Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1989 Planning MinutesMIVDTBS OF THE PIAHHIK COMMISSIOa MBBTI1I6 MARCH 20, 1000 ATTBHDAHCB 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Johnson and Brown; Planning Commissioner Bellows arrived at 7:15 p.m. The following represent^'d the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Barbara Peterson was in attendance, and CounciImember Callahan was also present. «13M FRITS GOLLICXSOH 99 SIXTH AVHHUB HORTH VACATIOH OP DRAIHAGR S OTILITT BASBNBHT PUBLIC HBARIH6 7:00 P.M. Tu 7:10 PM. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Gullickson was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth briefly explained that a lot line rearrangement was previously done for the purpose of redefining lot boundaries of lots in the Holly Acres Addition. The drainage and utility easements that existed along the old lot lines were not vacated at that time. Mabusth suggested that vacation of such easements be required with any future lot line rearrangements of platted property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays»0, Motion passed. (The motion was made on this application after the Rauschendorfer matter was heard so that a quorum was present for a vote.) #1386 CLIPPORO OTTHH HCMtTHBAST QUADRAHT AT IHTSRSBCTKBI OP NILLON ROAD • HI6HHAT 12 RBX0HIH6 PROM RR-IB TO B~1 PUBLIC BBARIH6 7:40 P.M. TO 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Clifford Otten and Robert D. LaFavor were present for this matter. Mr. LaFavor gave a presentation as to how the site will be developed and used. It will be used for a retail garden center and landscaping operation. There will be a management design headquarters, installation and construction serv* oes division, outdoor plant material storage, model garden displays, landscape supply storage and Interior and exterior sales areas. At the MmiTBS OF THE FIAHHIHG CCEHUSSIOH MBBTI1I6 NIIBCH 20, 1989 ZOaiEG FILE il386-OTTBH COHTIH1 time the sketch plan review was done, the questions of buffering to the north and an east/west service road were discussed. Since that time, those items have been specifically addressed. An east/west service road out lot has been designated allowing for the setbacks required ./ith a B-1 zoning. A retention pond has also been designated. Chairman Kelley suggested that the specifications of B-1 zoning be briefly reviewed. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that there was an existing B-1 corridor to the east of the subject property. Should the Otten proposal be approved, it would extend that corridor. Initially it was proposed that Lots A and B be developed with multiple-family dwellings. Since then, however, the owner of Parcels A and B, has sold the individual lots for single family residential use. Mabusth further mentioned that there is a proposed subdivision that Mr. Otten will complete in the near future. Mabusth suggested that Pine Ridge Lane be vacated at the time of the subdivlsior. and that access be secured to Lot B. Since Lots A and B will stay in single family residential use, the commercial lire is now proposed to be moved up along the southern border of Dickey Lake Drive. Landscape buffering along that boundary was presented at the first commercial site plan review. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the B-1 zoning classification was not designed for the Highway 12 Corridor, as it is more compatible with limited neighborhood commercial. In comparing the B-1 zoning with the B-6, Mabusth questioned why design criteria was not established for the B-6 as it was for B- 1. She did not know why it would not be the same criteria as a PUD. Mabusth pointed out that the commercial use that exists to the east is not true B-1, it's more of a shopping center commercial use. In Mabusth's opinion, the PUD would >e more appropriate for Mr. Otten's proposal than the B-1. Mabusth suggested that the Otten application be forwarded on to the Council in order to receive conceptual direction and some form of a commitment regarding the approval of the PUD ordinance. Once the PUD ordinance has been approved and is in place, the*0tten rezoning can be completed. Chairman Kelley expressed his concern involved with the resale and a more intensified retail use of this property in the future. He thought the use Mr. Otten was proposing was ideal for the location. Mabusth asked Kelley if he would be more comfortable with the PUD zoning for this application since the PUD would require approval to change the use. She questioned whether the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 would occur as one;parcel or whether the subdivision would be required at all. Bellows commented that if the application came in as one PUD for all 13 acres, that Mr. Otten may need to file the subdivisicn first or not at all. Mr. Otten Interjected that he is not asking for a PUD. iiXMms OP THE puunmK coMNissioa !TIBG MEHCH 20, 1989 xoaiMG PILE «i386-onrai coariEUBD Chairman Kelley asked for Input regarding a separate entrance off of Willow. Bellows believed that it would create too much congestion in that area. Mabusth stated that the City would not allow a separate access. Kelley asked how far the east/west road had to be from Highway 