Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-1988 Planning MinutesMIHOTBS OF THE PLAllNIliG COMNISSIOH Trim SBPTBNBER 19. 1988 ATTBHDAMCB 7s00 P.N. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Bellows, Cohen and Hanson. The following represented the City staff; Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Planning Consultant John Shardlow and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Grabek; attended and Councilmember Goetteii was also present. #1326 RONALD D. LAI 200 NAYZATA BOOLBVARD CLASS II PRBLININART SOBDIVISION PUBLIC HBARIMG 8:15 P.M>8:19 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Nailing were duly noted. The applicant was not present for this matter. Planning Commission member Johnson stated that he would like to vote on this matter. Chairman Kelley disagreed and stated that there would be some debate involved with this matter. Bellows suggested hearing the public comments. Kelley disagreed and stated that the applicant should be present. One person from the public indicated that he would be willing to come back at any time to participate in the discussion of this matter. Another gentleman indicated that he would be out of town for the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting, but he could attend the October 17th meeting. Another concerned party inquired as to how many meetings the applicant could miss. Kelley reiterated his belief that it would not be effective to have the public comments of record without the applicant being present. 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 Commission member Hanson, to table #1326 until the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays>0, Motion passed. #1328 HOWARD B. JOHNSON 1635 6 1675 CONCORDIA STREBT SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT CLASS I PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 P.M. - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this matter involved changing an existing lot MimiTBS OF THE PIAIINIIIG O SSIOM IflllG SBpnaiBBR 19, 1988 •JZONING PILB il328-H0mRD JOHNSON OOHTIN1 line. The lot line rearrangement is necessary because the neighboring property, owned by the Trainors, encroaches apprv*>ximately 1' over the property line onto the Johnson property. The proposal entails moving the lot line to allow a 5' setback for the Trainor house. Gaffron asked why the Trainor property should not not comply with the 10* setback standard? Mr. Johnson responded that he is giving the land to the Trainors as a result of a torrens proceeding that occurred back in 1968. After discussion with the Trainors, there had been a mutual agreement that Mr. Johnson would go ahead with the lot line rearrangement. He obtained Council approval for his proposal, but the documents showing the change in the lot line were never recorded. Planning Commission member Johnson noted that if such documents were not recorded they became null and void after 6 months of being executed. Chairman Kelley told the Planning Commission members that they would need to make a determination between a 5' setback or a 10* setback. Planning Commission member Johnson stated that in his opinion, the 10* setback standard should be upheld. Planning Commission member Cohen agreed with Johnson. He added that what happened 20 years ago cannot be of any concern at this point. Kelley stated that the applicant was requesting approval for 5*. Mrs. Trainor spoke and indicated that their house was built in 1951 and there have been no additions since that date, except on the south side. 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 Commission member Johnson, to recommend denial of a 5* sideyard setback variance as requested in application #1328. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron interjected that denial of this application would disallow Mr. Johnson from revising this matter and coming back before the Planning Commission. However, tabling this would provide him with that opportunity. Kelley asked Mr. Johnson if he would prefer to have the matter tabled. Mr. Johnson responded affirmatively. Kelley withdrew his motion, Johnson withdrew his second of the motion. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1328. Motion, Ayes^S, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1330 FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. 880 TONNLINE ROAD CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 8:20 P.N.-8:43 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MIHUTBS OF THE PIAKHIliG CONMISSIOH mcSTING SBPTBfBBR 19* 1988 II >1lOHIMG PILE #1330-POLLERTON PEOPBIKTIES COWTIW The Mr. Joseph Franks was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the subject property is located within the 5-acre minimum zone. Applicant is proposing a 7 lot residential subdivision with a private road. The lots would be served by an interior private road. There would be no access off of Townline Road. There would be three lots that would require a variance to the 300' width standard. Lot 2 would have a defined width of 285' at the setback line; Lot 4 would have a defined width of 175' and Lot 5 would have a defined width of 150'. The proposed road length is 1,000' with a 50' outlet with a 100' cul de sac. The paved road section is proposed as urban, which would provide curbing as opposed to shoulders. A 24' paved width is proposed, but Orono code does not specify requirements for seven lots. The City Engineer has suggested 28'. The point where the private road would access Townline Road is directly across from a private road in Independence. Lots 3 and 4 are proposed to cross Painter's Creek. Staff recommends a single shared creek crossing point adjacent to the cul de sac, at the shared lot line. The applicant was now requesting 2 driveway entrances for Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Mark Gronberg, the applicant's surveyor, explained that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District installed a weir on the property. The flows coming through the property are only 9 cfs and the culvert requirements are much less than the size of the culverts that currently run under County Road 6. The MCWD has no objections to the proposed 2 creek crossings. Chairman Kelley asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District maintained that area. Gronberg replied affirmatively, and added that the MCWD has certain rights and an easement from the County to access that location. Kelley inquired as to the maintenance performance of the MCWD. Gronberg stated, "it looks pretty good in there". Gaffron showed were the Watershed District's easement was located in respect to the proposed subdivision. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission members to refer to a letter from the City Engineer wherein he requested that the storm sewer outlet be 958 rather than 961.0. Buildability of each lot was the next concern. Gaffron stated that each lot contains 1 1/2 - 2 acres with slopes of 6% or less. Mound-type septic systems would be necessary on most of the lots, due to high water table soils. Gaffron is concerned about Lot 2 because the Soil Survey may be incorrect in its depiction of where Hamel-type soils are located. Gaffron requested that soil borings be completed to better determi;ie the soil content of Lot 2. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Gronberg if he had any other plans prior to this proposal? Gronberg responded, that there were, but one of the main things they wanted to do was access directly iilfiDTBS OP THB PIASHIHG CQMMISSIOH NBETIHG BmPTBUSm 19, 1988 ZOMI1I6 PILB «1330-FULLraTpN PROPBRTIBS CONTIHU across from the road in Independence for traffic reasons, otherwise they would come too close to Highway 6, which would create a bad intersection". Kelley asked how many other plans had been looked at? Gronberg replied 2 other ones. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked if that access also lined up with the access coming from the west side? Mr. Gronberg answered affirmatively. Gaffron stated that one of the concerns of that road is that the City Engineer has suggested that there not be an island at the entrance. With respect to future road extension considerations, Gaffron said that he and the City Engineer looked at where the neighboring properties might develop or whether they would develop. Due to the layout of the land and the existing wetlands, there would be no apparent need to provide a corridor for future access to the east, south or north. