Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1989 Planning Minuteswm. ‘ NiaOTBS OP THB PIAnilG COHHISSIOII ITIK OCTOBER IS, 1989 ETTEIIDMK3 7:00 P.N. The Orono Planning Conaiission net on the above date with the following nembers present: Chairnan Kelley and Planning Connissioners Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Brown, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Assistant City Engineer Olson, Lieutenant Cheswick, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Peterson was also present. tl470 DMI ft Itimi PARTSa 4300 BAT8IOB ROAD PULUUMART SinOIVISIOH PUBLIC BBARIB6 7:00 P.M. TO 7:40 P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to this preliminary subdivision. He said that this property was very unique and linear in configuration with the Luce Line at the north end and Bayside Road at the south end. The applicant is proposing a 3-* lot subdivision with each lot approximately 5 acres in size. Gaffron explained the various issues Involved with this application including the fact that Lot 3 does not abut a public or private road. Another issue is the fact that an alternate drainfield site was not found within the proposed Lot 1. Mr. Parten said that he did not think that Outlot A fit well with the interior property, but would be better suited for the property to the west. Chairman Kcj.ley questioned whether it wouldn't be more practical to havfe only two lots developed, rather than 3? Mr. Parten replied that his interpretation of the reason for the 5-acre zoning is to control density. He said that intention is being met both with his proposal and the development possibilities of the adjacent properties. Mr. Parten also said that the topography and ravine within the property limited the location of building sites. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicant had considered proceeding with a PRD? Mr. Parten said that he was somewhat uneasy to proceed in that manner. He questioned how the commons area would be maintained. Kelley cited the French Creek development as an example of a PRD and informed Mr. Parten that agreements are made as to the maintenance of the commons area. Kelley said that he had visited UliQTBS OF m FLMnUHG COMMISSIOH MBBTIHG OCTOBER 16, 19S9 SOnBG FILE •1470-PARTBH CORTIRI the site and felt that the topography was such that in order to achieve 3 lots, the applicant should proceed with a PRD. Planning Comnissioner Brown concurred with Kelley. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too agreed that a PRD would be the best approach and added that it may be necessary to have only a 2-lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Gaffron to explain the existing 60' road easement. Gaffron explained that the easement was granted to the Reiersgord property. Gaffron said that the way the Zoning Code reads the 60* easement would be excluded from the area devoted to the 5-acre calculation of acreage. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that this property presented an excellent opportunity for a PRD. She said that too many variances would be required in order to proceed in any other manner. Bellows Indicated that she did not like the proposed location for the alternate drainfxeld site for Lot 1. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission how they would respond to a proposal locating the alternate drainfield site in Outlet A if a PRD was pursued. Bellows responded that she would prefer to see the alternate drainfield site located somewhere other than across an easement. She questioned whether it could exist in one of the other outlets? Mr. Parten questioned the size of the building envelope and how the size is determined? Chairman Kelley informed Mr. Parten that such a decision would be his to make. Mr. Parten asked for direction in this regard. Gaffron indicated that he would like to see the building envelope at a minimum of two acres. Johnson questioned the possibility of creating an access to serve adjacent properties as well. Mary Petersen expressed her concern about the crossing of the Luce Line. She said that the DNR had indicated their preference to have no crossing of the Luce Line and should there be future development of the property in this area that Bayslde Road be used for access rather than the Luce Line. Mrs. Parten asked what the requirements would be for the Mimms OP ns piAmiflc comussioh NBnixiG octoipi is, I9t9 S0MIH6 PILB «1470-PA]tT» COaTIPUBD road if they proceeded with a PRD? Planning Cooaniseioners Cohen and Hanson indicated that they would like to see the road at a 50’ width for the entire length. Kelly said that if the applicants proceeded with a PFD. he %’ould like to see the road at a 50 foot width and that access be provided to the nortlieast corner. Mrs. Parten asked whether the road would be private or public? Kelley Indicated that more than likely the road would be private and though the easement would be 50* in width, the road may only be constructed at a 14 or 15 foot width. Mary Petersen asked whether blacktopping of the road would be required? The Planning Commission replied that blacktopping would not be required due to the road having a "private" designation. Ms. Petersen questioned why it was necessary to blacktop the private road constructed within the Foxfyre Subdivision? Gaffron clarified that when a private road serves 3 or more residences, the City has consistently required the road