12. Mabusth said that she recollected it to be 300'. Kelley asked for input regarding an entrance/exit off of Highway 12. Brown indicated that he liked that less than the Willow Drive access. Mr. Otten said that the time was right to be discussing a proposed entrance/exit off of Highway 12 because of the proposed upgrading. MN DOT indicated that they would base their plans around Orono's decision for Mr. Otten's property access. Mr. Otten proposed at a minimum a right turn entrance/exit, but not a full intersection. Kelley indicated that he would not be opposed to such a plan. Bellows did not believe that an entrance/exit off of Highway 12 would be required. Mr. Otten questioned why it would be necessary to bring people all the way through the intersection, if they could avoid it. Bellows would prefer the access to be the service road access already designated off of Willow. Mr. Otten intented that proposed road to remain as an outlet designation until such time Mr. Rebers put in his road and until the status of Lot 2 is determined. Bellows asked Mr. *;tten whether he would be willing to relocate his entry. Mr. Otten agreed. Chairman Kelley read a list of the acceptable uses within a B-1 zoning. Mr. Otten pointed out that the B-6 incorporated those uses and felt that there was no point in waiting for the B- 6. With respect to a PUD zoning, it was Mr. Otten's understanding that it was his option whether he wanted a PUD; not that it was mandatory. Mr. Joel Walvatne, 710 Dickey Lake Drive, questioned whether adequate screening would be provided between his property and the garden center. Mr. Otten showed the Planning Commission pictures showing how the existing vegetation already provides screening. Mr. Otten said he would not be opposed to additional screening if necessary, but due to what is existing, his plans do not show anything additional. In addition to the vegetation, there is a large berm separating Mr. Otten's property from Mr. Walvatne's. Mr. Chuck McKay, 725 Dickey Lake Drive, expressed his approval of Mr. Otten's proposal. He asked for clarification regarding the service road. Kelley informed him that it was Mr. Otten's intention not to install the service road until everything to the east of the property is developed. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked whether the initial plans showed the service road through the middle of the property? Mr. Otten explained that initially that was being proposed. However, when the required 60' of road and additional setbacks from the road were taken into consideration, it would have used 3 NflUtlS OP TBB PLMnniG CONMISSIOV nmi6 MARCH 20, 1989 S0HIH6 PILB «1386-OrrBI COHTIHURD too much property. The next issue addressed was municipal sewer and water. Mabusth reported that the Rebers subdivision had been denied sewer connection to the existing Long Lake lines within North Brown Road. Therefore, Orono will have to provide that connection from its lines to the west. As far as water, Mabusth said that the B-1 zoning did not require municipal water. Mr. otten said he intended to have an on-site well, even if municipal water was available. Zoning Administrator Mabusth suggested that Mr. Otten put in writing his reasons for preferring a B-1 zoning rather than a PUD for the benefit of the Council. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Otten what he intended to do with Lot 2? Mr. Otten said it would be held in reserve until such time that he was confident he would not need it for the garden center. Mr. McKay stated that he was very anxious to have this resolved, as it was affecting the sale of his home. Mr. Otten had indicated to Mr. McKay that he would work with any perspective buyers with regard to screening. He urged the Planning Commission to act as quickly as possible. Planning Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would support the B-1 zoning. However, he did not concur with Lot 2 being Included in the rezoning because there was no designated land use. Bellows said that she would approve the B-1. Kelley said that he approved of the project, but would prefer the POD zoning. Brown concurred with Kelley. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to deny the B-1 commercial zoning for Lots 1 and 2, and recommend approval of the proposed project under the PUD zoning so the City would have the ability to approve any other use of the property. Kelley's motion failed due to a lack of a second. Planning Commissioner Drown questioned whether it would be possible to Include a clause requiring approval of another use under the B-1 zoning. Mabusth responded that once the property is rezoned B-1, the only "controls" the City would have would pertain to a commercial site plan review. If the same building is used, there would be no additional review. Planning Commissioner Bellows believed that the Comprehensive Plan should provide the necessary criteria to allow Mr. Otten to proceed. She said that she was "distressed" that there was nothing currently in place to offer Mr. Otten in the way of zoning and this matter has been drawn out so long. imniTBS OP THE PLMnillKS COMMISSIOH MBBTIEG NARCH 20, 19S9 UXOBIE6 FILS tl386-OTmi CORIK . It was noved by Chairwan Kelley, seconded by