Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1989 Planning MinutesMINUTES OF THE FLAMMING COMMISSION MEETING NAT 15, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Conunission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Brown, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. Planning Commissioner Bellows arrived at 7:15 p.m. The following represented the City staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffrcn and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. was also in attendance. #1401 JOHN FIEBELKORN 2730 4 2740 SHADYNOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LIME REARRAMGl CLASS I PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Fiebelkorn was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the purpose of the lot line rearrangement was to provide a 10* side setback for the storage shed, which presently encroaches, on the Dunsheath property. The lot line rearrangement would give the Fiebelkotns more property in the C-75' zone, as well as the 75-250', and would slightly change the hardcover percentages for both properties. Hardcover would decrease for 2730 Shadywood Road to 9.7% in the 0-75' zone and 62.7% in the 75-250’ zone. The hardcover percentages for 2740 Shadywood Road would increase to 4.5% in the 0-75' zone and 22.3% in the 75-250' zone. Gaffron noted that the shed was constructed recently and is located 9' from the Fiebelkorn’s house. Gaffron questioned whether it would be mere reasonable to grant a 1' variance and require an adequate firewall in the shed or move the shed to meet the required 10' setback from the house. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fiebelkorn if it would be possible to move the shed. Mr. Fiebelkorn replied that the shed was not on a floating slab and would therefore be difficult to move. 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 Cohen, to recommend approval of this application, including the setback variance for the shed. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Fiebelkorn if he intended to keep the storage shed? Mr. Fiebelkorn replied that it was his intention to keep the shed. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. MIITOTBS OP TBS PLAMNIMG COMNISSIOH MBBTIHG MAY 15, 1989 #1405 TBCNIAS CX>LWBLL 2640 MOSTB SBORB DRIVE PRBLIMIHARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III PUBLIC HBARING 7tl5 P.M. TO 7i50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Hr. and Mrs. Colwell were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained th^rt the Colwell property consisted of just under 20 acres, which would be subdivided into lots containing no less than 2 acres of dry, contiguous land. Lot 1 contains 8.8 dry, contiguous acres; Lot 2 contains 2 acres and Lot 3 has approximately 2.48 dry, contiguous land. On-site septic system locations have been approved, and the placement of the driveway for the property must be given extra consideration due to the location of the septic test areas for Lot 3 and the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Testing indicates that mound systems would be necessary. A new septic system to serve the existing house on Lot 2 has to be installed as a condition of the subdivision. The present system is subrtandard and has been noted to be failing. Mabusth said that the issue of access in this subdivision was unique. The City's current policy of requiring a private road at a three lot density is in conflict with certain sections of subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that a driveway would serve up to three lots. The Platting Code recommends that if a subdivision is presented showing a private road serving up to three lots, then ♦■he private road must be designated ns an outlot. The code gives no clear direction that would indicate that this specific subdivision has to be served by a private road. The applicant is proposing that Lots 2 and 3 be served by an existing driveway off of County Road 51. They are also proposing that a new curb cut be made in the corridor that abuts County Road 84 to serve Lot 1. Mabusth said that the City had many concerns regarding such a proposal mainly due to the possibility that Lot 1 could be subdivided in the future. If Lot 1 were subdivided. Lot 2 would have to achieve access from a future private road that would serve the Lot 1 subdivision. Planning Coiitmissionei Cohen asked whethei Lot 2 could be subdivided? Mabusth replied that neither 2 nor 3 could be subdivided. Mabusth added that there was a question of whether Lot 3 contained the contiguous, dry buildable area. She said because of the 30* wide access easement that intersected Lot 3 that the lot line must be realigned between Lots 3 and 1 in order to ensure that there are in fact 2 acres. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she preferred not to create a land-locked lot and suggested that the easement be be given an outlot designation. MINUTBS OF TBS PLMlNIliG COMM.T MBBTING HAY 15# 1989 SOHIH6 PILE «1405-COLWBLL CONTINljiD Planning Comnticoioner Hanson suggested that the applicant have his developer prepare a site plan depicting the various directions >:uggested by the Planning Cominlssion and Staff. Planning Commissioner Erown asked Mr. Colwell for his opinion regarding only one access off of County Road 51. Mr. Colwell said that he would rather have the access off of County Road 84. He said that portion of land would lend itself well for an access. Planning Commissioner Bellows Indicated that as a general rule she would prefer to avoid accessing off of County Road 84. However, due to the topography of this property, she would not object. Planning Commissioner Moos said that she was not in favor of curb cuts, but did no: see any other options available. Planning Commissioners Hanson and Cohen concurred with Bellows. Chairman Kelley summarized for the applicant that the Planning Commission would agree to an access off of County Roads 84 and 51. The Planning Commission would like to see an outlot placed across Lot 3 to serve Lot 2, and obtain enough dry, buildable land on the east side of the outlot to make a building lot. Chairman Kelley asked about the >»ide setbacks for the principal structure. Mabusth replied :nat it is 25' from the proposed lot line and that the code requires a 30' side setback. Mr. Colwell was asked to define the use of the accessory structure as the structure as proposed presented a problem for the City. The accessory structure has been placed on a lot that ooes not contain a principal residence. Mr. Colwell said that the structure was mainly used for storage and that he would prefer to have it located on Lot 1. It was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that the principal structure meet the required setbacks, especially due to the new subdivision. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested that the lot line be rearranged to allow for the setbacks. Kelley said that Mr. Colwell could opt to rearrange the lot line, move the barn or tear it down. Mabusth noted that a condition would be placed on subdivision approval requiring the applicant to apply for a building permit for Lot 1 within one year, or the accessory structure must be removed. Bellows suggested that the accessory structure be required to meet the uteiidards set forth in the ordinance amendment rather than the standards indicated within the present ordinance. Mr. Colwell asked how far from the Lot 2 lot line the accessory structure would need to be? Mabusth replied that it would need to be 10' from the lot line. Mrs. Colwell asked what the setback requirement would be for the barn to remain in Lot 1. Mabusth replied that it would have to be 10' from that lot line as well. Bellows questioned why the lot line could not be moved so that the house had its proper setback and the barn/garage could remain within its required 10'. Mabusth stated that the house would have to be 30' from the east side lot line. Kelley observed that by moving the lot line 5' to the east, the barn and the house would meet their required setbacks. Mabusth advised that there is adequate separation to satisfy setbacks, the question is the accessory structure and MINUTES OP THE PIAMMIMG COMMISSION MBBTIN6 MAY 15, 1989 II :h ISOHING FILE tl405-<X>LNBLL COHTINl how shall we reserve the temporary status of the structure. Mr. Robert Gumnit, a property owner to the norths expressed his concern regarding the proposed access off of County Road 84. He questioned whether a detailed study had been done in the location where the driveway would be installed. He said that area was iO' below the County Road and there are wetlands that may oe affected. The proposed driveway area serves as access to the marsh and the open area beyond. There is also a culvert in the area and the driveway may affect drainage. Mr. Gumnit requested that the applicant have a detailed study regarding the impact the driveway may have on the area. Kelley informed Mr. Gumnit that the driveway would have to meet the 26' setback from the 9i2 elevation. Zoning Adrinistrator Mabusth pointed out the fact that Hennepin County had approved the access off of County Road 84. Kelley added that a silt fence could be installed to prevent runoff into the marsh. Kelley said that preservation of the wetlands was part of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Cohen, to table application #1405. Motion, Ayes**6, Mays^O, Motion passed. #1406 DENNIS KUMLIN 2665 POX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III RENEWAL APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING 8t30 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Kumlin was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Planning Commisrion that there had been no changes in Mi. Kumlln's request, nor the City's code. The original septic information had been provided along with a detailed site plan showing setback location from the wetland on Lot 2. The only change that has occurred since the original application is the "Trees to Be" subdivision has created a designated through road to connect to Mr. Kumlln's outlot. The City Engineer has recommended that the change in road construction standards be discussed with the applicant. Mabusth noted that Mr. Kumlin was present at the public hearing for the Trees to Be subdivision and had voiced his concern about the through road adjacent to his property. Mr. Kumlin apologized and explained the reason for delaying the subdivision. He said that Rainey Anderson had indicated that she would be willing to assist financially with the through road MINUTES OP TBB PlAllMIMG COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15» 1989 SONING FILE «1406-KOMLIH COHTmUED if it was developed. Gaffron noted that ther be through road only if the City or the property owners deemed it necessary. Gaffron said that there was no Intent for a through road in the foreseeable future. Mr. Ray Jaques, owner of Lot 2 in the Trees to Be subdivision, questioned what effect the future development of the larger eastern lot in the Trees to Be plat would have on the potential for the through road being constructed? Gaffron replied that there would be no effect. There were no further c''mments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bello.vs, to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision application. Cohen did express concern regarding access onto County Road 84. Motion, Ayes^S, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1407 LEOPOLD HAOSER 475 PBRHDALE ROAD NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISKW CLASS II PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 P.N. TO 8:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Hauser were present for this public hearing, as was their realtor, Meredith Howell. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Hauser was proposing to subdivide his 5.5 acres of property into 2 lots. The Hauser's residence is located on the proposed Lot 1 and would meet the required setbacks. Both primary and alternate septic sites have been determined for the proposed Lot 2. The applicant would prefer to have a separate driveway access to Ferndale Road. However, the City Engineer has recommended that the driveway be shared. He did indicate that sight distance would not be a problem if separate driveways were constructed. The plat would show a 33' right-of-way dedication for North Ferndale Road and the City would ask that a 25' private road out lot along the north end of the property be dedicated. The City Engineer has further recommended that a retention basin be designed for the southwest corner of Lot 2. Mr. Greig commented that he did not believe that Mr. Hauser's proposal would create a problem with drainage. Mrs. Hauser commented that the Keesllng lot line was more contiguous with their property and that drainage would not affect Mr. Greig's property. Mr. Hauser asked if he and Mr. Lauer reach an agreement if he could take the width of the driveway from Lot 1 and add it to Lot 2? Kelley indicated that approval would be conditioned upon MIHUTBS OF THB PIAllMING C(»INISSI(^ MBSflHG IttY 15, 1989 ZOMIHG PILE #1407-HAUSBR COHTINUBD there being at least 2 acres of dry-buildable land for Lot 2. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Cohen asked for clarification regarding the 25' catlot dedication. Kelley explained that the entire lot is being subdivided and the 25* would allow for future upgrading of the private road. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Driveway access to North Ferndale Road be by way of a shared driveway and/or access off of a proposed outlot. 2. A retention basin be constructed in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations. 3. That 33' of right-of-way for North Ferndale Road be dedicated as public roadway and that a 25' road outlot along the north boundary be shown on the plat map for private road purposes. 4. Lot 2 shall be subject to the standard park fee of $200.00. 5. The applicant shall provide a site grading plan for the proposed house on Lot 2 prior Lo issuance of the building permit. 6. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the plat map. Kelley questioned whether the standard drainage and utility easement would Include the retention pond? Gaffron suggested making that an additional condition. Hanson amended his motion to include the requirement that a flowage and conservation easement be taken for the retention pond, Cohen seconded. Ms. Howell asked whether the shared driveway would be preferred in the event Mr. Lauer agrees to Mr. Hauser's proposal for access to Lauer's property? Kelley replied that would be preferred. Mr. Hauser expressed his concern that such an access may interfere with existing trees. Mr. Hauser expressed his confusion regarding the intent of condition #1 of Hanson's motion. Hanson clarified that it was his intention to allow Mr. Hauser the option of slightly adjusting the lot line so the new driveway rou .d be accessed from the old driveway. Kelley explained that the shared driveway would be preferred to avoid any additional curb cuts onto North Ferndale Road. Motion, Ayes=6, Navs**0, Motion passed. • i • MIHUTK OF THE PLAHHlllG COMMISSION MBBTIM6 MAY IS, 1989 fl326 NATZATA COOIITST CLUB 200 MAYSATA BOULEVARD PRELIMIMARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III OOHTIHUATIOH OF PUBLIC BEARING 7x50 P.N. TO 8x30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Ronald Lauer was present for this matter, as was Mr. John Downey, President of the Wayzata Country Club. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the status of this application. The grading plan showing the proposed bouse and circle driveway has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has indicated that the proposal is suitable, but recommended that water draining from the house site should run in both directions around the mound septic system. The retention basin design has also been received. The basin would collect the runoff and would store it for a short period before it would runoff through a small pipe at a controlled rate. The City Engineer has recommended that the top of the swale and the berm be raised slightly to allow for more storage capacity. Mr. A1 Greig, Chevy Chase Drive, said that there would be a problem with the proposed drainage plan and retention basin. He questioned whether the pipe would effectively drain the water. He was especially concerned about the pipe silting in or freezing closed. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Greig for his opinion as to a solution to thd drainage problem. He explained to M*'. Greig that Mr. Lauer and the Country Club had worked very hard to satisfy the City and the residents of Chevy Chase Drive. He told Mr. Greig that the City of Orono would take a flowage and conservation easement over the property. Should the City receive any complaints about the drainage in that area, the City would try to solve the problem and charge the expenses back to the homeowner. Mr. Greig asked Kelley who would be responsible for any water damage that may occur to his property? Kelley asked Mr. Greig if water presently drained through his property? Mr. Greig replied that it did not because the present drainage system allowed the water to drain across the Golf Course property over to Mr. Simmons yard. He said that the berm would border on his property and would stop about 30' from the subdivided lot. Gaffron interjected that the City Engineer's recommendation tor the retention pond is such that it should not stay full of water. Gaffron said that Mr. Greig's concerns should be discussed before the City Council with the City Engineer present to answer specific questions. Mr. Jim MacKinnon, Mr. Greig's Attorney, questioned why the City Engineer had not addressed the issue of ground water? Kelley asked whether the residents would prefer to have slow or rapid runoff? Kelley said that the neighbors had indicated initially that they preferred slow runoff. Mr. MacKinnon said MINUTES OP THE PIAIIMIIIG COMMISSION NBBTIHG MAY 15, 198J II HIS(»iING FILE il326-WATZATA COUNTRY CLUB C(»iTIN1 that the neighbors did not want any adverse effect from the development of Mr. Lauer's property. Bellows interjected that it was the City's policy when dealing with subdivisions to require the property owner to rectify any drainage problems that may occur on his own property. Bellows added