Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-1989 Planning Minutes7. tot Vxcmt Oates Subjects Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator August 30# 1989 #1449 Michael Pirich# 2224 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Districts • RR*1C total area « 14#946 s.f. Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22# Subdivision 1 - Average lakeshore setback is required for enclosure of existing second floor lakeside deck that extends 12' in front of the average setback line. Section 10.22# Subdivision 2 - Review of Hardcover Although no new hardcover is proposed# hardcover facts must be reviewed as there is a proposed intensification of structure. There is a proposed structural intensification with proposed three season pjrch or roof over second floor deck. 0-75* Setback Area - existing « 408 s.f. or 6.58% Although applicant shows 408 s.f. for a patio deck area per the enclcsded survey Exhibit I. This area is located outside the 0-75* setback area and should be credited against the 75-250* setback area. 75-250* setback area allowed = 2#187 s.f. or 25% existing ■ 7#108 s.f. proposed « 7#516 s.f. or 86% (note adjustment of 408 s.f. of patio/deck area) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Floor Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Applicant's Addendum Hardcover Fact Sheet Survey Key to Hardcover Facts Previous Variance Approvals 84/85 Includes Plan Approved With Building Permit in 85 Acknowledgement cf Adjacent Property Owners Survey Elevations laiiOTis or TD PLMomRi co wassioa TIK AUGUST 21, 1989 S0MIS6 PIU •1428-Onn COUTISUD In regard to the access off of llighvay 12, Otten requested' the Planning CosMlssion approve his proposal subject to MNDOT's approval of that save proposal. Kelley asked Otten if his proposal included a "right-in" and "right-out". Otten replied that his proposal included both but he would be willing to have only the "right in". Bellows questioned whether having neither the "right-in” nor "right-out” would have a negative impact on the business? Otten replied that he planned to locate the new business far enough east to be out of the intersection of Willow and Highway 12. Be believed that the "right-in" would be safe because it would reduce the number of vehicles going through what is already a congested intersection. Kelley questioned why the applicant's plans did not depict an access from the garden center to the future roadway. Mabusth answered that due to the minimal level of development, the applicant requested that be delayed until the lot further east is developed. At this time applicant would propose to create only the interior private driveways. Bellows questioned whether adding the road at a later time would Interfere with the immediate parking and circulation scheme. Mr otten explained! that the access off of Willow would be closed. Mabusth added that the installation of the access would be covered in the developers agreement. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Otten what he proposed to do with Lot 2? Mr. Otten said that he intended to use Lot 2 as a "tree holding area". Mr. Bobbin Sentell, 736 Dickey Lake Drive, asked Mr. Otten to explain how the garden center would be separated from the residential area. Mr. Otten explained that he intended to put a berm in that area with Spruce trees planted on top. Mr. Sentell asked for the dimensions of the berm. Mr. Otten said that it would be 15* wide and 4-6* high with 4-6* plantings. Mrs. Sentell asked if there would be a need to use Dickey Lake Drive for overflow parking? Mr. Otten explained that his proposal doubled the City's requirements for parking stalls. He said however, in the event the parking lot was full, parking space would be available in the landscaping section of the center. Mrs. Sentell questioned whether the commercial vehicles would be visible from Dickey Lake Drive? Mr. Otten responded by saying that the berm and shade tree plantings should hide those vehicles. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of application #1428 as . 2 tamrm or « Pijamm comaUim maim a !T 21. 1989 180HIK PIU 11428 follows: COHTIBOnD 1. Rezonlng to PUD within Conprehensive Plan hmmndment 2 2. Vacation of Pine Ridge Lane 1. A 6' height variance 4. A tenporary access off of Highway 12, a "rlght-in* only with adequate signage. 5. Construction of the bern with plantings 4. CcMBBercial Site Plan 7. Prelisiinary Subdivision 8. Utility and Drainage Easements 9. Retention Pond 10. Landscape plan Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Otten what days and hours of the day his business would be in operation. Mr. Otten replied that the business is open 7 days per week from Easter to Christmas from daylight to dark. Kelley also asked about security lighting. Mr. Otten said that he had not determined to what degree he would need such lighting. Mabusth suggested that Mr. Otten include that information should be shown on the final lighting plan. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant when he intended to begin construction? Mr. Otten said that he would begin in the fall. Johnson suggested that the access off of Highway 12 be subject to approval by MNDOT. Kelly agreed to amend his motion to reflect that; Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1431 LUCIA N(»I80« 1540 FOX STRSR PULIMIIAST SOBDIVISIOH CLASS II fORMALLT NITHDRAim PUBLIC BBARIB6 Prior to this meeting, the applicant had requested that application #1431 be withdrawn. #1442 TUB LAHDSCHUTB GROUP, INC. 3300 BATSIDB ROAO/37S LEAP STRBBT PRBLUUBARY SUBDIVISIOB CLASS II PUBLIC HBABIBG 8:30 P.M. TO 8:40 P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Munsing was present for this matter. moTisi OP m fLKMii«6 conaiSION noiTxaG aogqst 21, itit wonm wiJM «i442>LMBsanin oknip, ivc. coM TiwjUi Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron sxplained that this Batter had previously been before the Planning Coaaiission. There have been no changes to that original proposal. Bach of the 2 lots will have 2 acres and the drainfield sites have been dedicated. Each lot will be served by a separate driveway. Lot 2 will have a driveway off of Leaf Street» Lot 2 will have an access off of Bayside. Mr. Henry Purchner« 360 Leaf Street# expressed his concern regarding the driveway being installed off of Leaf Street due to the normally wet, marshy conditions that exist in that area. Ms. Sue Olson, 3280 Bayside Road, questioned where the house and driveway for the lot on Bayside Road would be located. Gaffron said that the driveway had to go to the west of the defined drainfield site. He said that the app1icant was proposing to locate the driveway next to the Olson's dri'<eway. Ms. Olson indicated that she would prefer to have the driveway ■ore centrally located. Gaffron showed Ms. Olson where the house was proposed to be located. Ms. Jane Behraan, 340 Leaf Street, asked where the existing house on Leaf Street was located? Gaffron indicated that there were several houses on Leaf Street. Ms. Behrman asked whether the proposed lots would be sewered? Gaffron said that the proposal was for septic systems for both lots. Mr. Olson questioned what type of houses the applicant Intended to build? He said that he preferred not to have enormous homes built. Mr. Munsing replied that custom homes ranging in price between $300,000 to $400,000 would be built. Gaffron noted that there would be need for a culvert and a drainage easement would be taken. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that she had not been in favor of this subdivision when previously presented and that opinion had not changed. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that this was not his "favorite" subdivision, but he did not see any reason why it should be denied. Bellows noted that the City prefers not to create flag lots at all and this application would create two. Bellows questioned the buildability of the land and whether it would support two houses. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this application for a preliminary subdivision. Motion, Ayes»2, Cohen, Kelley, Bellows, Nay, Motion failed. MiaOTBS OF TBB PLMnUK CCMUSSIQII CmAMOK !TUB Aimm 21, 19tf #1444 motlOli • CT I 3405 HIGH lAHH FRKLUUHHRT SOBDIVISIOH CIASS XI POHLIC HHHRIH6 8:45 F.M. (CtMTIHOD) The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of flailing wer* duly noted. Mrs. Ducharae was present for this suitter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant was proposing a two lot subdivision. The western lot would have 5-t acres, the eastern lot would be 2 acres in sise. Access is via High Lane which is an existing private driveway. As part of the subdivision, outlots would be defined 50* along the north and 25* along the west side of the property to connect to Christine Drive. Mabusth asked Mrs. Ducharne if she could provide the septic information required? Mrs. Ducharme said that Mr. Koch had not contacted her so she did not have the information. There were no conments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application until such time that the septic information can be submitted. Motion, Ayes>5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1448 KBVIH HAHKIHSOH 1125 WILLON MtlVH KMtTH PHBLINIHHRT SUHDIVISIOH CLASS II PUBLIC HBAHIHG 9:00 P.M. TO 9:10 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Hawkinson were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the applicants were proposing a two lot subdivision. This 5-acre lot intended for subdivision was part of a 4-lot subdivision approved in 1978. The Hawkinson's wish to create a 3 acre aiid 2 acre lot. There is an existing pend in the proposed Lot 1 which has a Conservation and Flowage Easement granted over it. Orainfield testing has occurred in the norti.west corner, the highest ground on the property, and it was determined that mound systems would be suitable. There is a drainatj^way that runs across to ponds to the west where there are existing houses. Gaffron said that the surveyor took elevation measurements which indicated that drainage flowed from the east to the west. Gaffron said that it would be likely that the City Engineer will require a 20' wide drainage easement to assure that drainage will continue to flow nto the western pond system. Gaffron also explained the proposed access for Lot 1 and the potential conflict of the County right-of-way and existing drainfield sytom for Lot 2. He said that due to a need for turn M J Tis or iuynnc cq Ikissxoii hbetiig Aitonst 21, itit lonws nu •i44t>iMnnm cowmim lan«s on Willow (should that section of Willow beccsse County Road 116) the County would pr^ibably ask for additional footage. Gaffron said that there are existing accessory buildings on Lot 2 which total 2*900 s.f. Gaffron noted the options available for addressing the accessory structures based on the recently approved accessory structures ordinance. Chalrsian Kelley said that there would be no need for variance approval if the applicant would agree to remove enough of the accessory structures to meet the City Code. Mr. Bawkinson said that he would see no problem with that. 