Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-1988 Planning MinutesMimiTBS OP THE PIAMIXfle C0MHI8SI08 MBBTXIiG OCTOBER 3, 198i .■"II IMCB 7s00 P.N. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Johnsonr Cohen, Hanson and Moos. Planning Commission member Brown arrived at 7:20 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Goetten was also present. #1327 MfflOLD SOSXni 1100 ffILDHORST TRAIL CLASS III PRBLIMIRART SUBDIVISION PUBLIC BBARIB6 - 7s40 P.H. - 7:55 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was not present for this matter, however, Mr. Jim Krautkremer was present as a representative for Mr. Sorkin. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter involved one acre, LR-lB zone, sewered, property. Applicant was proposing a Class III subdivision of 7 acres. Private wells will be used because municipal water is not available. Access to the three lots on the east side will be via Wildhurst Trail; access to the four lots on the west side will be through unimproved Garden Lane that will be constructed at the time the 30 lot subdivision that surrounds the Soskin property is approved. Planning Commission member Johnson asked if the Planning Commission had already reviewed that subdivision. Mabusth replied that there had been a sketch plan review only and the matter would be formally heard at the October 17, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Kelley asked if it would not make more sense to do the entire plan all at once? Mr. Krautkremer explained that the reason for presenting the Soskin proposal now was due to the need for variances due to front yard widths along Wildhurst Trail. The required width is 140* and two of the lots only have 119*. The grades along in the front of those two lots is quite steep. The houses would be situated toward the front of the lots with tuckunder garages. There would be a common access between lots 6 & 7 so there will be only one exit between those two 1 ->ts. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether the applicant was requesting a variance for two lots rather than three to replace lots 5, 6 and 7. Mr. Krautkremer stated that he wished to create the three lots as presented. Chairman Kelley clarified that the application was basically straight forward, with the exception of a lot width variance. Mabusth added that Lot 1 would require special consideration. Mr. Krautkremer explained that Lot 1 has a significant drainage ditch that will affect the buildability of that lot. When Garden Lane is iinniTBS OP the piAimiEG comussiom !T1«6 OCTOBER 3, 1988 H -I I10HIE6 PILE #1327-SOSKni COETIEI- ^ developed# the draina9e outlet will be placed in the ditch coinin9 into the north end of this lot* The ditch has a 9radual slope and because of the layout, the storm drainage will be directed away from the southern portion of the ravine* There will be no need for the ditch beca’’^e any necessary drainage can take place over land* That area could be then be filled in which would provide the requirements for the building envelope on that Lot* Chairman Kelley inquired as to the existence of flowage or conservation easements in the area proposed to be filled* Mabusth stated that there were none so the filling could be done with site grading approval only* Planning Commission member Johnson asked if the ditch would be filled in all the way to the northeast corner of the lot? Mr* Krautkremer explained that it would be filled in so that there would be enough area to build a home in the back. Kelley expressed his concern over where the flowage would go* Mr* Krautkremer indicated that drainage is redirected to the road* Kelley asked if the road would then have curbs* Mr* Krautkremer replied affirmatively* The City would maintain the road* Planning Commission member Johnson stated that in his opinion there was only one buildable lot between Lots 1 t 2 because of the ditch, unless the entire area was piped with storm sewer* Mr* Krautkremer explained that once the curbs and gutters were installed, there would be no need for the ditch and it would be entirely filled in* Mabusth added that filling in the ditch would provide a half-acre, contiguous, building envelope. Kelley asked about the increase in drainage that would result from redirecting the drainage* Mabusth stated those concerns would be addressed at the October 17 Planning Commission meeting* Ms* Pamela Wood and Terry Pate, 1131 Wildhursc Trail, asked how the ravine bordering the Soskin property interacted with the large ravine that runs down the north side of their property* Ms. Wood stated that the portion of the ravine proposed to be filled in connects with the ravine that runs through her property* Mr* Krautkremer explained that the connecting portion of the ravine wouldstill carry drainage through the ravine within the Soskin property and eventually to Ms. Wood's portion of the ravine * Chairman Kelley interjected that this flowage question would need to be addressed before the next Planning Commission meeting* Ms* Wood also wanted to know the reason for the 140* frontage* Kelley stated that was a good question* Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that Orono's one acre zoning started in the mid-50*s* The 140* standard probably goes back 25-30 years* The specific reasons for the 140* standard were not known, but past councils obviously had been comfortable with it* Ms. Wood also questioned the number of variances the City of nmiTBS OF THE PLMmilK COMMISSION TING 0CT0B13R 3, 1968 II > IZONING PILE «1327>SOSKIN CONTINI Orono had previously granted for the 140* setback and asked what criteria was used to grant such variance. Kelley stated that a hardship was necessary to grant a variance. Ms. Wood asked whether the Planning Commission would prefer a reconfiguration as opposed to granting a variance. Kelley stated that they preferred to grant subdivisions without any variances, and added that the Soskin property was unique because of the slopes. Mabusth stated that redesigning an access road would necessitate granting lot area variances as opposed to width variances. There is no additional area to cover a road outlot. Ms. Wood believed that there were alternatives to the proposal to fill in the ravine to create the seventh lot. She is very concerned about the possibility of increased runoff on her property. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he did not want to commit himself to any possible agreements or disagreements that he may have with the proposal. Cohen stated that there was a definite difference between a ditch and a ravine and that would need to be further investigated. Chairman Kelley stated that an engineer would need to study the amount of water running through the ravine/ditch. The City's objective is to protect the current homeowners first, before the subdivision would occur. Mr. Krautkremer understood that the water ran across the road and the engineer was proposing a culvert system that would handle the water. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to table this application. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1343 EDMUND W.F. RYDBLL 135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH CLASS I PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING - 7:55 P.M. - 8:02 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter and stated that his intention was to subdivide so he could place a portion of his property in his wife's name. He had no intention of building or selling off the other parcel. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the existing parcel contained 39.6 acres. There is a ^etland area that is 19.2 acres and an existing house which is ideated at the end of the 1,300' private driveway. Gaffron indicated where the proposed split would take place. The applicant is not proposing to create an outlet for a road, but rather an easement would be established. There is a potential problem should future development occur in that Mr. Rydell may have to share some of the costs to alter Orono Orchard Road. Mr. Rydell questioned why the road would need to be altered. MIMDTBS OP THE PLAMHING COMMISSIOli TIS6 OC¥OB» 3, 1988 ii;^»ZOHIliG FILE «1343>RYDBLL COHTIMI Gaffron stated that there was a sight distance problem. Mr. Rydell's property extends to the center of Orono Orchard Road. Gaffron had asked Rydell's surveyor to provide a diagram showing the actual location of the road in relation to the corridor that was platted. As a part of the subdivision, the applicant would quit-claim an easement for right-of-way, drainage, and utility purposes. Mr. Rydell stated that he did not understand the ramifications of the quit-claim deed. Chairman Kelley explained that Orono Orchard Road was on Mr. Rydell*s property. The City would like Mr. Rydell to grant an easement for that portion of the road so the public would no longer be travelling without formal permission on his property. Gaffron addressed some concerns involved with the potential development of parcel B. There are currently no standards that address setbacks from an easement. Gaffron requested that there be a stipulation of approval that any building on parcel B be required to meet the minimum front yard setback from the edge of the easement. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by CounciImember Johnson, to recommend approval this application subject to a non-exclusive easement over parcel B, in favor of parcel A. Approval is further subject to a driveway access easement being drafted and submitted to the City so that parcel A is not landlocked. An easement will also be given to the City of Orono over the Orono Orchard Road where it encroaches on parcel B. Any construction on parcel B would be stipulated on the structure meeting the minimum front yard setback from the edge of the easement on Orono Orchard Road. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays--0, Motion passed. #1331 MBTROPOLITAM WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3280 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CLASS II PRELININART SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 8:04 P.M. - 8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Jim Olson was present as a rej.resentative of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Zoning Adminstrator Mabusth explained that the subdivision was necessary in order for the M.W.C.C. to construct the lift station or pumping station structure. Fee ownership of the property had to be acquired if the structure was to built. The concern about the creation and designation of a "lot" is that several variances will need to be addressed, such as lot width and lot area. Mabusth asked Mr. Olson if the designation of 4 MIHUTB8 OP THE PLAmHiiG COMMISSIOH TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 II I'llZONING PILE #1331-N.ff.C.C. SUBDIVISION CONTIN1 "outlot" could be used. Mr. Olson stated that the designation of "outlot" versus "lot" would have no significance to the M.W.C.C. Mabusth explained further that designation of the lot as an outlot would mean the lot was unbuildable. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whax had been done in the case of Orono's other pumping stations. Mabusth did not know but surmised that perhaps they were built on propeity that the City had acquired at one time. Mabusth was not aware that the City had ever built a structure of this >:ind to serve as a pumping station. Smaller pump stations have been constructed within utility easements. Mr. Olson confirmed this and added that some were located in public right-of-way for roads. The M.W.C.C. has a policy that they prefer to own the property for lift stations. Planning Commission member Hanson asked what issues would need addressing if the designation of outlot were used? Mabusth stated that those concerns were addressed in her memo. It was moved by Chairman Kelley* seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson* to recommend approval of #1331* and that an outlot designation be used per staff recommendation. Motion* Ayess€* Nays»0* Motion passed. #1306 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3280 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth showed the Planning Commission what was being proposed and indicated that the M.W.C.C. had complied with all of the requests of the Planning Commission. Ms. Joellen Hurr* Metropolitan Waste Commissioner for the Orono area* stated that she lived close to the proposed site of the lift station. She said that she fought hard to get the proposal approved by the Commission because she did not want anymore raw sewage going into Lake Minnetonka. 3he was hopeful that the Planning Commission would be in favor of the building. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen* seconded by Planning Commission Hanson* to recommend approval of application #1306* per staff recommendations. Planning Commission member Johnson inquired about the process for obtaining the building permit and whether the permit process would monitor staff's conditions. Mabusth affirmed this. Motion* Ayes«6* Nays^O* Motion passed. MIMUTBS OF THE PLAHNIHG COMMISSIOH BT1H6 OCTOBER 3, 1988 I #990 WARD FERRELL 3411 WATERTOWN ROAD REFERRED BACK TO PLAMHIR6 COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this matter had been before the Planning Commission back in 1986. Mr. Ferrell owns three separate parcels of property which are 1.04 acres, .85 acres and 1.01 acres with an existing house. His original request was to have a variance to the 2-acre standard so a house could be built on each of the two vacant lots. After their review of this matter in 1986, the Planning Commission indicated that they would not recommend approval of two houses on the other two parcels. The matter went on to the City Council but was tabled several times and never finalized. The applicant was now requesting to build on one of the two vacant one* acre lots. Chairman Kelley asked why there were no plans, only a letter indicating the applicant's intent. Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like to build a house on one of the two lots and leave the other one vacant. Kelley stated that he would stand by his previous decision to allow two houses on the entire three acre parcel, with t^e middle lot being split and used between the other two lots. Mr. Ferrell stated that it would be very costly to rearrange the lot lines. Cohen stated that he was not in favor of the applicant building even one additional house. Moos concurred with Cohen in that she would like to see the 2-acre minimum upheld. Hanson asked applicant if there was any adjacent land he could acquire. The applicant replied that there was no acquirable land in any direction. Hanson said that he would consider joining the two lots for a total of 1.89 acres. However, there would need to be septic system contingencies placed upon the approval. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether certain legal issues would come into play based upon the house being built back in 1958. Gaffron stated that there was no need for a legal opinion in that respect, the City Ordinances were very clear in dealing with Mr. Ferrell's situation. Johnson stated that he would be in favor of Kelley's suggestion to split the middle lot between the other two. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Johnson, to recommend that the 2.90 acreage be divided equally and two building lots be established with the existing house and one other lot. The variance would be for the lot area in the 2-acre zone. All yard setbacks and front yard setbacks would have to be met. Motion, Ayes=2, Moos, Hanson and Cohen, Nay. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether combining the NIVUTBS OF THE PIAllNIllG O ISSIOH MWIHG OCTOBER 3, 1988 II :oZ0NIH6 FILE f990-FBRRBLL COETINI 1.04 and the .85 lots would meet the City's septic requirements. Gaffron stated that in a rural area a 2-acre minimum would be required. However» from a septic point of view, each of the lots could meet the requirements for primary and alternate septic sites, but there would only be room to build a modest residence and none of the amenities (pools, tennis courts, etc.}. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend combining the-1.04 and .85 acreage for a total of 1.89, and grant a variance to build on that lot. Kelley asked why Hanson favored that proposal rather than splitting a lot between the two lots. Hanson replied that he wanted to keep any new building sites as close to the r.-acre minimum as possible. Cohen reiterated his desire to uphold the 2-acre minimum standard. He did not want to open pandora's box. Hanson stated that were it not for the fact that applicant had no acquirable land, he would not be in favor of such a proposal either. Kelley added that there is also history to take into consideration. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the City has allowed variances for much less than 2 acre parcels in the past, but only in single, separate ownership situations. This case is unique in that the property in question is substandard and is owned by an adjacent property owner. City Ordinances prohibited a property owner under such conditions to sell off the property and obtain a building permit. Motion, Ayes*3, Johnson and Cohen Nay, Brown abstained. Zoning Administrator questioned Brown's abstention. Planning Commission member Brown stated his reason to be that he did not get the full benefit of the discussion due to a late arrival. Gaffron apprised Brown of the gist of the application and a recall vote was taken. Motion, Ayes*4, Johnson and Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. «1310 HOWARD EISIHGER 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD RENEHAL COMDITIOHAL USE PERMIT SBCOHD REVIEW The applicant was present for this matter, as was Mr. John Gannon of Park Construction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this matter involved the renewal of a conditional use permit for 100,000 cubic yards of fill to be obtained from the "394" project and placed on Mr. Eisinger's property. Mabusth stated that the City Engineer had addressed the issue of time involved with grading and seeding. The City Engineer had determined which months would be best for seeding. It will be staff's responsibility to call when the seeding and grading should take place. Mr. Gannon had also written a letter in response to the concerns involved with the amount of trucks and time it would take to haul 100,000 cubic yards of fill. MIMUTBS OP THE PIAHNIIiG COMMISSIOil TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZONING FILE #1310-EISINGER CONTIN1 Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Gannon if the project would take 5 weeks to complete. Mr. Gannon replied that it would, provided the fill remains available. Kelley also questionned when the project was expected to begin. Mr. Gannon replied it would start sometime in December of January. Kelley asked for confirmation of the 11,000 trucks expected to be necessary for hauling the fill. Mr. Gannon replied that it would take 11,000 tandem trucks. If "belly dumps" were used it would reduce that number by 30%. Kelley asked to what degree the traffic safety issue had been investigated. Mr. Gannon stated that if there were a flagman on Highway 12, the hauling during the morning rush hour would not be a problem. Kelley mentioned the fact that a neighbor had been killed in that area because of the sun limiting vision. Kelley recommended limiting the movement of the fill during rush hour traffic which would be 6:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p • in • Kelley inquired as to how the City, particularly the Police Department, felt about the magnitude of this project. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Police Department had not been asked to respond to this application. Mabusth inquired as to whether she should elicit feedback from the Police Department. Kelley answered affirmatively. Mabusth asked Mr. Gannon if it were normal procedure for Park Construction to work with local police departments when taking on such a large scale project. Mr. Gannon stated they do coordinate with the police when necessary. Mabusth suggested that an Orono Police representative be present at the pre-construction conference. Planning Commission member Cohen agreed with Kelley's suggestion to limit the hours in which the hauling could take place. He also expressed concern over the school hours. Planning Commission member Moos also expressed her concern with the school busses from the Elementary School. Planning Commission member Hanson clarified the fact that the there were no objections to the land use application. Kelley concurred with that and added that he would leave the safety aspect up to the Police Department, It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Johnson, to approve #1310, subject to the approval of safety standards by the City Engineer and the Police Department, prior to this matter being heard by the City Council, Also that the Police Department be informed of the pre­ construction conference. Johnson asked what input had been received from MN DOT. Mr, Gannon stated that MN DOT would require a permit for safety signage and had restrictions as to what time of the day hauling could take place. Kelley directed Mabusth to inform the Police Department of the blinding sun, as 8 MINUTB8 OP THB PLA8MIHG COKMISSIOH TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZOHIVG PILE «1310-BISIE6BR COHTIH1 well as the school bus schedules and routes and rush hour. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1328 HOWARD B. JOHNSON 1635 6 1675 CONCORDIA STREET _ _ SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE RBARR?3IGBMEHT->CLASS I SECOND REVIEW The applicant was present, as was the new owner of 1635 Concordia Street, Mr. David Eiss. Chairman Kelley read a letter that had been sent by Mr. Thomas Kelly, an Attorney for Mrs. Trainor. The letter indicated that Mrs. Trainor supported the proposed subdivision applied for by Mr. Johnson. Kelley stated that the main issue now involved with this application was whether the side setback would be 5* or Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reiterated Mr. Kelley's statement regarding a 5' or 10* setback. He reminded the Planning Commission that the current zoning for this property was LR-IC, half acre district, and that the standard side setback was 10'. The 5' that the applicant is proposing improves the current situation. Kelley surmised that this lot line rearrangement was necessary for Mr. Eiss to obtain title insurance. Planning Commission member Hanson inquired as to how much acreage was available. Gaffron responded that Tract A was approximately 170,500 s.f., which would be approximately 4 acres. Mr. Eiss stated that he did not understand how the City could "reward" Mrs. Trainor for encroaching on Mr. Johnson's property by giving her an additional 5*. CounciImember Johnson stated that the City was not giving a reward, it was merely trying to conform to the City's standards. The applicant asked why Mrs. Trainor could not be asked to give up 10' of her house. Hanson replied that the Planning Commission tried to look upon all applications with common sense. Mr. Johnson stated that he was trying to be neighborly by giving Mrs. Trainor 5', but she was to pay for the survey and attorney's fees. Mrs. Trainor has not paid these fees and Mr. Johnson suggested that she therefore, pay for the additional 5' of land. Hanson stated that those issues were beyond the control of the Planning Commission. Kelley informed Mr. Johnson that going to Court would be another recourse. Planning Commission member Hanson stated thac he would like to see the 10* setback standard upheld. Mr. Johnson asked what effect the 10* requirement would have should Mr. Eiss want to subdivide that lot. Hanson stated that he could not address that issue without further information being provided. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that someone applied to the City to have this matter heard by the Planning Commission. He MimiTBS OP TBR pianmuig conmissioh TIHG OCTOBER 3, 1988 11 HIZONING PILE «1328-JOHHSON CONTIN1 informed Mr. Johnson that he chose the Planning Commission as a remedial source# and now he was not happy with the Planning Commission's decision. Planning Commission member Johnson was sympathetic to Mr. Johnson's situation# but felt that conforming with the 10* standard was more important. Planning Commission member Brown concurred. It was moved by Chairman Kelley# seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen# to allow the rearrangement of the lot line 10' from the Trainor residence. Mr. Eiss questioned if the 10' was from the lot line or from the Trainor house. Hanson stated that it was from the house. Mr. Eiss stated that Mrs. Trainor would then be given 11'# not 10'. Gaffron stated that at one poxnt# the house was one foot over the lot line# rather than being on the lot line. Gaffron stated that if the lot line were changed so that it was 10' from the house# it would be 11' from the existing line. Away to alleviate that would be to put a jog in the lot line. Chairman Kelley interjected that the Planning Commission's only duty was to determine whether the lot line be 5' or 10' from the house. Motion# Ayes«6# Nayes«0# Motion passed. #1335 ffOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 ffOODHILL ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8sl2 P.M. - 8:30 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant's representative# John Winston# was present for this matter# as was Mr. Rick Sathre and Mr. Michael Wood. The topographical survey prepared by Rick Sathre was given to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting and showed the proposed maintenance structure. Mr. Winston explained that the applicant was seeking two approvals# one for a conditional use permit# which would allow the constructions of the maintenance facility; the second would be approval of a variance for an accessory structure exceeding 1#000 s.f. maximum floor area. The proposed structure has 10#800 s.f. Mr. Winston stated that they worked closely with Mr. Mark Fox# whose residence is adjacent to the golf course. The current proposed site was determined to be one that would least affect Mr. Fox# as well as the existing vegetation. The structure meets all required setbacks. The existing maintenance facility will be removed# which should make the entire area more aesthetically appealing. The residential house structure to the south of the proposed maintenance structure will be vacated prior to construction. The removal of the house will occur at the same time the excavation work is to be done. MIllDTfci. OF THE PIAHH1E6 CQKMISSIOM TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 IIH •Z0HIH6 PILE #1335>«OODBILL COUHTRT CLUB COBTIN Chairnan Kelley stated that his only concerns Involved the view point of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Mark Fox, 1230 Woodhill Avenue, stated the applicant had proposed a different plan that placed the mainentance structure 150* from the corner of his house. The revised plan places the proposed structure will be 310* to 320* from his house. Mr. Fox added that he was pleased with the compromise that had been reached. His only concern had to do with the location of the fill. A possible bern was discussed, using the fill. Noise may be a problem, but that would be determined as the maintenance structure was used. Mr. Fox asked how many :rees would need to be removed from the boulevard. Mr. Sathre stated that they are trying very hard to remove as few trees as possible. Mr. John McDowell introduced himself as the person who purchased 17 acres of land from Woodhill about a year ago, which is now referred to as Woodhill Ridge. Mr. McDowell stated that he had just sold a portion of that land which abutts with the golf course. He wanted to be assured that the maintenance shed would not affect any new residences being built on that land. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether the new owners of the property had received notice of this application. Mr. Sathre stated that it was Mr. Fox more than anyone else that would be affected by the shed. The noise and activity generated from the facility would occur on the other side of the shed, away from Woodhill Ridge. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. McDowell’s development was kept in mind while they were planning the shed. The nearest house in the Woodhill development would be approximately the same distance from the shed as Mr. Fox’s home, approximately 350’. Mr. Sathre stated that there is a hill behind the existing house, and the peak of the roof of the shed would be lower than the floor elevation of the house. The hill wil^ be contoured so the top of the hill will not ba taken down. Chairman Kelley asked what would be done with the fill that would be removed from the hill. Mr. Sathre stated that they would be very receptive to any ideas. Mr. Fox has been very cooperative and agreeable with the aspect of storing it between his property and the maintenance facility. Mabusth stated that there would be a need for the applicants to obtain a land alteration conditional use permit for the fill. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked about the doors of the facility and whether they faced north. She also asked if there would be any other doors in the structure. Mr. Winston stated that there would be an access door on the other side. Mr. Sathre confirmed this and added that the vehicle doors would be on the north side. Mabusth asked about the unused road to the west border and whether the road would be opened during construction. Mr. Sathre stated that he was not aware of any need to open the road. MIMOTES OF THE PIAHHIHG COMMISSICm :ka:TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 IZOHIEG PILE »1335HIOODHILL COOETRT CLOB COSTIM1 Mrs. Rae Pesek, 1235 Lyman Avenue, expressed her concern desire to have some kind of screening between her house and the maintenance structure. She also wanted to know if the building slab was going to be higher than the previous shed. Mr. Winston stated that the location of the old shed allowed it to be more visible. The proposed location for the new facility will make it far less visible due to tree lines that will obstruct the view. Planning Commission member Johnson suggested that sight lines/view elevation be prepared before this matter was brought before the City Council that would address Woodhill Ridge and the neighbors to the north as well. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the hardship involved with this application. Mr. Winslow stated that it was necessary to maintain the golf course and to do so requires a facility to house maintenance equipment. The only other option to building such a large facility, is to build several smaller facilities. Planning Commission member Brown asked how many buildings would be demolished and removed. Mr. Sathre responded that the old maintenance shed and the house on the hill would be removed. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Johnson, to recommend approval of application #1335, based upon the hardship that the proposed structure is necessary to maintain the golf course. Approval is subject to sight lines being provided to the City Council and continue discussions pertaining to berming with the adjacent property owners. Chairman Kelley, Planning Commission member Moos and Planning Commission member Brown abstained from voting on this matter because they hold a membership to the Woodhill Country Club. Motion, Ayes*3, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1336 LOUIS B. OBERHAUSBR 3877 SHORBLlliB DRIVE VARIAMCB PUBLIC BEARING 8:32 P.M. > 8:45 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 Mr. Oberhauser was the owner of 4 rental houses on 3 properties adjacent to his own residence. The reason the a variance is required is due to the applicant's request to renovate 2 re: '-al houses that are on a single lot. The houses in question were the subject of a recent hazardous building action and Mr. Oberhauser has decided to upgrade the houses to conform to City Code. The houses were built back in the 1920's. MINUTBS OP THE PIAimillG COMMISSIOII TIHG OCTOBER 3, 1988 u -■)»ZOHIliG PILE «1336-OBERBAUSER COHTIEI Planning Coninlssion member Johnson questioned why this matter was not a non-conforming use. Zoning Administrator Mabusth responded that in a residential zone^ residential use is conforming. The houses conform to the proper user they do not conform to the current standards. Subdivision 4 states that anytime repairs are made to a substandard structure that does not conform to required setbacks or area standardsr a variance is required. Chairman Kelley stated that the basic question involved with this application is whether to allow one structure on the lot or two. Planning Commission member Brown asked about the property rights that may exist due to the age of the sti.wCtU4.es? Kelley replied that the Planning Commission should only determine how this property conformed in a planning senser and not take the time to ponder the legal ramifications. Brown stated that from a planning view point, the lot was not sufficient for all of the structures. Planning Commission member Johnson concurred with Brown and recommended that the applicant choose which of the two buildings he would like to renovate and raze the other. Mr. Oberhauser suggested having the City of Spring Park annex the land where the houses are located. Ho said that Orono would have the same problem with all of the properties from 2405 Dunwoody all the way to the end of that stretch of houses. None of the houses in that area conform tc Orono's standards. Mr. Oberhauser had spoken to the City of Spring Park about annexing that property if the City of Orono would be willing to give it up. Mr. Oberhauser stated that he was in a catch 22 situation in that he either has to repair the structures or be cited for hazardous building and he cannot get a building permit to repair them because the lot is substandard. He stated that the City staff would need to initiate the annexation. Zoning Administrator Mabusth did not believe that either the City of Orono, or Mr. Oberhauser's neighbors would agree with the annexation. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Oberhauser if he would like this matter tabled until he had time to explore the acquistion by Spring Park. Mr. Oberhauser stated that he could do nothing at this point, so tabling would be desired. Planning Commission member Cohen suggested the option of tearing down one building and then jOtaining the building permit to repair the other. Mr. Oberhauser stated that due to the historic nature of the houses, he did not want to ^eaz either of them down. Planning Commission member Brown asked about the option of phasing out the other building. The question then arose as to how long the structure could remain and whether any improvements made to the structure would be done with that time frame in mind. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed his opinion that only two options be available. The phase out option would not be practical. Mr. Oberhauser agreed. Planning Commission members Hanson and Moos MimiTBS OF THE PIAilNIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZONING PILE «1336-OBERHAOSSR CONTINI were in favor of having only one structure on the lot. There were no coininents 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 table application #1336. Motion, Ayes»6, Mays«0, Motion passed. #1337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. ~ 8:52 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 the property in question was located at the corner of Crystal Place and Navarre Avenue. Mr. Paige is seeking a setback variance to construct a detached garage in his front yard. The garage v.*o;ld be located 5* from the street lot line of Crystal Place and AC from the street lot line of Navarre Avenue. Chairman Kelley asked about the designation of the front of the house. Gaffron stated that because the applicant was using Crystal Place as his address, that side of the house would be considered the front. Gaffron stated that there is a question as to whether the codes require the detached garage to be located behind the existing front line of the house parallel to the side street. Chairman Kelley asked whether there were any neighbors who were present to express their opinions of this application. There were none. Kelley asked Gaffron if any correspondence had been received from neighboring properties. Gaffrcn stated he had not received any comments from Mr. Paige's neighbors. Mr. Paige stated that he felt embarrassed about proposing such a plan if 30' setback was required. He was not aware of that fact. He stated that had he known that, he would not have made such a proposal. Mr. Paige stated that he was "stymied". Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Paige if he would like to come back with a revised plan. Mr. Paige stated that he could not afford another $150.00 fee. Kelley told him it would not be necessary to pay any additional fees. Mr. Paige said he would like some advice as to where a feasible location for the garage would be. Planning Commission member Hanson suggested building the new garage in the location of the old garage. Mr. Paige stated that he could not afford to build in that location because of the excavation required. Planning Commission member Brown stated that he did not see where there would be a need for a great MIHUTBS OP THE PLAMNIIIG COimiSSIOH :tA>TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ii:oZONING PILE #1337-PAIGB CONTINI amount of excavation to place the garage in the old garage site. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred with Brown. Hanson stated that anything that projects toward Crystal Place, beyond the average front yard setback, will not be approved. Mr. Paige stated that he did not want to remove any trees from his property. Hanson reiterated his opinion that the southwest corner of the property was the best location for the garage. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to table application #1!^37, Motion, Ayes=6, Nays**0, Motion passed. #1338 DUANE & CONNIE SCBIBILLA 3235 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC BEARING 8:52 P.N - 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were requesting hardcover and accessory structure area variances to construct a new garage to the rear of their property. Access to the garage would be through a driveway that serves approximately 8 houses and is along the railroad right-of-way. The proposed location of the Schibilla garage would conform to the locations of neighboring garages. The Schibillas had a garage that was destroyed in the July, 1987 "Super Storm". The old structure has been removed. The proposed garage would have two stories of 624 s.f. each. Chairman Kelley asked what the actual size of the garage would be. Mrs. Schibilla replied it would be 24* by 26*. If the size of the garage were reduced to 500 s.f. per story, which would not require a variance, the total area would be 20* by 25* or 22* by 22*. Gaffron asked the applicants about the feasibility of putting a half basement under the garage which would allow for the large size of the upper floor and cut down the floor area below. Mr. John Nelson, the contractor for the Schibilla*s, stated that their house only has half a basement, so the applicants were in need of storage space. Gaffron added that from a hardcover standpoint, there was not really any reasonable hardcover that could be removed. The applicant was asked whether he intended to retain the gravel parking area. Mr. Schibilla replied that the parking area was not really needed. It would just be a question of whether his guests parked on grass or gravel. Planning Commission member asked if there was any alternative parking M1VDTB8 OP THB PUUnilSG COMMISSION TING OCTOBBR 3, 1988 •j i yZONING PILE «1338-SCHIBILIA CONTIN1 available. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the City would not want people parking on Crystal Bay Road. Gaffron added that there was limited parking area located in the rear access. Planning Commission member Cohen asked for clarification about the 33* easement for public highways at the rear of the property. Gaffron explained the history of the easement and added that there remains a question as to whether the easement was ever actually created or not. A Proceeding Subsequent may be necessary to clear this flaw in the Schibilla's title. Mr. Schibilla stated that he had been in touch with Minnesota Title to attempt to remedy this problem. They indicated that this easement does not show on either of the adjacent properties. The easement is not continuous and only pertains to the Schibilla property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of the proposed garage location, and hardcover variance, subject to the easement issue being resolved before the building permit for the garage is issued. Mr. Schilbilla asked if Cohen could re­ word his motion. He was not certain as to the time frame involved with resolving the easement issue. He was granted federal funds because of the storm damage for rebuilding the garage. There was a time limit involved with the availability of those funds. Gaffron and Cohen concurred that the status of the easement would have to be determined before a building permit could be issued. Gaffron inquired as to what structural area the motion recommended. Kelley stated that the motion recommended approving structural area of 1264*. The hardship in this matter is the fact that the applicants' previous garage was destroyed in a storm. Planning Commission member Brown added that the motion should also include language prohibiting the conversion of the extra level of the garage into a dwelling. Kelley added that no additional hardcover could be placed on the property in the future. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1339 DAVID LBB 2695 CASCO POINT ROAD AFTBR-THB-FACT VARIANCBS CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. - 9:37 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter, as was Mr. James Robin, the applicant's Landscape Architect, and Louis Oberhauser, Mr. Lee's Attorney. MmUTBS OF THE PIAMIIlliG COMMISSIOil MEBTIIIG OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZOHIEG PILE #1339-UEB CONTimiBD Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter involved 3 tiers of retaining walls. The lake level tier begins at a 5* elevation and continues to a 7' elevation on the north side and goes all the way up on the north side to an elevation of 12*6" above lakeshore elevation. On the south side it extends up to a 12* elevation. There is an 8* wide section of non-spaced wooden stairs. There is a dock that has not yet been connected to the lower level, but will be connected if approval is granted. Chairman Kelley stated that a chronological accounting of this application would be very helpful. Mr. Lee stated that he started removing the old rock back in June. He also started moving dirt at that time. In July he started installing the timbers. On August 15, a stop work order was issued by the City of Orono. Kelley asked Mr. Lee as to the progress of the project at that time. The only thing left to be done was installing approximately 20 timbers to tie into the steps. After August 15th, the City directed Mr. Lee to perform some remedial land alterations until the permit for the project could be approved. This included filling in some of the sand that had been stored along the shoreline because it was being washed back into the lake. However, Mr. Lee exceeded that direction and was issued a citation on August 26th. Mr. Lee performed more work after the citation was issued. Mr. Lee stated that all that involved was a truck load of dirt being dumped where he needed f il 1. Kelley stated that regardless of the facts involved with this, the project is now done and there is now a 12* wall on the lakeshore. Planning Commission member Johnson asked who performed the work. Mr. Lee stated that he and several high school aged kids did the job. Mr. Lee stated that he was not aware of the fact that he needed a permit to construct the wall. The previous wall fell apart due to erosion. Mr. Oberhauser read several letters that had been written by Mr. Lee's neighbors indicating their support for Mr. Lee's efforts. Planning Commission member Cohen asked Mr. Oberhauser if Mr. Lee had read the memo from Mr. Robin setting forth his ten recommendations. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Mr. Robin was Mr. Lee's landscaper. Cohen then asked if the City Engineer concurred with Mr. Robin's recommendations. Mabusth stated that many of the recommended improvements were confirmed by the City Engineer. Mr. Robin's stated that the intention of providing the recommendations was to allow staff to see what would be necessary to maximize the impact of such a restoration project. Chairman Kelley stated that he would have a difficult time requesting Mr. Lee to tear down the wall. Cohen concurred with this and added that as long as the ten recommendations were met NmUTBS OF THE PIAHNIMG COMMISSI'TIHG OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZONING FILE 11339-LEE CONTINUED and paid for by Mr. Lee, he would have no problem with the application. Planning Commission member Hanson asked about the need to place 12" of clay fill. Mr. Robin stated that 12" of existing soil would be removed and modified so it would better support plant growth. Mr. Robin addressed the issue of the stair width. He stated that the plant materials that he recommended are very dense and will eventually cause the stair to be unusable for the bulk of that 8*. The 8* stair structure would continue to support steep lakeshore bank. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend approval of this after-the-fact application, subject to the applicant working with the City to implement the ten steps recommended by Mr. Robin. Hardship in this matter would be the . ecessity to rebuild the stairs and wall for safety purposes. Pl..aning Commission member Johnson asked if any trees were remove- *-o accomplish this project. Mr. Lee stated that only two dead were removed. Johnson asked if Mr. Lee understood the ramifications of the 0- 75' zone ordirance. Johnson explained that looking from the lake, one would see a 12' wall, which in his opinion, was not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Lee agreed that presently the wall looked horrible. Mr. Lee stated that within a few years, the wall would be virtually invisible. Planning Commission member Brown stated that there were recommendations of the City Engineer that did not concur with Mr. Robin's recommendations. Mabusth responded that the City Engineer's recommendations were based more on the final actions of Council on similar applications. Planning Commission member Hanson stated that he was trying to envision this matter as though Mr. Lee had come in with this application prior to any work being done. He questioned whether the City Engineer's option 2 would be a more appropriate direction to take. Reducing the stairs from 8' to 4' would be a step toward the City's standards that would not require tearing down the wall. Mr. Robin stated that it would have been possible to conform with that recommendation at the beginning of the project, now, however, it would be very difficult to do. He believed that plant materials would be a much more effective way to deal with the visual aspect of the wall. Brown mentioned that the City's normal recommendations for erosion control is a gradual sloping of the bank. Mabusth stated that normally that would be true if the existing soils had not been altered, as was the case now with the Lee property. Mr. Robin stated that the level terraces offer more stability at this point than a sloped bank. Kelley stated that the Planning Commission should grant the variances and allow the City Engineer and Mr. Robin to work out the best method of accomplishing stability. Motion, Ayes«5, Hanson-Nay, Motion passed. MIBUTBS OF THE PIAMIIIHG CONKISSIOH TIHG OCTOBER 3, 1988 #1305 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC, INC. 2605 NEST WAY8ATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT Mr, Joe Pallansch, a representative Scientific, Inc., was present for this matter. of Washington Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter was tabled pending more hydraulic information and receipt of the final report from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District resolving the issue of a retention pond. The City Engineer had asked that a retention pond, approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of an acre in size be Installed in the southwest corner of the property. The final resolve of M.C.W.D. review asked that a very minimal retention area be provided at the base of the filled area along the west lot line before it entered the low drainage path along the south boundary to the drainage ditch. Chairman Kelley stated that this matter had already been thoroughly examined by the LMCD, the PCA. Planning Commission member Cohen added that Washington Scientific had been very cooperative and had complied with all requests. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for application #1305. Motion, Ayes*=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1340 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC, INC. 2605 WAYZATA BOOIEVARD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Joe Pallansch was present as a representative for Washington Scientific, Inc. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that monitoring wells were being located on the property. Mabusth indicated where the trench and the hazardous materials were located on the site. The City of Orono and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will monitor the flowage into the filtering trench. Chairman Kelley asked how much soil will be displaced on the site? Mr. David Ronnei, the Hydrogeologist with Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., stated that approximately 2,000 yds. total soil will be removed as a result of digging out the trench. Kelley asked where the soil would be placed. Mr. Ronnei stated that about 1/2 of the soil will go back into the trench, and the remainder would be "thin spread" around the trench. Kelley asked if this soil was contaminated? Mr, Ronnei replied affirmatively and added that the contaminants were low level. The PCA has approved the thin spreading to allow the contaminants MIHUTES OP THB PIAimillG COMMISSION MEETING OCTOWSk 3, 1988 ZONING FILE il340-flASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC CUP>CONTINUEC to be treated. Kelley asked how difficult it w.-suld bo to haul all of the soil off of the property and bring in clean soil? Mr. Ronnei stated that it would be very difficult to proceed witn such a project. The soil would have to be incinera ed. Once the soil is incinerated, disposal would still be required. The chemical that is being used to clean the soil is" similar to rubbing alcohol and will volotize as soon as it is exposed to the air. Kelley asked how the City felt about this process. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that tne City had no problem with the proposed process. She had been in contact with the PCA's Hazardous Material Division and Air Quality Division and they will be working on that phase of the application. They in turn will work with the City of Orono. Mabusth stated that she was still awaiting more information from the City Engineer concerning phase two. Mabusth recommended tabling that portion of the project. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for land alteration. Motion, Ayes^e, Nayss»0, Motion passed. #1341 DANIEL R. VAUGHAN & TODD ZIBSMER 3440 BAT8IDE ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:46 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Todd Ziesmer was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking a lot width variance to construct a new residence. The property area is approximately 2.3 acres. There was a pre-existing house that was demolished. Applicants are proposing to locate the new house where the old structure stood. The existing lot width is 118' where 200' is required, so applicants would require an 82' variance. Chairman Kelley asked whether there was an adequate building envelope. Gaffron replied that it would leave the required 30' side setbacks. Mr. Robert Anderson, a neighbor to the east of applicants' property, stated that he had concern about the house interfering with his view of Stubbs Bay. He had contacted Mr. Ziesmer and discussed this concern. Mr. Ziesmer had indicated that he may be willing to move the house back 15'. Kelley asked if a lakeshore setback would be a concern. Gaffron responded that this property MIMDTES OP THE PIANNIIIG COMMISSIOH TIH6 OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZOHIMG PILE «1341-ZIESMER COMTI1I1 was not considered a lakeshore lot. Planning Commission member Hanson inquired about conforming with the front yard setback. Gaffron stated that the width variance was the only requirement involved with this application. Mr. Anderson inquired as to whether the Plannino Commission had any sight regulations that would apply in this matter. Kelley responded that the only requirements the Planning Commission could regulate would be covered under the average lakeshore setback requirements. However, due to the fact that this was not lakeshore property, that would not apply. Planning Commission member Brown stated that a conditional use permit, such as the Woodhill Golf Course could regulate sight interference, Mabusth reminded the Planning Commission that specific requirements could be included with a variance as well. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Ziesmer if he would be willing to comply with the 15* relocation should the Planning Commission make such a recommendation. Mr. Ziesmer stated that the 15* would not make a difference in the view of Mr. Anderson. The exact location of the new residence was shown as it would relate to Mr. Anderson*s property. Kelley stated that the 15* would make a difference. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Pla^iiing Commiisslon member Moos, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayess=6, Nays«=0, Motion passed. #1342 DAVID 4 VALERIE PETERSOH 1125 HORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:52 P.M. - 9:56 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Peterson was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were requesting a side setback variance to construct a detached garage. The applicants are proposing to place the garage 1* from the side property line from the southwest corner of the garage. The driveway comes in North Arm Drive. There are no hardcover problems, the only problem is the side setback. Gaffron asked Mr. Peterson what his reasons were for placing the garage so close to the lot line. Mr. Peterson responded that the driveway is 150* long and is difficult to back into or back MIHUTBS OP THE PIAHHIMG C0MMISSI08 MEBTIHG OCTOBER 3# 198B ZOHI86 PILE «1342-PETERSOE C0MTI8UE0 out of. By placing the garage as he is proposing^ it would allow a space to turn around. Mr. Peterson stated that his neighbor had written a note of approval on the survey itself. From the northeast corner of the garage to the slope is approximately 14* %^ouXd allow enough room to turn around. Mr. Peterson stated that 3* would be possible. Chairman Kelley asked about placing the garage in a different location. Mr. Peterson stated that by doing so, it would cut the property in half and would not fit in with the driveway layout. Kelley said that he had a hard time with just 1* from the property line. Planning Commission member concurred. Gaffron added that the overhang would drop the drip line onto the neighboring property. Planning Commission member Cohen asked if 5* would be possible. Mr. Peterson stated that at 5* he would fall off the driveway. Gaffron stated that the angle of the garage would have to be changed. Mr. Peterson stated that could be done. 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 Brown, to recommend approval of #1342, for a side yard setback of 5*. The hardship being the contour of the lot. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1344 ROGER RODER 1099 NILLOH DRIVE SOUTH VARIAMCB PUBLIC HEARIHG 9:59 P.M. - 10:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking an accessory structure floor area variance in order to construct a 35* x 33* garage. The garage will be built behind the front line of the house, and is technically less than the 50* setback from the street. There will be storage space above the garage so a front setback variance of 14 1/2* will be necessary. In addition, the upper level would be considered as floor area because it will allow for more than 5* of headroom. Chairman Kelley asked about the size of the footprint. Gaffron responded that it was 990 s.f. Planning Commission member Cohen pointed out the use of the upper level as being storage and/or office space. Gaffron asked the applicants whether they intended to use the upper level as strictly storage, or as an office. Mr. Roder stated that it would mostly be used MIHUTBS OF THE PIAliNIliG COMMISSIOli KEBTIB6 OCTOBER 3, 1988 II :h IX0RIE6 PILE 81344-RODER CORTIN for storage^ but that a desk would probably be placed up there. Kelley asked whether there would be plumbing and Insulation. Mr. Roder stated there would be no plumbing, but more than likely insulation. Planning Commission member Cohen observed that the proposed garage was as big as the existing house. Mr. Roder said that was one of the reasons for the extra level of the garage. They were in need of more storage area. Chairman Kelley asked the applicants if they were aware of the fact that if the garage were attached to the house, they would not require a variance? Gaffron stated that a variance may still be required for the 50* front setback, depending upon where the garage was added. Kelley told the applicants that would be a very good alternative and asked if they would like this matter tabled to consider that option? Gaffron reminded the Planning Commission that the applicants would need to redesign the g£rage, if attached, to conform with the 50 foot setback requirements. Kelley stated that should the applicants not conform to that setback, he would have no problem granting a front setback variance. The other Planning Commission members concurred. Kelley stated that they could have this matter heard again on the 17th of October. 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 matter until a later date. Motion, Ayes«^6, Nays*^0, Motion passed. PIAENIliG COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commission member, Sarah Moos, would represent the Planning Commission at the October 24, 1988 City Council Meeting. ADJ(IRNMEHT The October 3, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.