HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1989 Planning MinutesMiniTBS OP THE PUUniiaG C0MMIS8I0H JtJlSC APRIL 17, 1989
ARnDAKB 7t00 P.M.
The Orono Planning Commlasion net on the above date with the
following menbers present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission
members Johnson# Cohen# Hanson and Moos. Planning Commission
member Brown arrived at 7:15 p.m. The following represented the
City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth# Assistant
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron# Public Works Director
Gerhardson# City Engineer Representative Olson and City Recorder
Scheffler. Council Representative Alan Nettles attended and
CounciImember Goetten was also present.
OOBSRar A6BBDA
It was moved by Chairman Kelley# seconded by Planning
Commissioner Johnson# to approve the consent agenda. Motion#
Ayes«5# Nays»0# Motion passed.
M I
•1397 TBB ART CBITBR OP Mill
2180 « 2240 RORTH SHORE DRIVE
CLASS I SOBDIVISIOH - LOT LIRE REARSAl
PUBLIC HEARIR6 7*00 P.M. TO 7*13 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Ms. Mary Smith was present as a representative for the Art
Center.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Art Center was
seeking a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement as part of the
sale of the Old Hill School. Lot 5 will be doubled in size from
13#760 s.f. to 27#600 s.f. Staff is recommending that a 10*
setback be maintained from the tennis court to the new division
line rather than 1* as being proposed. The Art Center will lose
22 parking stalls as a result of the subdivision# which will
leave them with 50. The City Engineer has indicated that he
would be comfortable with 60 parking stalls and staff is
recommending that 10 additional stalls within the southwest
parking area be provided now and will reserve the right to
request more if needed.
Chairman Kelley expressed his concern of continued use of
the parking area to the rear of the Old Hill School. It was his
belief that parking in that area would continue and cause
trespassing upon the property which would then be used as a
single family residence. Ms. Smith indicated that there was a
possible option of allowing the lease of the tenn^i court in
exchange for available parking in the rear of the Old Hill
School. Kelley informed Ms Smith tk.at the City would not allow
commercial parking on residential property.
Planning Commissioners Moos and Johnson concurred that the
tennis court be 10* from the side lot line. Planning
Commissioners Hanson and Cohen questioned whether the tennis
court should be removed. Ms. Smith stated that it would be a
maOTBS OP TBB PlAaaiBG COMMISSICMI MBBTIHG APRIL 17, 1989
80nv6 PILE «1397-nB ART CBHT OP MIHRBSOTA
financial hardship for the Art Center to remove the tennis court.
Kelley said that the financial aspect of an application cannot be
considered. Hanson said that consideration should be given as
to whether it would be practical to do a lot line rearrangement
around a dilapidated tennis court.
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 Moos, to recommend approval of application 11397 as
follows:
1. Approve the lot line rearrangement.
2. The standard side yard setback of 10* for an accessory
structure must be met.
3. Approve a 2.8* side yard setback variance for a
principal structure.
4. Screening for parking on the north side of the property
should be in the form of a physical impediment so as to move
the traffic flow up to the north.
5. The parking areas located within required yard areas
must be removed and the issue of the existing lamp post must be
reviewed as to placement and light direction.
6. The future owner of the Old Hill School property should
be put on notice that no new structural expansion shall be
approved to the west side of the structure because of the
substandard setback.
7. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
the school structure must be connected to the municipal sever
system.
8. There should be a dedication of a 33* right-of-way along
North Shore Drive from the Art Center.
The hardship for approval is the location of the tennis court in
relation to the Old Hill School.
Chairman Kelley amended his motion to include a
recommendation that the City Council address the issue of
extinguishing the restrictive covenant filed against chain of
title for the Art Center, Planning Commissioner Johnson seconded
the amendment. Motion, Ayes^^S, Mays»0, Motion passed.
miims OP THE PUUnnSG COHMISSIOH MBBTING APP.il 17, 1989
#1302 cm OF OROaO/CRTSTAL BAT ROAD
COBDITIORAL 08B PBRMIT/VARIABCB-FIHAL REVIBIT
PUBLIC BBARIB6 8t00 P.N. TO 8x10 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Public Works Director Gerhardson said that he ard the City
Engineer had connunicated with all of the property owners
Involved. It was his understanding that an agreement had been
reached as to how repair of the road and restoration of the bank
will occur.
Mr. Tim Schupp pointed out that his preference was for
option one, rather than option two. Mr. Schupp also questioned
whether there would be a need to come back before the Planning
Commission. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to Mr. Schupp
that it would be necessary for the affected property owners to
file one application for a conditional use permit and variance to
repair and restore their shoreline. Mabusth suggested that the
application go directly to the City Council for approval as soon
as possible. She asked if the residents could provide a plan to
show what is proposed. Mr. Schupp indicated that he Intended to
proceed as the City Engineer had recommended.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked City Engineer
Representative Clson if it would be necessary for Mr. Schupp to
plant grass or plantings to hold the bank at the proposed slope.