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 Ccunmissioner Johnson* to recosuend approval of the preliminary subdivision* pursuant to staff recommendations and the resK>val of sufficient accessory structure* not to exceed the 2*400 s.f. allowable. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had contemplated purchasing this property at one time* but he back away from it because he did not think that the soils were conducive to building. Gaffron said that there was no question that the soils were Glencoe and that this was a "builder beware* type of lot because expenses will need to be Incurred for soil correction. Motion* Ayes«4* Hanson* May* Motion passed. HOKSB BOMBS 4127 OAK STHBBT VARIABCBS 9 PUBLIC BBARIBG 7i45 P.H. TO StOO P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. David Morse was present for this matter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that a 4* wide track with a tram would be used to access the lakeshore of this proposed house. She said that the LMCD and DNR recommended the use of trams for lakeshore access. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Morse if he had any objections to staff's hardcover calculations since they varied from his own. Mr. Morse said that he would be willing to use the staff's calculations as long it would be offset with the excess he had in the 75-250' setback area. Mabus.;h said that the applicant would require an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct the gazebo and deck. T ie gazebo would be placed at the 962' elevation and the structure would be 16' high. Mabusth said that the location and height of the gazebo would not present any view or sighting problems for the adjacent residents. uriom Of fBi ftjuniivs cQMiissioH imtiiie Ao^si ai, i§«i- lOnHG PILB tl430HK»SB BOMBS COBTIliOBD Mr. Charles HoMaeyer, 4125 Oak Street, said that he objectedi to the height of the gazebo because the roof would interfere with his lake view. Planning Comisissioner Cohen asked for clarification. He asked Mr. Hommeyer if he were sitting in houser looking toward' the lake, if the gazebo roof would obstruct his view. Nr. Honuneyer replied that his view would be obstructed. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned how that would be possible? Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had looked at the site with the sight issue in mind and in his opinion, the Hommeyers would see the roof of the gazebo, but it would not interfere with their lake view. With the use of a sketch, Mabusth showed that the Hososeyers would be looking away from the lake if they were viewing Mr. Morse's gazebo. Ms. Byrne Peter, a neighbor to the north, also expressed concern about the gazebo obstructing her view of the lake. She said that IS' was an excessive height for the gazebo. Ns. Peter, using a straight edge and a sketch, showed that the gazebo in fact would not interfere with her view of the lake. Mrs. Hommeyer said that she was not sure that a future buyer of this home would like the improvements being made at the lakeshore. She said she would be more in favor of these improvements if Mr. Morse intended to live in the hone he was building. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Bellows opined that the proposed gazebo could be precedent setting. She said that Mr. Morse's gazebo had more structure than she would associate with a typical gazebo. Bellows observed that the proposed gazebo resembeled a SBiall cabin or bunkhouse. She note^ that she was not opposed to a gazebo being located where Mr. Mcm^e was proposing, but she did object to the structure itself. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the construction within 7S' of the lake and the hardcover necessary for construct.on of the tram, as well as grade level decking. Kelley said that he would not approve the gazebo design presented. Planning Commissioner Johnson questioned whether the design of the gazebo was an issue for the Planning Commission to determine. He said that the proposed design resembled a gazebo. Motion, Ayes»3, Hanson, Johnson, Nay, Motion passed. maims of tbb PUMonaG o ssioa Tiac A0608T 21, 1989 #1432 JULIA aaiTaar 4470 FOBBST L8U LMDiaG VAEIAaCB PUBLIC HBAUaC 0:05 P.M. TO 8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing vere duly noted. Ms. Julia Whitney was present for this setter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron informed the Planning Connission that the applicant was in need of a hardcover variance and an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to an existing house. A resident on Wildhurst Trail expressed concern regarding an ongoing drainage problem. She did not expect that the applicant's proposal would have any negative impact on the drainage, but she was requesting help from the City to solve this problem. CounciImember Goetten indicated that she would talk with the City staff regarding this problem. There were no comments from the public regarding this smtter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance to allow 31.7%. Motion, Ayes>5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1433 LORBN MITTBItFIBLD 3925 MATBRTOmi BOAD COMDITICNUIL USB PBHMITAARIABCB PUBLIC BBABIH6 8:10 P.M. TO 8:1« P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were duly noted. Mr. Butterfield was present for this public hearing. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for removal of peat from the southern wetland prior to the City granting final approval of the plat. Motion, Ayes'cS, Nays^O, Motion passed. #1434 GARY BARR 3034 CASCO POINT ROAD ONroiTIOHAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC BBARIBG 8:12 P.M. TO 8:14 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Barr was present for this matter. 8 tavoTES or thb kabhik coiMissioa ITIBG A060ST 21, 1989 lOBIBG riU •1434-BAMt COBTIMIBD Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding the structure with the guesthouse above it. Gaffron said that this was an after-the-fact request, but that the guesthouse was existing when Mr. Barr purchased the property. There were no cossoents frc» the public regarding this natter and the public hearing was closed. Gaffron asked Mr. Barr if it would be possible to obtain any adjacent land? Mr. Barr replied that he had been trying to work sosMthing out with an adjacent property owner, but at this time, the owner would be unable to provide a good deed for the property. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Barr what his hardship for the variance is?. Mr. Barr said that he assumed that the guesthouse was part of the property when he purchased it. He said that it was nice to have the guesthouse for visitors. Planning Commissioner Cohen asked Mr. Barr if he had in fact had people living in the guesthouse, and if so, how much they paid for rent? Mr. Barr replied that he did at one timehave people living in the guesthouse and that he exchanged services (auto mechanics for living space) rather than monetary rent. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Barr if he was agreeable to the condition that the guesthouse not be used as a rental unit. Mr. Barr responded affirmatively. Planning Commissioner Bellows compared this use with a caretaker home. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that since this was a "City approved”, pre-existing condition, that the Planning CoBimission was almost bound to approve continued use of the guesthouse. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Plannlug Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Mr. Barr, allowing the guesthouse use to continue, subject to staff's conditions. Motion, Ayes«3, Kelley, Cchen, Nays, due to a lack of hardship and the size of the lot. Motion passed. •1435 join 4 GAIL BAFOS 2580 DOBNOODT AVBBOB VARIABCB PUBLIC HBARIBG 8x20 P.N. TO 8x25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mrs. Hafus was in attendance for this matter. mBuns or thb ruuniiHG commissioh mbbtihg adgdst 21, ifS9 ZOaiK PILE tl435-HAr08 COWllDED Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant was requesting a 1' sideyard setback to construct a storage addition to the rear of the house. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked why, if the storage area was not to be used for automobiles, did it need to be 23* deep? Mrs. Nafus said that she did not want to mislead the Planning Commission and that there would be automobiles stored in the garage, in addition to a boat, bikes, etc. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant how she intended to access the storage area? Mrs. Nafus explained that the cars are only used three times a year and there would be no need to have an access from the street. They would just drive across their lawn. Chairman Kelley said that a future buyer would most likely request an access to the rear storage area, even though the applicant was not at this time. Planning Commissioner Bellows notec' hat there was a discrepancy in that the site plan shows the garage at 23' and the plan indicates 24'. Mrs. Nafus said that she would prefer to have the garage 24'. Mabusth said that there would be a need for a 2' variance rather than 1' as previously stated. There were no comments fr«n 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 2' sideyard setback variance, and to put any future owner of the property on notice that a permit will be required for the additional curb cut. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. •1436 BOBnr NITCBBLL, JB. 1101 PnHDALB BOAD NB8T VABIABCBS PUBLIC HBABIH6 8t27 P.N. (COBTIHOBD) The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing and requested that this application be tabled. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that this application involves a request to construct a second story over the first story of the existing residence. The applicant will require approval of setback variances to the lakeshore on both sides, side setback variances and reapproval of hardcover, even though hardcover will be reduced. There were no comments from the public regarding Ihis matter Miiom of fm fuuniiie conkissioh ihbti «6 aogost 21, i9S9 lOBIK PILB •1436-MI1CIIBLL CORIHUBD and the public hearing was continued. It was Boved by Chairman Kelleyr seconded by Planning Coamiaaioner Bellows to table this application. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. *1437 JOn B.A. ID61IKM, II 2590 FOX STRKBT VAKIAMCB fOBLIC HBAKIB6 8s29 P.N. TO 8s30 f.