Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-1988 Planning MinutesNIHUTBS OF THE PLANHING CONNISSIOH MEETING HBU) JULY 18, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley# Johnson# Moos# Cohen# and Hanson. Bro%m arrived at 7:25 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth# Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron# and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImember Peterson was also present. tl301 DAVID L. flHITE & FEEDRICK C. NHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE NEST CLASS 3 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Fredrick White was present for this matter. Gaffron explained the proposed subdivision# noting the location of the existing house and garage. The Applicants propose to leave a 2+ acre parcel with the existing house and also create a second buildable lot. Their site evaluator found an alternate site for the existing house with its proposed 3-acre parcel# but testing resulted in a recommendation by the site evaluator to add about 1.3 acres to Lot 2 to accomodate drainfield sites# leaving Lot 2 with about 4.8 acres total. Applicant has agreed to this revision. They intend to leave Outlet A for future development. This would result in a subdivision of three lots that would access from County Road 84. The City Engineer# Glen cook# recommends that interior access be developed for this property. Staff put together a diagram showing anticipated development in the area. Mr. Armstrong# property owner to the east# expressed concern about access. The Armstrong property could easily be served by a road along it north boundary. The Olson property directly North of Armstrongs could be served by a cul de sac. Applicant stated that he doubted the ability to put a sewer system on north part of the out lot due to topography# and was not sure whether there would be enough land to put in a cul ue sac and still have 2 acre lots in Outlot A. Hanson suggest<>d an alternate cul de sac location to avoid access directly onto County Road 19. Gaffron suggested that a stipulation of subdivision approval be that once an interior access road is developed# all lots would have to access from it. Hanson noted that a topographic map had not been submitted and Cohen agreed that since the Outlot area is of concern as it relates to a comprehensive development plan for the area# that topography would be necessary. Hanson commented that# more than any parcel he has recently seen# he feels that the total acreage here and development possibilities adjacent really do require a more comprehensive approach to the development. Mrs. Armstrong## who is the o%mer of property to the east and south of Applicants stated that she is interested in the ability of coming in with a road from 19 since they may wish to sell that property. She questioned whether plans to do so would need to be written into the present proposal. Mr. Kelley informed her that the dedication of 20 feet for future roadway would probably be one of the conditions of the subdivision on this property. Gaffron inquired whether road construction costs would be shared given that 2 of Applicant's lots may ultimately require usage of that road? Kelley commented affirmatively and went on to say that he MIHDTBS OF THB PLAmiaG COMNISSIOH MTSTIHG JULY 18, 1988 #1301 DAVID L. WHITE 6 FREDRICK C. WHITE-CONTINUT^D concurred with Mr. Cohen's request for a topographic map. The PC has to be sure that the development of this land is in line with the comprehensive plan of the City. He felt it is important to limit access from County Roads, especially 19, because that traffic will increase over time. Commissioner Johnson agreed that a more comprehensive workup was needed as to development alternatives for the property. Kelley asked for further public comments, there were none. Johnson questioned whether it was Hennepin County's position to limit access to the County Roads involved as much as possible. Gaffron responded that although they have not yet responded in this application, typically they would like to limit as far as possible the number of accesses. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table #1301 pending Applicant's further consideration of a comprehensive development plan and submittal of a topographical map, and review by the City as to the position and cost of the roadway. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1207 GBHB « CATHBRIHE SCAMLOM 2815 CATCO POINT ROAD COHDITIORAL USB PERMIT t VARIABCB THIRD REVIEW Gene and Catherine Scanlon were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Applicants were seeking the replacement of structures that were damaged in the storm of July 23, 1987. The specific structures involve a lake shore deck, access stairs and a 7' X 7' storage shed. Applicants now propose placing the storage shed underneath the existing or proposed deck, which will allow for a reduction in the hardcover from what was there prior to the storm. The total hardcover for the proposed deck is 165 sq. ft. The plans have been reviewed by the building inspector. Commissioner Kelley asked what the 165 ft. included. Mabusth stated it includes just the decking, and not the 149 sq. ft. of access stairs. Kelley questioned recommendation #2 regarding plantings. Mabusth replied that this procedure is very consistent with what they are now asking of all persons who replace retaining walls in lakeshore yards. She noted that the Applicants have volunteered to reduce hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Hanson commended the Applicants on making every effort to work on this. Mabusth added that the Scanlons are going directly to the Council on this. In regard to the date the hardcover removals are to take place, Hanson asked Applicants for a date they felt was realistic. Applicants replied next Spring, and June 30, 1989, was agreed upon. The specific hardships that apply in this particular variance are the extreme slope of the land and the necessary work required to stabilize that area after the storm. Johnson stated that he did not think this variance was consistent with the 0'-75' policies in that there is a retaining wall, stairs, storage structure and deck all within 25' of the Lake. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of #1207, Gene & Catherine MimjTBS OP THE PIAmiHG CXMUSSIOH V1H6 1 I .-1^1 JULY 18» 1988 #1207 GENE 7 CATHERINE SCANLON-CONTINUED Scanlon, per staff recommendation. Notion, Ayes-5, Nays-1, Motion passed. #1286 GARY RODERICK COHSTROCTIOli 1749 EORTH FARM ROAD VARIAMCE SECOND REVIEW Applicant was present for this matter. This is a continuation of a Public Hearing. The request is to build a 6’ high fence on the property along County Road 6. The proposed location of the fence is considered to be a front or sidestreet yard. There are some existing, but immature, trees and shrubs in this proposed fence location. Applicant's concerns are that children could r^n out onto County Road 6. Noise from County Road 6 is also a problem, as well as headlights from traffic travelling west on County Road 6. Adjacent property owners are concerned that a 6' fence does not fit into Orono's landscaping scheme of openness and natural fencing using vegetation. Applicant stated that in his opinion the fence would not create any sighting interference. Applicant went on to say that the property in question contains a now vacant residence, but he hopes to sell it in the near future. Prospective buyers have inquired about a fence and the Applicant is merely pursuing this matter to see whether fencing is a realistic idea. Applicant pointed out that the present fencing ordinance would allow him to put a fence on the south side of the property with no need for a variance whatsoever. He feels this is baclcward. Ben Field, an adjacent property owner, indicated that he is opposed to this variance. He believes the fence will detract from the natural openess of the area. All 7 houses in that area have been built so as to compliment the natural surroundings. "Farm at Long Lake” developer Timothy Adams reiterated Mr. Field's convictions. Commissioner Johnson concurred with Mr. Field and Mr. Adams regarding approval of this variance. Cohen stated that Applicant has the right to put up a 3-1/2 foot fence, which he thinks would alleviate any potential safety problems. The natural vegetation that exists on the property will grow and will provide a natural barrier. He is against a 6* fence. Applicant made a final comment about 6* fences that already exist in Orono. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen to recommend denial of the variance #1286, Roderick Construction. Motion, Ayes»€, Mays»0, Notion passed. Kelley informed Applicant of his next procedural step which would be an appearance before the City Council. #1291 ALFRED IVERSON 2835 CASCO POINT ROAD REFERRAL BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION Applicants were not present. Mabusth explained that this was a referral back due to the possibility of the need for a height variance. She stated that staff was able to confirm that there is no need for a height variance. Mr. Kelley expressed his concern about the Iversons MIHUTBS OP THB PIAMHIMG COMMISSlOH !TIHG HELD JOLT 18, 1988 #1291 ALFRED IVERSON-CONTINUED adhering to the 38.4% hardcover. Cohen asked what happens if in the final review, applicant is 2% off. Mabusth stated that they would be required to remove the 2% as hardcover is limited to 38.4%. It was moved by Kelley, and seconded by Hanson, to reaffirm #1291 to be held at 38.4%. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays^O, Motion passed. #1300 ANTHONY BIDBM 2290 « 2340 ABINGDON NAY CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT Applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this matter pertains to the request for a Conditional Use Permit and a variance to encroach upon a DNR- protected, designated wetland area for the installation of a pond. The initial plan has since been revised so that the proposed pond is now out of the wetland area with a 20* setback separation. Most of the grading and filling will be done to the northwest and away from the wetland area. The change will not affect the drainfield. Appropriate erosion control must be maintained during the entire installation of the pond. The Applicant seeks a 20* setback to the designated wetland. If the plans could be revised to achieve 6 more feet, then a setback variance would not be required. Kelley questioned whether the plans would still allow for 2 acres of dry, buildable land on both lots. Applicant stated that both Lots 9 and 10 were over 2 acres, but he did not know the ratio of dry land to wetland. Johnson questioned if potential excess flowage from the pond would flow out the wetland. Mabusth stated that she had asked the Engineer and that there is no need for overflow in this area because the majority of drainage really goes toward ti.e southeast. Kelley asked if seeding was a requirement immediately after grading and if so, what about watering the seed with the lack of rain and water conservation. Applicant stated that the project will not be completed until September and hopes for more rain around that time. Debbie Lewis, a neighbor across from Nr. Eiden's property, was concerned with the water level of the pond and the stagnant water in the pond becomming a mosquito breeding ground. Mabusth asked Applicant if he planned any form of aeration to prohibit stagnation of the pond water. Mr. Eiden said that he had not given any thought to aeration and that the water level would vary with the rainfall. Ns. Lewis expressed her concern also about the possibility of algae growing as a result of the lawn chemicals. Kelley added that in his opinion a small pond would not increase the mosquito population to a noticeable degree, especially since half of Orono is wetlands or lake. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to approve #1300, Anthony Eiden Conditional Use Permit for wildlife pond, subject to the condition that the 2 lots maintain the 2 acre dry, buildable requirement and 26' setback must be met. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion passed. MIHUTBS OF THE PLMnilHG O SSIOV TI«6 HELD JULY 18, 1988 CITY OF OROHO CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVBHBilT COHDITIOHAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARIHG The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Conditional Use Permit involves four properties on Crystal Bay Road. There are approximately 200 lineal feet of roadbed that need to be restored as a result of the July 23, 1987 storm. Kelley asked interested parties if they had received a copy of the proposal from the City. Some had received this information, others had not. Mabusth said that there were two options the City was considering. There was a revision to the plan in that there would be no fill, no shoulder, but blacktop would extend right up to the posts and a guardrail would be installed for safety approximately 3-1/2 feet high. Tim Schupp stated that the road is not dedicated and never has been. The concensus is that the residents do not want the City to maintain the Road and would like the City to remove the Road. Kelley suggested this matter be tabled until the residents could get with the City to work this out. The residents indicated that they have been trying to work this out with the City for one year and to date have had no success. Mabusth suggested that the reasoning for the City not allowing the Road to be closed may have to do with access for residents of Minnetonka Beach. Leesa Anderson spoke, saying that her property is in both Minnetonka Beach and Orono. She stated that because of the condition of the Road nobody uses it and to her knowledge there have been no complaints by citizens of Minnetonka Beach regarding the inaccessability of Crystal Bay Road. Kelley stated that the concept of the residents wishing to turn asphalt back into grassed area was in line with the City's comprehensive plan and felt an alternative could be found. Mr. Lee Erger stated that the City told the residents that Minnetonka Beach did not want the road closed. Bill Wolfe stated that the preposed barrier was totally unacceptable to him and that the City was not properly notifying residents when it came to issues such as these. He proposed the following 6 items: 1. Stainless wire would be better than galvanized. 2. Drainage provisions behind the wall should be provided. 3. Support beams should extend into the ground 4. More Duckbills, 4 per post as opposed to 2 per post. 5. Treated 4* x 12', rather than 2' x 12' 6. Leaving bottom 5* of wall exposed and make aesthetically pleasing. Mabusth pointed out that it would be the property owners' responsibility to fill in the area between the retaining wall and the lakeshore. Johnson said that any further discussion was academic since the aspect of closing the Road entirely needed further exploration. Mabusth believed that these avenues had already been explored and the matter resolved for the City's part, that is why the conditional use permit had been filed. In her opinion, there is great urgency to get this resolved. MIHUTBS OP THE PIAHNIIIG COMMISSIOH MBBTIHG mtfJ> JULY 18, 1988 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT-CONTINUED Kelley stated that this was the first time since this matter has come to his attention, even though it has been a live issue for a year. Hanson asked whether the group of neighbors had a plan for an alternative access to their properties, and if a homeowner's association existed to take responsibility for the road. Hanson noted that apparently there is none, as the City has been plowing the road. Mr. Schupp stated that he had met several times with Public Works Director Gerhardson and finally wrote a letter to the Mayor which is why this matter was now before the Planning Commission. He asked for direction from the Planning Commission to get this matter resolved. Mabusth told Mr. Schupp to contact her. Mr. Kelley asked Mabusth who would fund this. Mabusth stated that the City is proceeding with this as a City project. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to table the matter until the residents could work with the City to work up a proposal to bring back in front of the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes»6, NaysQ, Motion passed. #1303 ALLAH RBSABBK 1989 FA6BRHBSS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were noted. Mr. Rezabek and Mr. Fisher were both present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she was using Hr. Fisher's survey for the presentation of this matter. Kelley asked if Mr. Rezabek agreed with the use of this survey. Mabusth visited the site in (question to determine where the designated lot line was in conjunction with the location of the fence. It was established that the reason for the fence being located 1/2 foot to a foot on the Fisher property was due to a recent torrens action where the Courts determined