Planning Consklssloner Brown, to deny the B-1 commercial zoning for Lots 1 and 2, and recommend approval of the proposed project under the POD zoning so the City would have the ability to approve any other use of the property. Mabusth questioned whether Kelley wanted to encourage the City to provide Mr. Otten with the capability of proceeding with a formal application even though the B~6 and PUD zoning ordinances have not yet been passed. Kelley said that the application could be filed and the applicant could begin working on the commercial site plan as a PUD. Mabusth inforsied Mr. Otten that he could subdivide first. Motion, Ayes«3, Johnson, Nay due to his wish to approve the B-1 zoning and allow Mr. Otten to proceed with his project. MOnCIPBL fBCILITT - 81TB AHALTSIS POBUC HBABIB6 9s00 P.N. TO 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Chairman Kelley explained for the benefit of those in attendance, that the City of Orono was analyzing various sites for 1 Ae location of a new city hall, maintenance facility, and police department. Mr. David Kroos of Boarman & Associates was present to advise the Planning Commission of the current status. Mr. Kroos said that a needs assessment study had been done to determine the facility needs for the police department, administration and public works facility. From that information, basic lot plan diagrams were developed and tested on each of the site options requested by the Council. After performing the needs assessment study, the Council determined that the existing municipal site and the sewer plant property were the two options to consider. Site criteria evaluations were then done which assisted Boarman in determining criteria priorities. As later requested by the Planning Commission and Council, the Highway 12- Old Crystal Bay Road property was included in the site analysis. The present facility site is zoned RR-IB. Once the setback requirements are applied, the buildablllty of this site would become very limited. If the site were rezoned to an R-lA, it would Increase the buildable area. The present site is centrally located and is historically familiar. To Mr. Kroos knowledge, there were no problems with the soils on this site, however the well may pose a problem for a sprinkler system. Chairman Kelley asked whether the possibility of acquiring adjacent property had been explored. CounciImember Callahan explained that there would be the need to acquire an additional 13 acres in order to have all the facilities located together. Consequently, the Council eliminated this site as an option for housing all three facilities. The sewer pond site currently has the sewer pond and the Metro sewer facility. It does have a substantial amount of linDTBS OF TBB PLUmiK COMHISSIOH HBBTIH6 MARCH 20, 1989 HDHICIPAL FACILITT ONRIHUBD w ..v designated wetland. One option would be to have both the adninistration/police and public works facility on this site. Kelley questioned whether the 10.2 acres included the wetlands. Mr. Kroos said the 10.2 was the dry buildable portion of this site. The Min drawback to this site would be the accessibility. There would be a sharp curve in the area of the property that cause a severe turn into the site. If thic site were seriously considered so should a second exit onto Old Crystal Bay Road. The Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road site appears to be very buildable, but has severe soils (Glencoe and Dundas). Bellows questioned whether the soils would be tested. Mr. Kroos replied that they would. In looking at the site and taking into consideration the soils and the adjacent properties that border the corners of the property, it would be very difficult to build on this site. Kelley commented that acquiring adjacent property would help alleviate that problem; Kroos concurred. The only access onto this site would be off of Old Crystal Bay Road. Kelley observed that another drawback to this site would be its location in relation to the majority of Orono. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reported that the Police Chief had commented that the police officers are no longer out in a designated "beat" around the clock. Due to this, centrally locating the police department is not crucial. Mr. Kroos added that it would only be beneficial for the administrative offices to be centrally located. A first draft of the evaluation sheets was done and the following options were determined« Option 1 would put City Hall and Police on the present site. Option 2 would put City Hall and Police on the sewer pond site. Option 3 would put City Hall and Police on the Highway 12 site. Option 4 would put City Hall, Police and Public Works on the sewer pond site. Option 5 would put City Hall, Police and Public Works on the Highway 12 site. Option 6 would put Public Works on the sewer pond site. Option 7 would put Public Works on the Highway 12 site. After reviewing these options, it was determined that the current gj^^e would be a good option for locating the City Hall and Police. The sewer pond site is a good option for the Public Works as would the Highway 12 site if the soils are not as severe MIHDTBS or THB PUynUG CQMHISSiOi Mm¥l«6 NMtCH 20, 1989 mmciPAL PACiUTT ooarimiBD as initially Indicated. The Police Department indicated that the current site may not be ideal due to the residential characteristic of the surrounding area. Public Works indicated that the Highway 12 site would be most suitable because of the various materials that are brought in and out (sand» gravel# salt). The Council directed Boarman and Associates to further investigate the soil conditions on Highway 12 and sewer pond sites. Six or seven borings will be taken in the near future. Planning Coounissioner Brown questioned the convenience involved with locating the three facilities together. Mr. Kroos said it would mainly aid with the administrative functions of each department. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked what criteria would be used in making a final determination for the site? Mr. Kroos said that it would boil down to location, function and cost. Bellows asked about the time frame. Mr. Kroos said they would be appi^oxisiately one month off of the schedule Indicated. Bellows stated that should the Planning Commission have alternative site locations they would like tc have considered that would delay the scheduled time frame even further. Mr. Kroos said that he would hope a site that was not acceptable to everyone would be chosen just to keep the project on schedule. Kelley asked if the maximum cost of a site had been discussed. Mr. Kroos said that there had not been any discussion regarding budget. Mr. Kroos asked Chairman Kelley if he had any additional sites in mind? Kelley said that he would give the subject some consideration and let the City Administrator know of any suggestions. CounciImember Callahan commented that the approval to examine any other sites would have to come through the Council and encouraged Kelley to make his suggestions as soon as possible. Planning Commissioner Brown expressed his preference for locating all three facilities on the Highway 12 property. Chairman Kelley said that he was strongly opposed to the sewer pond property and would prefer that a site location on Highway 12 be on the north side. He believed that locating the facilities on Highway 12 might give Orono more of an identity. Mr. Kroos added that the Highway 12 location would have complete utilities. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred with Kelley and Brown. She believed that it would be absolutely inappropriate to put the facilities on the sewer plant property. She believed it would set a bad precedent due to the sensitivity of that property. Planning Commissioner Johnson stated that he too liked the Highway 12 property, as well as the current location. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. NIHDTB8 OF TIB PUUnilBG COMMISSIOil miBG NMICB 20, 1989 «12€1 JOB BBOSCHBBDORPBR 3895 8BOBBLIBB DRIYB VARIABCB COHTIBOBTIOB OP PUBLIC HBBBXB6 7sl0 P.N. TO 7s30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The Rauachendorfers were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application had been brought forward approximately a year ago. At that time, the Planning Commission requested additional information and provided the applicants with conceptual direction. The applicants were now providing more information with respect to their plans to add a 4' addition onto the lake side of the house and build an attached garage to the west. The applicants' proposal for the garage would only allow 6' between the applicants' and the neighboring residential structure. Chairman Kelley expressed his opinion of a 6' separation being inadequate, especially for fire safety standards. The applicants were confused about the 10' setback requirement from a lot line, not the neighboring structure. Kelley and Gaffron clarified this so that the applicants understood. Mr. Rauschendorfer said that using such standards would allow them 17-1/2' for the garage. In order to build a 20' garage, they would need to cut into the house 2 — 1/2'. The east and street sides of the house would remain the same. Applicants' proposal would reduce hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250 setback areas. Chairman Kelley said that it was Orono's policy that whenever a foundation was replaced, the house should be moved to meet the specified setbacks. Kelley asked the applicants if they intended to place the new foundation exactly where the current footings were located. Mr. Rauschendorfer replied that three sides and half of the front would use the same current footings. The foundation does not extend under the screen porch. Planning Commissioner Johnson believed that the lot was too small to accomodate the applicants' proposal. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred with Johnson, adding that the only improvement she could foresee would be a single stall garage. In her opinion, allowing the variances requested would make a "bad situation worse". Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the practicality of a long, narrow garage that would allow for two cars parked end to end. Gaffron replied that the garage would encroach too much toward County Road 15 or toward the lake. Chairman Kelley expressed his belief that the Rauschendorfera were entitled to a garage. Planning Commissioner Brown proposed using a firewall if the variance for the garage were approved. 