to be paved. Mr. Parten asked j.f, for economical reasons, he could just divide the 2.5 and 10 acres he currently owns and not go ahead with the purchase of the northerly 4.25 acre parcel from Mrs. Styles. Planning Commissioner Hanson replied that it may be that with the easement, there would not be enough land to create 2 lots. Gaffron suggested that perhaps the Reiersgord easement could be reduced from 60' to 50'. Chairman Kelley pointed out that if Mr. Parten proceeds with a PRD for 3 lots, the lots would all be north of the Reiersgord easement. He said that there would not be enough contiguous land to create 3 lots and the applicant would require approval for non-contiguous acreage. Kelley questioned why the Planning Commission could not recommend approval of a 2-lot PRD with non­ contiguous acreage? Bellows noted that the 2-lot PRD would leave Mrs. Styles' parcel landlocked. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it was reasonable to expect Mr. Parten to be responsible for the land locked parcel that currently exists as such? MiaOTBS or THE PIAmiHG CQHHISSKM MEBTIMG OCfOW 16* 1119 SOBIHG PILE 11470-PAItTBH COMTINDED Planning Conmissioner Hanson again questioned whether it would be possible to create 3 lots of satisfactory characteristics. Mrs. Parten suggested that due to the low density in this area overall* that perhaps the granting of a variance would not be unreasonable. Planning Cosunlssioner Cohen Indicated that he would be willing to consider variance approval provided that the applicant purchase Mrs. Styles 4.25 acres and include it in the subdivision. Kelley suggested that in addition to providing access to the 4.25 parcel* that access be given to the other existing land locked parcels in the northeast corner. Mr. Parten questioned whether he would be required to have a paved road? Chairman Kelley suggested that the homeowners currently achieving access via the Luce Line that would benefit from the construction of the road pay a share of the cost. The question arose as to whether those residents actually had an easement from the DNR to cross the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Cohen suggested that the applicant investigate that further and bring the information back at a later time. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would favor a 3~lot PRD with access to the 4.25 acre lot and the other 2 landlocked properties. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that the issues of concern are the location of the alternate drainfield site for lot 1* access to the remaining parcels and the question of whether a PRD is the best way to proceed. He said that he would be more likely to approve a lot size variance. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred with Johnson. Planning Commissioner Bellows agreed with Kelley's preference. Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Kelley and Bellows* and felt it was important to further investigate the easement for crossing of the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Hanson agreed with Kelley as did Planning Commissioner Moos. Moos added that she too had concern about the location of the alternate drainfield site. MITOTBS or ns PIASBISG C0HNI88I0B !TIS6 OCTOBBS IS, 1987 SOnSC PIIB «1470-PARnS COHTIHDBD Johnson raised the question of how the Zoning Code addressed the required contiguous land and the exclusion or inclusion of easements for lots containing 2 and 5 acre minimums. He noted that for 2 acre minimum, dry contiguous buildable area, easements and private drives are excluded. He asked whether that held true for 5 acre lots. Gaffron interpreted the Code to say that 5 acre lots must have a minimum of 2 acre, dry, contiguous, buildable land not located within any right-of-wa^, or other easements. He said that the Code does not specify whether the additional 3 acres are required to be contiguous. Chairman Kelley suggested that the Partens put together a PRD and a lot size variance application. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning COTimissioner Johnson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes«7, Nays«>0, Motion passed. «1461 THE RBVBRBMD PAUL N. BBRGGSEH S85 OLD CHTSTAL BAT ROAD SOOTH VARIARCB PUBLICS HSARIHG 7s42 P.M. TO 7>43 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Reverend Berggren was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application Involved the need for a side setback variance to construct a porch. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether the pine trees to the north of the house would remain. Reverend Berggren stated that he did not intend to remove the trees. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was any other location for the porch addition? Reverend Berggren said that putting the porch in another location would interfere with the bay window, the septic system or the driveway. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Reverend Berggren said that he had talked with his neighbor on the north side and he indicated that he had no objections to HxauTBS OP ns puuniiK commissicni mbbtihg October is, 19S9 S0HIR6 PILE tlSSlH this proposal. .1n tEE conn It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the 15* side setback variance, based on the hardship and findings noted in staff's m^o. Motion, Ayes*7, Nays^^O, Motion passed. •14S2 RICBBRD A. SCBMDT OP ORCBARD PARK PARM IK. 3980 NATERTOMI ROAD VARIAKE PUBLIC HEARIK 7s47 P.M. TO 7t48 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing wore duly noted. Ms. Roberta Schmidt was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants wished to put a second story on an existing house located 35' from the front lot line, where 100' is required. Chairman Kelley inquired as to how much of the existing house will need to be torn down? Ms. Schmidt replied that most of the first floor will remain as is with the exception of the rear entry way that will change to accomodate a stairway. Chairman Kelley asked if the foundation was sturdy enough to support a second story? Ms. Schmidt indicated that it was. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the 65' front setback variance, based on the hardship and findings and conditioned upon arrangements being made and proof furnished that the septic system has been replaced to accomodate the expansion. Motion, Ayes>«7, Nays>«0, Motion passed. tl463 CORTBL OP NimiBSOTA, IK. IHTBRSECTIOB OP TOMKAVIEW LAMB 7 CODllTy ROAD 19 OMDITKMAL USB PBRMIT/VARIAIICB PUBLIC BBARIK 7s50 P.N. TO 8tl0 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Peter Broziak, Mr. Milton Seeman and Mr. Wayne King were present as respesentatives for Contel of Minnesota. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MIMDTBS OF THE FLAWIMC COMNISSIOB MBBTniG OCfOMBt U, 1$I9 ZOBIHG FILE •14C3-COMTEL OF MIEMESOTE COBTIHI explained lhat Contel wished to construct a renote switch building. Gaffron said that Contel has provided a survey showing the location of the neighboring house in relation to the proposed site of the switch building. The applicant is seeking approval of a 16’ setback variance from the north residential lot line* and a 4’ setback variance from the south residential lot line. Gaffron referenced a letter that the City had received from Mr. McCurdy* the neighbor to the north* requesting that screening be provided to lessen the noise and visual impact. Mr. Broziak said that there are existing trees on the site of the proposed switch building as well as existing trees on Mr. McCurdy's property. He said that the air conditioners that would be used for the building have a maximum of 5*000 b.t.u.’s* which is comparable to an average household air conditioner. He said that only one of the two air conditioners would be operating at any given time* as one would kick in if the other stopped. He further stated that the air conditioners would only operate in the summer when there is a need to keep the machinery inside the building cool. He said that it would be no different than someone building a house and putting in a window air conditioner. Mr. Seeman distributed pictures of a completed structure that is similar to the proposed structure. Planning Commissioner Cohen questioned why the air conditioners could not be placed on the other side of the building? Mr. King said that due to the layout of the equipment inside the building* the air conditioners must be located as proposed. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested turning the building so that the air conditioners would be located on the other side. Mr. King said that would interfere with the ability to access the building and the capability to connect the building to the existing electrical cables. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned why a building of this size could not be in a location where it would meet the setbacks? Gaffron replied that if the building was located so as to meet the setbacks* it would be out in the open without the benefit of existing screening. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the Planning Commission's recommendations for a previous* similar application? Gaffron replied that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the N.W. Bell application for a conditional use permit. Gaffron noted that the structure in that application was to be located within a residential lot with a setback of 4,a MimiTBS or TUB PLMmiaG COMMISSIOM NSITXBG OCTOBBR 16, 1989 X0H1S6 PILE #1483-COHTBL OP MIHUBSOn COVrili approximately 10' from the street lot line. Planning Commissioner Johnson opined that the impact of the proposed structure was fairly minimal. Kelley recollected that the Planning Commission had asked O.S. West to plant arborvitae around the structure they installed. Mr. Pred Royal# an owner of property across the street from the proposed switching building, said that he had no objections to the building being located as proposed, but he would like to have the building screened from view. Mr. Fred Abrahamson, a representative of the Pairview Covenant Church, explained his dilemma involving the need to obtain the tax forfeit parcel of land upon which the Church recreational area is located. Gaffron clarified that Lot 6 is currently being used by the Church for recreational purposes. Gaffron said that the contract between Contel and Church suggests that Contel will perform some Improvements on property that is currently not owned by the Church. 