that it would be impossible for the City to anticipate every possible condition that may occur. She said that the long standing drainage problem for the residents of Chevy Chase Drive needs to be addressed with the City of Orono, not Mr. Lauer and the Wayzata Country Club. Bellows opined that underlying the drainage concern was the fact that most residents object to development occuring in their neighborhood. Bellows said that the residents of Chevy Chase Drive had very legitimate drainage problems that they should not have to deal with. Planning Commissioner Cohen stated that it was well and good that Mr. Lauer remedy drainage problems on his own property, but questioned whether in doing so he might not adversely impact other properties. Bellows replied that the drainage Information that had been submitted indicated that there would be no increase in drainage on neighboring properties. She said that information was all that they had to go on. Chairman Kelley said that issues such as the construction of the retention basin, the requirement that a grading plan be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit, and dedication of a 25' outlot along the north side of the parcel still needed to be considered. Additionally, the applJcan is seeking approval of a 140' lot width variance and the inherent variance for lack of frontage on a public roadway. Kelley said that if it were not for the variance request, the City would have no reasonable justification for a denial since the proposed division raeets all other requirements. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that she wished to discuss the road issue. She said that the driveways being constructed off of North Ferndale are inadequate to serve the number of houses they are proposed to serve. She was not in favor of allowing this subdivision to occur without substantial improvement to the roadway off of North Ferndale. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that the road access is close to the mailboxes and is a safety hazard. Mr. Lauer indicated that the mailboxes were at least 150 yards from the mailboxes. Mr. Leo Hauser interjected with a proposal to place an access off of North Ferndale through his property, rather than using the existing substandard roadway. He said that the City Engineer had the opportunity to look at that location and had indicated that there would be no safety problems. Kelley questioned whether Mr. Hauser had discussed this proposal with Mr. Lauer? Mr. Hauser replied that it had been briefly discussed. Mr. Lauer noted that Mr. Hauser's proposal would create more hardcover and consequently more drainage problems. Mr. Hauser replied that the vegetation in that area was very thick and would alleviate any potential runoff problem. 8 MIMUTB8 OF THE PLMQIIIIG C(MfMISSIC»i NBBTIIIG MAY 15, 1989 ZOHIMG PILE *1326-HATZATA COUNTRY CLUB OBITIII1 Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Hauser if he intended to give his land to Mr. Lauer"’ Mr. Hauser indicated that he would be willing to give Mr. Iiauer the portion of his property in exchange for the northerly portion of Mr. Lauer's property. Ms. Meredith Howell, Mr. Hauser's real estate agent, indicated that Mr. Hauser's proposal would benefit everyone. Mrs. Hauser said that she wanted to save all of the existing vegetation that blocks their view of the golf course. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Lauer if he was willing to take advantage of the good faith proposal of Mr. Haussr, or if he wanted to proceed with his application as originally proposed? Mr. Lauer replied that he was willing to discuss the alternate proposal with Mr. Hauser, but he did not want to be committed to proceed in that manner. Kelley noted that Mr. Hauser's proposal would eliminate the need for Mr. Lauer to obtain variance approval for frontage on a public road. The Planning Commission as a whole indicated that they would prefer to see Mr. Lauer proceed with Mr. Hauser's proposal, with the exception of Planning Commissioner Hanson. Hanson said that the matter should be moved on to Council rather than being tabled •and requiring Mr. Lauer to appear again before the Planning Commission. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and tho public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Com>^• suJoner Brown, to recommend approval ox the proposed subdivision, subject to: 1. Csnstruction of a retention basin per the City Engineer's plan or a plan submitted by the property owner that has been approved by the City Engineer. 2. Submission of a revised site grading plan to be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Dedication of the 25' outlot corridor. 4. Granting of the underlying road d utility easements. 5. Granting the vc’*'5anne the lot width, in relation to the frontage and front yard setback. 6. The payment of park fees. 7. Standard drainage and utilities easements being shown on the plat drawings. Gaffron suggested that a flowage and conservation easement be taken over the retention basin. Hanson agreed to included that provision in his motion, Brown seconded. Gafvron asked whether MIN0TB8 OF THE PLMffillHG COMKkSSIOH MBSTIHG NAT 35, 1989 SOHIHG FILE fl326-IIATSATA COOHTRT CLUB COHTIIirfD the ground water issue and potential storm sower for Chevy Chase Drive be mentioned as a separate issue to be considered at a later date? Hanson indicated that he did ncc want to include that in his motion. Motion, Ayes«2, Nays®4. Motion failed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to table application #1326, pending negotiation between the applicant and Mr. Hauser. Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that tablitia rhis application was total ly inappropriate in the sense that it constrains the proper.y owner. Brown asked whether there was any way to keep the application moving forward, but allow Mr. Lauer the opportunity to negotiate with Mr. Hauser? Hanson said that was the intent of his motion and added that tabling the matter "put Mr. Hauser in the driver seat". Gaffron suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for denial which would allow Mr. Lauer to proceed to Council. Chairman Kelley withdrew his motion. Mr. Lauer asked whether the requirements of addressing the drainage problem would still exist if he agreed to Mr. Hauser's proposal? Kelley replied that runoff from his lot could not be increased. Mr. Greig asked whether the failed motion included extending the berm into the Golf Course? Kelley replied that the motion included the City Engineer's recommendations. No further motions were forthcoming. #1391 TERRY SADLER 1396 BALDUR PARK ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT CmiTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:52 P.M. TO 8:57 P.N. Mr. .jaJler was px'esent for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commissiv.n that Mr. Sadler was proposing to build a retaining wall along the east side of his property. The retaining wall would be located 40' from the shoreline. The City Engineer requested that the wall be cut back. Chairman Kelley opined that Mr. Sadler's proposal was in excess of what was necessary. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sadler why he preferred to build the wall longer than the City Engineer recommended? Mr. Sailer explained that his proposal would provide more flat surface for his yard and would better direcc water away from his neighbor's property. Gaffron said that the City Engineer's proposal minimized the amount of fill in the 0-75' zone and would be less precedent-setting. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seco:,ded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval uf this application based upon the City Engineer's recommendations. The hardship for NIHOTBS OF THE PLANlilllG COMMISSION TING MAT 15, 1989 ZONITC PILE 11391-SADLER COMTItWED the application is the slope of the property within 0-75' of the lake. Mr. Sadler explained that there would be an area that would sweep out and asked whether he could fill it in? Kelley replied that the "ity Engineer's recommendation were to be followed. Kelley suggested to Mr. Sadler that he ask his neighbor to attend the Council meeting to express his concerns regarding drainage onto his property. Motion, Ayeb=6, Nays“0, Motion passed. *1399 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF MCCOLLET FARM DEBORAH DRIVE VARJJ^VCB PUBLIC HEARING 8:57 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Several members of the McCulley Farm Homeowners* Association were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed this application saying that the request was for a cul-de-sac length variance. The proposal is for a 1,600* cul-de-sac where the maximum allowed is 1,000 ft. Mabusth said that McCulley Road was platted and is on record showing the cul-de-sac. The City asked that a future loop extension to McCulley Road be provided, but during the final plat phase of the subdivialon application the developer opted to go with a through road and the cul-de-sac was never constructed. Eight of the 9 homeowners are requesting the cul— dj-sac in order to eliminate the road from being used as a by­ pass. The residents would like to blacktop th<i road but fear by doing so traffic speeds would Increase. Mr. Michael Pierce, 480 Deborah Drive, objects to the cul- de-sac. He said that he had bought his property 7 years ago and that the through road existed at that time. He preferred to exit from the end of the road being proposed for cul—de—sac. He believed that allowing the only access to be onto County Road 6 to be a safety hazard. A representative of the residents favoring the cul-de-sac said that there would be no change in response time for the Maple Plain Fire Department. The Orono Police indicated that the cul- de-sac would only slightly increase response time. He said that Lt. Cheswick has confirmed that Deborah Drive is being used as a cut-off. He said that 7 of the 9 homes have children ranging in age from 1 to 15 who use the road for bicycles, etc. Kelley asked whether the 3 residents in favor had so indicated in writing? The Representative answered negatively. Kelley suggested that the residents go through the Homeowners' Association prior to seeking approval from the City. He said that the Homeowners' Association vote would carry weight when the application was being considered by the Planning Commission and Council. NIMUTBS OP THE PIAUNING CCMMISSKEI MBBTIMG NAY 15, 1989 •J :•< •8«HiIH6 PILF «i399-NCCIILLBT PARM ROMBOUNBRS* ASSOC. CONTIH1 It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconJed by Planning Commissioner Moos, to table this item until such time that the Homeowners' Association comes back before the Planning Commission with a vote. tl400 CHARLES & SANDRA LARSON 4285 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9t02 P.M. TO 9:10 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Larson were present for this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Larsons were seeking an area variance for an accessory structure 2,225 s.f. Mabusth corrected the lot size to be between 5 to 6 acres. This would allow for a structure 2,200 s.f. in size, based upon the current code amendment. Chairman Kelley said that this matter should be tabled until the City Council made a determination regarding adoption of the Accessory Structure Ordinf ::e Amendment. Mabusth noted that the Amendment would be brought before the Council at their May 22nd meeting. Kelley questioned whether the applicant had been in^^'rmed of the Ordinance Amendment. Mabuoth indicated that her memo, a copy of which was sent to the applicants, contained that information. Mrs. Larson said that she was not aware of the what the Amendment entailed. She asked how the Amendment would affect their application? Mabusth replied that if approved, the Larsons would not need a variance. Mrs. Larson questioned whether a moratorium had in fact been placed on accessory structures, and if so, did it pertain to ac^'essory structures in general or just oversized structures? Mabusth replied that it pertained to accessory structures in general and that she did not know if the City legally had a moratorium until the Council passed an ordinance. Iley Interjected that if the Larsons forced the issue and req sted the Planning Commission to act on their application, he 3uld deny it. He asked Mrs. Larson if she preferred to ha . the Planning Commission table the application or vote to re« mmend approval or denial. Mrs. Larson replied that they could table the application. There were no comroentr 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 application #1400. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays^O, Motion passed. M18UTBS or THB PLM1MIM6 COlMISSl(»l NEBTillG NAY 15 r 1989 #1402 JOHN l.raNBTBR 320 CRBSTVIBM AVKHUB VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 9tl5 P.M. TO 9i20 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Lehneyer was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Lehmeyers previously had a deck located as currently proposed. The City required the Lehmeyers to remove the deck some years ago when a pool was built next to it» to avoid any potential safety problems and meet the 10* setback requirement. The applicant has since removed the pool and would now like to replace the deck. In order to re-build the deck* the applicant will require a 22' rear setback variance in addition to a 8tructure-to-structure variance. Chairman Kelley questioned how far the garage was from the lot line. Gaffron replied that it was 15' to 20' from the lot line. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that her only concern with this request pertained to fire safety. Gaffron suggested that providing a firewall in the garage could be a condition of approval. Bellows questioned whether there was a way to locate the stairs so they would meet the 10' setback? Gaf fron Veplied that was not possible because there was only a 12' separation between the corner of the house and the garage. 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 the rear setback variance, conditioned upon a firewall being constructed in the garage and that the portion of the deck within 10' of the garage remain open above and below the deck platform. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays**0, Motion passed. #1403 RICHARD ANDERSON, 3205 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TIMOTHY SCHUPP, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, C.W. NOLPB, 3255 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, LEROY BRGER, 3265 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CCWDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. TO 7:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted (Planning Commissioner Bellows arrived at this time). Mr. Timothy Schupp and Ms. Jean Wolfe were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reported that the City Engineer had approved Schupp's proposal, and was recommending that both HIHOTBS OF THE PIAHHIHG CCMOaSSION HBBTIllG HAT 15» 1989 l|><lS(WIBG PILE tl403-CBT8TAL BAT ROAD COBTIN1 the Erger and Wolfe properties be limited to 3* of exposed wall. He requested that the Wolfe's construct their access stairway to resemble Erger's. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicants had received the City Engineer's recommendations? Mabusth advised that the staff recommendations never were sent to the applicatns prior to this meeting. The City Engineer wanted to proceed with the restoration of Crystal Bay Road and then have the property owners submit more finite plans. Restoration of the private property cannot begin until the City completes the restoration of the roadway. Kelley asked why this application was being brought before the Planning Commission at this time? Mabusth replied that the City Engineer was providing the Planning Commission with the opportunity to see how the restoration would occur. She said that the City Engineer had conceptually approved the proposals and felt there was no need to delay the application. Mrs. Wolfe said that she did not have any objections to the City Engineer's recommendations^ but wanted the opportunity to discuss the length of the stairs. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Variance requested for application #1403. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned whether at this time it was feasible or realistic to establish a 3' limitation, but rather to wait until wall is installed and final restoration of private property commences. These applicants should be provided with the same consideration used for other storm damaged properties. Motion, Ayes«=6, Hays*»0, Motion passed. tl404 JOBE MIKLETBUH 4 HAROLD HADG 1385 CBERRT PLACE VARIAHCES PUBLIC HEARIH6 9:20 P.M. TO 9:23 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this was a request for a lot area variance. The property is approximately half an acre and is located in the one acre zoning district. Municipal sewer is available and at one time there was a house on the property but it was removed a few years ago. There is an existing well that will be used once the new residence is constructed. Adjacent to the well is a well pit that must be filled. The applicant is proposing to construct a fairly large home with a driveway off of Cherry Place. Hardcover will only be 16% where 30% is allowed. This is a corner lot requiring 35' setbacks from Cherry Place and Spruce Place, and 10' setbacks from the west and north lot lines. The proposed house meets all these setbacks. MIHUTBS OP TBB PIAMMIIIG COMMISSIOH NBBTIIIG NAY 15, 1989 IIHISOHIHG FILE 91404-M1KLBTBUH/HAII6 COBTI1H Chairman Kelley questioned whether the lot area was consistent for the neighborhood. Caffron repliedthat it was. 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 lot area variance, per staff recommendation. The hardship In this application Is that the sewer was previously assessed and a house previously existed on this property, and that the lot area is consistent with neighboring properties. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays“0, Motion passed. fl408 SMITH BAY NARIMA 1955 SHORSLIMB DKIVB REMBMAL VABIAMCBS PUBLIC HBARIHG 9:25 P.M. TO 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Toberman was present for this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed all of the variances required even though the applicant's proposal involved a less intense use of the property. The lakeshore setback for the existing principal structure is currently 9' and the applicant is proposing 50'. The lakeshore setback for a deck structure connecting to an existing dock is proposed at O' and thr current dock is O'. A side setback to the residential used property Is currently 14* and the proposed structure is at 40'. The street setback for the principal structure will not require a variance. There will be a decrease in hardcover in the 0-75 setback area from 73.6% to 63.4%. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will not change. A 1.3 acre lot area variance will be required, as will a 20' setback variance for parking from street lot line. The parking requirement is 6 stalls per 10 slips. The applicant's proposal for 79 slips requires 48 parking stalls, the request is for 42. Chairman Kelley asked whether the LMCD had approved the request for 79 slips. Mabusth replied that Smith Bey Marina had been approved for 79 slips last year and that number had not changed with this year's application. Kelley noted that if the applicant was required to have 48 parking stalls, the hardcover percentages would increase. Mabusth commented that this Marina was allowed to use the Municipal parking lot for overflow parking. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the applicant was also seeking approval of a 32' setback variance from lakeshore for an accessory structure. This variance would apply to the proposed fence along Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley asked about the applicant's proposal tor MiaUTBS OF THE PLMOIlllG COMMISSION MBBTIBG MAY 15, 1989 • JSOHING PILE «1408-SMITH BAY MARINA CONTIN1 signage and landscaping. Mabusth replied that the proposal was included in the Planning Commission packets. She added that there would be no plantings in the 10' buffer area due to sight distance problems it may create. She suggested that the applicant provide an updated plan showing the exact location of the seawall and the proposed landscaping. Chairman Kelley Inquired as to the curb cuts off of County Road 15. Mabusth said that only two would remain and added that the entire parking area would be blacktopped. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed her desire to see an updated site plan. The applicant replied that they would work with the City to achieve satisfactory landscaping results. He further stated that he would prefer to keep any plantings from the edge of Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley questioned whether allowing parking in the municipal lot would not create a pedestrian safety problem. Mr. Toberman replied that there should not be any overflow from the main parking lot. Council Representative Callahan, suggested that the aspect of municipal parking should not in any way be tied into this application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that she was in favor of the improvements proposed for this property. She was concerned about the status of site plan. Mabusth replied that a planting schedule would be tied into the landscaping plan. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval as followss 1. Approval of the lakeshore setback variance of 25'> 2. approval of the deck structure connection to existing dock variance of 75'; 3. approval of the principal structure side setback to a residential use variance of 10'; 4. approval of the hardcover reduction within 0-75' setback area to 63.4% and no change in the 75-250' setback area; 5. approval of a lot area variance of 1.3 acres; 6. approval of side setback variance for parking from street lot line of 20'; 7. approval of a parking stall variance of 6 stalls; and 8. approval of setback variance from lakeshore for KEHUTBS OF THE PIAMRIHG COMMISSION TING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING PILE #1408-SMITB BAT MARINA CONTINUED accessory structure of 32*. Approval is conditioned upon a planting schedule with specific planting identification being presented to the City Council. Mabusth asked the applicant about the existence of an underground gas tank and asked the applicant to provide the City with such information. Kelley added that provision to hl« motion. Bellows seconded. Kelley added that the City should be very strict when dealing with gas tanks being placed near the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes^S, Nays»0, Cohen abstained. Motion passed. 11409 JANN 4 RENEE OLSTEN 3090 PARVIEN LANE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.N. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was the applicant's contractor, Mr. Brian Butterfield. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the land alteration conditional use permit was required because the work is being done after the issuance of the building permit. Mabusth asked the contractor whether the excavated dirt would be distributed and seeded? Mr. Butterfield replied that there would be approximately 200 yards that would be distributed on site and seeded. Mabusth asked how many yards of fill would be required to achieve the 4" to 6" indicc.ced on the landscaping plan? Mr. Butterfield said approximately 200 cubic yards would be used to grade on the north side of the driveway and around the septic system. Mabusth reminded Mr. Butterfield to use special car'* with filling in drainfield area. Gaffrcn noted that he had advised owners to fill around the drainfield. Mr. Butterfield said that he had tracks on his bob cat. 