Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1989 Planning MinutesMIMUTBS OP THB PLM1NI116 COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.H. The Orono Planning Conunlssion met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chairperson Bellows; Planning Commissioners Johnson, Cohen, and Hanson. Planning Commissioner Brown arrived at 7:10 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Building Official Jacobs and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan also attended. #1411 SUSSEX SQUARB DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark Gronberg, surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Jann Olsten-3090 Farview Lane explained that he was present fn the capacity of a spokesperson for the Farvlew Homeowners Association. He said that the concerns of the homeowner's association were simil’^r to those of the City staff. One of the three concerns is the ingress/egress and Outlot C bei ig designated as the primary access and the resulting increase in traffic. Mr. Olsten said that Outlot C would provide a shortcut to Old Crystal Bay Road via Farview Lane. The Homeowners Association suggested that the access be located across from the church on Leaf Street. Another issue would be the environmental impact and drainage due to portions of the land being wetlands. The last concern is the density of the development. Many of the proposed lots barely meet the 2-acre minimum. He said that there is quite a bit of low land and wetlands and that the dry conditions over the last summer may provide an inaccurate indication as to what is actually wetland. The Homeowner's Association wanted assurances that the density would not affecc the sewer systems. Mr. Phi1 Byers-3083 Farview Lane had a sketch showing the area that would be affected by runoff from the highest elevation in the northern section of the subdivision. Mr_j_ Joe Chadwick-3060 Fox Street said that the low area shown to the north of his house is only 1/3 to 1/2 half the size it should be. He said that if the area was not in this present dry condition, it would not be possible to obtain a 2 acre parcel in that area. Mr. Chadwick was also concerned about lots 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 not meeting the required 200' width. He questioned whether the applicant would be requesting variances for those lots. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant would address that concern in his presentation, but at this time, lot width variances were not being requested. Mr. 1 MimiTBS OF THB PIAHHIHG COMMISSIOH ITING JUNE 19r 1989 ZCMIIHG FILE «1411-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chadwick quoted sections of Chapter 11 of the Zoning Code pertaining to lot width variances. Mr. Chadwick also objected to the proposed primary access being opposite Farview Lane access. He proposed moving the access eastward 150*. He did not agree with a cul-de-sac configuration due to the need to allow emergency vehicle access. Mr. Chadwick further noted that Out lot B was located in a low area and questioned whether there would be need to fill in that area should a road be constructed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that filling may be necessary but that specific low area was not a designated wetland. Mr. Gronberg advised that Outlot B had the highest elevations in the subdivision. Mr. Arnold Robbins-3211 Bayside Road expressed his safety concerns regarding the intersections at Fox Street and Bayside Road and Leaf Street. He suggested that a stop sign be placed at that intersection. He also wanted measures taken to preserve as much wildlife habitat as possible. Mr. David Maass-3175 Fox Street said that he was concerned about drainage. He referred to the pond located in the southwest corner of the subdivision. He said that a large part of the runoff from the property enters that pond and the overflow runs under Fox Stre: . and into a holding well between his property and Mr. Dixon's. From there, runoff proceeds to a culvert that extends half way down his driveway and empties into a ditch alongside his driveway. He said that the added density would Increase the amount of lawn fertilizers draining directly into Maxwell Bay. He questioned whether tne watershed engineer had reviewed this proposal and if so, what Ms recommendations were. Mr. George Dixon-3250 Fox Street indicated that he wished to see a strict interpretation of the 200' width requirement upheld. He also wanted the City to take a Conservation easement across the low areas. Mr. Jim Fullerton-3350 Fox Street Concurred with previous concerns indicated regarding the need to have more than one access point. Ms. Cherry Stubbs-2920 Fox Street echoed Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Greg Lawton-425 Ol^d Crysta 1 Bay Road said that the increased drainage would run through his property. He said that Outlot A heads toward a pond area. Mabusth confirmed that. Mr. Lawton said that would pose a problem for any future road. He also mentioned a discrepancy between the survey done of his property and the survey