Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1975 Planning MinutesAGENDA # PLANNING C30WaSSION MEETING OP OCTOBER 21, 1975 ORGNO VILLAGE HALL - 7:00 P.M. i-r o o I. CURRENT ITEMS A. Action Items II. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Public Hearing -* Charles Oox - 3580 Ivy Place - Lot RB2m:angemsnt & Division Minutes - Meeting of September 15, 1975 Minutes - Meeting of October 7, 1975 Cheyenne Land Oompany - 100 Qrono Orchard Road - Reasoning HcwEund Eisinger - Landfill Application 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. #60 - Richard Noll - 3587 North Shore Drive - Variance ^ Lake^ore setback - building and hardcover #63 - Kermit Eisinger - 40 smith Avenue - Variance - Side yeund setback #64 - Ed Sandin - 1186 Wildhurst Trail - Variance - Front Setback #65 - John Allenburg - 865 Partenwood Road ~ Variance - Lakeshore setback ** Buildings and Hardcover #66 - Russell Wenkstem - 650 North Ann Drive - Variance - Renewal #67 - John Frye - 2585 Lydiard Avenue - Variance - Lot Kldth and Area Consideration of Amending Paric Dedication Fee Updating Sewer Plan with Ocnprehensive Guide Plan Multiple Housing Ordinance DIETED ITEMS FOR COUNCIL A. Open Items 1. Richard Kennedy * 2435 Scotch Pine Lane • Vauriance Fill and Grade B. Ccnpleted Items 1. 2. #46 #62 - Hau±ley Lajoy - 770 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Concurred ~ Eleanor Pillsbury > 1420 Bracketts Point Road - Rip Rap - Concurred 3. #53 - Ted Boer - 13^2 Baldur Park Rsad - Approved with Conditions -f cm OF OBONO, MBNBSGOIA REX3UIAR PIANNING OCMOSSION ^GETING HEU) OCT R 21, 1975 ®ThB Chainnan armounoed that this was the time and the piece tor a Public Hearing to be held oonoexning the request of Charles Oox for a lot rearrangenent and divisicn of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Casco Point Addition. The Zoning Administrator read the Notice of Public Hearing and presented the Affadivit of Publication. Mr. Ook explained that his plan vns to take the three existing lots and oanbine them into tMO lots, one of 48,500 sq. ft. and the other 54,000 sq. ft. John Honour, a resident recently new to the area and living cdjacent to the Gasoo Point Addition, did not feel the area was suitable for a building site. He stated that the lots had standing water this sanner and it necessitates the Hennepin County Mosquito Control Department to spray there at least three times a year He enphasized that mosquitos like water. Honour felt that filling would di^laoe the wet areas, possibly, into his own y?rd. He said that appeuiently the area was very low at one time and had gotten filled but that the fill was not high enouc^. Honour felt that more fill would be needed if the lots were to be buildable but he would best describe them as standing water and soggy. His only concern was that the wate: would not shift to his house and flood it out. Van Nest questioned Mr. Oox concerning a private deed restriction but noted that a private cigreement would not concern the Village. Cgk stated that more than 2 1/2 acres were dry land. Van Nest felt it would be better to ocmbine the three existing "“.ots into .two at this time because it would be better to vrsrry about the possibility of two houses rather than three. Guthrie felt a Park Dedication Fee should be waived because the result would produce larger tracts. After adl persons present ware given an opportunity to be heard the Hearing was closed. The Qrono Planning Gcninission met on the above date with the following members present: Chainnan John P. Ha]ce, McDonald, Githrie, Dunlap, Pesek, Van Nest and Hannah. Zoning Administrator, Henry Muhich. Absent: Members Woolley, Curtis and Kadlestad. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:10 P.M. CHARE£S OCX - LOT RGMT & DIVISICN 3580 IW PIACE AnENDANCE - 7:25 P.M. ORONb VniAGE HAIL Guthrie moved, Hannah seconded, that the Planning Ccnmission reocmnand to the Council that the revised application of Charles Cox for a lot reaunrangement and division of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Casco Point Aidition into two lets be approved and that the Paik Dedication Fee be fixed in line with forth­ coming amendments to the Pauk Dedication Fee Schedule. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). CHARLES COX - DIVISICN & LOT REARRANGEMENT 3580 IVY PLACE I OGuthrie moved, Hannah seconded, that the Minutes of the Planning Corinissicn Meeting held September 15, 1975, be approved as amended. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). APPR0\^ GF MINUTES MEETING OF 9A5/75 Van Nest moved, McDonald seconded, that the Minutes of the Planning Cemnission Meeting held October 7, 1975, be proved. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). APPROVAL OF MINUIES MEETING OF 10/7/75 i j HANNING C3QMMISSI0N I'®EEING OF OCTOBER 12, 1975 - PAGE 2 ^Attorney Janes Diracles ^^peauDsd to represent the Cheyenne f^and Oanpany ^.11 their rezening petition. The Planning Com­ mission proceeded to review the sunmarization and staff re­ ports ooncjeming the matter. It was noted that the Cenpre- hensivG Plan and zoning package prepared for the Village maintained that a two acre tract is minirnin acreage for tre area. Bie n^jorts confirmed that the traffic system feeding the land was a bad one with dangerous comers and viaduct and in the middle of Hic^hRo^y DeparlmenL plans for future routing of Highwsy #12. The Oonmission felt that all tte maps produced shc»»d hardly any or no method of rerouting around the tract. Th^ noted conoems of neighbors about the possibility of sewer ceming into the area and that the lands feeding Tanager Lake draineige system should keep hard cover to a mininun. Mr. Diracles asked to cocract an in­ accuracy vhich was tl^t the houses would not be constructed • on one acre lots until the area was sewered. The Attorney agreed that a street problem existed now, that the problem needed iirmediate attention and the vpgrakng would handle any difference in traffic caused by the rezoning application. Mr. Diracles stated that recent developments in the Hi^way Department shoRoed that construction plans ware tabled in- def^tely. He also felt that a problem with hard cover \ioild be compensated by sewering the property. Bake noted that water studies show that a major source of poUutiai is runoff and to him it seemed the area would be taxed by gthe double amount of hardcover. Diracles stated it would ^ot be double as much. The Zoning Aaministrator felt that approval would be spot rezoning and noted that other de­ velopers haeve had to oanply and hare the burden of this zoning classification. Pes^ stated that there must be a definite reason for rezoning and that keeping the area ti-fo acres does not deny the owner use of the land. The Attorney felt the location of the site would justify re“ zening because of its proximify to Long Lake axKi a one acre tr^siticn area would be beneficial. Diracles noted tliat this area was more conveniently sewered than other two acre areas. Van Nest disagreed and cited his view, after walking the tract, that it x^ould be extremely cbetly to sewer reqidring at least three lift stations. Diracles stated that if sewering is not annmy-i ah^d th^ would only acre lots. The Attorn^ adso felt rezoning would be ji^tified due to the shape of the wetlands making it difficult to divide the site into two acre tracts. Veoi Nest noted that Old Orchard Road was part of the Parkway system and that the overpasses proposed to be taken out hai been considered a part of the scenic portion to that plan. V^ Nest moved, Dunlap seconded, that the Planning Cenmis- sion recxxnmend to the Oouncil ttot based on staff reports Pertaining to the rezoning application of Cheyenne Land Cdipany, the application be denied and ordered stoff to ■-—draft a Resolution for Planning Oonmission review setting V.-^orth their reasons for denial of the rezoning petition. Motion, Ayes (7) - lOays (0). CHEYENNE lAND COMPANY REZONING APPLICATION 100 QRDNO ORCHAFD6 ROAD PLAMtCWG CXatOSSICN MEETING OP OCTOBE31 12, 1975 - PAGE 3 attendance ware Mr and Mrs. Howard Eistnger and their Oattomey, Richard Schieffer. The Zoning Mninistrator presented the sumarization and staff reports concerning the landfill appUcation which made mention of the various pennitted and conditional uses for tiie currently zoned area; how the land had been expanded from four to sixteen acrea as a result of the previous sanitary landfill operation; traffic hauuuds; how the proposal was of a oonmercial and intotriaJ. nature and not conpatible with a residentially zoned area; the proposed 5 to 1 slope and runoff problem and the fcdlure of the Eisingers to supply pertinent data such as the proposed end land use, screening for the site and the hours and length of ci.