Shore Driv( VACATION PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M.-7:45 P.M. (#498) LARRY OSGOOD 365 Willow Drive Nortl SUBDIVISION (FINAL) (#437) minutes of a planning commission meeting held on SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 PAGE lA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF SPRUCE ACRES subdivision'^aulations*'L^°;Jh°^^ f ^as adopted of land within^the City; and*^*'® orderly, economic and safe development Dedication on the plat of rights of way for public streets and roads, shown as Willow Drive. puoiic streets 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Outlot^A?^°” ^ private driveway shown on the plat as 4. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee of $300.00. 5. Payment to the City of engineering and legal review feesin the amount of $50.00. -»^eycii review rees r^-4. « THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of th** Sh^ll^; lurTe r «ith with the Hennepin Office on or before March 11, 1980 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that evenj, it will be revilw?”'^ ® application with the City of Orono for subdivision Dated this day of 1979. ATTEST;William B. Van Nest, Mayor gjtUr^r P /y. Wm, I j ..^1 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3 Applicant was not present. At thewas noted that although the 2-acre requirement was met the lot did not have the required 200 wiarn foni ilo'inidlf anfr^qfrefriLiance of 10- Septic requirements have been met. in a letter, dated August ^3, 1979, Mr. Brooks^ wrote* "I have an understanding with the ^ Mtnnesotflnd their representatives that they •11 r>.avin-i4* ar>ress to this 2-acre piece from tne dirt road which goes into ■itist east of the site in question . Mabustn Lted that a clarification of ^he access would be needed as well as a permit from the Hennepin County Highway Department. Hammerel moved to recommend approval of ^he oreliminary subdivision and granting o lot iidth Variance subject to the following conditions: 1 Clarification of driveway access off DNR road. Access permit obtained from Hennepin County Highway Department. 2. Approval of septic system by septic inspector. 3. Payment of Park Dedication Fee of $200.00. Motion seconded by Hammerel. .Vote: Ayes (5) Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Hannah acted as Chairman for this application as Son Stef his seat because Mr. Johnston is a client of his firm. The original request was Sisitiofof ’ additional ?wo lS?I so ne wail y side vard variance WwSIt was noted that a b siae needed for the existing garage ^sed building site lacked the ^00 SIdth although the 7t code requirements for subdivisio pp WOLSFELD LAKE COMPANY Brown Rd. & Cty. Rd. 6| SUBDIVISION (#456) ‘?0s; ' a!':; -■- m 4*' ■If H.R. JOHNSTON 925 Willow Drive So* SUBDIVISION (#457) 'it-ts ■ •; ;cii )N >rive So. 3. ii Lf Vy?1 A:.-- ..\ig:f. ■ i ETERSEN chard Rd. USE PERMI MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 PAGE 4 The general consensus of the public was:TIMOTHY J. PETERSEN Orono Orchard Rd.1 neighbors present were receiving interferrence CONDITIONAL USE PERM with reception on their televisions, telephones, radios, & VARIANCE stereos, etc. However, during further discussion, (#500) Cont It was decided that these complaints should be directed to the F.C.C. 2. They were all opposed to the height of the structure and the general appearance of an antenna stating they felt it was unsuitable for a residential area. 3. They were concerned about inspection and maintenance of the antenna. Questioned what would happen to the antenna if Mr. Petersen were to move. Mr. Petersen did state that he had an agreement with the owner of the property to restore everything to its original condition prior to his occupancy. 4. They were concerned regarding the safety factor especially in regards to neighborhood children or in the case of structural failure. Earlier this sxammer a top portion of the tower was knocked down by high winds. 5. Residents questioned whether the guide wires would be included as part of the antenna structure in determining the setback. 6. Some of the neighboring property owners felt the antenna(s) would decrease their property values. 7. When asked by the Planning Commission what size or number of antenna would be acceptable to them, if any, the response was only one tower with a maximum height of 35'-50' completely treed and landscaped. Wilson moved to recommend denial of the conditional use permit and variance application for two antennas (one 85' and one 120') based on site review, resident's objections and the following findings of fact: 1. Adverse visual impact. 2. Safety factor: a) possible collapse & b) attractive nuisance ym ... ■:-iV •IBP Ml p® TTO:l3»? •liipi rtT^is •1«T# •T#T: -.•■■•-.vw..-.. ■•■•:,- •■...V. "^-V:'.' - :v ■ U7 ru-:--V---::'7 ' is:v: v;;' :,v••. ■^• ■■ . i ?. ■: V; ;V.- • ; . ■ - ••':• =■■. •:•■ • . . :•:?■ •• ■..••.7^' =•■- •• • . :• =•■ V • ■;■;;■•=-.; r . V:<rri:^:;rr- •amm^ I » MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 PAGE 6 ETERSEN chard Rd. USE PERM11 life Nelson and Mr. McQueen were present. Discussion Was regarding the two alternatives open to the applicant: 1. Continue with the original application for a conditional use permit by submitting new plans for an operation that can function within the 200* X 100* B-1 zoning area. OR 2. Request rezoning of the property to B-4. Applicant will contact staff with their decision as to how they want to proceed with this application. DEVELOPMENT GROUP, IN( 3701 Shoreline Drive CONDITIONAL USE PERMI' VARIANCE/BLDG. PLAN REVIEW (#507) Work Session ASSEL nda Ave. USE PERMI David Carlson represented the applicant. The Planning Commission stated they were not in favor ° yj^ifnce request. The accessory structure (10 setback) and the main house (10* side yard setback) must comply with the zoning requirements or be removed. =» 'i PAUL SCHERBER 1410/1420 Bohns Pt. R< SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan Review (#508) c?t Mike Halley was present. Planning Commission conceptually favored the proposal and felt that It could possibly be included as a part of the Comprehensive Plan study. Hammerel moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. ^ Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M HALLEY LAND CORP. Old Crystal Bay Rd. & Highway 12 SUBDIVISION/REZONING Sketch Plan Review (#510) APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 27, 1979 ADJOURNMENT Ofc.'