of this property, along the northeast corner. Ms. Shirley Laue-594 Park Lane contradicted staff's observations regarding drainage coming from the wetlands just protective measures were being taken to preserve trees and how tree removal would affect drainage. Ms. Lucy Tavlor-3075 Farview had a correction to the indicated drainage pattern. She said that runoff crossed Fox Street, ran under Farviev Lane and ran behind her house. She said there was a culvert that crosses Fox Street and another that went under Farview, 3 culverts under driveways and an open creek behind her house. She invited staff to observe this at their convenience. She too stated that the wetlands were not in their normal state. Mr. Gronberg informed the residents that he had met with Hennepin County officials regarding the road access. They preferred to have the access across from Farview Lane. If it was moved to the east, it would have to be offset 150' and sight distance would be a problem. He said that the County preferred only one access to keep County Road access to a minimum. With regard to the wetlands, Gronberg said that they did not use the City wetlands map, but took elevations in the field to determine the wetlands. They are showing an additional wetland that is not evident on the wetland map. He said that they preferred not to have Outlet A, but the City Engineer had recommended its designation. He said that it was a wetland by nature of the soils in the area. Mr. Gronberg said in regard to the 200' frontage width, when a road curves such as this the only way to meet the required footage is to put in cul-de-sac. However due to these lots being very deep and the building sit s being placed back, the 200' requirement would be met. Mr. Gronberg said that the subdivision plan would be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Any excess water that would result from this subdivision would be stored. Additionally, baffles would be used to control the water quality and quantity of runoff to its present level. Ms. Stubbs said that Out lot A was shown to encroach upon her property. She said she had no Interest in selling it at this time. Acting Chairperson Bellows informed Ms. Stubbs of the purpose and requirement for the outlot designation. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked about the soil testing in the area. Mr. Gronberg replied that the soil borings were being done, along with percolation testing and no problems have been indiated at this point. Bellows noted that this was a preliminary subdivision and before final plat approval would be granted, the soil tests must prove positive. Shd further noted that the soil testing would be helpfu!,. in confirming the location of the wetland. Planning Commissioner Cohen had a difficult time seeing how 18 lots would fit into this area. He wanted to see two accesses if there are more than 8 lots. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he did not like maOTBS OP THB PLMmiVG COHMISSIOH !TI1iG JUNE 19, 1989 ZOHIH6 PILE «1411-SUSSBX SQUARB DBVBLOPMBBT COBTINOBD Planning Conunissioner Cohen had a difficult time seeing how 18 lots would fit into this area. He wanted to see two accesses if there are more than 8 lots. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he did not like granting variances for new subdivisions, in this case for the 200* lot width requirement. Planning Commissioner Johnson thought that the proposed access location was the best. He wanted the applicants to pay particular attention to drainage, grading, the road and wetlands when they come back for preliminary plat approval. Acting Chairperson Bellows said that the cul-de-sac was inappropriate, and compared this subdivision with that of Mr. Rebers. She preferred to see a through road. She also expressed concern about the conflicting drainage information. She wanted to see soil testing extend beyond just septic system concerns, to help deline buildability of the lot in general. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes^^S, Nays*°0, Motion passed. 11412 MARY L. PBTBRSBB 384 NCCDLLBT ROAD PRBLIMlllARY SUBDIVISIOM CLASS III PUBLIC HEARING 7t55 P.M. - 8:25 P.N. Ms. Mary L. Petersen was present for this matter, as was Mark Gronberg, the applicant's surveyor. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Jerome O'Brien, 380 Turnham Road objected to the future road being proposed to access 'onto Turnham Road. Ms. Desy1 Peterson, 4385 Chippewa Lane was concerned about the City's dedication of an outlot which encroached her property. She questioned the City's legal authority to do that. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to Ms. Peterson that it was the City's responsibility to plan and provide for future access to properties that may otherwise become landlocked. Ms. Peterson questioned whether the City was basing their authority on State Statutes that allow a city to dedicate a "reasonable portion" of private property that is needed as a result of a subdivision. Acting Chairperson Bellows reiterated Mabusth's explanation and added that the higher densities Orono experiences, the more need there is for through roads. Mabusth said that 33' was a recommendation from the City Engineer. Bellows recommended that Ms. Peterson meet with Zoning Administrator Mabusth to further MIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING PILE #1412-PETERSEN CONTINUED discuss this issue. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reminded the applicant of her opportunity to purchase adjacent land now owned by the City. She noted however, that there would be a delay in final approval of the subdivision if the applicant chose to obtain the additional land. Mary Petersen said that she preferred to proceed with the subdivision as proposed and obtain the adjacent land at a later time. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that his only concern regarding the subdivision was accessing Lot 3. He agreed with the City Engineer's recommendation to realign Outlot A to entrance McCulley Road at a right angle. Planning Commissioner Hanson Questioned whether the applicant understood the City's reasons for what the City Engineer is recommending for Lot 3. Hanson further said that with the exception of providing access to Lot 3, he had no other objections to the subdivision proposal. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. tl413 DANIEL HOPPMAB 1135 t 1155 HERITAGE LANE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III AND VACATION OP UTILITY EASEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:31 P.M. The applicant was present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. ^ There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this application per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes*=5, Navs=0, Motion passed. #1420 KEVIN RAY NORWOOD 1360 VINE PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS II PUBLIC HEARING 8:32 P.M. - 8:36 P.M. Mr. Earl Norwood was present for this application. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. ^ Mr. Norwood said that he preferred to have this matter tabled until such time that his son could be present. MimiTBS OP TBB PLMmillG COMMISSION MBBTIH6 JUNE 19, 1989 M a- ZONING FILE tl420-NOnNO(N> CONTINUED Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the Norwoods were proposing to subdivide 1.58 acres into two lots containing .62 and .96 acres where one acre is required. Acting Chairperson Bellows suggested that the Planning Commission provide Mr. Norwood with a preview as to how they would vote on this application. The Planning Commission as a whole indicated they were not in favor of creating such substandard lots. Mr. Norwood said that due to the fact that he was assessed for two sewer unite for this property that he should be allowed to subdivide. Bellows advised Mr. Norwood that the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction over sewer billing or assessment. 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 table this matter. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays-^O, Motion passed. (see "Miscellaneous” heading at end of these minutes). «1421 DAVID KIKELAND 625 SPRING HILL ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS II PUBLIC BEARING 8:50 P.M. - 8:53 P.M. The applicant was present for this public hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Kirkland provided a brief explanation of his proposal. He is planning to subdivide the parcel and reside in the existing house on Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be developed residentially and sold. Mr. Kirkland Indicated that he had no objections or questions regarding staff's recommendations. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised that there was an existing 16.5* wide public cartway. The City would require that an additional 8.5' be dedicated to provide for a 25' access to the properties to the south and east. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application per staff recommendations including the dedication of an additional 8.5' in addition to the 16.5' now dedicated as a public cartway. Motiony Ayes®4, Nays«0, Hanson Abstained due to having a potential interest in this property. Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COHMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 «1289 ROBERT t ANN WILL 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD C(HITINUATI(HI OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:37 P.N. - 8:50 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Will were present for this application. Mr. Will called attention to the letter he had recently sent to the City explaining that his access di lemira is due to an inability to obtain access rights from Mr. Wear. Mr. Wear is willing to sell the access rights to Mr. Will for $20,000 per lot. Mr. Will believes this amount is excessive and is asking the City for help. Mr. Will also believes that the City continues to lose tax revenues each year his land remains undeveloped. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked for a brief synopsis of the key issues. Mr. Will said that in his opinion the key issue was legal, safe access to those northern lots. Mr. Will recollected that at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the City said that access to these northern lots come from an extension of Wear Lane North. Bellows stated that the Planning Commission had no control over the sale or price of Mr. Wear's land. Planning Commissioner Johnson agreed with the applicant in that Mr. Wear was prohibiting the development of Mr. Will's property. He suggested that the City Attorney's opinion be sought in that regard. Acting Chairperson Bellows observed that the applicants had not brought forth any more information than they had presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, this application was tabled to allow the applicants an opportunity to come back with a plan showing a cul-de-sac from the outlot and a 50' easement location for a temporary/permanent driveway access. Bellows said that the applicants had not complied with that request. Acting Chairperson Bellows asked the applicant whether he would like this matter tabled once again to allow him an opportunity to achieve access as requested by the City. The appicant indicated that he would prefer that the Planning Commission vote on this matter. 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 Hanson, to recommend denial of this application due to the applicant's inability to achieve safe, legal access to the northern lots. Motion, Ayes-4, Johnson, Nay Motion passed. iumns of ns PLMniiiiG commissioh iTIMG JDHB 19, 19S9 #1316 GMtT BAM 3034 CA800 POINT KOBO VBR1BKCB-RBVI8BD PROPOSAL Mr. Barr was present for this natter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron explained that the applicant had revised his plan since his last appearance before the Planning Conmisslon. Mr. Barr was now proposing to locate the garage to a site that would be level with the existing detached garage. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the garage so that it will not exceed 1,000 s.f. and will have no defined floor area above it. Mr. Barr is proposing to remove significant areas of existing hardcover so that hardcover in the 75-250* zone will be 24.51%. Acting Chairperson Bellows referenced a letter that had been received by Mr. Barr's neighbor, Ian Booth. Mr. Booth was objecting to Mr. Barr's proposal due to the fact that Mr. Barr currently has someone living above an existing garage on his property. Planning Commission agreed with staff that this issue of a guest house conditional use permit be a separate issue from the requested variance approval for the garage. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Barr what his hardship for the additional garage was. Mr. Barr replied that the additional garage was needed to store the classic cars he collected. He explained that he currently had them stored in other locations and that it would be easier to work on the cars if they were stored on his property. With respect to the location of the garage, there was no other location that would minimize tree removal and hardcover to the extent that the current proposal would. Acting Chairperson Bellows questioned whether it would be possible to move the garage further into the hill. Barr noted that this would require t.:ae removal and excavation. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1405 THOMAS COLHBLL 2640 HORTB SHORE DRIVE FRBLIMIHART S0BDIVI8I0H CLASS III OOHTIHUATKHI OP PUBLIC BBARIHG 9:17 P.M. - 9:25 P.N. Mr. Ted Kemna of Schoell & Nadson, was present on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a driveway plan and had chosen Option A. This would define the driveway easement and area to the west as Outlot A. The future owner of Lot 3 will retain ownership of Outlot A. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter 8 nmins of ns plmdiifg cohmissioh mbbtiiig juni 19« i$il SOaiK FIUB •1405-OOUIBLL COWIBOBU and the public hearing was closed. It was noved by Planning Comnissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Comiissioner Cohen, to reconnend approval of application #1405, per staff reconmendations 1 through 5. Motion. Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1414 TBIPLB ISKABL 645 TOnAMA ROAD OOMDinOHAL USB PBRMIT PUBLIC BBABIB6 9t26 P.M. TO 9t35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Janes Cohn was present as a representative for Temple Israel/Camp Teko. Building Official Jacobs informed the Planning Commission that the present use of Camp Teko will not change. The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-use facility that would consist of conference rooms and dormitory areas to serve the existing camp use. In total, 6 modules will be constructed, 3 now and 3 at a later time. The applicant has agreed to meet the required number of parking stalls (11), though their Initial plan allowed for only 10. When the other 3 modules are completed, applicant agrees to provide one additional parking stall. The City Engineer has reviewed the access point and has recommended that the entrance centerline be moved 10' southeast so that it would be at a right angle. Mr. Darel Leipold, 678 Tonkawa Road, was very impressed with the camp and was pleased with the proposal being presented this evening. There was discussion between applicant and Jacobs regarding parking along the proposed firelane. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows to table this matter until the pending^issues of access and parking are better planned and documented. Mr. Cohn indicated that he would prefer to proceed on to Council with this matter. Jacobs indicated that he was comfortable with the documentation he presently had and did not feel it was necessary to table this application. (There being no second to this motion, it failed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, subject to staff recommendations and conditioned upon the applicant having the required information and exhibits submitted prior to the July 10, 1989 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes«4, Bellows, May, due to the lack of documentation for the commercial site plan review. Motion MIMmS OF TBB PLAmiMS C0MNI88I0V NBIFIIIG JURE 19, 1989 n tOHIRG PIU fl414-CMIP TBKO CCMTIRI passed. #1415 SOBBRT 4 CBBSTL BOMPHKBT 669 Ml—ETOlIRA BX6IILJUn> LMB VlUtlMiCB8 PUBLIC HBMtlliG 9»37 P.M. - 9*55 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Husiphrey were present for this public hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailino were duly noted. ^ Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the applicants' proposal. The applicant is proposlnq to increase hardcover in the 75-250* sone to 42.2%. Existinq hardcover in the 75-250* zone is 37.1% which includes the existing driveway, rock and plastic areas. The applicant has indicated that some of the rock has no plastic underlining and some of the plastic that does exist is deteriorating. The applicants wish to replace their existing deck at this time, and add a pool at a later date. The applicants are aware of the fact that should they not add the pool within one year from the renewal*^ of this application, they will need to seek a The applicants also require an average lakeshore variance. Mr. Humphrey apprised Gaffron earlier of an error in a survey of the house on an adjacent lot. Mr. Humphrey contends that the house was actually placed closer to the lake than the file survey shows. This would move the average lakeshore setback so that the Humphreys pool would only encroach 10* rather than 30* into the lakeshore setback area. Gaffron said that there have been no adverse comments from neighboring property owners regarding this application. Acting Chairperson Bellows said that normally an inground pool 18 not considered to be a significant average lakeshore encroachment because it does not impede sight lines. Mr. Humphrey said that it was important to have the pool area at a later time because they have young children. The deck they are proposing to construct at this time is 370 s.f. Mr. Humphrey said that there is a large open field that collects and distributes most of the runoff so that it is not directed toward the Mr. Humphrey said that when the pool is constructed, they will not construct the stairway or landscaping now shown in their plans. He said that the pool would be located approximately 5* closer to the house than indicated on the plans. Acting Chairperson Bellows asked Mr. Humphrey what exactly he wanted the Planning Commission to approve. She said that he had indicated that the pool plans as presented were not what he intended to do. Bellows said that she could not recommend circumstance. Bellows observed that the applicants driveway and turn-around area were quite NiaUTBS OF TBB PXJUnilFG COMUSSIOH MEBTlilS JUIRt 19* 1989 " t SOBISG FILE fl415~HI]IIPIIIIBT OOniMUSD lar^e and 8U99ested ^ha^ ^hey be reduced to allow hardcover in the 75-2S0* zone to revaln unchanged. It was moved by Planning Commisaioner Hanson# seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown# to recommend approval of the hardcover and average lakeshore setback variance to construct only the decks# subject to no net increase in hardcover. The hardship in this matter is the need for the applicants to replace an unsafe# deteriorating deck. There was discussion regarding the fact that the actual location of the neighboring house structure had not been determined. Planning Commissioner Hanson withdrew his motion due to the fact that the average lakeshore setback had not been documented in light of applicant's discovery regarding the location of the neighboring property. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson# seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback to construct a deck only with no net increase in hardcover. Gaffron noted that the hardcover percentage being approved# 37.It# would not include the future pool since the pool was not being approved at this time. Motion# Ayes*4# Bellows# Nay do to insufficient information. Notion passed. (Planning Commissioner Cohen departed at this time) •1416 JKFFRET BOCLBS 302S SIXTH AVBHOB NORTH VARIAHCB PUBLIC HBARIHG 9s55 P.N. - 10x00 P.N. Mr. Bccles was present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaf'Jron explained that Mr. Eccles was requesting a side setback va- xance to construct an attached 2 car garage. The applicant currently has an attached one car garage. Mr. Eccles indicated that his neighbor, Jim Swanson, had provided a letter stating that he had no objection to the proposed garage being 11.1* from his property line. Acting Chairperson Bellows asked the applicant to explain his hardship that requires him to have a garage 30* wide. Mr. Eccles replied th/'.t he had a boat, motorcycle and many other items that required storage. In addition# the existing garage leaks. Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that in his opinion, the applicant really had no hardship for requiring such a large garage. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he had a problem with the aspect of an attached garage as opposed to a detached MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING PILE «1416-ECCLES CONTINUED garage that could be placed so as to meet the setbacks. At this point the applicant indicated that he intended to vary the garage from what he was currently proposing. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to table this application to allow the applicant an opportunity to bring back the actual plan for construction of the garage. Motion, Ayes*3, Johnson, Nay, due to his preference to reach a compromise now with the applicant regarding size of the garage, and allow applicant to proceed. §1417 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITKWAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:05 P.N. - 10:50 P.N. Mr. David Fisher, Mr. Roger Hargreaves and Mr. Marlow Peterson, Representatives for Northern States Power, were present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct an electric power substation. The property contains 15 acres of which approximately 5+ acres are dry. A front/rear setback variance of 15' will be required. Mr. Fisher said that the substation was required in order to meet the growing demand for service in this area. He said that staff's recommendation to relocate the access drive, posed a problem. He said that the substation will require regular meter readings which would be done by a vehicle similar to a pick up truck. However, should there be a major problem, another vehicle would be brought in on a "low-boy" which will require a very shallow slope and maximum turning radius. Mabusth asked how often this situation may occur? Mr. Fisher said hopefully it would never happen, but should it happen, it would be necessary to access the substation : i order to restore power. Acting Chairperson Bellows questioned why the slope of the land would be so important when the service vehicle roust cross a railroad crossing in order to access the substation property. Mr. Roger Hargraeves said that the change in elevation would be difficult due to the curve in the driveway and the fact that the driveway would not have the same qualities as a highway. Bellows questioned whether the access could be straightened out. Mr. Fisher said that facing the substation as proposed would facilitate hook up to the existing lines. If the driveway were MIMITB8 or not ruMmw cowassioo tawms jmm if • ifSf soanc nu iifiT-asp curuuid straightened out the substation would face a different direction. Planning Connissioner Johnson questioned whether there would be a need for additional overhead lines? Mr. Pisher responded that the current single phase line extending along County Road 6 «rould need to be upgraded to three'^phase line. Zoning Adaiinistrator Mabusth asked Mr. Fisher to confirn the actual height of the pole. Mr. Pisher said that the pole would be 40* high with a lightening rod that would extend an additional 10'. Ms. lileen Basse 1-840 Hunt Farsi Road, questioned how the land ~Eelng use^ by H8P was soneiiTor this type of use in the ■idst of residential soning? Mabusth explained that BSP's use of this property was a perwitted use in this soning district with a conditional use pemit. Mr. Milliaa Fraser-830 Hunt Farsi Koau. said that the proposed stru^ure wouT?TSe~7^eye sore and wouTd heve a negative isipact on his property value. Acting Chairperson Bellows asked about the noise isipact? Mr. Bargraeves replied that a husi would b« audible# but that the screening would reduce the isipact on neighboring properties. Bellows asked what other properties MSP had looked at as alternatives to this particular site. Mr. Bargraeves replied that two sites near the Luce Line were considered. The site had to be one that currently had a heavy duty line and was in the area where service needed to be Increased. Ms. Basse1 asked why the Luce Line and Baker Park locations were not chosen? Mr. Bargraeves replied that the DNR would not allow the substation to be built along the Luce Line. He was uncertain as to why the Baker Park location was oaiitted. Mr. Stephen Pflauii Interjected that to the best of his knowledge Baker Park was government land and it would take nearly an act of Congress to allow the park Ifind to be divided. Mr. Fraser questioned whether there would be any possible contamination of Painters Creek Watershed District? The issue of PCB's was also discussed. Bellows asked why an environmental impact study had not been done for this substation? Mr. Fisher replied that such studies were only required for high voltage stations. Bellows directed staff to work with the concerned residents due to the fact that irreversible damage to the area could occur. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he too was concerned about the possibility of decreasing real estate values and the noise. Planning Commissioner Brown said that the noise of Highway 12 itself would be louder than the hum from the substation. MINUTES OP THE PLEHNIHG COMMISSIOM !TIN6 J1 19, 1989 ZONING PILE «1417-NSP CONTINUED Plannin9 Coininlssloner Johnson indicated that he had mixed feelings about this application in that the environment was a concern# but the proposed use was low intensity for this area. He asked how the Highway 101 substation compared to this one? Mr. Hargracves explained that the Highway 101 substation was larger. Brown suggested visiting the site to get a better understanding of the level of noise that would be generated. Mr. Fraser asked to be provided with data that would prove that the substation was needed. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows# seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson to table this application and allow the applicant time to work with staff to fully answer and document the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and the residents. Motion# Ayese4# Nays«0# Motion passed. #1418 ONONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH COHDITKMUO. USE PERMIT/COMIERCIAL SITE PLAN RBVIEH PUBLICS BEARING lOsSO P.M. - 10:52 P.M. Ms. Lucy Tayor# Mr. William Fenholdt and Mr. Paul Hagen were present as representatives of the School District. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Building Official Jacobs provided the Planning Commission with a brief synopsis of the School District's proposal to construct an addition connecting the Middle School with the Elementary School. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planiving Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner H^son# to recommend approval of a conditional use permit fo*school use. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays«0# Motion passed. #1419 J.K. BOWERS 2905 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:52 P.M. > 11:05 P.M. Mr. Bowers was present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed MIHIITBS OF TBB PLMnXllG COMMISSIOR MBBTIHG JOHB 19, 1989 I*):-*!Z0HIM6 PILB «1419-BOinDIS COHTH ^he Plannln9 Commission ^hat 'the applicant was requestina variances for hardcover, side setback and average lakeshore setback in order to construct an addition and decks. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area would increase to 34.2% from the existing 32.4%. Mr. Bowers noted that an existing patio and step had been removed and were not included in the hardcover calculations. Gaffron advised that the applicant had several alternatives for reducing hardcover. There is a stone patio near the garbage rack beside the garage and a stone walkway along the west side of the house. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he would hardcover percentages remain the same. Mr. Bowers explained that the walkway serve<.. as a drainage path that allows runoff to occur to the north rather than toward the neighboring property. If a major portion of the driveway were removed, it would make accessing the garage difficult. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he was satisfied with Mr. Bowers' proposal as is. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson to recommend approval of the hardcover, average lakeshore setback and side setback variances subject to removal of the front fireplace. The hardship being that the house is located in such a way that placing the addition in any other location is precluded. There was no second to this motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1419 provided that hardcover does not exceed 32.4%. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1422 DAVID BRSITHBR 2755 CASCO POINT HOAD VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING llslO P.M. - 11:40 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Breitner were present for this public hearing. % The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. ^ Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that there is an existing house on this property that was abandoned 15 years ago. The applicant is proposing to build the house closer to the lake, however there will be no need for an average lakeshore setback variance. This is due to the adjacent property owner,Mr. Putnam being granted an average lakeshore setback variance for a gazebo. The applicant is not proposing to have a back up apron. Gaffron had spoken to the Public Works Director who indicated that there is quite a bit of gravel area in front of the existing garage on the right-of-way which could serve as