the location of the shared lot line. Judicial markers have been placed, indicating the actual lot line. In so doing, it was determined that the Rezabek fence encroached on the Fisher property 12" on the west side and 6" on the east side. Mr. Rezabek explained the situation and stated that he would like the fence that was torn down restored on his property and would like to move that portion of the fence still on the Fisher property to his property. Mr. Kelley explained that the job of the Planning Commission is to approve or deny the variance to relocate the existing fence and allow that portion that was torn down to be installed on Rezabek's side of the lot line. Mr. Rezabek expressed his displeasure with the City in that they did not inform him of the need of a variance to move the fence. The existing Ordinance states that there cannot be a fence of any kind within 75' of the Lake. In light of the Ordinance, Mr. Rezabek would only be permitted to install approximately 20' of the fence since that is the amount of property that does not lie within the protected lakeshore setback area. Mr. Kelley asked for the hardship in this case. Mr. Rezabek stated that the hardship was that the fence existed at the time he purchased the MIHDTBS OP THE PLAlffltllK: CX)MM1S6I(:TIHG HELD JULY 18, 1988 #1303 ALLAN REZABEK-CONTINUED property and was a factor in his decision to purchase the property. Mr. Fisher stated that when the judicial markers were placed it was the first time they realized that the fence was on their property. The Fishers have just finished a remodeling project that added on a storage shed and garage that brought the driveway down along the property line. They spent a considerable amount of money for landscaping and feel that the fence detracts from that. Is is their opinion that the fence creates a safety hazard as it creates a blind intersection; All in all the fence is an eyesore and a safety hazard and should not be reinstalled. Mr. Rezabek stated that he is in the process of selling their house and they have had several realtors and perspective buyers view the property. No one has indicated that they dislike the fence, to the contrary, they have had some compliments on the landscaping which was done to compliment the fence. He does not believe the fence is a safety issue. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Fisher as to his preference for the fence up or down. Mr. Fisher responded he would like it down. When asked he would be moving, Mr. Rezabek stated he would, if the house sells, and added he would like to sell the house with the fence. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on the safety issue. It was moved by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Kelley, to deny the lakeshore setback variance application. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1304 RICHARD BLOONQOIST/RICR'S SUPER VALU 3333 SBORBLIHB DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present for this matter. Kelley stated that the Planning Commission is looking to approve a street setback for a pylon sign due to the County Road 15 construction. The additional right-of-way is being taken by the County. Kelley inquired as to whether there would be a guardrail between the road sign and the roadway. Mabusth replied that there is a 4' to 5* cement pathway and a boulevard about 4* to 5', all in all approximately 10* of improvements. There will also be a 1-1/2* curb that will border the entire area and will take the overhang of the car bumpers. Kelley reiterated that 20* is the required setback for parking and the Applicant was requesting 0*. Mabusth stated that has been a procedure to grant 10* street setback variances for parking in the Navarre area. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of #1304 for a sign variance of 7* and a street setback of 20*. Mabusth added that if the Applicant is planning on installing a new sign, he can only do so upon approval of the City. This language was included in the Motion. Motion, Ayes= 6, Nays-0, Motion passed. MinUTBS OF THE PIAHHIHG COMNISSION NEBTIHG SBID JOLT 18, 1988 #1305 WASHIH6TOH SCIBHTIFIC, IMC. 2605 NEST NATZATA BOULEVARD COHDITIOHAL OSB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Joe Pallansch, a representative of Washington Scientific, was present for this matter. Mr. Kelley asked Applicant about his opinion as to what the Watershed District wants to do. Mr. Pallansch referred to a letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and their concern about run-off rates increasing 4%. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the City would work closely with the MCWD in determining the actual size of the pond required for run-off. Mr. Pallansch stated that he would really like to postpone this matter until further discussions took place. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Cohen to table #1305, Washington Scientific, Inc., Conditional Use Permit. Motion, Ayes^^^, Mays^O, Motion Carries. #1306 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3280/3286 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL OSB PBRMIT/VARIAMCBS PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were not present for this matter but had requested that this matter be tabled until a later date when the requested subdivision application would also be reviewed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table #1306 Metro Waste Control Commission Conditional Use Permit/Variances. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays^O, Motion passed. Johnson commented that he felt architectural controls were necessary and that noise, odor and landscaping would be additional issues needing attention. #1307 DIANE AND DOUGLAS MERE 3195 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Merz were present for this matter. Gaffron explained that the Applicants are requesting a variance to side street setback in order to construct a deck. There was a previous deck on the property. They are proposing a deck that would wrap around the house. The property line is approximately 1' from the house which is located about 20' from the paved portion of Leaf Street on that side. There is a sidestreet setback requirement of 50' in this zone. He stated 8 MIHUTBS OP THE PIAHMIHG COMMISSION MEETING 9FLD JULT 18, 1988 #1307 DOUGLAS AND DIANE MERZ-CONTINUED that the proposed deck will not have any negative effect on the neighboring properties. Mr. Cole Graham, a neighbor residing across the street from the Merz property, stated that it would be a shame to deny this request. There were no further comments from the public. Cohen reminded the Applicants that they will need to obtain the necessary building permits to comply with the plans. Kelley questioned whether there will be any difficulty in meeting the required 3’ setback to the well. Applicants indicated there would be no problem. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to recommend approval of #1307, setback variance to construct a deck, in accordance with staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1308 ROBERT ONBHS 1700 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present for this matter. Gaffron stated that this was an after-the-fact application to reconstruct a deck. There was significant damage to Applicants' property due to the July 23, 1987 storm. Mr. and Mrs. Owens contracted to have the damage repaired. It was necessary to remove the stairway from the existing deck in order to allow equipment get by the house. When the stairs were removed, it was discovered that the deck was infested with carpenter ants, resulting in the deterioration of the structure making replacement necessary. Even though there is no change in the amount of hardcover, the variance is needed because the pre-existing structural deck hardcover has been entirely removed. There were no public comments. Applicant stated that their contractor built the replacement deck while they were on vacation. The contractor applied for the necessary permits to do all of the other storm damage repair, but failed to obtain a permit for the deck. Applicant stated that in doing the repair to the lakeshore, there was a fieldstone patio on the waterline that has been removed, reducing the overall hardcover in the 0'- 75' zone. It was moved by Hanson, and seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance, per staff recommendations and obtaining a permit. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. ZONING AMENDMENT - SIGNAGE PUBLIC HEARING 9:00 P.M. TO 9:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The concerns regarding signage pertains to the type of signs that are MIHUTBS OF THE PIAmiHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1S88 ZONING AMENDMENT-SIGNAGE - CONTINUED allowed in residential areas and the amount of time "temporary" signs may be displayed. The problem signs are those that are allowed by Conditional Use Permits on public right-of-ways, together with signs in residential areas in locations being utilized commercially. The ultimate purpose of the Ordinancp is to eliminate ongoing temporary signs. Applicants can presently let their permit lapse and then apply to renew again and again. Johnson asked whether this affected garage sale signs. Mabusth stated that it would if those signs were located in a right-of-way. The recommendation is to add language to the existing signage Ordinance, sub-paragraph A stating that no conditional use permit will be issued by the Council if such a permit or temporary permit has been issued in the previous 24 months. Mr. John Hollander asked about enforcing ordinance and whether public right-of-way pertained to County Roads or Orono City Roads. Kelley responded by saying public right-of-way means County, City, State, Federal. Mabusth stated that illegal signs on County Roads would be picked up by the County, etc. The second amendment pertains to sub-paragraph H. It is recommended that additional language be adopted stating that the City will not issue a temporary sign permit if a conditional use permit under sub-paragraph A or a temporary sign permit under this sub-paragraph had been issued in vhe previous 24 months and that no such signs be Allowed in residential zones. Hanson questioned why the City was making unenforceable changes to the Ordinances. Gaffron noted that the only change to the current code provisions is that the specific signs that are regulated under the current permit requirements could not be renewed indefinitely. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend adoption of the Ordinance amendment to 10.61 sub-division lA and IH. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays»0, Motion passed. ZONING AMENDMENT - FENCES PUBLIC HEARING This pertains to language regarding an ordinance to amend the fence height regulations and clarify the wording of the non-encroachment section of the zoning code. Mabusth explained that the revision to subdivision 15(A) would eliminate overhangs in a substandard side yard or rear yard. If a structure meets the required setback or yard requirement then this would be applicable. Cohen stated chat the proposed ordinance language was not written very clearly. He interpreted this change to say that one can no longer aggravate an existing condition. Gaffron said the next change would involve the off-street parking non­ encroachment which was a separate issue and will now be made into sub- paragraph B. Sub-paragraph C, name-plate signs for one family dwellings was listed along with the ordinance pertaining to lights. Lights should be MIMUTBS OF THE PUamiHG COMUSSION MBBTIHG HELD JULY 18, 1988 ZCWING AMENDMENT-FENCES - CONTINUED in a separate paragraph and is made into sub-paragraph D. Sub-paragraph E pertains to fences. The present language allows for a platform structure to be built in any yard no higher than the ground floor level of the house and extend to within 2 feet of the lot line. This conflicts with most new platted lots that have a 5 foot or 10 foot easement for drainage and utilities. It was suggested by Planning Commission that the revision state 10 feet, rather than 5. Sub-paragraph P is rearranging the original language and adding the phrase "except as regulated hereinafter". Sub-paragraph G has additional language pertaining to accessory structures and more specific requirements as to fence height limitations for lakeshore property. There was discussion among the Planning Commission members regarding some specific fencing situations in Orono. Gaffron went on to explain that the term "major thoroughfare", referred to in paragraph G, will be defined as County roads and MSA funded roads such as North Brown Road, South Brown Road, Old Crystal Bay, Willow, and sections of Watertown. Gaffron also pointed out the changes being made to the criteria for fences in realtion to the average lakeshore setback in sub-paragraph I. Sub-paragraph J is designed to provide performance standards for rail fences. Kelley stated that rail fences are acceptable in his opinion because they are generally used in a decorative manner and still allow for the openness. Mr. John Hollander suggested that the language "existing fences are in conformity with this Ordinance" to avoid problems arising from properties that will no longer meet the new specifications. Kelley recommended that staff come back with the suggested changes. This matter was tabled until the August 15, 1988, meeting. ADDITIONAL ITEMS: SKETCH PLAN REVIEM-BIKE/HIKE TRAILS Mr. Bob Kost presented the Park Commission's proposal to revive the old bike/hike trail. Citizens of Orono have expressed interest in having such a trail. The Park Commissioners did an inventory of the City last fall which indicated existing problem areas due to a lack of a bike trail. The largest problem is bikers on Highway 15. However, due to the expensive private lakeshore property and the limited topography in that area, it is not feasible to prepare a bike/hike trail for that corridor. In light of that, the Park Commissioners looked for alternative routes that would safely get people through and around Orono while allowing for some scenic views of the Lake. Johnson asked about North Shore Drive. Mr. Kost responded that there are some areas there that were not ideal. He felt the greatest need was to get from the business district of Navarre up to Long Lake, circumnavigating the City. In areas where there is difficult topography or limited access, there would be the need to look at extending the shoulder of the road. Hanson asked whether the Park Commissioners had looked at a recommendation toward building a separate, paved bike/hike trail, similar to what is in Eden Prairie. Mr. Kost said that had not yet been done, but that if they were to do so, the trail would most likely run NIHUTBS OP THE PLMmiHG COMMISSION MBBTIHG HELD JOLT 18, 1988 BIKE/HIKE TRAIL - CONTINUED along Highway 12 and Highway 6 and connect up to Baker Park. Hanson would recommend that they look at choosing a primary trail, "The Orono Bike/Hike Trail". Mr. Kost believes it will be necessary to get some public opinion on this matter. Perhaps the Planning Commission and the Park Commission could have a joint meeting, or perhaps the Planning Commission could handle it. The Park Commission does not feel they should decide where the primary bike/hike routes should be located. Cohen does not believe the Planning Commission has the authority. Brown does not believe that portioning off a section of road and calling it a bike trail is a safe solution. Kelle/ said that he sees more bikers on Fox Street than any other Street. Believes that would be a prime corridor to upgrade for the bike trail. The Luce Line was discussed as a possibility. Mr. Kost said that the proposed trail would be a project that the Park Commissioners would work on over the winter months. They want to keep the City apprised and will try to get a plan to present to the citizens of Orono. They will then resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission and ask them to make a recommendation to the Council. Felley stated that there should be a focus on the school area. Mr. Kost thought this would work into the Highway 12 Corridor Study since the zoning ordinances are coming up for review. If the Park Commission could have a plan in tact to present, they could perhaps get a separated trail on the north side of Highway 12 from the School into Long Lake. Kelley suggested that the north/south trail be Old Crystal Bay Road. They have had specific requests concerning a trail to Baker Park. Everyone agreed that this would be a great idea. PPROVAL OP MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to approve the Minutes of the June 20, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays=0. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Charles Kelley was appointed to attend the August 8, 1988 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 P.N. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M.