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 Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes*=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1410 JULIE PRINEAS 1980 HERITAGE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:47 P.M. TO 10:10 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Prineas were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MIMUTBS OF THE PIAIlHIIiG COMMISSICm TING NAY 15* 1989 I)ZOHIMG PILE «1410-PEIIIEES COMTIMl explained that the applicants were seeking a lot width variance. The standard for the LR-IA, 2 acre zoning district is 200' and the defined width of this lot at the 50' setback from County load 15 is only 30'. The applicants will require a 170' variance. Gaffron said that the applicants were required to provide septic testing to show where the house and drainfield sites will be. The site evaluator initially proposed to place two drainfield sites west of the house where the lot has the roost width. However, during the testing, it was determined that there would be room for only one system at that site and additional testing would be needed to find a suitable second alternate site. Gaffron said that the building envelope would be very limited when taking the drainfield sites and setbacks into consideration. Staff is recommending that the building limitations be eased by having a minor subdivision done to add a triangle of the applicants' adjacent property. The lot line rearrangement would increase the building envelope by 80%. The applicants' lot containing their residence has a separate tax identification number and is in excess of 2 acres. The lot line rearrangement would not create any substandard setbacks for the existing principal structure. Chairman Kelley questioned whether this lot had riparian rights? Gaffron replied that the applicants would give up their riparian access to the existing house. Chairman Kelley asked the Prineases if they would object to including the triange of the property with the new lot? Mr. Keith Nelson, Mr. and Mrs. Prineas' Attorney, said that Mr. and Mrs. Prineas pre.erred to proceed with the lot width variance as proposed. He said that the parcel has always existed as is. Secondly, the Prineas's homestead parcel is a bit over 3 acres and any new owner would not require a variance to board a horse. Mr. Nelson said that placing a house further back on the new lot would detract from the existing views of any adjacent property. Kelley said that the Planning Commission was only trying to provide the applicants with an option that would create a sufficient building envelope. He said that the City would not likely approve a variance for constructing a residence on the new lot. Gaffron noted that the designated wetland would take away from the lot area for most zoning purposes and would possibly take away from the zoning requirement for horses. Assistant Planning md Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the access for this lot is proposed off of County Road 15. The applicants have received approval from Hennepin County for this access. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stierna, of 1930 Shoreline Drive, indicated that they were concerned about the access. He said that he had a proposed agreement from the previous owners of the applicants' property. The agreement would extinguish an easement that exists along the back 20' of the lot. Mr. Stierna said that the easement extended from the railrod to Arbor Street and runs maUTBS OF THE PlAimilK: comkissior ITIHG MAT 15» 1989 II HI80HIHG PILE il410-PRIilBAS COMTIH1 across their property as well. Ms. Carol Laquey, the applicants' real estate agent, provided a brief history regarding the easement. She said that once Heritage Drive was put through, there was no longer a need for the easement. She said that the applicants' parcel was designed to access off of County Road 15. She said that if the easement were used, the access wo»’ld be over 450* in length. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she would prefer to see the access occur somevhere other than County Road 15. Ms. Laquey asked if the City would be willing to maintain Railroad Avenue. Bellows replied that this would be no different than any other subdivision and that an outlot designation would be required. Kelley pointed out that the applicants were not subdividing. Bellows commented that in any event, accessing off of County Road 15 was a bad idea. Gaffron said that accessing in another location may interfere with the septic sites. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned whether it would be possible to share a driveway with the Stearns? The Stiernas indicated that they would be in favor of such a proposal. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application provided that there be no additional access off of County Road 15. Mr. Nelson disagreed with such a proposal saying that it made the application contingent upon the neighbors' approval. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Hanson abstained. (Planning Commissioner Hanson departed at this time). KBVIBIf OP REVISED WORDIIIG - Z(»IIIiG CODE AMENDMEMTS Planning Commissioner Cohen questioned the wording of sections of these amendments for the sake of clarity. In Section 1(c)(2), the heading should be revised to read "Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following- table:" (Flannina Commissioner Bellows departed at this time.) Section 1(c)(3)(c) should clarify that the covenants and agreement be "in writing". Also, sentence structure with no change in meaning was changed in Section l(c)(3)(c)i and ill. Section 1(c)(4) was revised to refer to any required yard as defined for each zoning district, to clarify the intent and meaning. Section 2 was revised by changing the sentence structure and adding the words "total area", "combined footprint", and "all principal and accessory structures", to clarify the intents and meanings of these phrases. It was moved by Chairma,. ..'elley, seconded by Planning MiaUTBS OF THE PIAHMlIiG COMMISSIOH MBETIHG MAY 15» 1989 SOBIHG AHBHDIfBHT RBVISlOliS COHTINUED Conunlssloner Cohen, to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendments as corrected. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays*»0, Motion passed. PLAimillG COMMISSIOH APPROVAL OP APRIL 17, 1989 MIHDTBS It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 1989. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays»0, Motion passed. PLANHIHG COMMISSIOH RBPRBSBBTATIVB It was agreed that Planning Commission member, Sarah Moos, would represent the Planning Commission at the June 12, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJODRHMEHT The May 15, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.