Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1988 Planning MinutesffimiTSS OF THE PLARNIHG COMMISSIOH HEBTIHG OCTOBBI 17« 1988 ATTSHDANCB 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the follov;ing members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Moos and Hanson. Planning Commission member Biown arrived at 7:15 p.m. The following represented the City staif; Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Represent a*. ve Goetten was also present. #1348 O. LARRT LEE 1050 GARDEN LANE CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 - 8:35 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants' representative, Mr. James Krautkremer, was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this application involved a 30 Lot subdivision of a 36.7 acre parcel. There are currently 5 separate owners of this property; Palmers, Valek, Sollner, Hawkinson, and O. Larry Lee/Yorktown Development. Mabusth went on to say that Lots 5, 6 and 10 require a lot width variance. Lot 11 on Tonkaview will require a lot area variance. Kelley asked what the lot width standard was? Mabusth replied 140' must be met to the rear of the front yard setback line which is 35' in from the street. The existing house on Lot 9 should be shown on the plat in order to confirm that the setbacks are met from the new division lines. A through road is being proposed from Tonkaview to West Branch Road. The property will be sewered but municipal water is not available. The developers will be responsible for providing municipal services to the property, as well as the road. Planning Commission member Johnson asked if the road on the east side by West Branch was located on half of each lot line. Mabusth confirmed that and added that the road had already been platted with previous subdivisions. Mabusth explained that there are certain vacations proposed with this application. The City's standards have changed in that the City only asks for roadways to be 50 feet in width. The existing road is 60' in width and the City will ask for a reduction. It may be more appropriate to vacate the entire road and put in the new road at the 50' width. The applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of Highview Lane, as well as a 10' alley that extends along the north lot lines of lots within the Burquist-Wicklund Addition that runs along Tonkaview. The City has explored the possibility of a future access HIHUTBS OF THE PLUHRIBG COMMISSIOH : • A:TIHG OCTOBER 17, 1988 11.HIZONIEG PILE #1348-0. lARRT LEE COHTIEl corridor being platted to the Morgart property. There is currently a connection with Highview Lane, but due to steep grades and the potential of major tree removal, this would not be a practical access. Mabusth explained a proposal submitted by the City Engineer for an access. Mabusth observed that due to the alignment of the property lines and the major wetlands, this option may not be acceptable. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether a rezoning would be necessary for the two northern lots? Mabusth responded that the property would not be rezoned. Mr. Kraatkremer began his presentation by providing a bit of history regarding the proposed subdivision. He said that working with all of the property owners and developing the area as a whole, was a much better approach than attempting development a parcel at a time. Kelley asked about the Soskin subdivision application. Mr. Krautkremer stated that he also represented Mr. Soskin. Kelley suggested that the Soskin matter be included with the O. Larry Lee matter when it is next presented. Mr. Krautkremer explained that his intention was to do that. Mr. Krautkremer said that he had seen the house plans proposed for one of the lots. He described the house as "fabulous" and added that all homes to be built in the area would enhance the surroundings and topography. He said that he had communicated with many of the adjacent property owners and apprised them of the development proposals. Mabusth interjected that at this time, the major concern of the neighboring properties and the City was drainage. Mabusth apprised the Planning Commission and concerned neighbors of the the current drainage pattern. Mabusth explained that the construction of the road would redirect the drainage so it would flow between the shared lot lines of Lot 6 and 7 and up to the roadway to a drainage ditch located on Lot 1 of the Soskin property. Kelley asked if the runoff would flow through piping or a swale? Mabusth answered that it would flow through pipes. Mr. Krautkremer added that the size of the piping would be determined at a later time. Krautkremei rurther advised that there was a retention pond that would be expanded to handle the runoff. Mr. Valek, one of the property owners, had indicated that the pond would be an amenity for the properties. Mr. William Bull, a property owner to the south, expressed his concerns over the proposed drainage. He explained that the proposed area was very low and had a tendancy to hcive 8 to 12 inches of water every Spring. Kelley asked where the water drained from that area. Mr. Bull said that currently, it did not drain anywhere. Mr. Bull added that in previous years, from the middle of his property to the back property line and 50' on the other side of his property, there is a pond. Mr. Krautkremer addressed this concern by saying that he would be willing to work with Mr. Bull. MIHUTBS OF THB PLAHIilHG CONMISSIOH TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZONING FILE #1348-0. lARRT LEE C0NTIN1 Kelley asked where the stor*n pipe would run. Mabusth explained that it would run up the roadway to Lot 1 of the Soskin property. Mr. Krautkremer stated that the water would then run across a form of riprap, to prevent erosion, and continue along to the present drainage area. Kelley jiiked how the drainageway would be protected downstream? Krautkremer replied that the water that drains on the west side of street would be absorbed by the grassed yards on the properties once they are developed, as now the ground is bare with no ground cover. The size of the pond and piping would be adequate to handle the 100-year storm. Mabusth pointed out that both drainage pipes would run into a drainage swale on the Hennesey property. It would then go into the Wood's property and would come out near the Schultz property. The City is proposing to re-direct drainage to the northeast through a designated wetlands. The developer will be asked to install a storm sewer along the west side of Wildhurst Trail to the intersection of the Cronstrom's driveway. From that location, the drainage will run into the wetlands within the Cronstrom property and will eventually drain into Forest Lake. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be reviewing the drainage proposals to determine the impact upon the surrounding areas. Planning Commission member Bellows expxessed her concern about the severe elopes existing over 75 to 80 percent of the proposed site. She said that the slopes would not only create a problem for drainage, but also for building houses, driveways, roads, etc. She added that she had great reservations about the application because of the extreme sensitivity of the area. Kelley concurred. Mabusth said that once the hydraulic information was received the issues of slopes and runoff could be better reviewed. Mr. Terry Pate, 1131 Wildhurst Trail, disagreed that sod and other developing would decrease the amount of runoff. Ms. Pam Wood was concerned about affected persons in the area not receiving information from the City or the Developers of the proposal. She stated that the development of the area was being done little by little, as opposed to comprehensively. Kelley suggested that a meeting be held between the Developers and all of the property owners whose property may be impacted by the development of this area. Ms. Wood agreed. Planning Commission member Cohen asked how many lots in total were being proposed? Mabusth stated that there would be 37 lots, including the Soskin development. Chairman Kelley commended Mr. Krautkremer on his efforts to deal with all of the property owners. It could have taken years to have each separate property owner come forth with their individual subdivision proposals. He reminded everyone that there would be no rezoning required and that the properties would be sewered. He added that this areas was going to be developed Minors OF THE PLMnilllG O ISSIOH MBBTIliG OCTOBER 17, 1988 80H1HG FILE #1348-0. lARRT LEE C0ETIM1 sooner or later. He agreed that the expressed concerns were valid and further planning and review was required. Mr. Pate inquired as to whether he had any input as to the water running over his property. Planning Commission member Johnson told him that what was already running through his property could not be changed . It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Kelley, to table this matter, with the recommendation that the applicant spend time consulting with the neighborhood before the application is presented again to the Planning Commission. Mabusth suggested that the other concerned parties who were present at the meeting be allowed to express their concerns. Ms. Joan Voit, 4490 Forest Lake Landing, stated that her number one concern was runoff. The other concern she had was the possibility of Highview Road being vacated and increased traffic on Wildhurst Trail. Mr. Jerry Dolezal, 4650 Tonkaview Lane, asked whether a financial determination had been discussed. Ms. Karen Heit, 1153 Elmwood Avenue, suggested that all persons residing on Forest Lake be notified of the Developer/concerned parties meeting. Mr. Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail, indicated that he would like more detailed information pertaining to the drainage. Ms. Kathy Sawicki, 4510 North Shore Drive., was concerned about the quality of the runoff and its impact on Forest Lake. Mr. Steven Valek, 4720 Tonkaview Lane, addressed the issue of drainage. He said most cf the runoff already exists, and that it will continue to run whether there is any development in that area or not. He believed that placing sod in the area would help alleviate some of the drainage. Mr. Will?am Bull, 4690 Tonkaview Lane, said he would be the corner lot on Tonkaview and Garden. His concern involved the need to have a through road all the way to the golf course. Mr. Gary Welsh, 1214'Wildhurst Trail, said that there would be significant discussions involving this subdivision. He believed that storm sewers were a larger issue than sewers. He said that he gets mud and quite a bit cf runoff across his lawn already. He observed that in some cases, comprehensive development wculd not prove as beneficial as piecemeal development. He also mentioned the fact that his wife was denied the request to take information pertaining to this application out of the City offices prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mike Kelley, 4735 Tonkaview Lane, questioned what would happen if the determinations made from the hydrology reports were wrong? He further asked how the City was going to deal with the existing problems of the lift station, in any event? He added that he would like to see the covenants or building criteria that were going to be enforced. Chairman Kelley asked why this property could not be developed under the guidelines of a PRD? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that may be possible and she would further tamms of the puyniiiiG cofiiassiOH hfetihg October 17,19S8 the Crystal Bay Road Z0EIE6 FILE #1348-0. lARRY LEE COMTIHUBD ^ ^ *. i*. investigate that possibility with the developer but that it is her understanding that the developer wants to develop the property as a conventional plat. Mr. Bull enlightened the Planning Commission that there was an area* near his property that was a favorite party area. He believed that developing the area would put an end to the loitering and partying. Kelley thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting and sharing their concerns. He suggested that a person from the Cityr as well as a Planning Commission member, attend the meeting of the Developers and the concerned parties. Planning Commission member Brown observed that there was one lot in the proposed development that was under an acre. Kelley noted his observation. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. CITY OF OROHO CRYSTAL BAT ROAD COHDITIOMAL USE PERNlTAMtlAHCE SECOND REVIEW There were many residents from neighborhood present for this matter. Chairman Kelley began by reading a letter that had been received from the City of Minnetonka Beach. The letter stated that Minnetonka Beach was opposed to the closing of Crystal Bay Road. Kelley added that this matter was not as much a planning issue as it was merely an application to repair damage to the road. Zoning Administrator Mabusth corrected the statement in the staff memo that guard posts would be installed rather than a guard rail. Mr. DuWayne Schibilla expressed his confusion over where exactly the posts would be placed. City Engineer Cook stated that he did not know exactly where the posts would be installed, it would depend upon where the cave—ins occurred. Gerhardson added that it would be in the areas where blacktop has been washed away. Cook stated that the original intent was to preserve Crystal Bay Road so it would not fail any more than it already had. Cook added that there was approximately 60 to 80 posts and they would sit approximately 2' off of the road. Planking would be installed between the road and the bank, and then sand would be filled in. There would be anywhere from 3' to 6* left exposed toward the lake until the property owner restore the bank. The need for posts would only be in severe areas, where there was a considerable slide that took out the bank up to the edge of the blacktop. NIHDTBS OF THE PIANMIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 CITY OF OROHO/CRTSTAL BAY ROAii COHTIN1 Public Works Director Gerhardson explained that the only purpose of the posts is to serve as a notifier that the bank is gone on the other side. Mr. Lo Frano suggested that it may be best for this matter to be tied in with the issue of closing the road. He then questioned whether or not there was any validity to the City of Minnetonka Beach's claim that insurance rates would increase for the residents of Crystal Bay Road due to limited fire access? Kelley explained that he could not and would not address that issue. The only fact to be considered is that Minnetonka Beach had indicated that they wanted the Road to remain open. Ms. Leesa Anderson explained, in her opinion, the way that Minnetonka Beach arrived at the conclusion that Crystal Bay Road should be closed. Ms. Lorraine Moss asked for clarification as to where the Road was proposed to end. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this application. Mr. Tim Schupp asked for clarification of the proposal. City Engineer Cook explained the proposal again. Bellows stated that she was confused as to why the residents had concerns about the City correcting a hazardous situation. She asked what their specific concerns were, Mr. Lee Erger said hio concern involved the original proposal to place a guardrail along the edge of the Road. He added that he has had a snow fence in front of his residence for over a year. There was confusion as to how much repair work the City intended to do. Mabusth interjected that the City was just going to repair the roadbed. The repair and resoration of the bank would need to be done by the individual homeowner. Bellows asked if someone could show the residents exactly where the repair would take place? City Engineer Cook stated that would have to be done in the field. Kelley suggested that before this matter went before the City Council that the City Engineer and City staff marked where the repairs would be done. Cohen withdrew his Motion, Hanson withdrew his second. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to table this matter until the residents and the City got together and marked the spots where the repair work would be done. Kelley notified the residents that they would need to get a conditional use permit for the fill they would need to restore their banks. Mr. Ritchie Anderson asked if the City could send out another letter indicating their intention. Ms. Leesa Anderson pointed out the fact that sewer problems have been created due to the disrepair of the Road. Mr. Schibilla stated that they just had their sewer line routed out and had been told that they were out of alignment with the main line. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. mmjTBS OP THB PIAHHIHG CQWIISSIOH ZrA rriHG OCTOB^ 17r 1988 #1309 6BRALD HELSOS 1629 BOmrS POIHT ROAD APTER-THB-PACT COMDITIOHAL USB PBRMIT/VARIAHCB SBCORD RBVIBW The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this matter had been previously review by the Planning Commission. At that time, direction was given to have the City engineer and staff meet on Mr. Nelson's property to determine the best course of action to take. It was determined that allowing the pond with underlining to remain, but the fabric under the landscaping would need to be removed. The path of crushed rock with underlying fabric will also be allowed to remain, as it facilitates drainage and prevents futher erosion. Mr. Nelson stated that he totally agreed with staff's recommendations. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of #1309, per staff's recommendations and conditions. Notion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1311 JOHN ft SUSAN PURDT 1975 PAGBRNBSS POINT ROAD VARIANCB/RBFBRRBD BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY COUNCIL Mrs. Purdy was present for this matter. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Purdys had revised their application as recommended by the Planning Commission. The addition was now being proposed for the side of the existing house and would not encroach any farther toward the lake. The Purdys currently have a 160 s.f. deck, which does not have any plastic beneath it. They have removed plastic from beneath the rockbeds as a condition of approval of a 1985 application, and have replaced it witn permeable fabric. There is still a garage proposal for the future that the Purdys have put on hold. There is an existing shed that is 52 s.f. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether the Purdys still used the shed. Mrs. Purdy stated that the shed was not needed and they had intended to remove it. She added that they have removed more hardcover than they were asked to do. Chairman Kelley clarified that hardcover in the 0-75' zone was the issue. Gaffron responded in the affirmative and added that tho total hardcover would be 22.8% in the 0-75' zone. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover would be 33%. Gaffron stated that the areas underlain with fabric were included in the hardcover calculations. Kelley asked if it would be possible to place the trampoline on grass, as opposed to rock underlain with fabric. Mrs. Purdy stated that grass would not grow in that area. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONMISSIOH STING OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZONING FILE #13I1-PURDT CONTINUED Bellows suggested using sand. Cohen added that if grass were used, that area would not be considered in the hardcover calculations. Mrs. Purdy replied that they would remove the fabric if the Planning Commission absolutely required them to do so. She added that placing the fabric was costly and was done in order to comply with the conditions of approval given by the Council in their 1985 application. Kelley asked how much hardcover was actually being added. Gaffron replied there would be an increase of approximately 40 s.f. in the 0-75* zone. Planning Commission member Johnson stated that the revised proposal was a reasonable alternative and was a fair compromise. It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of a hardcover variance, subject to staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1323 JON N. PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAT ROAD AFTBR-THE FACT VARIANCES SECOND REVIEN The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved an after-the-fact request for a deck. A variance for hardcover in the 0-75* zone would be required, along with an average lakeshore setback variance. This matter was previously heard by the Planning Commission, and was tabled pending submittal of a survey, which has since been received. The hardcover in the 0-75* zone prior to the construction of the deck was 20.7%, the deck has increased that amount to 26.3%. Mr. Papas informed the Planning Commission that the deck was three-fourths completed. He did not realize that he needed a permit to construct the deck and stopped work immediately when a stop work order was issued. He said that he had received letters from his neighbors indicating that they had no objections to the deck. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Papas what he considered his hardships to be? Mr. Papas replied that there was no other place to put the deck, which he felt would add to the living space on his property. Planning Commission member Hanson commented that based upon a previous approval of an application involving retaining walls within the lakeshore yard, he felt approval of Mr. Papas*s application would be appropriate. 8 MIHUTBS OF THE PLAHHIHG COMMISSIOH TIHG OCTOB^ 17, 1988 ZOHIHG PILE 11323-PAPAS COHTIHl It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Hanson cited the hardship as being the fact that there was no other reasonable location in which to build the deck. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays*5. Mr. Papas asked what harm a deck would have with regard to runoff. Kelley replied that the comprehensive plan called for preservation of Lake Minnetonka. The best way to do that is to control the quality and quantity of the runoff into the Lake by leaving the ground uncovered so it can absorb as much water as possible. Kelley added that the Planning Commission was just ? recommending body for the City Council. The City Council can overturn any recommendation from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission member Bellows asked Mr. Papas if there was any way that the deck could be built off to the side. Gaffron stated that there was approximately 18' from the east side lot line to the house. Mr. Papas stated that there really was no room there. Bellows asked how many feet above grade was the deck? Gaffron replied approximately 1-1/2*. Bellows suggested building the deck without a rail, then only the hardcover variance would be necessary. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission merber Brown, to recommend denial of this application, because of the need to be consistent when dealing with hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Motion, Ayes=5, Hanson and Bellows Nay, Motion passed. #1326 ROHALD D. LADKR 200 MATZATA BOULEVARD CLASS II PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication md Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Asistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved the creation of a 2-acre building site from a portion of the Wayzata Country Club property. Chairman Kelley stated that the most important issue with this application was drainage. He asked Gaffron to show where drainage occurred. Kelley then asked where the runoff went once it passed the south lot line. Gaffron stated that some drainage occured to the west and some to the south. Bellows and Cohen disagreed, stating they believed the drainage flowed east. Gaffron stated that the drainage running off of the property could be channeled so it would not have a significant effect on the Hauser property. MIHUTBS OF THE PIANNING COMMISSIOH MBBTIHG OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZONING FILE #1326-RONALD lAUER CONTINUED Mr. Leo Hauser explained the current drainage patterns and conditions. He stated that the landscaping for Mr. Lauer's house would increase the runoff from melting. This would push drainage water further into his property and make it very wet and marshy. He is opposed to this happening. Mr. Lauer stated that Mr. Hauser would have problems from his own property because of the slope. Mr. Hauser responded that he had owned the property for 17 years and did not have any significant problems to date. He said that any fill brought in on the Lauer lot, would cause more water to gather on his property. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Lauer what he proposed to do to prevent a more rapid flow from running off of his property? Mr. Lauer stated that he had no proposal at this time, but did not understand why the land could not be contoured so that the water would flow more to the west, rather than flowing onto the Hauser property. Kelley informed Mr. Lauer that there could be no increase in runoff due to the bi’ilding of the house or any accessory structures. Mr. Albert C. Greig, stated that he had lived at 137 Chevy Chase Drive since June, 1955, and had watched the entire area, including the golf course, develop. Mr. Greig explained his understanding of the drainage in the area. He stated that the contours were changed when the golf course was built. He said that the concerns of Mr. Simmons, Mr. Hauser, Mr. Nelson and himself involve the fact that Mr. Lauer's house will be built at an elevation so as to overlook the golf course. This would involve a 24' depth of fill. The addition of the septic mound would bring the fill within 220' of the rear property line. The vegetation currently in that area helps deter runoff to a degree. Once the fill is brought in and the vegetati -»n xs removed and the grade increased, there will be an increase in runoff. Planning Commission member Johnson inquired as to whether Mr. Greig had a current runoff problem on his property? Mr. Greig stated that the drainage currently runs across the rear of his property. Kelley agreed with Mr. Greig's concerns. Planning Commission member Cohen asked whether the private access would become a public road. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied that the applicant had not discussed that with the parties that own and maintain that road. Mr. Lauer stated that he would be buying the road from the Wayzata Country Club. Planning Commission member asked Mr. Lauer whether he had a purchase agreement? Mr. Lauer stated that he did and it was contingent upon the approval of his application. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to table this application pending further review and more detailed assessment of the problems on MIHUTBS OP THE PIANNIHG CQHMISSIOH MBBTIllG OCTOBBR 17, 1988 ZONING FILE 31326-RONALD LAUER CONTINUED the property. With regard to the drainage, an independent hydrologist would need to be hired to provide a plan for drainage control. Kelley also requested grading plans and site plans so th.at the actual runoff can be determined. The issue of the road would also need to be addressed and Kelley asked that a representative from the Wayzata Country Club be present the next time this matter was before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Hausoir indicated that she was concerned about the road and private driveway taking out all of the vegetation that currently acts as a buffer for their property. Cohen added that safety would be a major factor should the road become a public road. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. NOTE: Mr. Greig's information was accepted by staff for use as exhibits for this application. #1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS 355 HOODHILL ROAD VARIANCES-SECOND REVIEW The applicant was present for this matter. A brief review of this application was given by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron. He stated that a front setback variance was required. The applicant has revised his proposal by changing the deck and garage, in addition to moving the location of the house slightly further south. The applicant now requires only a variance for the front setback which will be 37' rather than the required 50*. There will no longer be an encroachment into the wetland setback area, but applicant requests that the City allow cantilevering of the deck into the 26' wetland setback. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the number of houses that could possibly be built to the north of this property. Gaffron stated that there is currently one house, with a potential for one more. Kelley asked the applicant whether the access road was private or public. Mr. McNellis replied that the road was a private road that served the old Pillsbury home that is now owned by John Prudden. Kelley asked about the remainder of the road that connects with Woodhill. Gaffron stated that Woodhill Road was actually owned by Woodhill Country Clib. Kelley asked whether the applicant had any agreement with the owners of the road in case the heavy construction equipment should damage the road. Mr. McNellis responded that he would be responsible for repairing the road if it was damaged. Planning Commission member Bellows asked how many acres Mr. Prudden owned. Mr. McNellis replied that he had a little over 8 acres. Bellows observed that there co'ld be 4 houses built in that location. Kelley asked how far the building envelope was from the MIHUTBS OP THE PIAMNIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 •J •ZONING FILE 81329-MCNELLIS CONTIN1 travelled road. Mr. McNeills stated it was 73' to the edge of the house, but there is a 36' strip of land owned by Mr. Prudden between his house and the roadway. Mr. Prudden granted an easement for the purpose of putting in the driveway. Kelley asked Mr. McNeil is whether he had asked to purchase that land from Mr. Prudden. Mr. McNellis responded in the affirmative and added that Mr. Prudden was not able to sell the land because he wished to maintain 8 acres. Planning Commission member Johnson commented that he was comfortable with the proposal and looked upon the deck as an overhang rather than an actual structure. Bellows indicated that she would not approve the deck because the applicant knew what the building envelope was at the time they purchased the property. She added that she might be willing to approve the front setback. Hanson concurred. Cohen stated that he was uncomfortable with the entire proposal. He said the area was peculiar from the very beginning. He too thought that the applicant was aware of the problems with the buildability of the lot at the time he purchased the property. Moos concurred with Cohen's opinion. Planning Commission member Brown indicated that due to the unique characteristics of the lot, he would have no problems with the proposal. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of the front yard setback, and denial of the 4' encroachment into the wetland. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=5. It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of the front yard setback and the 4* encroachment into the wetlands. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=5. It was moved by Planning Commission member Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend denial of both the front yard setback and the 4' encroachment into the wetlands. Motion, Ayes=4, Kelley, Brown and Johnson. Nay, Motion passed. Mr. McNellis stated that the hardship involved with his application had not been discussed. Kelley explained that the application had been thoroughly reviewed and this was the second time this matter had been presented. He felt the Planning Commission was fully aware of the hardships. Mr. McNellis asked for suggestions as to how he could place the house on the property. He said he would have a problem with surface runoff if he were to place the house in another location within the building envelope. Hanson stated that he understood the constraints involved, but thought it would be possible to build within those constraints. Cohen reminded Mr. McNellis about his right to go before the Council and the fact that the Planning Commission was only an advisory body. Bellows added that the motion was necessary so that Mr. McNellis could proceed to the City Council. She also stated that Mr. McNellis had previously been given the suggestion to redesign the house to fit within the MIHUTBS OF THE PIANNIIIG O SSIOH STIliG OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZOHING FILE #1329-lfCHBLLIS CONTINUED building envelope. Mr. McNellis reiterated his belief that the Planning Commission did not understand the environmental hardship involved with his application. He explained that there was a culvert in the Prudden Road that brings water onto his property and further restricts the building envelope. Kelley asked Mr. McNellis whether or not he was aware of this problem when he bought the lot? Planning Commission member Johnson recommended that Mr. McNellis bring the matter to the City Council. He pointed out the fact that the Planning Commission was split in their recommendations. Kelley told Mr. McNellis to write down his hardships and present them to the City Council. #1330 FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. 