Olson replied that most likely plantings would be necessary.
Mr. Lee *^rger asked about the agreed amount of retaining
wall that will remain exposed. Mabusth recollected that 5’ had
been proposed. Mabusth said that specific direction would be
sought from the City Council.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of
application #1302, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes^O,
Nays«0, Motion passed.
*1396 MiannORRA BOAx' WORKS
1449 8B0RBLIBB DRIVB
OOWDITIOWAL D8B PBRMITAARIAMCB
PUBLIC BBARIWG 9:00 P.M. TO 9x45 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Building Official Jacobs explained that the applicant was
seeking a conditional use permit, several variances and a
commercial site plan review for the addition of 48 boat slips.
The variances the applicant seeks are for separation of a parking
area by a public roadway; parking in a landscaping area;
hardcover; and tree removal.
imniTis or the vimoiiwg cmMissim mebtieg apeil 17, 1989
KEIIE6 PILE #139€-M1EBET0BKA BOAT N0RK8
Chairman Kelley noted that the City of Orono has no
jurisdiction with regard to the number of slips granted to the
marina. Jacobs stated that the LMCD made that determination.
Kelley asked Ms. Burr if the additional 26 slips had been
approved. She replied that the request would go the April Board
Meeting* but the Committee had recommended approval. The density
allowed without a special permit is one boat for every 50' of
lakeshore frontage. Minnetonka Boat Works is requesting one boat
for every 30* of frontage.
Kelley asked Ms. Burr if the LMCD took into consideration the
safety of the public crossing a road. Ms. Burr stated that the
parking was a concern* but other land use issues did not fall
within their jurisdiction. She said it was felt that one
entrance to the parking area was better than providing parking on
both sides of the road. Jacobs Interjected that installation of
a cross walk is being considered. Kelley suggested that an
aerial footbridge may be needed to effectively handle the
potential safety hazard. Be said that he would feel terrible if
someone got killed crossing County Road 15 and he had not done
everything possible to insure the health* safety and welfare of
the Citizens of Crono. Planning Commissioners Cohen and Banson
concurred. Ms. Burr said that only 1/3 of the boats were used on
a given weekend day* so there would not be hundreds of people
crossing the road. It was her belief that the owners of the
property Intended to fence in that area which would alleviate the
people that fish along the road.
Mr. Arlyn Lomen* Vice~President of Genmar Industries* said
that he too was concerned about safety. In his opinion* there
was more traffic generated from fishermen p.'»r.klng and walking
along County Road 15 than from boaters. if that area were
fenced* he believed it would eliminate the number of vehicles and
people from that area.
Mr. Rollin Lacy* said that he agreed with Chairman Kelley's
views regarding safety. Be said that that was one of the most
congested areas along County Road 15. He was not sure that
fencing off the area to fishermen would alleviate the problem.
Re further stated that he was surprised to read the Staff's
recommendation to approve the variances requested* especially
the hardcover variances within 0-75' of the lakeshore. Re said
that private citizens do no«- even apply for such variances in
light of the City's policy to dsny them.
Another Orono resident asked to have the term "cross walk"
defined. Jacobs said that the street would be striped and signs
would be put up. Be did not know if thero would be lights or
just signs. Cohen said that unless patrolled* cross walks are
ignored by most drivers. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested
that the fencing be done in such a way tf as to funnel people
directly to the cross walk.
Chairman Kelley moved on to the issue of blacktopping the
mmm op fmi PuaniiM commissioh meeting apeil 17,
tOMlK PILE fl39€>MINNET0MlA BOAT N0BE8
parking lot. Mr. Lomen said that was not part of their original
proposalf however that did not »ean that they wouldn't be
agreeable to it. He com’nented that there have been no problens
with the existing gravel. If the City required then to blacktop
the parking lotr they would consider doing it# but preferred not
to.
The next issue discussed was hardcover. Hardcover in the 0-
75' zone would Increase by 1.38% to 15.48%. Jacobs said that
Bost of that would occur in the extension. Hardcover in the 75-
250'zone will remain the sane.
With regard to parking, Jacobs stated that Minnetonka Boat
Works met the requirements for the number of parking stalls.
They are now proposing to add 26 parking stalls in light of the
additional boat slips. All 26 stalls will be added in the 0-75*
zone.
Building Official Jacobs reported that the City Engineer
recommended that a retention pond be constructed at the end of
the parking lot to catch runoff and filter the water before it
enters the Lake. He recommended that parking lot grading plan be
modified to provide a minimum 1% grade; the area between the
parking lot and the Lake should be a minimum of 6" higher than
the parking lot; pre-cast concrete bumper curbs should be
required around the parking lot and it should be paved to
minimize the run-off of silt into the ponding area.