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Idstrom were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants are requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a horse barn. The barn will meet the setbacks required to house horses. Planning Commissioner Bellows recommended that, given the odd shape of the lot, the Planning Commission make very clear that any future subdividing will require the barn to be removed. Planning Cosanissioner Hanson asked about the time period allowed for such removals to take place? Gaffron replied that typically 18B days is allotted for either the removal of the accessory structure or the construction of a principal residence. 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 variance allowing an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. The hardship in this application is the configuration of the lot. Approval is subject to the vegetation being maintained. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays>0, Motion passed. *1438 MRS. PHILIP PILLSBORY 1200 BKACKBTT'S POIHT HOAD VARIAHCBS PUBLIC HBARIH6 8s40 P.N. TO 8:45 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mrs. Pillsbury was present for this matter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant was proposing to construct a four foot wall along the north property line abutting County Road 15, along Bracketts Point Road and continuing along the east lot line. Mabusth said that Council had originally approved a height variance for a 6* r.i Hmms or to pukamn ooHUssioa MBmc Mieosf* ii, Xflt SOOIK PILE fl43t>PILL8BimT COmaOKD high retaining vail to the drivevay only. Beyond the driveway* ti'o val? vaa required to be 3.5*. However* applicant chose not to pr'^ceed with this application because she preferred to have the wall at one continuous height. There were no cossnents froei the public regarding this natter and the public hearing was closed. It was Boved by Chairnan Kelley* seconded by Planning CoBBissioner Johnson* to recosMnd approval of application I143S* for a C* height variance for a serpentine brick wall. Motion* Ayes»5* Hays»0* Notion passed. •1439 lAWlWWB B. ipj«lSS~SSrCoSpiTlOMkL USE PBENITAEEIAECB POELIC BBBBIEC St50 P.M. TO 9153 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Nailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron informed the Planning Cosnoission that the applicant was seeking after-the** fact approval for a deck and retaining walls in the 0-75* setback zone. Gaffron said that at one time thtre was a boathouse* but in the 1987 storms the boathouse was dat.aged beyond repair. The applicant removed the damaged structure* but left a portion of the concrete walls to act as a retaining wall for the bank. Mr. Langhans then built a deck using the pre-existing foundation as partial footing. The applicant is «lso constructing another Section of retaining wall adjacent to the deck. Re said that it was staff's recommendaticn that the foundation should remain because it is helping to stabilise the bank. Staff also believes iCithat the retaining walls are also necessary. Gaffron noted that there were several letters supporting^Phis application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Johnson stated that if this application were not after-the-fact* the Planning Cosimission would not have recommended approval to build the deck. He felt that they were now forced to act and thr.t Mr. Langhans should have been aware of the City's codes and ordinances due to his profession as a realtor. Mr. Langhans explained that he had done what was necessary to prevent further erosion. Johnson noted that the City was issuing emergency permits for bank stabilization after the July* 1987 storm. Mr. Langhans also mentioned that he had reduced hardcover . Gaffron said that removing the concrete wall would provide imons or to ruunmn comissioa iTiK JUKisv n» int lOHIK PIU •1439-LMMSnBS COMTII support for the bank for quite some time. It the wall were renoved and an atteapt nade to reconstruct another wall, the Bui^rt would be weakened. Caffron said that In the past it has been the City's policy to allow the foundation to reaaln and fill in around it. Gaffrcj said however, in this case, any fill aay wash away and nothing would be acc(»pli8hed. Bellows questioned whether the decking could be reaoved. Gaffron said one concern about eliainatlng the deck is that due to the steep drop, a railing or dense plantings are needed. It was Boved by Planning Coaonissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Cosanissloner Johnson to recomsiend denial of the after- the-fact request for construction of a deck in the 0-75' setback area, but that the applicant be allowed to maintain the existing foundation wall, as well as the retaining walls on either side. Motion, Ayes*5, Hays«0, Motion passed. #1440 PIBST MATIOWU. BMK OF TD IAMBS 244S SBADYMOOD BOAO B—1L FBBIABCB 4 COMMBBCIAL 8ITB PIAM RlEVIBH POBILC BBMIIBC It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to table this application. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. I I ar HBTIOB ItBH There will be an optional meeting of the Planning Comnlssion on September 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. AFFBOFAL OP MIMOTBS It was jioved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to approve the Minutes of the July 17, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes«S, Nays*0, Motion passed. PLABBIBG C0MMI88I0B RBFRBSBMTATIVB It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Jeff Johnson, would represent the Planning Commission at the September 11, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOOBBMBMT The August 21, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.