a back up apron if necessary. There is a retaining wall that is shown to extend 2' into the Peterson's MimiTBS OP THE PIAMlinK: CCMMMISSIOH NEBTI1IG JDHB 19, 1989 Z(NIIH6 PILE «1422-BREITHER COHTIIIUED property and drainage onto that property Is a concern due to its lower elevation. The City wants to make sure that drainage continues along and does not have any negative impact o.i this property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron asked the applicant what he intended to do with the higher portion of the lot? Mr. Preitner replied that they intended to take the knoll off of tha top of the hill which is approximately 1-1/2'. Gaffron asked about tree preservation. Mr. Breitner said that they were going to try and preserve the trees which was one of the reasons the attached garage was more preferable. Gaffron provided hardcover information for the existing house. In the 0-75' zone there is a boathouse and concrete sidewalk. The applicant wishes to save the boathouse and remove the concrete sidewalk. In the 75-250' zone, the existing is 25%. The applicant's proposal for the house, deck, and driveway would increase hardcover to 34.3%. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked whether the existing garage would be removed? The applicant responded that it would be removed. Planning Commlsslorer Johnson questioned whether the applicant had tried to keep hardcover wichin 25%? The applicant replied that they had looked at other alternatives, but felt that the present proposal was best. In order to maximize the views of the lake, the house had to be brought forward to the average lakeshore setback line. Due to the fact that a detached garage would have to meet a 30' setback from the road and the location of Putnam's garage, an attached garage would better fit the scheme of the property. Mr. Breitner further noted that hardcover would be approximately the same for a detached garage as they are proposing for an attached garage. Mr. Breitner said that the hardcover proposed is very close to what currently exists. Brown observed that the new driveway is proposed to be 1,000 s.f. The Planning Commission requested information pertaining to the hardcover percentages of the driveway, house and deck individually. Gaffron calculated that the deck was 350 s.f., the house was 2150 s.f. and the driveway would be 1080 s.f. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the hardcover, lot area and lot width variances under the following conditions: 1) The proposed hardcover envelope shall not exceed 34.26%. 2) Approval is contingent upon removal of the non- conforming, detached garage and sidewalk. - MimiTBS OF THE PlANMIliG O SSIOH ITI86 JUtr* 19, 1989 Z0H1H6 PILE «1422-BREITHER COMTIHOED 3) A grading plan must be submitted. The hardship in this application is this is an existing developed lot with no additional available land to increase the lot size. Planning Commissioner Brown asked what the total lot coverage was? Gaffron replied that it was 15.625%. Bellows said that she usually had difficulty approving these substandard conditions, but she felt that the applicant had tried his best to keep everything to a minimum. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays«0, Motion passed. *1423 EDWARD BROWH 355 STDBBS BAY ROAD HORTB VARIASCE PUBLIC BEARIM6 9:15 P.M. - 9:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. 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 a survey showing the location of the barn being submitted. After discussion, it was further recommended that no after-the-fact permit be required, hence no survey would be required. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays«0, Brown Abstained, Motion passed. MISCBLLAHBOD8 (SOHIMG FILE 11420) Acting Chairperson Bellows stated that the Planning Commission had been asked by Mr. Norwood to reopen and reconsider application 11420. Mr. Norwood discovered after the Planning Commission's vote to table this item that he would be out of town at the time he would be scheduled to reappear. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to reconsider this matter. Motion, Ayes“4, Mays»0, Motion passed. It was moved by Planning Comroisisoner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to deny this application. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays^O, Motion passed. MIVUTBS OF THE PIAHMIHG O ilSSKHI VIH6 JUilE 19, 1989 INFORMATIONAL ITEM *1334 SIDNET RBBER8 715 NORTH BROUN ROAD FINAL 8UBDIVISI(Hi/PRD CCNTOITICHUa. DSE PERMIT RESOLUTIONS Acting Chairperson Bellows suggested that any further conunents or concerns be done in written form. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OP MAY 15, 1989 MINUTES It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to approve the minutes of the May 15, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSICHI REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Jim Hanson, would represent the Planning Commission at the July 10, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The October 3, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.