Building Official Jacobs noted that the applicant is
requesting that the lakeshore setback for the new parking area be
10', which is the setback of the existing parking lot. Jacobs
said that parking lot was designed in such a way to minimize tree
removal. However, 6 trees, possibly less, will need to be
removed within 75' of the lake.
Building Official Jacobs explained that the requirement for
landscaping is 10', however, the existing parking lot has only 5'
of landscaping. Applicant is requesting that the new parking
area be allowed to have only 5' of landscaping area. Planning
Commissioner Hanson questioned how allowing a 5' variance would
affect the size of the parking lot. Jacobs replied that if 10'
were required, it would push the parking area closer to the lake
and would interfere with the proposed berm.
Planning Commissioner Cohen questioned the City Engineer's
recommendation for a modified grade for the parking area and
storm drainage. Jacobs said that storm drainage would only be a
problem if the applicant did not follow the City Engineer's
recommendations. Hanson asked why paving was necessary. Jacobs
replied that the City ordinances require paving, unless a
variance is requested. Also, the City Engineer felt that paving
was necessary to maintain the drainage areas and prevent silt
from running into the Lake.
HHRinS OF ns PIAimiFG CQHNISSIOII HBBtiW3 AFRXL 17, 1989
X0HIV6 PILB 11398-NinBTOaXA BOAT HOBIS
Mr. Lacy stated that it would be laughable for a private
property owner in Orono to request permission to cut down 6 live
trees within 75* of the lake.
Planning Commissioner Hanson expressed his reservations
about the installation of the cross-walk. Jacobs confirmed that
the County intended to install the cross-walk whether the Marina
project was or was not approved. The cross-walk would be a joint
project for both Windward Marina and Minnetonka Boat Works and
would be positioned between the two properties. Cohen said that
he was skeptical that fencing and funnelling people to the cross
walk would work. Hanson asked the Applicant for his opinions as
to the installation of a cross-walk. Mr. Lomen said that he had
no strong feelings about the cross-walk, however an aerial bridge
would become a major expenditure and would probably deem the
project non-feaslble.
There were further no comments from the public regarding
this matter and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by planning
Coausissioner Moos, to recommend denial of application #1396,
based upon the finding that the proposal is detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare. Motion, Ayes-3, Johnson,
Hanson, Brown, Nay.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the
commercial site plan, subject to the following conditionst
1. Hardcover within the 0-75' shall Increase 1.36%, 75-250'
sone hardcover shall remain the same.
2. No more than 6 trees shall be removed within 75' of the
lakeshore area.
3. Applicant shall follow the recommendations of the City
^gineer.
4. Approval of the 5* variance from the right-of-way on the
east side of the road.
5. In addition, a specific design shall be proposed for
keeping the drainage system open.
6. Screening around dumpsters shall be in the form of
plantings approved by Staff.
7. A County/City approved cross-walk with no less than a
push-button activated "walk" signal.
8. Signage shall remain the same.
9. All other staff recommendations. Including those
MiailtBS OF TBB PUynHSG COMMISStOM NEBTIHG APRIL 17, 1989
90«A BOAT WORKS
access, fire extinguishers, electrical
X0WIW6 PILB tl396-MI]
pertaining to dock ----------- ------ --------^------
equipBient, floats, hoses and hose stations, be required. Motion,
Ayes»3, Kelley, Moos and Cohen, Nay.
•1328 WATSATA COOWTRT CLUB
200 WATSATA BOOUtVARD
CLASS II PSBLUHBART SUBDITISIGW
OORnWDATIOR OF PUBLIC HBARIW6 7tl7 P.N. TO 7>53 P.M.
Mr. John Downey, General Manager of Wayzata Country Club,
was present for this natter, as was Mr. Ronald Lauer.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reported
that he had received information verifying that Wayzata Country
Club does have the right to cross the properties to the east to
access North Ferndale Road. The Country Club also verified by
letter that they are a party to the application. A revised
conceptual site plan was also provided showing the house
location. Also, a general grading plan was submitted and the
Cltv Engineer, after reviewing the plan, has Indicated that an
additional swale will be necessary. Gaffron reminded the
Planning Commission and public that the house plan was only
conceptual, not actual. Once the final house footprint is
determined, it would bo necessary to have the City Engineer
review it before a building permit could be issued.
Chairman Kelley asked why Mr. Lauer was not required to
provide a final house plan at this time, given the sensitivity of
the drainage issue. Gaffron stated that such a provision was not
required with a subdivision application. Kelley asked how the
pubic will remain informed of the revisions proposed by the
developer? Gaffron stated that once the subdivision is approved,
the public would not be notified of site plan/grading plan
revisions that meet code requirements. Kelley asked how the City
would protect the residents who may be Impacted by this
development? Gaffron stated that they would have to rely upon
the conditions set forth in the resolution of approval and filed
with the chain of title that specifically states that the City
Engineer must approve the final plan. Gaffron stated that the
Applicant's Engineer is in the process of designing a retention
area to take the water not only from Mr. Lauer's house, but also
from other areas of the Golf Course. Kelley cosunented that such
a plan had not been presented to the Planning Commission.