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 Johnson, to recommend approval of the setback variances as outlined in the application, provided that appropriate screening and arborvitae be planted along the west and south side of the building and that a landscape plan be sutanitted at the time of Council review. Kelley suggested that the planting requirements be similar to that recommended in the approval of the O.S. West applcation. Mr. Brozlak questioned whether it was necessary to plant arborvitae? Planning Commissioner Johnson suggested that any coniferous tree could be used. Kelley amended his motion to that effect, Johnson seconded. Gaffron inquired as to whether any of the 5 conditions recommended in his memo where to be included in the motion? Kelley replied that he wished to include number 1, revise number 3 to require plantings on the west and south of the structure, and Include ;umber 5, Johnson seconded. Motion, Ayes*6, Cohen, Nay, due to his agreement with Mr. McCurdy, and that in his opinion there are other location alternatives. «1464 CHARLBS NADLBR 2509 KELLY AVEMUB VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:13 P.M. TO 8:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. 8 Niaims OF TBB PIAMBIMG COHHISSIOii MBBTIHG QCtOBBK 16* Iflt S0HIH6 FILS fl4€4-HM>LER COMTIMUBD Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application involved a request for an addition requiring hardcover and average setback variances. The applicants have revised their initial proposal in such a way that hardcover will only increase .2% to 29.3% in the 75-250* zone. Gaffron said that the applicants have agreed to remove a portion of the driveway apron and existing plastic under rockbeds, etc. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned the comments made regarding the "pie-shaped nature of the lot in this case has no significant impact on the allowable hardcover..mm • Gaffron explained that the applicants had commented that because their lot was pie-shaped that they have less area in the 75-250* zone. Gaffron said that he had looked into that theory further and determined that was not the case. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Conunissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance, based on the finding that there are no significant encroachments on the existing lakeviews enjoyed by the neighbors, and further recommending approval of the hardcover variance to allow an increase of .2%, based on the removal of hardcover on the lakeside of the house. Cohen noted that this recommendation for approval was consistent with previous Planning Commission action under similar circumstances. Motion, Ayes«7, Nay8»0, Motion passed. #1465 GBHALO MCCOORTHBT 1055 FBiODALB ROAD NBST VARIAMCBS POBLIC BBARIR6 It was moved by Chaiman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to table this application. Motion, Ayes**7, Nays^O, Motion passed. #1466 DAB KOKBSB 4040 NATBRTONR MlAD VARIAHCB PUBLIC HERING 8:20 P.M. TO 8:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Haillrg were duly noted. Mr. Kokesh was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant had recently added on to his residence and as a result had removed the existing porch. Mr. Kokesh would like to replace the porch in the same location, but extend it 2* beyond the front of the house and add on a deck. liXVOTBS OF THB PIAHiilliG COHMISSIOH MBBTIKS OCTOBBR 16, 1989 lonac PILE #1466-KOKBSH COMTIHDED Gaffron said that in order to construct the 14* x 16’ porch a front setback variance will be required and a side setback variance will be necessary for the construction of the deck. Ms. Roberta Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, said that Mr. Kokesh's house was in a state of disrepair when he purchased it. Since that tine, he has greatly improved the house and she felt that the porch would be a nice addition. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown inquired as to the owner of the property to the north? Chairman Kelley answered that the property was owned by Mr. Kokesh's father and was pasture area. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kokesh if he had considered purchasing land from his father? Mr. Kokesh responded that it was not financially possible at this time. He said that the house was very small and would probably be torn down at such time that he purchased land from his father. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the front and side setback variances to construct a porch and open deck. Chairman Kelley questioned whether Bell.^*"* wished to include in her motion a condition disallowing enclosure of the deck at a future time. Bellows amended her motion to include that approval is conditioned upon the deck remaining a deck only and may not be Improved at any time in the future. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays*=0, Motion passed. tl468 GB0R6B PILLSBURT 1300 BRACKETT'S POIHT ROAD y 1^1^ j PUBLIC HEARIIIG 8:25 P.H. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Thomas Meyer and Mr. Herb Baldwin were present representing the applicants. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the Pillsburys wished to put a greenhouse addition on their existing residence located less than 75' from the lake. Gaffron said that the existing hardcover located within the 0-75' setback zone would increase to 7.6%. Gaffron further explained that the applicants were also proposing to put some kind of drain tile in the 0-75' setback that would lead back to the 75-250' zone to a wet well. MimiTBS OF THB PLABHIBG 8SI0H IT1H6 OC 1€, 1989 SOaiMG FILE il468>FILLSBimT COFTIMIBD Planning ConiniBsioner Brown questioned whether the City Engineer had reviewed the drainage concept being proposed? Caffron replied that the City Engineer had only conceptually approved of the plan* but had not received the plans in time to fully review them. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the drainage and addition are really two separate issues. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked whether the sketch plan showed existing or proposed plantings? Mr. Baldwin explained that he was going to try to preserve the desireable plants on the bank and then supplement them with more plantings that would help prevent erosion. Chairman Kelley asked what is the hardship for the variance in this case? Mr. Baldwin said that it was the applicant's intention to have a plant room that has the kind of sun orientation necessary. In the process of constructing the addition, they will address the problems with the existing grades and drainage on the property. Mr. Meyer explained the scheme of the existing house in relation to the need to locate the greenhouse as proposed. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she understood that the greenhouse would be used for growing orchids. She said that an orchid house is more sensitive than a regular greenhouse. She said that the orchids need a more southeast orientation rather than south or southwest. Planning Commissioner Hanson suggested that the greenhouse addition be shorter so that it would not extend toward the lake to the degree now proposed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he did not have a problem with the hardcover, even though it is in the 0-75' setback zone, due in part because the slope to the lake is so steep that any runoff goes directly to the lake. He questioned whether a grading plan had been submitted? Mr. Baldwin said that he would work with staff to establish limitations for the amount of grading that the City will allow. Planning Commissioner Brown noted that there would be a new 2 foot retaining wall. He informed Mr. Baldwin that the City is sensitive of the visual aspect of retaining walls and that Mllims OP fBB PlAmilllG COMUSSIOH MBETIMG OCTOBER 16, 1989 S<MII1I6 PILE «1468-PILLSBORY COHTIHDBD screening is usually required. Mr. Baldwin said that plantings would be placed in front for screening. 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 Bellows, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition and a conditional use permit for minor grading in the lakeshore yard, conditioned on the applicants working with City staff to establish grading limits. Chairman Kelley inquired as to what direction water running off of the roof of the addition will go? Mr. Meyer said that a drain spout will be installed that will direct drainage west. Motion, Ayes«5, Cohen, Kelley, Nay, due to their opinion that there is not a sufficient hardship to warrant encroachment of the 0-*75' setback zone. #1469 CITY OP OROBO RI6BT-OP-IIAY OP NIBDJAMlfBR IAMB OGHDITIOBAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HBARIII6 8t53 P.M. TO 8s58 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the City wished to install a civil defense siren within the right-of-way near 835 Windjammer Lane. Lieutenant Cheswick informed the Planning Commission of the locations of sirens throughout the City. He said that Minnetonka Beach is considering the installation of a siren in their area. The Windjammer Lane location was selected in order to provide protection for the northwestern area of Orono. He said that there is currently no siren in that area. Mr. Chuck Bidwell indicated that he did not object to the noise impact, but was concerned about the visual impact. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned whether there were alternate locations for the siren? Mr. Bidwell said that it was his understanding that other sites were considered, but the Windjammer Lane site was selected. He said that the Police Chief had suggested placing the siren on the Lakeview Golf Course. Cheswick indicated that the owner of the Golf Course had indicated that he did not want the structure on his property. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would -ather locate the NiaOTBS OF THE PUUniiaG C0MH13SI0II MBBTIHG OetOlKiR 1989 X0HIII6 PILB 11469-CITT OP OROHO aanriMUBD siren on a golf course than in the midst of a residential area. The entire Planning Commission concurred. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen* seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson* to table this application to allow time tc explore other alternative locations. Hanson said that he would like to see the alternate locations be public right-of- ways* City-owned land and not in the midst of a residential area. Motion* Ayes-7, Mays-0* Motion passed. NISCSLLlUnKMIS Chairman Kelley reminded the Planning Commission of the upcoming joint meeting on November 8 to discuss the City Facilities. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he will be out of town and unable to attend. APPROVAL OP MIRDTBS It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen* seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson* to approve the minutes of the September 18* 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion* Ayes-7* Hays-0* Motion passed. PLAMMIR6 COMMISSION RBPRBSBMTATIVB It was agreed that Planning Commissioner* Maureen Bellows* would represent the Planning Commission at the November 13* 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The October 16* 1989* Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.