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that in light of other applications before the Planning Commission, she would like to see more exploration done to determine what the actual building envelopes would be. Bellows is concerned about the combination of topography, soil condition and lot shape. Planning Commission member Hanson said he was especially concerned about the location of the Hamel soils. Chairman Kelley said that the proposed access across from the street to the west made a lot of sense, but that he had the same c^oncerns about the building envelopes as Bellows had. Hanson stated that basically he liked the layout, and hopefully the soil borings would be helpful in clearing up his concerns. Chairman Kelley addressed the issue of frontage on Lots 2, 4 and 5. He wanted to know if the Planning Commission members would be in favor of the width variance required to meet the required 300' width? Planning Commission member Johnson indicated that he would be in favor of the proposed layout. Bellows stated that she was more concerned with how the entire subdivision worked, rather than any one particular variance. She added that before an intelligent decision could be made as to the variances, the soil borings and building envelope issues would need to be addressed. Chairm(*>n Kelley inquired as to the proposed size of the culverts for Painters Creek? Mr. Gronberg responded that 24" was the proposed size. Kelley asked if the plan was to put 2 of those in on Lot 3 and Lot 4? Gronberg answered in the affirmative. Kelley asked how he would feel if the Planning Commission indicated they only wanted one? Gronberg said that decision would not cause him to abandon the entire project, but having individual driveways would be better than shared driveways. Kelley asked him how he would feel about a 28* roadway as opposed to a 24' roadway? Gronberg responded that with only 7 houses, 28' would be overkill. Johnson indicated that he agreed with Mr. Gronberg's opinion. INimiTBS OP THB PLMmillG COMUSSIOH !TI«6 SEPTMIBBR 19, 1988 •i>iZ0RI1I6 PILE #1330 PULLERTOH PROPERTIES-COHTIIH Chairman Kelley stated that this matter would probably be tabled, but the Planning Commission should provide some direction for the applicant. Kelley said that they were looking for a definition of the natural building envelope in each lot. Kelley asked if primary and alternate septic systems should be indicated for each lot? Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffroi responded that if there is Hamel soil predominately in the 5-acre zone, it would be helpful to have the proposed septic systems designated. Kelley asked if Gaffron wanted to use his discretion as to which lots required septic system >Z8signation. Gaffron replied that yes, he would like to make that determination. Gaffron said he would look at soil borings first and then decide if they need to do further testing based on the boring results. Kelley asked if the Planning Commission wanted to give that discretion to Gaffron so there would be no confusion as to who would handle that aspect of the application. Mr. Franks expressed his desire to have the building envelope defined as soon as possible so they could proceed yet this Fall. Bellows stated that the determination for the septic system and the building envelope define whether or not the project would be acceptable. Mr. Franks stated that he could not determine exactly where, on a 5-acre lot a house would be required to be built. He felt that should be left up to the lot-owner's discretion. Bellows asked Mr. Franks to look at the topography of Lot 2. Mr. Franks said that the front part of the lot was clear, but the back part was all woods. His preference would be to build near the woods, but that may not be the wishes of the person actually building on the lot. Bellows explained that the concerns with Lot 2 involved the soil being designated as Hamel for nearly the entire lot. Hamel soil is worthless and useless. Mr. Franks stated that he was willing to accept that restriction readily. Bellows responded that there would be no suitable location to build a house on that Lot. 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 Commission member Cohen, to table this application, pending the outcome of the definition of buildability of each lot and the taking of soil borings for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5. Based upon the soil borings, the City Staff v;ill determine which lots would require percolation tests. The issues of culverts and variances would be deferred until the buildability of the lots was determined. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1333 SIDREY RBBBRS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD RBZ0NIN6 PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.lf.-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. im waBT amm milUTBS OF THE PLAMNIliG COMMISSIOR MBBTIH6 19, 1988 •JZQHIW6 FILE #1333-REBERS COETIE1 Mr. John Shardlow, a Planning Consultant for the City of Orono, presented this matter on behalf of the City of Orono. He stated that this item had been reviewed at the previous Planning Commission Meeting as a sketch plan. The subject property xs part of the Highway 12 Corridor Study and is consequently to be reviewed in relationship to that study. The plan will also be required to meet the special minimum requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 Corridor. Shardlow pointed out that there is over 50' of grade separation on the proposed site. There is a large hill with an elevation of approximately 1044' in the center of the site, dropping off to the east along Brown Road and in the extreme northwest corner of the site. The only other characteristic of the site, other than the fact that it is wooded with mature maple trees, is that it nas a heavy clay and clay-loam soils. These soils can present some severe obstacles fer on-site sewage disposal systems. Chairman Kelley asked if the soil type had actually been verified through soil borings. Shardlow stated that the soil type was determined by a Soil Survey. There are special minimum requirements for zoning along the Highway 12 Corridor. There is a requirement that the minimum area request for rezoning be 5 acres or 10 acres. The Rebers land area is 32.6 acres so they would meet that requirement. Another requirement would be an access and circulation plan to insure that it precludes direct access not only to Highway 12, but that it also facilitates the movement of traffic through the area. The Highway 12 Corridor Study talks about the need for a frontage road, whether it be a standard frontage road or a remote frontage road between Brown Road and Willow That will be accomodated once the southern half of the area is developed. The sanitary sewer availability is one of the key issues. The City's Engineering Consultant has reviewed the Reber's application and stated that this requirement could be satisfied one of two ways: Either through Long Lake, by the joint powers agreement, or by constructing a new interceptor along the Highway 12 Corridor. There is a great deal of concern about the impact of this project on Lake Minnetonka. There is a need for ponding on the southeast corner of the property. The applicants are aware of that requirement and have included a ponding area in the preliminary sketches that have been done fer the southern area. The ponding issue will be dealt with when the southern portion of the area is addressed. The special minimum requirements also talk about available zoning districts within the Corridor. The Rebers' proposal is for rezoning to R-lA#through the PRD, Planned Residential zoning category. Both of those classifications are listed among the available zoning districts within the Corridor. Finally, the special minimum requirements include a development agreement, which will be entered into and signed by the applicants. M1MIITB8 or THE rUOmim COMaSSK TING SBPTBMBSR 19« 1988 20HIHG PILB #1333-RBBERS COMTINDBD With regard to development analysis, Mr. Shardlow has determined that the Rebers* proposal is consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. When this matter was reviewed as a sketh plan, one of the key issues that was discussed to a great degree was the length of the cul-de-sac that is proposed on the private street within the subdivision. The proposal calls for a road that is in excess of 2,000* in length. The City's subdivsion regulations identify a maximum length of 1,000* for a City street, but no maximum length has been established for private roads. The approval of the length of the cul-de-sac does not formally require approval of a variance. The necessity for the cul-de-sac relates back to the topography and vegetation and Mr. Reber's desire to retain as much trees and minimize the on­ site grading as much as possible. In summary, the application has been reviewed for a considerable length of time throughout the entire Highway 12 Corridor Study. In his opinion, the general planning issues and consistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning have been met. The one issue that stands out at this point is the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Shardlow pointed out what he considers to be the three reasonable alternatives that the Planning Commission could consider. The first would be to accept the applicant's plan as presented. Since the cul-de-sac does not require a variance, the Planning Commission could find that the applicant's reasons in favor of the cul-de-sac could adequately justify the departure from the standard subdivision requirements. The second alternative could be requiring the street to be looped or to connect with Pine Ridge Lane. Another alternative would be to construct an "emergency vehicles only" access to try to offset the length of the cul-de-sac. The least disruptive location for such an access would be to extend Pine Ridge Lane to an area that is already being proposed as a trail area. There would be relatively short stretch between that and the interior road that could provide access for an ambulance or firetruck. Chairman Kelley inquired whether Mr. Shardlow was working for the City of Orono and whether the City was responsible for Mr. Shardlow's fees to attend the Planning Commission Meeting. Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered affirmatively. Planning Commission member Bellows asked why there was an exception to the policy of receiving Staff's comments with the packet. Bellows did not receive a copy of Mr. Shardlow's presentation with the other agenda information she received. Kelley informed Mr. Shardlow that he was having a difficult time ascertaining who Mr. Shardlow represented. Mr. Peter Jarvis an Associate of BRW, introduced himself as a representative for Mr. Sid Rebers. He stated that it was Mr. Rebers* intention to build single family homes on approximately 1 acre lots with sanitary sewer. The property is located east of the Pine Ridge subdivision area, immediately west of Orono and iiliims of the pianihiig o SSIOH MEBTU6 SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 • I >•ZONING FILE «1333-REBERS CONTIE North of Wayzata. There is a heavy maple forest that is predominant over 75% of the site. The present proposal only encompasses the northerly 2/3 of the property, not the southern portion which borders Wayzata itself. There are steep slopes on the property. The high point of the land is located roughly within the center and is approximately 1044*. The low point is 994', and is located in the northwest corner of the site. The overall functional plans of the City, as well as the particulars of the site, require that any drainage that occurs as a result of the development of the Rebers* property drain to the lowest point on the site into a retention pond. The proposed uses for the property range from attached to detached residential, sewered to non-*sewored uses. The present proposal is for rezoning to a single family classification that does allow one acre lots, along with a Planned Residential Designation (PRD) to accomodate some design features that Mr. Jarvis intends to incorporate. The rezoning would require provisions that would allow for the proposed 25 lots to have sanitary sewer. This would require the execution of an agreement with Long Lake, or the actual implentation which has already been feasibly studied by the City Engineer, and would eventually be assessed to the benefiting property owners by the City of Orono. The reason for the rezoning is so that sanitary sewers could be used as opposed to mound systems, which would preserve more of the natural vegetation in the area. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Jarvis to outline the current and proposed zoning for the Rebers' parcel. Mr. Jarvis stated that the current zoning is RR-IB. The proposed zoning would be R-lA with a PR overlay, as well as a commercia 1/retai 1 use classification that currently exists along the southerly 1/4 of the site. Kelley stated that when this matter was previously discussed, there was concern about having sufficient room behind the Little Oak Store to build an east to west frontage road. Mr. Jarvis felt that he had adequately anticipated the future needs for Orono in that regard. Jarvis asked if the City had determined whether there would be enough room to place a frontage road in that area, as opposed to placing it parrallel, and adjacent to the Rebers' parcel? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that 50' would be required. The applicant is proposing to take some area from the Wear property to meet the 50' requirement for the road outlot. The proposal includes a shared commons area, which would need to be reduced in size to accomodate the requirement for the road. Kelley asked how many feet from the store the road could be placed? Mabusth responded that there would be at least a 50' setback. Kelley stated that the requirement then would be 100' feet from the store. Mr. Jarvis interjected that there is approximately 130' to the outlot line. Kelley observed that all of the commons area would be used, except for 30'. Mr. Jarvis stated that the road was one of the treasons for the extra depth in the outlot. Kelley stated that this was one of the areas the Planning Commission had asked Mr. Jarvis to further research. Mr. Jarvis stated that it was his understanding that the City Staff had been directed to evaluate to see if the City concurred with the proposal. He did not think he was asked to propose the location of a specifically dedicated right-of-way, but rather to show that if the frontage road was to be installed that there would be sufficient distance in the corridor to do so. Planning Commission member Bellows asked if the road would interfere with the proposed trail system? Jarvis responded that the boundaries of the trail system could be moved accordingly. Dennis and Marni Platteter distributed a letter they had prepared which set forth their concerns about the resoning. Mr. Platteter stated that their property was immediately to the north of the development. The total increased density that would result from the subdivision involved two major concerns. Increased traffic was a concern in that 25 new homes could generate an additional 75 cars that would travel on North Brown Road. There has already been a drastic increase in traffic in that area. Mr. and Mrs. Platteter can no longer safely walk or ride their horses on North Brown Road. Liability is another concern that would arise from the increased density. The Platteters live on the lake and fear little children walking through their property to the lake. The Platteters also have a pool and horses. Mr. Platteter stated that Mr. Rebers was kind enough to visit their home and discuss his proposal with them. He thought that the subdivision was aesthetically pleasing, but did not feel it corresponded with the rural, residential atmosphere of Orono. Property to the west, north and east is rural, residential. Mr. Platteter stated that the rural, residential atmosphere was the reason he and Mrs. Platteter moved to Orono in 1977. He felt that the subdivision was not an attribute, but rather a detriment to the area. Mrs. Platteter stated that she would require a non-penetratable barrier in the location where their property abuts with the commons area, should the development be approved. Chairman Kelley read the letter submitted by the Platteters. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment opened up the possibility of rezoning for certain properties if certain standards are met. However, the property to the w^st is now zoned rural residential, 2-acre minimum and was not involved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Planning Commission member Bellows agreed that the door has definitely been opened by the comprehensive plan to the possible rezoning of this area. In light of that, a proof of hardship is not necessary. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there were some misconceptions that have been presented in this proposal. One of those being the mound sewer vs. sanitary sewer. She and other Planning Commission members determined that a mound system on a 2-acre site would cause an almost equal amount of tree removal as would be required for 2 1-acre sites with sewer. '•mm MimiTBS OP TBOE PLMnilHG COMMISSIOH ,i;-K VIS6 SBPTBMBSR 19, 1988 ZQHIiiG PILE tl333~RBBBRS CONTIIV ii:^ I Bellows added that it*s not the concept of rezoning that was offensive but the manner in which the proposal is being presented. The Planning Commission is being told that the proposal involves a rezoning to 1-acre with a PRD overlay. Bellows felt that typically when a PRD is proposed it is for a unique use of the land in order to save natural characteristics. Bellows said that the more thought she gave to the issue of tree preservation for the Rebers* proposal, the PRD is not performing the function of preserving a maximum number of trees possible. In looking at an aerial photo of the area, she would be inclined to suggest that the housing be clustered on the east side which would save the "the whole bloody forest". Proceeding in that fashion would be considered more of a PRD than what Mr. Jarvis is proposing. However, that would create high density housing. Bellows surmized that what is actually being proposed is a fairly standard subdivision. The net product is not a PRD, it is a rezoning to 3/4 of an acre. Mr, Jarvis reminded Bellows that the parcel is just over 32 acres, of which approximately 8 acres remain undisturbed in prepetuity as part of the outlet that is separate and distinct from and devoted to not only the trail system, but as a complete buffer surrounding the project. There are 2 acre lots to the west, which in each case have a one for one relationship as opposed to the one and one-half for one relationship being proposed. The northern properties have a one for one and five for one, but the five for ■vii*- is along a space that is in excess of 1,000*. There is a rrail system that is well in excess of a mile proposed for the site, there are 8 acres of space that would be commonly owned. Mr. Jarvis was unaware of any subdivision that has ever been executed in Orono where there are landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac, or a trail system such as they are proposing implemented. He also has not seen any further restrictions placed upon the building pad, over and above the standards for a straight subdivision, for the purpose of maintaining vegetation. Mr. Jarvis stated that it would be overreationary to cluster development only on the eastern portion of the parcel. Jarvis added that Mr. Rebers was more than willing to build a multi-family unit, rather than a retail building. It was their feeling that would be more appropriate in light of the adjacent 2-acre zoning. Mr. Jarvis whole heartedly disagreed that the