Gaffron said that staff had recently observed the drainage
pattern and found it to be different than the existing topography
would dictate. Based on staff's observations, the City Engineer
has revised his recommendation and so informed the Applicant's
Engineer. Kelley said that it was very important that the
Planning Commission and public have the opportunity to see what
is being proposed.
Planning Commissioner Cohen expressed his concern over the
easement the Golf Course has to access North Ferndale Road.
Gaffron said that there is a 16-1/2' easement on either side of
the Country Club's north property line that is granted to the
Hniuns or ¥Bb piAumKi cmiassioH mbbtimg april I7r 1989
S0HM6 PILB «132€-mTSATA COOMTRT CLUB CORIBOBD
various property owners for current and future owners and
dcvelopnenr of the properties in that area* The City is askin9
that a 25' private road out lot be provided with this application
as part of the final plat. Mr. Hauser asked if he would be
required to provide property for a road outlot? Zoning
Administrator Mabusth answered that when Mr. Hauser came to the
City requesting a subdivision, the City would ask him to provide
an easement. The outlot would remain under the ownership of the
property owner and the City would only take the underlying road
and utility easer^ents.
Mr. A1 Greig had pictures showing the drainage pattern
through his property and his neighbors' properties from the Golf
Course. Mr. Greig expressed his concern of increased runoff due
to the development of the property Mr. Lauer is purchasing. He
believed that once the brush and ground cover is removed that
there will be nothing to soak up the water. He said he was
against having a retention pond put in behind his property
because it could overflow and create a channel of water that
would run through his property. Mr. Greig recollected that at
the time the Golf Course was being developed, a hole was dug
behind his property that was approximately 30 feet wide and 4 to
5 feet deep. He said that hole is now filled in with silt and
other materials that have been deposited as a result of runoff.
Chairman Kelley explained that Wayzata Country Club has the
right to subdivide. He said that the Planning Commission is
trying to protect the property owners by not allowing any
magnification of the existing runoff problems. He said that
legally they could not prevent the subdivision from occurring,
they could only protect the neighbors downstream.
Mr. Leo Hauser asked what the City Intended to do to
indemnify the property owners against any damage that may occur
as a result of this subdivision and development* He said he
wanted to see it in writing from the City.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated
that the City Staff concurs with the City Engineer's
recommendation that approval be based on the submittal of a plan
that will show the runoff will ba held back and dispersed at a
slower pace.
Gaffron stated that there are variances being requested with
this subdivision application. A variance will be required for
the property having no direct frontage on a public road*
Additionally, the lot is flag shaped and does not meet the
required 200' width. Gaffron suggested that the variances may
provide the Planning Commission with more control over other
related aspects.
Chairman Kelley questioned the hardship for the 140' lot
width variance. Gaffron said that the location of the existing
green and tee would be a hardship.
8
maons op thb piAmiac coioussioa mbbtimg appil 17, 1989
SOaiK FILE «132C-NATIATA COOMTBT CLUB
Mr. Downey said that the Country Club has been trying to
cosply with the requests from the City. He asked that the City's
jfequest for an additional 8' easement for the outlot be
addressed. Kelley asked him how he would address the concerns
expressed by Mr. Greig^ Mr. Hauser and Mr. Simmons. Mr. Downey
said that it was his understanding that Mr. Lauer intended to
leave most of the property in a natural state. Mr. Downey said
that once the subdivision is approved, the drainage problem would
become Mr. Lauer's responsibility. Planning Commissioner Johnson
interjected that it was his understanding chat the Golf Course
would participate in the construction of the retention pond.
Mr. Simmons said that he did not understand how the
subdivision could be approved without the City reviewing the
actual house plans. Kelley concurred with Mr. Simmons adding
that since this was such a sensitive area, it would be important
to have more Information as to the feasibility of what is being
proposed. He said the fact that the City Engineer has revised
his plan twice makes him even more leary.
Planning Commissioner Cohen said that he had understood that
Mr. Lauer was building a "spec" house, and did not intend to live
on the property. Cohen further expressed his concern over the
construction destroying the private road which serves his
property. He was also concerned about the access being located
so close to the Golf Course. Mr. Lauer indicated that at this
time he had not made a final decision as to whether he would live
on the property or sell it.
Mr. Brooke Nelson said that he had seen previous
subdivisions approved and conditions changed after-the-fact that
impacted surrounding properties. He wanted something more
definite presented to him before this subdivision was approved.