8 mVDTBS OF THE PLMmiliG COMMISSION MBBTIN6 lOSCB 20, 1989 ZONING FILB «1261-KMISCHBNDONFEK CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Rauschendorfers if it was necessary to replace the foundation. She suggested to the Planning Commission that if Rauschendorfers Intended to proceed in that manner, they would need to get approval at this time. Mr. Rauschendorfer replied that water damage had occurred to the east side of the foundation. Chairman Kelley stated that he could not approve any further encroachment toward the lake or anything less than a 10* setback from the west property line. He would approve a single stall garage as long as it met that setback. Mr. Rauschendorfer explained that a single car garage would interfere with parking and turn around capabilities. Kelley suggested placing the garage in the turn around area. Mrs. Rauschendorfer explained that there was a timber wall in that location. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recoaunend approval of a 6.23* east side setback variance; no west side setback variance; a 19.98* street setback variance; and a 17* lakeshore setback variance. The hardcover should not exceed existing amounts. If the foundation needs to be replaced within 75* of the lake, approval is recommended as long as proper erosion control is exercised and the foundation remains in the same location. Motion, Ayes*2, Hays*2. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval as depicted in Chairman Kelley's motion, with the exception of allowing the attached garage to be approximately 6* from the west lot line (4* variance), providing that a firewall be installed in the garage. Kelley asked if the 4* variance would include an overhang. Mabusth stated that if the overhang was less than 1-1/2* it would not be considered an encroachment. She added that drainage would have to be directed away from the adjacent property. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to deny the request for the 8* west side setback variance and the 21* lakeshore setback variance. The remainder of Johnson's motion reflected the motion made by Kelley with regard to the hardcover and foundation. Mabusth asked for clarification regarding the applicants' statement that a single stall garage would not allow for parking and turn around. After some discussion, it was determined that there should be room to park the additional car. The issue of removal of the temporary shed was discussed. Bellows stated that the shed must be removed. Johnson concurred that the shed be removed. Motion, Ayes»3, Brown, Nay because of his belief that a 2 car garage should be allowed if possible and that a previous representation had been made to the applicants that a 10* separation from the neighboring structure would be allowed. Mi*ins OP THS PUOnnHG COMNISSimi lOCBTiaG MMICB 20, 1989 #1326 MATIATA COORRT CLUB 200 NATIATA BOOLSPABD CIA88 II PBBLUmDOtT SUBDIVISIOM CCNRIHOATIOB OF PUBLIC HBARIB6 8s30 P.H. TO 9:00 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Nailing were duly noted. Mr. Ronald Lauer was present for this *atter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Adaiinistrator Gaffron explained that he had received the hydrologic analysis and had talked with the City Engineer with regard to drainage. It was the City Engineer's opinion that drainage could be effectively handled if a retention basin was installed. A retention basin would hold back more runoff than the development of this property would create. Gaffron stated that the property at 139 Chevy Chase would be the most affected and would need the roost protection. The basin would allow for a slower discharge of water in the case of a major storm, rather than allowing water to freely run down the slope onto the properties below. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that he still needed to receive a site plan and drainage plan from Mr. Lauer. Gaffron showed the Planning Commission the plan he had pieced together depicting the proposed foot print of the house. This was done to get a better idea of the conflicts of the house location to the septic system location. In so doing, it was determined that there would be conflicts. Due to steep topography, it would be likely that the house would be a walkout at the south end. Grading will need to be done to put in a turn around driveway and this would bring forth questions as to how that grading would affect drainage on neighboring properties. Gaffron said there were still many site planning questions to be answered before a building permit would be Issued. Kelley believed that those issues needed to be solved before the subdivision occurs. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that he had received a copy of a proposed easement that provides the applicant with legal access to the property. The City would ask that half of a 50' outlot be created for a future road. There is currently a private road that is split between the properties to the north and south of the private easement road that serves the 5 or 6 houses in that area. Bellows asked why the road would not be public if there will now be 7 houses on it. Gaffron stated that when that particular subdivision had been done, the road was allowed to be a private road. Mr. Brooke Nelson asked about the results from the soil testing done on the property. Gaffron informed him that the soils were clay loams and due to that and seasonal high water tables, the property would require mound systems. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Lauer if the City had received imniTBS OP ns PLuntiHG cCiiassiOH hbbtihg march 20, 1989 SORIHG PILE #1326-<IAT*ATA COOMTHT CLUB COniBUBD %»ritten confirmation from the Wayzata Country Club indicating their support for Mr. Lauer's proposal. Gaffron replied that he had not received such a letter. Kelley stated that he would have a hard time going forward without that information and remind. Mr. Lauer that providing that information was a regulrement. Planning Commissioner Bellows stated thnt Mr. Lauer had not provided an adequate site and drainage plan. She -aid that what little Information she had received, had been ccropiled by staff. Mr. Lauer explained that he was merely trying to buy this property from the Wayzata Country Club and was not ready to build on it at this time. Therefore, he did not have specific grading and drainage plans since there was no specific house plan. Bellows told him that he could focus on the basic grading issues without needing a full scale architectural plan. Mr. Brooke Nelson, 141 Chevy Chase Drive, presented a letter from Mr. Leo Hauser. He also expressed his own concerns regarding drainage from the property Mr. Lauer is purchasing. He encouraged the Planning Commission and the City Staff to visit the Chevy Chase properties during times of peak runoff. Mr. Nelson explained the drainage pattern that occurred when he first bought his property. He said that he dug a small trench along the side of his house to facilitate the drainage to the street. However, since that time, the road was raised and the lot in front of his house was filled in and graded. A culvert was installed, incorrectly in his opinion, under his driveway and consequently his driveway is sinking. He said that any from Mr. Lauer's would aggravate that situation. Kelley asked his opinion of the retention pond being Installed for the purposes of slowing runoff? Mr. Nelson said that he would be in favor of the pond if it works. He questioned where the liability would lie if it did not work. Kelley believed that any recourse ifould have to come from the property owner, not the City of Orono. Mr. Albert Greig, 137 Chevy Chase Drive, informed the Planning Commission of his understanding of the current drainage pattern. He said that there was once a 14' pile of dirt on the lot across from his house and Mr. Nelson. It was finally graded, but was left in such a way that it is higher than the road. As a result, water that once ran into that area, now cannot. It was his opinion that the hardcover on Mr. Lauer's property, once it is developed, will cause water to runoff of that property rather than soaking into the ground. He said that the current runoff is such that it runs in a stream that is 10' to 12' wide ana ^ deep, and runs for three or four days. He reiterated Mr. Nelson's request to have persons from the City witness this runoff first hand. Mr. Greig also stated that the water table in that area was high and added to the problem. He was concerned the retention pond raising the water table even higher. Chairman Kelley informed Mr. Nelson and Mr. Greig that Mr. X,0uer was not responsible for solving their existing drainage Miwms OF TUB PLMmiBG COMMISSIOH HBBTIHG MMCH 20, 1989 XOailG FlUt %1320-WtUOh COOBTKT ClOB CORIBDBD problems. His only responsibility is not to exaggerate the existing condition. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this matter until the four requirements previously requested by the Planning Commisjion are met. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. «1366 LOU BOTTBRFIBLO 3925 WATKKTOW ROAD PRBLmnnRT sobdivisiob RBCOMSIDBRATIoa OF COBDITIOMS OF APPROVAL Mr. Butterfield was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reminded the Planning Commission that they had previously reviewed Mr. Butterfield's application for subdivision. Since that time, Mr. Butterfield has been working with staff on the concerns involved with the easements for wetlands and setbacks. Mr. Butterfield was requesting clarification on the Planning Commissions recommendation that no structures be allowed south of the Luce Line. After the Planning Commission review, staff received verification from the DNR that the easement to cross the Luce Line wee e public eeseinent end not for Mr* Butterfield only* Planning Commissioner Brown recollected that the objective of the Planning Commission was to keep traffic crossing the Luce Line to a minimum. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked where the easement was located in relation to Lot 2. Gaffron showed him that it does not extend to Lot 2. Kelley observed that in the event Mr. Butterfield sold Lot 2, there would be no way to access it. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that an easement would have to be granted from Lot 1 or Outlot B to access Lot 2. Bellows staced that she was opposed to encouraging the crossing of the Luce Line, even though that is currently being done. Mr. Butterfield stated that he did not understand why, if he had 5 acres of land, he could not have an accessory structure. Bellows clarified that the Planning Commission was only recommending no accessory structures south of the Luce Line. Kelley questioned why Mr. Butterfield did not combine all of the Lots on the south side of the Luce Line. Mr. Butterfield explained that he had uses for the othei lots and minimum acreage requirements that he had to meet to retain his agriculture status. Planning Commissioner Johnson recollected that he was concerned about the possibility of a residence being built on Lot 2 south of the Luce Line. However, he concurred with Mr. Butterfield, in that it seemed ridiculous to disallow him any accessory structures south of the Luce Line. MlBOnS OF THB PUUmiBG CQMMI88IQ1 MBBTIH6 MARCH 20, 1909 lOnVG «ILB «1366>BOnBRFI8LD C0WTI8UKD It was moved by Planning Commissioner Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to reaffirm the recommendation that no accessory structures be allowed on OutLot A or B south of the Luce Line. This recoHonendation is based on the concern that the easement across the Luce Line is not between Out lot A and Lot 2. Notion, Ayes*3, Johnson, Nay, Motion passed. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron asked for clarification as to the setbacks from the Luce Line required for placing accessory structures on the north half of the property. Gaffron pointed out that if Mr. Butterfield's application involved a typical 2*acre subdivision, accessory structures would be allowed within 10* of the rear lot line and Luce Line right- of-way. Kelley replied that the Planning Commission would recommend the standard setbacks. The third area of concern was that of the setbacks for principal structure for the north side of the property. The Planning Commission had Indicated a preference for a 100' setback. Mr. Butterfield indicated that he would have no problems with that setback. There were no further concerns on behalf of Mr. Butterfield. • 1. •1374 FBBBHHBTBH FOOmATION 2500 8HBDTH00D ROAD 80BDIVI8I0M OP A LOT LIMB SBARSAHGBMBHT COMTIMOATIOH OP PUBLIC HBABIM6 9s50 P.N. TO 9:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Marty Jessen, President of the Freshwater Foundation, was present for this matter. Mr. Jessen explained that he was requesting a subdivision of the 7.4 acres upon which the Freshwater Foundation was located. The subdivision would leave 5.1 acres of dry buildable for the Institute and the remaining 2.3 acres, comprised mainly of wetlands, would become part of Tract A, Parcel 1. This subdivision had previously been approved by the City Council in 1973, but was never filed. The subdivision would allow the 5.1 acres with the buildings to be successfully transferred to the University of Minnesota. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays«0, Motion passed. mOF THB PLAmiFG COMMISSIOH MEBTIW3 MMCH 20# 1989 •1376 DAU 6 CHRIS PALM 1710 8BADTM00D ROAD VARIAMCB _ COMTIMOATIOM OP PUBLIC BBARIM6 10x20 P.N. TO 10x21 P.N. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend denial of the hardcover and setback variances requested by the applicants. Motion, Ayes-4, Hays»0, Motion passed. •1303 LILLIAR 3200 BOItra SBORB DRIVE PUBLIC HBARIB6 9x57 P.N. TO 9x58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mrs. Bonander explained that she wished to replace her deck and would require an average setback variance and hardcover variance to do so. Ms. Patricia Gonion, 3186 North Shore Drive, stated that the existing deck is deteriorating and is quite an eyesore. She was in favor of Mrs. Bonander*s plan to replace the existing deck. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the decrease in hardcover to 35.16% in the 75-250’ setback area and the average lakeshore setback variance. The hardship with this application is the long driveway and the Improvement of existing conditions. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays*0, Motion passed. •1385 BIG ISLAND BOARD OP GOVBRBORS BIG ISLAND VBT*S CAMP COMDITIOHAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HBARIHG 9x59 P.M. TO 10x00 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificat duly noted. of Mailing were Mr. Alan Wisdorf, a representative for the Big Island Board of Governors was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Planning Commission would be reviewing a request for a conditional use permit for 30 overnight camping sites. Fifteen acres has been set aside for this purpose. The maintenance crew will be responsible for maintaining low weeds and underbrush within 100' radius of the entire camp site. The City does not have any information regarding the existing septic facilities and will be conducting regular inspections this summer to evaluate them. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. maoTBS or tbb puaniiaG commissios MBSTiaG march 20, 1989 It was movisd by Planning Conailssioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for overnight camping for 30 camp sites. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1387 MARGARBT R08SIMG 130 C16MBT PLACE APVBR TD PACT VAllAMCB POBLIC HBARIM6 10*00 P.M. TO 10*19 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the old deck was located approximately 14' from the property line. The new deck extends 11'4" from the rear property line only in the northeast corner of the house. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned whether the deck was completed? Mabusth answered that there were still minor finishing touches to be done. Ms. Rossing built the deck without realixation that a building permit was needed. After review of the file on this property, Mabusth could not find that a permit had been issued for the original deck, nor was it a part of the building permit application when the house was built. Ms. Rossing commented that the original deck was totally rotted when she bought the house and needed to be replaced. Mabusth stated that a variance would have been required to build the original deck due to the pre-1975 codes which required a 30' setback from the rear lot line; the principal structure is located 30' from the rear lot line. Since that time, the soning codes require a 50' setback from the rear lot line. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked Ms. Rossing who she had hired to build the deck. Ms. Rossing replied that her sons had built the new deck. She said that the project began in an attempt to repair the original deck. As the project progressed, it was determined that the old deck was rotted beyond repair and was eventually replaced. Kelley observed that the deck was enlarged when it was replaced. Ms. Rossing said that actually the new deck does not encroach any closer to the rear lot line than the old deck, it just encroaches in a different location. She reiterated the fact that the old deck was rotted and unsafe and that she had a sliding glass door that would have a 5* dropoff were it not for the deck. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned whether approval of this variance would be given if it were not after-the fact. Kelley stated that he would not have had difficulty in recommending approval, if the existing deck was merely replaced and not enlarged. Chairman Kelley asked whether Ms. Rossing paid a fine for the after-the-fact variance fee. Mabusth replied that she had not been fined because she is the homeowner and was performing the construction herself. wtims OP TBS puunnw; comnissioh mbribg mitcH 20, 1989 tonac PILE «1387-BOSSia6 CORiaOBD Chairvan Kelley expressed his preference for requiring the new deck to encroach no further toward the lot line than the original deck. Bellows added t at she did not believe it was proper to waive the fine in this rase. Mabusth reiterated her earlier comment that it had no* been the City's previous policy to fine a homeowner for after-the-fact variances and permits* unless they were repeat offenders. She added* however* that the Planning Commission could recommend a change in that policy if they wished. Bellows said that was her wish. There were no coaunents from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows* seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown* to recommend denial of the after- the-fact variance to further encroach into the pre-existing 14' setback and that the property owner be required to restore the previously established setback distance. The remainder of the structure may be retained as is* but that the applicant be fined appropriately. Motion* Ayes*»2* Kelley* Johnson* Nay* due to their wish to not fine the applicant. It was moved by Chairman Kelley* seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson* to recommend the same motion proposed by Planning Commissioner Bellows, with the exception of the fine. Notion* Ayes«2* Nay* Brown* Bellows. It was moved by Chairman Kelley* seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson* to recommend denial of the after-the-fact variance to further encroach into the pre-existing 14' setback and that the property owner be required to restore the previously established setback distance. The remainder of the structure may be retained as is. Motion* Ayes«4* Nays“0* Motion passed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows* seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown* to fine the applicant for the after- the-fact variance. Motion* Ayes*2* Kelley* Johnson* Nay. OBDIMAKCB AMBNDMBBT SKVIEH t FIMAL ACTIO* Chairman Kelley suggested tabling this item due to the fact that three Planning Commission members were absent. Kelley felt it would be more beneficial to have a separate meeting to discuss this item. It was moved by Chairman Kelley* seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows* to table this item. Motion* Ayes“4* Nays»0* Motion passed. PLAHMIM6 COMNISSIOH APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21* 1989 MINUTES It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson* seconded by Chairman Kelley* to approve the minutes of the February 21* 1989* Planning Commission Meeting. Motion* Ayes*4* Nays^O* Motion M1WTB8 OF TEB PUUmiHG COMNISSIOH MBBTIB6 MARCH 20« 19S9 passed. PUUBIIMC COHMISSIOM RBPRB8BHTATIVB It %»1S agreed that Planning Commissioner, Jeffrey Johnson, would refresent the Planning Commission at the April 10, 1989 City Council Meeting. AOJOORHL—.-The March 20, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.