Rebers* development was not a unique proposal. They looked at the proposal from a marketing standpoint, not just a planning process and political process standpoint. Mr. Jarvis responded to the earlier observation regarding tree removal for septic vs. sewer. After the soils had been examined by the engineers, it was determined that the mounded systems would require somewhere between a minimum of 8,000 s.f and a maximum of 10,000 to 11,000 s.f, depending upon the specific conditions of each site. If you considered the 8-10 thousand s.f on a 2-acre lot, plus a 3,000 s.f footprint for the NIHUTBS OF THE PIAimillG COmaSSIOH TING SBPTBMBmi 19, 1988 <1.11SOHING PILE «1333-REBBRS CONTIN1 house, multiply that by 2, you would get a total of 6,000 s.f. for 2 houses with no mounded system. Using the mounded system with the same building footprint, 50% of additional vegetation would be given up. Kelley asked Gaffron if 8,000 s.f. to 10,000 s.f for a mound system was accurate. Gaffron stated that those figures were not unrealistic. Kelley asked Jarvis how many lots, including the road, there could be if the 32 acres was zoned 2~ acre. Jarvis responded that they could get 16 lots. Kelley did some calculations as to how the 2**acre mounded system would compare to the 1-acre sewer. Kelley asked Mr. Jarvis if he had performed those calculations. Jarvis answered in the negative. Kelley asked the City Staff whether or not they had compared the two possibilities? He questionned whether making that determination would be a part of the examining process? Mr. Jarvis stated that they had not received any direction from the Planning Commission to present a 2-acre proposal. Mr. Jarvis asked why the Planning Commission did not indicate that they wanted to see that when this issue was previously presented? Planning Commission member Johnson responded that was because a month ago the Planning Commission was comfortable with the PRD. Chairman Kelley asked if what the proposed lot size was, including the open space. Mr. Kost responded 1.12 acres. Kelley stated that he wanted to confirm that the lot size exceeded one acre, because in a typical PRD, in that particular zoning district, the actual size of the lot, plus open space, has to be over the size of the zoning district. Planning Commission member Bellows reiterated the fact that she had no problem with the concept, it was the execution that was a problem. She added that she did not disagree with the idea of the property being zoned 1-acre. She did not like the way the parcel was being divided. Maggie Roderick, a resident at Dickey Cake Drive, expressed her concern'^to be the emergency vehicle access proposed for Pine Ridge Lane. She stated that Pine Ridge Lane was never intended to be a through road. It was to remain a stub road for the purpose of being an access onto Highway 12. Zoning Administrator stated that the road was supposedly scheduled for a through road through the Rebers' property, through a residential subdivision. Mrs. Roderick said that she had discussed that possibility at the time their property was sold and she had been told that the chances of that Road going through were vague. Mabusth stated that she would not have made such an affirmative representation until the Rebers property was developed. Chairman Kelley asked Mrs. Roderick if she had a specific concern regarding the subdivision. Mrs. Roderick stated that the Planning Commission had done an excellent job in upholding the rural, residential aspect of Orono. She was sure that Mr. Rebers* development would be beautiful, but it would add more traffic to Brown Road. If Pine Ridge Lane were made a through street to Dickey Lake Drive, it could potentially become an access for the public to Willow. MimiTBS OF THE PLAHHIIIG CONHISSIOH TING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 IJ.-OZONING PILE 81333-REBERS C0NTIN1 Mr. John Shardlow. Indicated that he was not an advocate for the Rebers* proposal. His purpose for attending the meeting was to review the proposal as a Consultant for the City of Orono. This process started with the assumption that the City would look at whether or not the comprehensive plan should be amended first. After the comprehensive plan was in place, it would act on specific requests for rezoning, based upon the conditions and standards established. The Rebers' proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Shard low said that statement is not an opinion on his part, it is a fact. He was aware of the fact that there were members of the Planning Commission that disagreed with the comprehensive plan. Therefore, if there is opposition to Mr. Rebers* proposed subdivision, it is actually opposition to the comprehensive plan. The "plan” was in place first and Mr. Rebers* developers tailored their proposal to the comprehensive plan. Mr. John Rick, a resident at 730 Dickey Lake Drive, stated that his concern was similar to Mrs. Roderick's in that if the the subdivision were to create a thoroughfare of Dickey Lake Drive, Pine Ridge and the proposed cul-de-sac, there would be a significant public safety issue to be addressed. Mr. Gerald Pettis, another resident of Dickey Lake Drive, stated that he was suspicious of what could potentially happen should Pine Ridge Lane be opened for a firelane. He was concerned about the City going through Dickey Lake Drive for the purpose of installing sewer lines. Mr. Pettis said that he did not have the property to give for the purposes of a sewer line. Chairman Kelley said that was a good point in that was the next logical step should the sewer be expanded to the west. Mr. Pettis also wanted to know if there were proposed covenants for the development. Kelley answered that a letter had been sent setting forth those covenants. Mr. Pettis asked if they were anything like the covenants for Morningside? If so, he would be very concerned about his property if homes of that calibur were to be put in his area. Mr. Robbin Sentell, residing at 736 Dickey Lake Drive, agreed with concerns raised by his neighbors. His main concern was whether any form of traffic regulation had been proposed for Brown Road and Highway 12, should the Rebers* development be approved. Mr. Shardlow responded to Mr. Sentell*s question by stating that one of the mainstays of the xighway 12 Corridor Study is to preclude any direct access from the frontage of Mr. Rebers* property that is currently zoned commercial. There would be an opportunity for local traffic to get across that location without having to go onto Highway 12. The present plan requires the installation of a frontage road before the southern portion of the Rebers* property is developed. Mr. Sentell asked for further Information regarding specific proposed traffic regulations for Brown Road and Highway 12. Mr. Shardlow replied NIHUTBS OF THE PLMRIIIIG COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19. 1988 ZONING PILE #1333-REBERS CONTIN1 that there is a plan for a signal light at Highway 12 and Brown Road. However, he did not know the exact schedule for installing the light. Chairman Kelley asked if anyone knew the schedule for the light. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that there had been some recent input from the State Highway Department. Supposedly a left-turn lane was going to be installed by the traffic light at Highway 12 and North Brown Road all the way up to Old Crystal Bay Road. Mabusth had nothing definite on a traffic light at Brown Road, however there had been discussion about a traffic light on Willow. Mabusth added that the subdivision did not Include pl2uis for a connection to Pine Ridge Lane. The only concern is the length of the cul-de-sac and that Pine Ridge Lane could be opened up with very controlled access only in a case of an emergency. Planning Commission member Johnson interjected that access of that road had always been intended. Mabusth stated that throughout the entire planning process for that area, the idea of having Pine Ridge as a through road linking the residential areas had been abandoned in favor of a road through the commercial area. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Jarvis to address the issue of the Highway 12 and Brown Road traffic regulation. Mr. Jarvis stated that he knew nothing more than the City Staff. When they started master planning on the property some 13 months ago, he asked the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their perspective of that area. MN DOT responded that nothing was presently planned and there was not enough traffic on Brown Road to warrant a traffic signal in that area. Chairman Kelley asked whether any consideration had been given as to who would be responsible for snow removal on the emergency vehicle access? Mr. Shardlow did not address that particular question, but answered that there were creative ways to design the access without it being a blacktopped through road. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed his opinion about approving the project without the cul-de-sac going all the way around and connecting all the way through. He added that so far there had not been a single explanation or alternative offered that meets any standard of public safety. If Pine Ridge was chosen, they would then have to contend with the expressed concerns of the residents in that area. Planning Commission member Hanson said that he was absent from the previous Planning Commission Meeting, and asked Mr. Jarvis why the cul-de-sac was not corrected. Hanson surmized that it would be easier to market a home on the end of a cul-de-sac. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. ^ It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of rezoning the property to R-lA from an existing zoning NIVDTBS OF THE PLMmiHG COIMISSICMi VI«6 SBPTBIBBR 19, 1988 Z0HIM6 PILE «1333-REBBRS COHTIN1 classification of RR-IB. Motion, Ayes»3# Nays, Cohen and Kelley, Motion passed. Kelley stated that he agreed with the neighbors to the north. He believed this project was a total infringement upon the 2-acre residential zoning within the City of Orono. He is afraid that a precedent would be set. #1334 SIDNEY BEBBRS 715 EORTB BEOffE ROAD CQRDITIORAL USE PERMIT-PRD CLASS III FSBLIMIHART SUBDIVISIOE PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 P.M. - 10:45 P.N. The Affidavit of Publicatior and Certificate of Nailing were duly noted. Mr. Peter Jarvis continued to present this matter on behalf of Mr. Sid Rebers. Mr. Jarvis began by addressing the issue of connecting the cul-de-sac. He stated that connecting the street would not be a project-killer. There are several solutions to this concern, however, connecting the road in his mind is the least efficient solution for several reasons. One reason is because of the requirement to remove more mature maple trees. Secondly, there is a slope condition in excess of 500*. Third, a 25 lot subdivision would not produce enough emergency situations to warrant an emergency vehicle access road. Mr. Jarvis elaborated on a development he was doing in a suburb of Detroit that had many more houses on a cul-de-sac with no secondary access road. He also felt that a cul-de-sac provided more security in that potential burglars would know there was only one way in and one way out. Mr. Jarvis hoped to elicit a positive response from the Planning Commission because the City's ordinances do not impose a 1,000 standard on private streets. City Staff had requested that the street be plotted as a 50* outlot. He would have not problem doing so. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she took p- .de in the fact that Orono did take public safety into consideration. All it would take was one incident to justify having the road available. Bellows inquired was to why the proposed main access is being placed in a location that even Mr. Jarvis did not feel was a safe location, due to poor visibility? Mr. Jarvis stated that they purposely did not place the road further to the north because it would affect a larger number of properties on the east side of the roadway, as a result of traffic driving along Brown Road for a greater distance. Mr. Jarvis showed where the optimum location of the intersection would be. Planning Commission member Hanson estimated that there would be 50% or greater of the people in the development that would not travel south to Highway 12, but rather travel north to Highway 6. Jarvis stated if 12 vented north and 12 vented south, from a numbers standpoint, the access location would not be an issue. They did not locate the road farther to the south because they did not want to interfere with any accesses for the laMUTBS OF THE PLMmillG O SSIC»Tm6 SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 Z0RIE6 PILE #1334-RBBBRS COHTIEUBD commercial area. They worked with the City Engineer and slid the intersection 50* to the south to provide for better sight distance. Bellows inquired whether the proposal had always called for an island at the opening of the road. Mabusth stated that she had not received a copy of the Engineer's report. Mr. Kost indicated that the City Engineer was aware of the existence of the island in that location. Bellows stated that she would prefer to see the access moved to the north, to the top of the hill. She would still like to see the road looped. Mr. Jarvis stated that they had looked at other possibilities, but all with a cul-de*>sac theme. Bellows state that the Planning Commission had provided some clear direction to Mr. Jarvis that they wanted to see alternatives to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jarvis stated that in his mind the cul-de-sac was the better approach. Bellows stated that the directives and requests of the Planning Commission had been totally ignored. Mr. Jarvis asked for an explanation as to what other matters the Planning Commission had given direction at the last meeting. Planning Commission member Johnson stated that the expressed alternatives were either the looped street or a connection to the west. The connection to the west was not favorabl looked upon by the Planning Commission as a whole. That left only the alternative of the looped street. Bellows stated that the other concern was the tree removal caused by installations of swimming pools and tennis courts. Bellows stated that including those items in the mound system calculations, it would "blow them out of the water". Jarvis interjected that the square foot calculations for the mound systems did not include the possible requirement of a secondary system should the first one fail. Bellows stated that she had requested specific guidelines that would address tree removal. Planning Commission member Johnson Indicated that he thought the proposal worked well and that it was in line with the comprehensive plan. His concern is that the PRD is a trade-off for the 2-acre zoning. In other words the trail system was being used to support the basis for the one-acre lots. He did not like the fact that the trail system would be available only to the immediate property owners. Mr. Jarvis stated that any of the neighbors in the area of this development would use the trail system if they so chose. His concern is making it part of an overall trail system. The comprehensive plan includes a major trail corridor and there will be an easement along the Rebers* property to fit in with that plan. Planning Commission member Hanson expressed a favorable opinion toward the overall proposal. However, he did have strong reservations about the location of the access, he would like it on top of the hill. Security may be a problem since the trail system will abutt the backyards of the houses. One acre lot size was not a concern. Hanson would prefer a looped street, but felt MUfOTBS OP THE PLAIIMIIIG COIMISSIOH TIMG SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 S0MIR6 PILE «1334~REBERS COMTINl Mr. Jarvis's arguments were persuasive in favor of a cul-de-*sac. Mr. Jarvis stated that if the Planning Commission wanted the access located on the top of the hill, he would comply. Moving the access to the top of the hill would shorten the length of the cul-de-sac approximately 400*. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he was not favorably impressed with the proposal. He did not like the one acre aspect. He believed that the trees will be removed for the installation of pools, tennis courts, driveways, etc. He also believed that saving one life would justify either looping the street or having an emergency vehicle road installed. Mr. Platteter suggested moving the subdivision south for the purpose of accessability from Willow where there will be traffic control. If the east/west road were installed behind Little Oak Store development, that road could be used to access the Rebers* subdivision. Mr. Shardlow stated that that plan had been considered. However, that alternative was discarded because the area had always been zoned for commercial use. It was their intention to keep the commercial traffic and residential traffic separate. Chairman Kelley stated that the same argument should be made when dealing with Willow and Old Crystal Bay Roads where commercial property abuts residential property. With respect to the PRD, the through road is not a requirement. However this application, in his mind, does not meet the requirements of a PRD. A PRD is designated by the uniqueness in topography requiring special attention to benefit the entire parcel. He agreed with Planning Commission member Bellow's observations in that the PRD is being used to create the trail system. Kelley asked if specific conditions could be placed on the PRD? More Information and specifications would need to be considered before the PRD could be approved. If the PRD were approved, the applicant would come back to the Planning Commission with a set of conditions. As Mr. Shardlow noted earlier in the meeting, Mabusth reminded Kelley that they were now functioning under the new PRD, so it would come back before them automatically. Mr. Shardlow stated that there was a timing issue involved with this. The reason why this matter was being considered under the current PRD conditional use process, as opposed to the new planned development zoning district, is because it is not on the books yet. The PRD regulations for Orono only allows for flexibility in lot sizes and provides for the private open space that is the outlets. Planning Commission member Bellows asked Mr. Shardlow if the City and Planning Commission would have as much control under the current regulations as they will under those being proposed? Mr. Shardlow explained that there is a conditional use permit •m imniTBS OF TBB PLMmiHG comssictt j H:mtm ssmiOm it, itis Z0HIV6 PILE «1334-BEBERS COETIMUBD opportunity available through the current PRD. This would allow reasonable conditions to be attached to the approval. There is a rezoning issue with the PUD. This would mean that the applicants would not come back before the Planning Commission with the new PUD classification. The property has been rezoned R-lA, and the subdivision will be approved through the PRD/Conditional Use Permit. This matter would not come back for a final development plan approval of the PUD, because the applicant did not apply for that. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised the Planning Commission to table this matter uaL5 "• chey can develop further conditions, because this would be the last review of the preliminary subdivision and conditional use permit. Bellows requested an opportunity to meet with the City staff that is more familiar with the conditional use permit process so that proper definitions can be made. Nr. Jarvis asked Chairman Kelley if they could proceed to the City Council with the rezoning portion of the proposal. Jarvis also stated that he would like notice of the conditions in advance of the City Council meeting so they can be prepared. Kelley suggested giving some conception of the Planning Commission's opinion of the PRD. Planning Commission member Johnson stated that he would be in favor of the PRD, providing the aspect of a private trail system versus a public trail system was addressed. He would like to see the land given back to the Community since the trail system is a trade-off for the lack of 2-acre lot sizes. Chairman Kelley doubted there would be much that could be done in that capacity since the land was private land. Bellows asked about the aspect of park dedication? Bellows also stated that she would not be in favor of the PRD as it stands. She would only approve it if there was an alternative to the cul-de-sac and she did not feel that this was a PRD. Kelley was not fully opposed to the idea of the PRD or the cul- de-sac. The issue of the island will need to be addressed. Planning Commission member Hanson indicated that he was at a 60%/40% status in favor of the plan. It was determined that the conditions and directions from the Planning Commission would be discussed during the October 3rd Planning Commission Meeting. It was suggested that the applicants have a representative present at that meeting. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. f It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by , to table #1334, until the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays«0, Motion passed. mmiTBS OP mi pLMmiiiG connissioh ITIliG SBPTBMBER 19, 1998 #1301 FREDERICK C. WHITE 180 WORTH SWORE DRIVE WEST PRELIMIHART SOBDIVISIOW-SECOWD REV 191 COHTIWDATIOH OF PUBLIC HEARIW6 The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reminded the Planning Commission that this matter had been discussed at the August 15, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. At that time the proposal Involved a configuration for 2 lots and an out lot. The Planning Commission had requested a topographical map to aid in the division of the property. The applicant has now revised the lot lines to create only a single lot, dividing the existing house from the whole parcel. Staff has reviewed access possibilities with Hennepin County. Originally it was surmised that an access site could be at the very south of the applicant's property. It has since been determined that the best access location would be off of Bayside Road at the northeast corner of the property. The Planning Commission also had requested information concerning future plans for development of the neighboring properties. Gaffron depicted on a sketch where the possible road placements could occur to access these potential new developments. However, Hennepin County has indicated that 2 of those possibilities would be undesireable due to accessing near high-traffic areas. It is likely that accesses would not be determined until such time that the properties are individually subdivided and the City required a dedicated interior road. One of the concerns of this matter is whether the large lot becomes an out lot with development stipulations or merely becomes Lot 2. An outlot with stipulations could disallow any construction until the lot became subdivided. This would allow the City to consider whether a proposed development fit the scheme for future subdivisions. If this other lot was considered Lot 2, presumably development could occur in any location within that lot. Chairman Kelley inquired as to how many acres consisted in Lot 1 and the undesignated Lot. Gaffron responded that Lot 1 was 2 acres of dry and approximately 1.5 acres of wet. Lot 2, or the Outlot, has approximately 10 acres of dry. Planning Commission member Johnson asked whether Orono would grant a building permit on an outlot. Gaffron stated that if the lot were designated as an outlot, the City would request conditions be established for development. Planning Commission member Bellows asked what the purpose was for accomplishing the subdivision at this point. Gaffron explained that the applicant had a contract to sell his house with a parcel of property that meets the City's standards for a 2 acre lot. Kelley stated that he would be in favor of this proposal if NIVOTBS OF THB PLAmililG C v:i:i SSIC» HBBTISG SEPTBTOR 19« 1988 •I -*ZOHIliG FILED #1301-MHITB COETIE the City could regulate development of the outlot. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed his preference for "Option A" of staff's recommendations as opposed to "Option B". Kelley asked Mr. White what his preference would be. Mr. White indicated that he had no objection to the terms set forth in •Option A", making the large lot an outlot. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohenr to recommend approval of this application# per staff's recommendations and conditions of approval which included the terms of "Option A" rather than "Option B". Upon further review of staff's recommendations and conditions# Cohen questioned paragraph 2 concerning a 17' right-of-way for County Road 19. Cohen withdrew his motion until this was clarified. Gaffron explained this would allow a consistency with the City's 100' right-of-way corridor for the McCully Road connection between County Roads 19 and 6. Bellows asked how the right-of-way would affect the applicant's dry buildable. Gaffron stated that it might have an effect. Kelley asked about setbacks and septic tanks. Gaffron stated that the 17' right-of-way would still allow for the required 50' setback for the existing house. There should be no interference with the septic tanks located on the property. Kelley asked if the northerly lot line could be moved enough to offset the 17' right-of-way should it create a deficit in the required dry buildable? Gaffron answered affirmatively. Gaffron clarified for Mr. White what the City would need to do in light of the 17' right-of-way. Applicant questioned how that would affect the 150’ corridor and the possibility of turning that into a lot in the future. It was his understanding that 150' was the maximum. Gaffron replied that there was actually a 200' standard for the District# and noted that the width of that corridor necessarily decreases as the 2 acre requirements for Lot 1 is satisfied. There would be no other alternatives if applicant wished to obtain the 2-acre dry buildable requirement where the house is now located. Bellows added that the wetland does not extend to the property line so there would be no way to make it contiguous going the other way. Cohen asked why the City was considering the County's request for the 17'. Gaffron stated that normally the City denies any right- of-way requests for County roads that are not heavily travelled. Due to the fact that the City has a 100' corridor to the north# and because the road is a major connecting point for Highway 12 and Mound# the City Staff felt it would be appropriate to grant the right-of-way. It was moved by Cohen# seconded by Bellows# to recommend approval of application #1301# per staff recommendations and conditions. The Planning Commission recommended "Option A" because it would be a planning mode since future development in that area has not yet been determined. Paragraph 6 would be omitted entirely at this time. This approval would also be based nssp .M l»ITBS OF THB PLMmiHG OOMNISSIOM !TIH6 SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 ZOHIRG FILE 81301HIBITE COETIMI upon the stipulation that applicant's lot line be moved as necessary to meet the 2-acre dry buildable requirement should the 17* right-of-way create a deficit. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, motion passed. #1310 HOMARD F. EISIMGER 3245 NATXATA BOOLEVARD REEBIIAL COPDITIGHAL OSE P1SRM1T SBCOED REVIEM Chairman Kelley stated that the applicant requested tabling this matter because personnel from Park Construction were unable to attend. Zoning Administrator Mabusth confirmed that and added that all concerned parties would attend the October 3, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. #1318 SOAD H. AZAHARI 1745 FOX STRSST VARIAWIBS OOETIEUATIOM OF PUBLIC HEARIEG Applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter involved a height variance for a wall/fence. The highest portion of the wall is 8-1/2 feet where 3-1/2 feet is the maximum allowed. The wall creates no sight distance problems. Chairman Kelley questioned if the gate was for security purposes. Applicant answered affirmatively. Kelley wanted to know why there was a rail fence along the lot line to the east. Mabusth interjected that it was for the purpose of keeping unwanted traffic off of the applicant's property. Kelley asked why a 3- 1/2' fence would not be sufficient to keep traffic out? The applicant stated that a 3-1/2* fence would not work as well, and the fence was already nearly completed. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she had no objection to such a proposal when it did not interfere with vision of the road. The gates were suitable for the property. Bellows knew of a similar situation wherein the 3-1/2* fence did nothing to curtail traffic. A 8-1/2' fence seemed more intimidating. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of #1318. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1319 RARER FULLER 4055 ELM STREET RENEWAL VARIANCE CORTIRUATIOR OF PUBLIC HEARING The applicant was not present for this matter. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning MIMOTBS OP THE PIAmillG COIOaSSIOB !TIB6 SBPTBMBBR 19» 1988 • l> •ZCmiWG FILE tl319-FDLLBR COHTI1I1 Commission member Hanson, to table #1319. Nays^O, Motion passed. Motion, Ayes»5, §1321 TOM HAISLBT 950 OLD CRTSTEL BAT ROAD NORTH CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION SECOND RBVIBN The applicant, Tom Haislet was present, as was Lucy Taylor from the School Board, Bill Fenholdt from School Administration, and Tony Leung, the Attorney for the School District. Hr. Leung presented this matter on behalf of the School District. Mr. Leung explained that the School District was acquiring the parcel as proposed because of the lack of capital funds available to purchase the entire parcel at once. In addition, the sellers wanted to sell the land in installments to avoid an unnecessary tax burden. Further, the City of Orono prohibits the School District from entering into an installment contract. It was determined that the best procedure for purchasing the parcel would be a lease with an option to purchase. Mr. Leung reiterated the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission as to the School District failing to purchase all of the lots. The School District is in favor of placing an easement in favor of the City of Orono for the purpose of a road on the property. Mr. Leung's concern about the easement is that once the School District has purchased the entire parcel, they would need to come back before the City to obtain a vacation of the easment. He suggested filing the perpetual easement contingent upon the filing of the deed of conveyance for the parcel. Once that deed of conveyance was filed, it would automatically trigger a vacation of the easement. Chairman Kelley asked how difficult it would be for the School District to come back before the City for its vacation. Planning Commission member Bellows Interjected that it was her impression that the School District's presentation was strictly for the purpose of obtaining direction to proceed as the City requested. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that since the time that was determined, the School District had become concerned about the road easement in the future. Mabusth stated that depending on development pressures to the east of the property, the City could envision that road platted to the east lot line. Ms. Taylor stated that she had not been warned about the possibility of any development to the east disallowing the School District to vacate the road. That would hamper the School District's purchase of the parcel as a whole and would also jeopardize the City of Orono's public safety standards. She had not seen any instances where school districts have public roads running through the school property. Kelley asked about the possibility of the road being developed to the west. Cohen asked whether a developer would take into account the fact that the faWrBS OF THB FUamiHG COMNISSIOH rtino SBPTBMBBR 19, 1988 • IZOSIIIG PILE #1321-HAISLBT COHTI1I1 City would agree to vacate the road. Planning Commission member Bellows observed that actually the developers to the east were being put on notice that the road may not be a through road. She told Ms. Taylor that it was their intent to do well by the School Districtr as well as the City overall. When development to the east begins, the City would take into consideration its agreement with the School District. Bellows suggested that a road proceeding east would best protect the School District. Planning Commission member Cohen asked why the City does not just reserve the right to the road, subject to the understanding that it remain reserved until such time as the School District satisfies the agreement to purchase the property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reminded the Planning Commission that the right-of-way requirements is similar to that taken by the City in the Woodhaven, Peterson Addition and Second Addition plats. Ms. Taylor told Kelley that having a perpetual easement for a road on the property would make the property unusable to the School District. She would prefer to see the easement run for 11 years, after which a vacation would be granted should the Schrol District purchase the entire parcel. Attorney Leung reiterated his desiis to have an automatic vacation of the easement when the conveyance deed is filed. Cohen stated that the School Board was dealing with the City, they would have to come back to the City to vacate the road. Ms. Taylor asked if the proposed agreement would include the provision that the road would remain undeveloped? The Planning Commission members all concurred that the road would not be developed. Cohen stated that the City would reserve the right to develop the road one day after the 11 year deadline. Kelley asked whose responsibility it would be to install the road should the School District decide to develop it? It was determined that those concerns would be spelled out in the Developer's Agreement. Chairman Kelley was concerned about the safety aspect of the road at the time students make use of the property. Ms. Taylor said that the road would be near the High School, not the Elementary School. Kelley suggested a tunnel under Old Crystal Bay Road. Ms. Taylor thought that to be an excellent idea. Planning Commission member Johnson observed that any other use of the property would be a conditional use permit and the City would have an opportunity to review the use. Ms. Jo Haislet asked if there would be a way to rejoin the four lots to make one parcel? Bellows stated that the City would probably require the parcel be shown as one large parcel. Mabusth noted that this would involve a simple clerical procedure for lot combination once the vacation of all public interest is realized. Attorney Leung, asked that the Planning Commission approve NIMDTBS OP THB PLMmiMG CONMISSIOH !TIli6 SBPTBOSt 19, 1988 S0HIM6 PILB #1321-HA1SLBT COMTIMI the application^ provided that Outlet A be an easment, either privately or publicly dedicated so that when the School District filed the deeds of conveyance it would automatically trigger the vacation of the easment. He added that the School District would have no problem adhering to the conditions for developing the road as set forth in the Developer's Agreement. He would like the Developer's Agreement to also expire upon the filing of the deeds. Robert Floyd, an interested party, inquired about liability for the easement should an accident occur in that area? Attorney Leung stated that it would depend upon whether the City dedicated the easement to be private or public. Cohen stated that the Developer's Agreement would indicate that the School District indemnify the City. Chairman Kelley a.iked what would happen to the road should the School District not purchase all four lots in 11 years? Mabusth stated that would need to be addressed in the Developer's Agreement. * It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of #1321, subject to the preparation of a Developer's Agreement by the City Attorney and the School District's Attorney with City Staff incut. Zoning Administrator Mabusth added that the agreement should be drafted in time for the October 10, 1988 City Council Meeting. Kelley clarified that the motion involved four lots with the outlet being an easement for a period of 11 years. The Developer's Agreement would address the specifics of indemnification and development. Attorney Leung added that the road would be vacated upon the showing of a deed so that it would be an automatic process. Chairman Kelley responded "absolutely". Motion, Ayes^S, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1323 JOH PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE J80BLIC HEARING 7z25 P.M. - 7s35 P.N. * The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Applicant could not be present for this matter. Mr. Jay Reiser, a neighbor of the applicant's was present and distributed a letter written by Mr. Papas to the Planning Commission. Chairman Kelley read the letter for the benefit of the Public record. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was seeking an after-the-fact building permit and is in need of a number of variances to complete the construction of a deck. The entire deck is within mmTEB OF THE PIAIIHING COMNlSSlOil : 1:TIHO SFPTBIIBER 19, 1988 ZOHIIIG PILE «1323-PAPAS COHTINUBD the 0-75* lakeshore setback area. An average lakeshore setback variance is also required. There is a garage on the east side of the property with a deck above it and the property to the west has a second story deck. Nr. Papas's deck will extend 10* beyond the average setback line. The existing house is located in the 0-75* setback zone. Without the deck and excluding the paved road, hardcover is approximately 20%; with the deck it increases approximately 200 s.f. and would increase hardcover to 27.4%. The hardcover existing within the 75-250* zone is 39.6% and will not change. All existing hardcover is legitimate (house, garage, driveway) and there are no reasonable feasible removals. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed the need for a survey. He was sympathetic to the fact that the survey would cost nearly as much as the project, but felt a precedent would be set should an exception to this requirement be made. Cohen suggested tabling this matter to allow the applicant time to submit a survey and avoid having to resubmit the $150.00 fee. Planning Commission member Hanson explained tc Mr. Keiser that at this time, the Planning Commission was not denying Mr. Papas's application, they were merely requesting compliance with the required application documents. Nr. Keiser stated that at the present time, the deck was an eyesore and had remained half finished all summer. Planning Commission member Johnson questioned the pictures Mr. Keiser submitted. Mr. Keiser explained that the pictures showed neighboring properties with decks extending more toward the lake than Mr. Papas's deck. Planning Commission member Bellows reiterated Hanson's explanation of documents required with the submittal of a variance application. Mr. Keiser asked if Mr. Papas would then have to spend $600.00 to have a survey done? Bellows replied that it would not be necessary to do another survey if there was an existing survey. Kelley stated that the certified property owners list was also not included with the application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the list must have been misplaced by the owner. City personnel could verify that envelopes and labels with neighboring property addresses had been received with the application. Gaffron verified that the notices were legally sent, but the list indicating those persons was missing. Johnson stated that he could understand the confusion on applicant's behalf regarding the variances. However, had Mr. Papas applied for a permit to build the deck he would have been informed of all the requirements. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. MIHUTBS OF THE PIAmiEG COMHISSIOH , K4 ^TIEG SSPTBNBBR 19, 1988 Z0HI1IG PILE fl323~PAPAS COHTIIIUBD It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to table application #1323 to allow the applicant time to submit all required information. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1324 MR. AMD MRS. WILLIAM GREGORY 1099 TAMARACK DRIVE COMDITIOHAL OSE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARIIIG 7:35 P.M. - 7:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were not present for this matter, but were represented by Mr. Clifford Keep from Minnetonka Portable Dredging. Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking a conditional use permit for excavation within an existing wetland area to create a pond. The designated wetland is approximately .6 of an acre. Excavation would occur at the northwesterly end of the wetland and will create a pond approximately 120* in length and about 60* in width. The spoils would be placed along the east and south side of the existing driveway. The City Engineer has reviewed this application and recommended approval. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has also recommended approval of this project subject to erosion control and restoration of the disturbed areas. Chairman Kelley stated that at one time there was concern about soil removal from the property. He inquired whether there was still concern in that regard. Gaffron replied that at this time the cuts and the fills were equal. Mr. Keep confirmed this. Planning Commission member Johnson inquired as to water existing around the 84 contour. Gaffron responded that it was presently wetland and the proposal is to make one end of the pond deeper and leave the other end at its present elevation. Mr. Reep explained that the wetland area is approximately 15" deep, which in not sufficient for wildlife habitation. Presently there are no cattails, only weeds. The purpose of this project is to add approximately 2* to the depth of the pond to maintain a level of water in that area. There should not be any change in the storage capacity. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1324, for a conditional use permit for excavation in a wetland area, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes«5, '4r. lUHOTBS OF THE PIAMIIING COMMISSION : IH:TING smmmm 19* 1988 XOHING PILB «1324-GRBGORY CONTIN1 Nays»0, Motion passed. u>» #1325 lAKBVIBN GOLF OF OROHO, INC. 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. - 7:42 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted• The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron apprised the Planning Commission of the applicant's intent to excavate 3 small ponds and create a new tee box within the golf course property. These proposed projects are all to take place within an area adjacent to County Road 19, at the west side of the golf course. The ponds would enhance not only the aesthetic quality of the course, but also the challenge of the game itself. They should also aid in eliminating on-going maintenance problems in wet areas. The tee box is being relocated because of complaints from neighboring properties. The new location will place the tee box approximately 100' further away from the neighboring property. There will be some fill removed and th& spoils will be deposited in a location where there will be no adverse effect on drainage. The City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed and approved the proposal. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Wenkstern explained that he was hoping to eliminate some water problems by installing the ponds and relocating the tee box should redirect the golf balls away from the road and passing cars. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of application #1325 for a conditional use permit for excavating pond areas and a tee box. Planning Commission member Bellows inquired as to whether it would be beneficial to relocate the green to avoid road traffic. Planning Commission member Cohen interjected that the present location of the green should not be a problem once the tee box is relocated. Kelley added that it would be very costly to relocate a green. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS ' 355 WOODHILL ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P.M. -8:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MIMOTBS OF THB PIAIINIIIG SSIOH TIH6 SBPTBHBBR 19, 198t ZONING FILB il329>MCNBLLIS CONTINI The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that applicants were seeking variances to a front yard setaback and 26* wetland setback. The lot was originally created from the Woodhill Ridge subdivision and accesses through Woodhill Road. Originally the lot was platted with full knowledge of the existing wetland and drainage easement. There is a 50' front setback and 30* side setback and a 26* wetland setback. The applicants may not have been aware of the 26* wetland setback. Kelley inquired as to when the subdivision was completed. Gaffron replied 19G6/1987. Gaffron showed the Planning Commission a topographical view of the area and stated that the property contains a steep slope going down to the wetland area. The space left for the building envelope is approximately 65* in depth and 209'-250* in length. The proposed setbacks for the house would be 37* and 28' where 50' is required. The deck, retaining wall and a corner of the house would all encroach i/ito the wetland area. The applicants are also proposing to place fill east of and at both ends of the retaining wall, which is within the boundaries of the Drainage and Conservation and Flowage Easements. Staff's initial reaction to this was that a linear concept house would be more appropriate for this particular lot. The applicants are proposing an ”L" shaped house. Gaffron questioned whether there was a hardship that would justify granting all of the setback variances. Planning Commission member Johnson inquired as to the length and width of the house, from front to back, top to bottom. Gaffron responded that the proposed length south to north is about 120' with the east-west dimension at the garage area about 90'. Mr. McNellis stated that the variances would 'Iffer depending upon the location of the front of the lot. In «ooking at adjacent property, what has been determined as the front of the lot is different from the McNellis property. The proposed McNellis house would face the private road that accesses the old Pillsbury house. There is an adjacent lot which was plotted so that the back of the lot is on the road, which is also where the I utility lines connect to that property. The McNellis lot is an unusual piece of land; it is 3 1/4 acres, but only 11% is suitable for building. Planning Commission member Bellows inquired whether the Carpenter property accessed off of the same private "Pillsbury Road". Gaffron explained that property actually accessed off of Russell, but at one time there was a connection. Chairman Kelley stated that when the suDdivision off of Wcodhill was done, the developers were told to close off that connection.