Kelley asked Gaffron what specific requirements should be
requested from the applicant prior to proceeding with development
of this property. Gaffron said that City Staff would like to see
the retention basin design reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. Gaffron said that the remainder of this application
could be presented to the Council, unless the Planning Commission
preferred to have the matter come back before them again. Kelley
asked if the actual grading plan for the proposed house would be
provided. Mr. Lauer said that he had a 100' x 40' square in
which the house is to be built so the grading plan can be
determined.
Kelley said that since the footprint and slxe of the house
will be known, the runoff can be determined. He would like to
see specific plans for grading and the retention pond on not only
Mr. Lauer's property, but the Wayzata Country Club property as
well. Kelley said that the City would take a flowage and
conservation easement across the pond. Kelley said that by
taking the easement, the City can go in and remedy any problems
with the pond and assess the costs involved back to the property
imnms of tbb pLMniinG comnissioii mbbtiiig apsil 17» 1989
fOHK FILS I1326HIATXATA COOBTRT CIOB
owner.
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 Cohen, to table this item until the appropriate
q]^2(]j[.ng plans are submitted along with the plans for the
retention pond. Planning Commissioner Johnson indicated that
since this matter had come before the Planting Commission three
times, he did not wish to see it again. He felt that the Wayzata
Country Club should participate in this matter. Motion, Ayes*5,
Johnson, Nay, Notion passed.
#1387 STBVn HAUtlS
3850 MATmOMI HOAD
OOmnOHAL USB PBMMIT
COMTIBIIATIOB OF PUBLIC HBARIBG 8:10 P.N. TO 8:25 P.N.
Mr. Harris was present for this matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Harris was
seeking a Conditional Use Permit to install a pond 100' in
diameter and 4' deep. The pond could be classified as a
decorative pond with a secondary purpose of providing drainage of
moisture content cf soils surrounding the pond area. Mr. Harris
proposes putting a fence around the pond to prevent his horses
from interfering with the function of the pond. He intends to
immediately seed the banks. The pond will not change the
existing drainage, but rather will provide greater retention.
Chairman Kelley inquired as to where the spoils would be
placed? Mabusth was not certain, but the applicant indicated
that he intended to keep them on his property.
Chairman Kelley asked if it would be necessary for the City
to take a drainage and flowage easement for the pond? Mabusth
stated that the pond was such a local retention area that such an
easement may not be necessary. Kelley said that should the
property ever be -ubdxvided, the City may wish to have the
easement. He also suggested that the City be consistent with its
easement policy. Planning Commissioner Johnson questioned the
City's possible maintenance liability that may result from taking
a drainage easement.
Mr. Robert Taylor informed the Planning Commission that in
the best of his knowledge, there was an underlying draintile in
the area of Mr. Harris' proposed pond. He questioned whether a
pond was the proper approach to a drainage problem and expressed
concern over the area reverting into a swamp that would back up
onto his property. Mr. Loren Butterfield interjected that the
draintile ran under his property all the way to the Luce Line.
Mr. Harris noted that if the draintile was there and
functioning the grass in that area would not be consistently wet
MiaUTBS OP TUB PIAmilBG COMMISSIOH MEBTIM6 APRIL 17, 1989
SOHIBG PILE #1367 HARRIS-COHTIW
or dry. Kelley asked Mr. Harris what he would do if the
draintile were not disturbed and all the water ran out. Mr.
Harris said that if the pond reached its maxinum capacity, all of
the water would run out the draintile. If the pond dried out,
that would not be a problem.
Planning Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Harris if his main
objective was to have a decorative pond or a dry area. Mr.
Harris replied that achieving a dry area was his main priority.
He questioned whether cleaning the draintile would allow it to
function. Kelley said that would probably help, but no one knew
where the draintile was located. Kelley said that in light of
the knowledge of draintile existing, that the City would
definitely want to request a drainage easement.
Chairman Kelley said that the Planning Commission must
address the issue of whether or not the current water flowage
from this property will be disturbed when a pond is put in place.
Johnson said that the applicant should be required to maintain
the draintile if he encounters it while putting in the pond.
«
Mrs. Betty Butterfield said that Mr. Harris's pond would
come within 50' of their property line. She said that what would
be an attractive addition for Mr. Harris but would be an
unattractive nuisance for her.
There were no further comments from the public regarding
this matter and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of item #1367
for Conditional Use Permit to construct a pond subject to
conservation and flowage over the pond. It is further
recommended that if the applicant encounters the draintile, he
should maintain the existing drainage that runs through it.
Kelley suggested that the flowage and conservation easement be
taken as far as the draintile runs on the applicants property if
that can be determined. Johnson amended his motion to include
that condition, Cohen seconded. *<otion, Ayes“6, Nays«0, Motion
passed.
#1375 DAVID PRIOR
2914 CARGO POIRT ROAD
VARIARCB
COBTIRIIATIOR OP PUBLIC BBARIH6 8s26 P.M. TO 8s30 P.N.