^ily operation. It was also suggested that Eisingers could request additional unit credits on the filled area on a P.R.D. basis. Van Nest noted that the proposal was not. ap­ plicable in any zone in Qrono and the surrounding oonmunities. Mention was made that the Loretto diznp was not distant and serves the local area and Minneapolis. Attorney Schieffer presented a history of the Eisinger landfill making note that about 1968 when Qcono adopted a new zoning code, the Eisinger*s received a letter stating that they were allowed to continue the operation under the "grandfather clause". Then the City had a business licensing ordinance and Eisinger*s received a license until 1970-71 vdien it was not known v^ther their li­ censing would be continued. Then the PCA took up the matter of control and soon E.Q.C., Ifemepin Oomty and other agencies ^^Id a portion of control. All the agenci^ have asked for ^^direction from the City but, according to the attorney, the City has not been willing to give any. He reviewed the re­ quirements of the other concerned agencies that had given their approval and that now Qrono would have to act on the specific application in front of them which is for a variance of Ordi­ nance No. 125 filed in 1973. Oonoeming Lake Classen, he noted that the other agencies were also ooncemed about it and had given their approval. It was the attorney's opinion that the Oemnission felt that because the city has dsm zoning it would \73pe out the previous use and he disagreed with this ooncept. Oonoeming fined use of the land, Eisingers have no plans except continuation of grazing or residimtial uses. He noted that Vtoodlake Sanitation now planned to only fill in the approved areas of the dunp and dose the site. He espressed the diffi­ culty Eisinger's had due to all agencies being unsure of vdiere they beme authority. The Gatmission, eifter further discussion with Eisingers and review of the matter, made the follotinng decision. Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, that the Planning Oonmissicn recenmend to the Ocuncil denial of the Tandftll Ap­ plication of Howard Eisinger based on staff reports and the dscussions of this meeting and directed staff to prepare a Resolution specityii^ the reasons that the Planning Oenmission came to their decision and which Resolution would be reviewed at the next Planning Oenmission meeting. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). HOWAFD EISINGBR UNOETLSu APPUCATION O' i ■ . ► PLANNING GOr^USSIOl MESmiG OF OCTOBER 21, 1975 - PAGE 4 0 C The Zoning Administrator explained that on May 29th of this RICHARD NCOUL year, a contractor applied for a permit for concrete hard- VARIANCE - HAR cover at the Richard Noll residence. He yias denied the permit 3587 NQPSH SN and informed of the variance requirement and that a crushed rock or open wood type deck would be permitted. A violation tag was issued after the owner inst2dled about 740 sq. ft. of concrete hardcover within the 75 ft. Icdceshore setback Idmite. Mr. Noll pleaded guilty in District Court. Sen- taicing was scheduled for November 7th, pending review by the Council concerning the application. The GoRRiission rosm- bers infoxmed Mr. Noll that there was no way under the pre­ sent code to allow this. Mr. Noll stated ttat the area was a mudhcle and every time it rained it would fl 'iod the house caning up to the wires in the house. Harry Joi^isai, a neigh­ bor and the man who eventually installed tlie concrete, said there was a four foot hole outside the door and in order to get into the house it was necessary for everyone to jump over it. I4r. Johnson was asked v4iy he did not apply for a variance. He replied that he didn't know that there hadn't been and did the work just to help Noll out. The Zoning Administrator noted that in most situations no permit is required for slabs or concrete. The owner felt that crushed rock or wood would not be a solution to the problem because wood was originally ttere and that the only possible solution was by concrete. moved,/U(&r seconded, tl^t the Planning Conmissicn reccnmend to the Council denial, of the variance application of Richard Noll due to the 75 ft. hardcover setback require­ ment; because the CoRinissicn felt that added hardoovar was not the only solution to the drainage problem and because Mr. Noll was made aware of the hardcover restrictions and variance procedures but proceeded with the work. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). B DRIVE Kermit Eisinger requested a variance within four foot of the lot line in order to construct a new detached two car garage. Mr. Eisinger stated that the variance was necessary because of an existing driveway and he would have to refill the vAiole driveway to remake the site. He stated that other neic^ibors had hcu^ and garages on the lot lines. Ohe Coimission noted that there was plenty of room at the site and could see at least three other solutions to the situation. I4r. Eisinger stated that after 28 years it was too hard to redesign a pro­ perty and felt it a hardship to live in a neighborhood vdiere he hM bemi denied vdiat others residing there have. licDcnald moved, Pesek seconded, that the Planning Coimission table the Kermit Eisinger application so that an alternate plan could be presented. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0), KEEMIT EISINGER VARIANCE - SH£ YARD 40 SMTIH AVENUE O Van Nest moved, McDonald seconded, that the Planning Coirois- sicn reoGRmend to the Council approval of the street setback variance request of Edwin Sandin for a new garage subject to the removal of the old gzuage prior to construction. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). mm smm VARIANCE - FRCMT SETBACK 1186 17HDHURST TRAIL PLnWINS O0»f1ISSI0N MEETINS OF OCTOBER 21, 1975 - VUSE 5 O McDcnald mcfved, Van Nest secxxided, that the Planning Coor- missicn reoamend to the Oouncil approval of the John Allen- buzg request for three lakeshore setback variances from three shorelines hecanse the lot is too small to maintain all the necessary setbacks having no possible way of expanding the lot width; because the location is such that runoff would be away the channel; and approval of a hardoover variance within 75 ft. of the shoreline for the house, garaga and a reasonable driveway subject to a layout for the driveway presented to the Zoning Adninistrator for his reccnroendations. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). Van Nest moved, Dunlap seconded, that the Planning 0cm- mission reoonmend to the Oouncil approval of John E^rye's application for a variance as submitted because the parcel is part of a previously approved plat and no other adjacent land is available on either side of the lot. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). Hie Planning Oonmission felt that they did not have enough basis for information to make reconnendations concerning the Paric Dedication Fee. The Zoning Adninistrator v/as asked to research other Village methods and present a concrete pro­ posal. Pussell Wenkstem suhndtted application for renet^'X^f his unused expired variance application which h2d previously been approved by the Oouncil. After review of the plan, the Oonmission noted the original request did not take into ocnsideration all of the Village restrictions including grading of the lot. Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, that the Pussell Nehkstem variance application be tabled until such' a time as the owner could be present. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). The Planning Ocnmissicn directed staff to provide them vat] work materieds to use for a basis of review of the Ccnpie- hensive Sewer Plan. They requested an \:pdated map and copies of the current Ocnprehsnsive Sewer Plan which i«as accepted by the Oouncil. The Zoning Adainistrator passed out copies of the Village Attorney's review of the l^tiple Zoning Ordinance. Beoeipt of the code was so lake in the day that no Plan­ ning Ocranissicn review was possible. O The Planning Oonmission approved the procedure change as proposed by the Zoning Administrator as a time saving method for applicants and reduction of processing costs. JOm ALEJBNBUR5 VARIANCE - LAKESHORB 865 PAFTERNOOD ROAD JOHN FFYE VARIittCE - LOT WIDTH 6 AFEA 2585 J2£DTMD AVENUE PARK ICmON FEE PUSSELL WENKSTE3N RENEWAL - VARIANCE 650 NQFTH AIM DRIVE OQMPREHENSIVE SEWER PIAN -UPDATIN6 MULnPIE DWELLING ORDINANCE •.MS'*ORB CHANGE } K [iiUrii Iinaintiriiilrr • PMNmS aifaSSIQN meeting CP (JCTOBE R 21, 1975 - BAGE 6 1^3uis Cteiiiauser subnitted a subdivision proposed of the previously ac:praved P.R.D. proposal of the Herrick property. He revested ooiioept approval befcse oontinuing with platting E^ooedures. The original P.R.D. proposal was approved on a cne acre zoning basis. The new plat includes six substan­ dard lots with three outlets. These six lots do not meet the one acre lot size as ipprouad by Oouncll. The Planning OGnndssion suggested the applicant present the proposal ICUIS CBEBHAUSER REPIAtnaNG HERRICK to Otaunell for review and instruction. Qathrie moved, Hannah seoended, that the meeting be adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Motion, Ayes (7) - Na^s (0).ADJDUIUelT * • •. •. . i ■ "iai F v-ViV • • PSiiisliM I '■■ rV ■? .'4JI .Ir- I ■ litv w^‘ 4^ h na i