Mr. Price was present for this matter.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said
that the applicants were originally seeking an average lakeshore
setback variance as well as a variance to slightly Increase
hardcover. The applicants have since revised their proposal so
that the proposed addition would remain the same, but the patio
area would be decreased. This would result in a decrease in
hardcover in the 75'-250' zone to 27.34%. Another expressed
MiailTIS OF TBB PUamiaG COMNISSICM NBBTIHG APRIL 17, 1989
lOKEK PILE #1375-PR1CB COaTIROBD
concern of this application involved the sight lines and whether
the neighboring property would lose a portion of existing
lakeviews. There has been no communication to the City from that
neighbor.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of
application #1375 since the overall effect is a benefit to the
City with the overall decrease in hardcover. The encroachment on
the average setback line does not have a significant impact on
the neighboring property and that neighbor has not expressed any
concern. The hardship for the variance is that there are no
viable alternatives for the applicant. Motion, Ayes“6, Nays-0,
Motion passed.
#1388 CBARLBS BRRTBLSOR
760 TOnANA ROAD
VARIARCR
PUBLIC HBARIB6 8s32 P.M. TO 8s43 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
The applicant was present for this matter.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said
that this application involved a request for an accessory
structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. The applicant's residence is
small and he does not have a garage. Mr. Bertelson is proposing
to build a two-story garage with an upper level workshop that
would be 960 s.f. per floor for a total of 1,920 s.f. The
driveway would be revised.
Chairman Kelley questioned what the dimensions of an average
two—car garage would be. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that
24' X 36' would provide ample room for a three-car garage.
Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned the applicant as to
the need for such a large accessory structure. Mr. Bertelson
replied that he would like to be able to store four cars and his
boat. He would use the second story for working floor space for
his woodworking business. Kelley Inquired of the applicant as to
the site of his house. Mr. Bertelson said it was 24' x 30' with
a 12' slab. Kelley observed that, if approved, the accessory
structure would be larger than the house. He said that in his
opinion the applicant was entitled to a two-car garage, 24' x
Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Bertelson if ho
agreed with the staff's recommendation that the accessory
structure not be allowed to have plumbing, or be used as a
dwelllnjr unit or to house a home occupation. Mr. Bertelson said
M1VUTB8 OF THB PIAmiM COMNISSIO« MKBTIV6 APRIL 17. 1989
X0BIR6 FILB f1388-BBRTBLSOR COSTIROBD
that he had no intention to do any of those things.
Planning Commissioner Brown told Mr. Bertelson that he would
have no objections to a three-car garage, as long as it was one
story. Mr. Bertelson explained that the garage would tuck into
the hillside. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he would
approve a two story garage that was 24' x 36'. Kelley
interjected that Mr. Bertelson could build a 24' x 24' and put a
car or boat on the second level and still have 1/2 of that level
for his woodworking. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that in
his opinion, the structure was too large and would set a
precedent if approved.
Planning Commissioner Johnson asked if there would not be a
problem with the garage interfering with the catch basin and
storm sewer? Gaffron explained that the City Engineer had taken
a look at the situation, and felt there would be no problem with
rerouting the drainage.
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 Moos, to recommend approval of only a 24' x 24' 2-
story structure. Brown indicated that he would allow the
applicant the ability to build the structure up to the 1.000 s.f.
standard. Kelley pointed out that 24' x 24' would allow the
.applicant more than 1.000 s.f. Motion. Ayes*3. Johnson. Hanson.
Cohen. May.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend denial of the
accessory structure in excess of 1.000 s.f. Hanson stated that
allowing only 1.000 s.f. would result in poor utilization of
floor space. He said Mr. Bertelson had a unique situation
because the topography necessitates a 2-story walkout situation
for the structure and the need to store 3 vehicles is easiest all
on the same floor. Johnson stated that by allowing the 24' x 40'
structure, the applicant would be very limited should he decide
to add on to his house in the future. Motion. Ayes“5. Hanson.
May.
11389 JAMBS 8 CHARTJ{MB MARDOCK
880 DAKOTA AVEMUB
AFTBR-THB-FACT VARIABCB
PUBLIC BBARIBG 8t45 P.M. TO 8:50 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Mr. and Mrs. Mardock were present for this application.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron
explained that this application involved an after-the-fact
request for a rear setback variance for a deck. The new deck is
NimjTBS OP THE PIAMEIEG COMMISSIOM !TIH6 APRIL 17, 1989
80HIE6 PILE •1389-MARDOCK COTlllUED
located in approximately the sane location as the pre-existing
deck. Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that the Mardocks were
neighbors of his. He said that at the time he purchased his lot,
in 1976, the Mardock hone was existing and did have a deck at
that time. He confirmed that that deck was located as Gaffron
had estimated. He further stated that due to the peculiarity of
the lot and the location of the wetland, the deck provided the
Mardocks with usable space without affecting neighboring
properties.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the after-
the-fact setback variance for a deck. Motion, Ayes*6, Mays*0,
Motion passed.
*1390 U.8. NEST COMMDRICATIOES
2845 WEAR CIRCLE
CQHDinOEAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC EEARIE6 7s55 P.M. TO OlOO P.N.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Mr. Dan Kessler, Network Facilities Engineer for U.S. West
Communications, was present for this natter.
Chairman Kelley asked why screening hac' to occur behind the
utility structure rather than in front. Zoning Administrator
Mabusth said that was due to the need to access the structure to
maintain it. Mr. Kessler added that as long as the structure
could be accessed from the road, he could screen up to a 4*
width. Kelley asked about a barrier to prevent cars from running
into the structure? Mr. Kessler said that the pylons «rould be an
eyesore and their proposal calls for a ditch to be placed in
front of the structure.
Kelley inquired as to the size of the arborvitae being
planted and suggested that they be as high as the structure. Mr.
Kessler indicated that they would be willing to comply with the
City's wishes. Kelley recommended planting 3 additional trees
and making them 3' high.
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
Comnissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit for U.S. West Communications and that 3* high
arborvitae be planted. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed.
MiaOTBS OP TUB PUaniSG COmUSSIOH MBBTIK APRIL 17, 1989
11391 TERRY SADLER
1398 BAIOOR PARK ROM)
COBDinOBAL USB PBRNITAMtlABCE
PUBLICB BBARIB6 8i51 P.N. TO 8x52 P.N.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing %rere
duly noted.
It was Bioved by Planning Coninisaioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Comiaaioner Hanson, to table this item until the
applicant could appear before the Planning Commission. Motion
Ayes«6, Mays^O, Motion passed.
•1392 KU EDUARDS
2450 WOODBAVBR DRIVE
APTBR-THB-PACT COBDITIOBAL USB PERMIT
PUBLIC BBARIB6 8x53 P.M. TO 9x00 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Mr. Edwards was present for this application.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron
explained that Mr. Edwards was seeking an after-the-fact
conditional use permit for grading and filling. The filling has
occurred over the years and some of it was required by the City
to protect footings. In one area there has been as much as 5* of
fill brought in and the area is now fairly level and a bit higher
than the road. The City Engineer has looked at the project and
feels that the existing fill poses no problem. However, there
should be no more filling northward due to possible impact of an
existing drainageway crossing from west to east behind the house.
Chairman Kelley suggested that the remaining piles of dirt
be removed. Mr. Edwards stated that some of the piles were
boulders. He wished to put in a retaining wall along the
driveway and fill in approximately 3* and plant shrubs. Kelley
asked Mr. Edwards how much of the fill he actually brought in.
Gaffron indicated that Mr. Edwards was responsible for all of the
fill to the east side of the house. Mr. Edwards said that he was
informed by the City that the septic system was built in a
relatively low area and needed fill around it to keep runoff
water away from it.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this
application, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer.
As a further condition, it is recommended that the applicant
plant twenty 6' pine trees in the filled areas within one year.
It is further recommended that no more fill be allowed without
application and approval of another Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Calhoon, a neighbor to the east of Mr. Edwards, said that he
would prefer to not see any fill extend onto his property. He
imnms op tbs puymiHG comhissioh mbbtivg apkil 17, 1989
I0HIB6 PIU tl392>BIMMa>S COniHDBD
would like his property brought back to the original grade.
Gaffron pointed out that staff reconnendation addressed this
issue. Kelley asked what the slope on the east property line
would be. Gaffron replied that 4:1 is being reconmended. Kelley
asked about water flowage. Gaffron said that the expectation is
that runoff would not change. Motion, Ayes-5, Kelley, Nay due to
disagreenent with the requiring that applicant put in twenty €'
pine trees.
#1393 1I18HU6T0B 8CIBMTIPIC IM6D89BXB8
2805 Whlthth BOOUVARD
OOHDITIOHNL USB PBRMIT
PUBLIC HBBR1B6 9t47 P.M. TO 9t55 P.N.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Mr. Joe Pallansch, a Representative from Washington
Scientific Industries, was present for this matter, as was Mr.
David Ronnei from Delta Environmental Consultants.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this portion of
this application had been tabled because this phase of the
application required warmer temperatures. The applicant will be
"thin spreading” approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated
soils over 2 acre area. The process will take 90 days to
complete. Mr. Pallansch has provided staff with erosion control
plans and the MPCA had sent a letter providing the applicant with
directions as to how to fulfill the remainder of the application.
Mr. Ronnei reported that the MPCA had requested that additional
soil be excavated along the trench walls and be thin spread with
the other soil.
Chairman Kelley inquired as to who would make the
determination that the soil was uncontaminated? Mr. Ronnei said
that he would submit soil samples to the MPCA and uhey would
provide them with a final closure of the area. Kelley asked if
the site was adequately posted with signs warning the public of
the contaminated soil? Mr. Ronnei said that a silt containment
fence would be placed around the area. Be Informed Kelley that
the solvent in the soil posed no problems to the public, in a
contact, sense. It was only a threat in large concentrations in
drinking water. He said they would be willing to post signs if
necessary. The concentrations in the soil are very low.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that there was an
additional condition of approval. She said that the City would
ask for a Developers Agreement and the posting of some form of
security to assure that the final grading and seeding will occur
at the right time. Mabusth said that even though the City was
certain the Washington Scientific would follow through, it would
be inconsistent with policy to forego that requirement.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
imnms or m puuonac cohnissioh hibtihg april 17, I9t§
lOBIM FILS fl393HI8I COHTIBDBD
It was moved by Planning Coounlssioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for Washington Scientific Industries to
allow the second phase of their recovery program, subject to
Staff's recommendations and that the applicant poet a bond of
$2,500.00. Motion, Ayes>6, Nays*0, Motion passed.
•1394 JACUOa L. WILSOB
3059 PAKVIM lAHK
APTRR-THR-FACT VARIAMCB
POILIC nSAUaC 9t5S P.M. TO lOsOl P.N.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
The applicant was present for this matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that when the
building permit for the applicant's residence was issued, the
survey did not show the drainage easement. A current survey,
completed after the construction of an addition, indicated that
the addition encroached the drainage easement. In order to
clear any title problems, the City vacated that portion and
deeded it back to the owners. This has provided a gerrymandered
easement line. The actual wetlands are located at the 930'
elevation. Staff has confirmed that the house is actually 20*
from the 930' elevation. A 6* after-the^'fact variance is
required. Mabusth noted that the City issued the building permit
and added that she had difficulty collecting an application fee
for a case such as this. She recommended that the application
fee be refunded to the applicant.
Mr. Wilson suggested that applications such as his be placed
at the top of the agenda rather than the end.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the after-
the-fact variance for application #1394, and that the application
fee be refunded to the applicant. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays>0, Motion
passed.
#1395 THOMAS WILLIAMS
4127 OAK 8TKBBT
BHHKWAL VAKIAMCK*
It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning
Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application,
subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolution
12387. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed.
foiow or m pia»ii6 comossioh nbbtisg awl it, irsr
•13ft STBWn KWBLLS
144t PABE OKIVB
COaDITIOIAL OSB PBBMIT/VABIABCB
PUBLIC BBABIBG lOtlO P.N. TO lOtlS P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
The Bowella were present for this natter.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron
explained that the property in question is a through lot, having
roadways located in the front and rear. An accessory structure
on a through lot requires a conditional use pernlt. The
applicants are proposing to construct a 6* wood fence along
County Road 19 and 4* green chain link as the fence heads back
into the property toward the house. The codes will allow a 4*
fence along a county road or a najor thoroughfare abutting a
lakeshore lot but not an inland lot such as this. Gaffron said
the wain reason for the Howells requesting the fence is to
protect their children fron the road traffic without the need for
constant supervision.
Planning Counissioner Coh^n asked the applicants if they
would have a prcblem making the fence a consistent height all the
way around. Mrs. Howell said that would be no problem, but they
would prefer a consistent 6*. Hanson asked if they were seeking
noise reduction? Mr. Howell replied on the side abutting County
Road 19, noise was a problem. Chairman Kelley suggested that the
fence be 6* along County Road 19 and 3-1/2* for the remainder.
Mrs. Howell replied that their 19 month old daughter could easily
get over a 3-1/2* fence.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of a 6* fence
around the property given the location of the property in
relation to County Road 19. The applicant said that he would
prefer to have the fence 6* high along County Road 19 and 4* high
around the remaining area. Planning Commissioner Cohen revised
his motion to reflect the applicants* preference, Hanson
seconded. Motion, Ayes>6, Nay8**0, Motion passed.
QRDIBABCB AMBHDMBHT-GOBFIBN DATE OP SPBCIAL MBBTIBG
It was agreed that May 1, 1989 would be dated for the
Special Meeting to discuss the Ordinance Amendment.
JOIBT PLABHIH6 C0MU8810B/C0UBCIL MBBTIBG
TB0B8OAT, NAT 4, 1989 TOPICS POB AGENDA
PLABBIBG COMMISSION APPBOVAL OP MARCH 20, 1989 MINDTBS*
It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning
Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes
of the March 20, 1989 Meeting. Motion, Ayes^S, Nays«0, Motion
passed.
w..
■%*
Nm« OF m FlAmxWB COHUSSIOH rittfllM; JIFIIL 17. 19S9
3
piiAMiM comissioa UFusnnnTivB
It was agreed that Planning Conlssioner, Janes Hanson would
represent the Planning Connission at the May 8, 1989 City Council
Meeting.
* i ■ I ^ .
The April 17# 1989# Planning Connission Meeting adjourned
at 10:25 p.n.
•