880 TONNLINE RORD CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION SECOND REVIEW • Mr. Mark Gronberg, of Coffin & Gronberg, was present as a representative of the applicants. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this application was previously reviewed at the September 19, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Since that time, soil borings were taken and soil types determined in those areas that were questionable. The application involves a seven lot subdivision along the west side of Townline Road. Gaffron said that he had been on the building sites with the applicants' engineer and they had determined that there was at least one, if not more possible building locations within each lot. The Hamel soils were not as extensive as originally indicated. Staff recommended approval of this application. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, subject to staff's recommendations and conditions. Bellows asked what the current park fees were. Gaffron explained that the fees were based upon the lot size. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1334 SIDNEY REBERS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT-PRD CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 9:35 P.M. - 11:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Peter Jarvis, an Associate of BRW, presented this matter on behalf of Mr. Sid Rebers. Mr. Jarvis began by addressing the seven recommendations and conditions of approval prepared by the city staff. He stated that most of the conditions were agreeable MIHUTBS OP THE PIAMIIIHG COMNISSlCIi STIH6 OCTOBER 17, 1988 Z0EIB6 FILE «1334-REBERS COHTIHUED to Mr. Rebers with a few exceptions. Mr. Jarvis also asked for feedback from the Planning Commission concerning the road. Mr. Jarvis asked for clear direction as to whether the loop road was preferred over the cul-de-sac. All seven Planning Commission member indicated, by an informal vote, that they preferred a loop road. Mr. Jarvis proceeded by reporting that Mr. Rebers agreed with items 1, 2, all easements would be prepared as part of the preparation of the final plat, 3, 4, 5, and most of 6. Chairman Kelley interjected that he wished to add another condition in the subdivider's agreement that would address the preservation of trees. He began by asking the Planning Commission members for their feelings on disallowing any accessory structures on the building pads. This would include second garages, gazebos, tennis courts, swimming pools. Since the major argument in favor of the rezoning was tree preservation, then he wanted to see that the trees were in fact preserved. Plannining Commission member Bellows believed that paragraph "c" under item #6 addressed the topic of tree preservation. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked why the proposed covenants did not address accessory structures. Chairman Kelley apologized for straying from Mr. Jarvis's explanation of what was acceptable under item #6. Mr. Jarvis continued by saying that "a" was a problem, "b" was acceptable, "c" he recommended a .25 FAR (floor/area ratio) maximum, "d" would be acceptable if the language were modified to say "within the .25 floating zone within the pad area, as opposed to an absolute; "e" a 4' wire mesh-type fence is being proposed that would blend in with the surroundings. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Jarvis if he had discussed the issue of the fence with those neighbors that were concerned. Mr. Jarvis stated that he had not. Mr. Jarvis addressed paragraph "a". He stated that the Planning Commission was confusing the pad area with the lot area. In looking at the smallest lot, the lot area was 32,000 s.f. The pad area would be 11,000 s.f. This would allow for setbacks on each lot of 50' front and back, and 30' on each side. By using the figures quoted, there would be 21,000 s.f. or just short of 2/3's of the lot preserved. Within the 11,000 s.f. of pad area, he is requesting that overall limitation for development be a .25 FAR. The FAR normally applied to the entire lot area. If the it would allow for an 8,000 s.f. structure. That would mean a footprint of 2,712 s.f. If a garage Is added, the ground cover would be 3,528 s.f. All in all, there would be ground cover of 3,528 s.f. out of a total 32,000 s.f. lot, which is slightly above 10% ground cover. Kelley asked for a definition of FAR. Jarvis replied "floor area ration". Kelley observed that a one story house could actually have ground cover of 8,000 s.f. NIHUTBS OF THE PLMffillliG COMMISSIOH TTimG OCTOnSI 17, 1988 ZOHIEG FILE #1334-REBERS COET1M1 Jarvis added that the 8,000 s.f. would still be within the 11,000 s.f. buildinc pad. By allowing this .25 FAR, it would give each home builder flexibility. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she would favor something similar to an PAR that would limit the buildability of the lot. Jarvis stated that the Rebers proposal already provides tar more stringent setbacks than normally required. Mr. Jaivis cited other examples of how the FAR would aid in the preservation of the trees and natural vegetation. He stated that on a 64,000 s.f. lot, the buildable area would be reduced to approximately 17,000 s.f., due to the setbacks, and that would allow for sufficient protection of the trees. Planning Commission member Brown asked for clarification regarding the side setbacks and whether the trees would remain undistrubed in those locations. Jarvis stated that those areas would be the no-grading, no-building, nonencroachment areas. Bellows interjected that there would be no disturbance, except for the driveways. Jarvis confirmed that. Chairman Kelley observed that by disallowing any disturbance within the proposed setback areas a homeowner would not be able to lay sod to the street. Mr. Jarvis disagreed with that interpretation and added that if the Planning Commission wished to include that restriction they should specifically address it. Mr. Jarvis thought that restriction to be excessive. Kelley indicated that allowing sod to the street would contradict Mr. Jarvis's statement that there could be no disturbance of trees within 50' of the street. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the proposed covenants address preservation within the woodlands preserve area. The Planning Commission members read the portion of the covenants that Mabusth referred to. Bellows observed that they did not specifically address the size of trees that were to remain or that could be removed. Planning Commission member Johnson asked what the normal setbacks for a one-acre lot would be. Mabusth replied 35' for the front, 10' for the side and 30' for the rear. Bellows stated that she was not concerned with the setbacks a*; much as the true preservation of the woodlands. Mr, Ptlaum clarified that the covenants pertained to the trail syst»,m only and did not attempt address the building lots themselves. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she was looking for more specific limitations with regard to the building lot. Pflaum reiterated Mr. Jarvis's ideas. Chairman Kelley asked for feedback from each Planning Commission member regarding the size of the building pad/building envelope. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he interpreted the term "building envelope" to address the house; "building pad" would be a more appropriate term for referring to NIVOTBS OF THE PIANNIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED the building area. Kelley agreed. Cohen suggested that whatever Percentage the Planning Commission felt was appropriate for the building pad, include the accessory structures as well. Cohen added that the building footprint should be predetermined. Kelley^ stated that he would have a hard time specifying that. The building pad was already pre-established because of the required setbacks for each lot. He did not believe that the home builder should be limited as to where within that pad he would place the house. Kelley did want a parentage defined as to how much of the pad would be buildable. Cohen agreed and added that the percentage should include everything, the driveway, tennis courts, the house and garage. Mr. Jarvis reiterated that the setbacks already allowed for substantial preservation within the lot. He did not feel that allowing a percentage of the building pad would be reasonable, but rather a percentage of the entire lot. Planning Commission member Bellows suggested that the percentage of buildability would need to be approximately 50% to 75% of the building pad if the percentage were based on the pad. Planning Commission member Cohen asked why such a high percentage would be appropriate. Bellows explained that the house size that would be allowed using 50% of the pad, would not be very large. She was afraid that placing such restrictions would encourage smaller, more poorly designed homes. She stated that Mr. Jarvis's recommendation of 25% of the lot would be more appropriate. She suggested that as opposed to the FAR however, that the 25% be looked upon in the same fashion as hardcover. Bellows said the main question would be whether to allow 25% of the lot or 75% of the pad. Allowing for 75% buildability of the pad would be the most restrictive in terms of tree preservation. Kelley and Cohen concurred that 75% of the pad would be the most effective way to preserve the maximum trees. Planning Commission member Johnson disagreed and stated that 50/50 would be more reasonable and would allow more flexibility for the builders. The next item to be addressed was the issue of the driveway. Mr. Jarvis stated that he did not want the driveway to be included within the 75% buildability of the pad. Kelley asked about the proposed provisions for vegetation removal within the designated setback areas. Jarvis said that his intent was that no trees be chopped down, but if a homeowner wished to remove shrubbery or install sod in those areas they could do so. Kelley asked how the 50' front setback should deal with the driveway and ^ Planning Commission member Cohen suggested setting a specific footage limitation on the size of the driveway. Kelley suggested that the 50' front setback be excluded from the restrictions of tree removal. Cohen stated that he was aware of areas in Orono where trees ove^ 1" in diameter were marked and so designated to remain forever. He suggested such a procedure be used in this case. Cohen asked if the driveway could not be included within the 75% buildability of the pad. MimJTBS OF THE PLIUlMIliG COMMISSION :i:-K ITING OCTOBER 171 1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINl Planning Commission member Bellows suggested configuration for the building pad that would run all the way to the street. Mr. Jarvis observed that there could be problems with such a plan. He suggested that the Planning Commission "let go" and allow the persons buying the lot the freedom to build on it as they choose. He added that "trust" was necessary in that the Planning Commission would have to trust that persons paying $100,000.00 for wooded lots would not cut down all the trees. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that there are $100,000.00 lots with $400,000.00 houses that had absolutely no trees. There was considerable discussion that followed as to viable alternatives to this problem. The final resolve was that 80% of the building pad could be hardcover, including the driveway. Within the 50' front setback, any tree may be removed for the purpose of installing the driveway. The next issue addressed was fencing. Mr. Jarvis stated that they were proposing a 4' wire mesh fence with wood posts for the northerly boundary. Mr. Platteter presented pictures of the wooded area abutting his property. The purpose of the pictures was to show the Planning Commission that the woods were not very dense. Planning Commission member Hanson asked Mr. Platteter what kind of fencing he would prefer. Mr. Platteter replied that it did not matter, as long as it would be a "barrier" and could not be penetrated. Mr. Platteter also expressed his concerns about the traffic increase, but was most disturbed about the possibility of persons trespassing on his property to access the lake. Chairman Kelley asked whether arborvitae staggered with 4'fencing would be acceptable? Mr. Platteter replied that he did not wish to cause any unnecessary fii:r.ncial obligations for Mr. Rebers. Planning Commission member h«illows told Mr. Platteter that it would be impossible to keep children off of his property entirely. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he sympathized with Mr. Platteter's concerns involving his pool and horses. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Platteter if he wanted the fence to run the entire length of his lot li*ie? Mr. Platteter confirmed that. Kelley asked whether the Platteter pool was enclosed in any way? Mr. Platteter stated that it was not, it was open. Mrs. Platteter reminded the Planning Commission that they would have a 6 to 1 concentration of houses along that boundary of their property. That concentration would mean a complete instrusion of their privacy. Bellows and Hanson both commented that such a situation was a consequence of having neighbors. Mrs,. Platteter stated that the reason they moved to Orono was because of the large lot sizes. Planning Commission member Johnson expressed his fears of setting a precedent should the subdivision be fenced off from the Platteter property. He did not believe that 25 lots on 32 acres constituted high density housing. Kelley concurred, but added that he would be willing to recommend a fence around a portion of the Platteter property. Hanson stated that he could accept a 4* laHUTBS OF THE PLAliNIKG CONMISSIOH TIHG OCTOBER 17, 1988 II HIZOHIHG FILE 11334-RBBERS COMTIH fence, but basically he concurred with Johnson and Kelley. Moos suggested using evergreens, or arborvitae, along the 3 lots for a visual screen. She reiterated Bellows' opinion concerning keeping trespassers out entirely. Bellows stated that it would be up to the Platteters to take proper safety measures pertaining to the pool. She added that she had a stream runninq through her property and she could not as] the DNR to protect the stream from potential trespassers. Bellows questioned whether vegetation would even grow in that area due to shade. Mr. Jarvis stated that there would be 100' separating the Platteter property from the nearest building pad in the proposed subdivision. Johnson suggested striking item The other Planning Commission members concurred. "e" from the staff's recommendations. The next item addressed was woodland preservation/no-grading areas. Bellows asked Jarvis what the specific covenants were that pertained to those areas. Jarvis stated that he wanted to limit any tree removal within the wooded area of the lots, as well as the outlets. Kelley asked if the preservation standards would apply to brush. Jarvis stated that the covenants would not discourage brush removal for the purpose of tidiness. Kelley suggested limiting tree removal to trees under 2" within the entire lot, except in the area where driveways would be located. Hanson indicated that he wanted the homeowner to have the freedom to do whatever they desire in the front of the lot. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission, as a whole, agreed that trees 2" and above must remain on all sides of the lot, except in the location where a driveway would be placed. The brush can be removed. Steve Pflaum questioned whether dead or diseased trees could be removed? Kelley stated that they could, but he would not address the issue of who would determine whether a tree was diseased or not. It was determined that Item "d" should read "limit grading activities to a specific level and require City approval if it is to be exceeded." Mr. Jarvis said if that condition would relate back to the 80% of the pad area he would not object. Planning Commission member Cohen wanted to address the issue of the access. Planning Commission member Hanson concurred. Cohen did not believe that the current proposal was safe. Mr. Kost stated that the access was moved to its proposed location because staff had indicated that was where they wanted it. Mr. Jarvis interjected that the access was a non-issue, in that they would place it wherever the City desired. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she disagreed with the City Engineer and preferred the access to be at the crest of the hill. Hanson concurred. Cohen stated that he too agreed because traffic would indeed increase considerably. Chairman Kelley wanted assurance that all Planning Commission members understood the proposal concerning the MINUTES OF THE PLIOINIHG COMMISSICEI MEETING OCTOBER 17, I98ft ZONING FILE «1334-REBERS CONTIN1 southerly portion of the property by the Little Oak Store. Planning Commission member Brown indicated that the outlot was created for the purpose of a road. Mr. Jarvis stated "that it was unfair that Mr. Wear was not contributing" to the necessary right-of-way. Should Mr. Wear decide to re-develop his property prior to the road being developed, Mr. Wear should contribute to the right-of-way. Mr. Wear was present and stated that the only consideration given to him throughout the entire development process was the fact that he was not donating his land for the right-of-way. Ms. Maggie Roderick, Dickey Lake Drive, stated she was opposed to the looped road ever connecting to Pine Ridge Lane. She said that she was also concerned about the sewer access. She wanted assurance that it was not going to run across any 2-acre property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that at this time, there were no definite plans regarding the sewer connection. She said that she had seen some preliminary engineering plans and the sewer line was proposed at the south lot line of 2-acre lots on the south side of Pine Ridge Lane. Mr. Steve Pflaum stated that he had seen the preliminary engineering report. The sewer line, if it were to be built by Orono, may come from Long Lake. Another possibility would be to have the line serve the commercial area only. He mentioned the Long Lake/Orono/Medina 3— party power agreement interceptor that comes up Willow Drive to Highway 12. The concept is to "spur" it at that point, take it 100' north so it could service commercial on either side. This proposal was only included in a feasibility study. Mr. Pflaum added that the sewer line cannot go into properties not located within the M.U.S.A. district. Ms. Roderick stated that she lived on the corner of Willow and Dickey Lake Drive. Should a sewer line come down Willow Drive, would she be assessed? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the only persons assessed for sewer were those who benefitted from the sewer. Ms. Roderick asked what would happen should the City decide at some future time that she had to have sewer? Mabusth stated that would be very unlikely because of the established M.U.S.A. line. Bellows interjected that the M.U.S.A. line could change. Mabusth said that the City would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan and ask for a realignment of the M.U.S.A. line. Ms. Roderick commented that she had moved to Orono because of the 2-acre minimum lot sizes. The Planning Commission has now allowed 1-acre lot sizes. She did however, commend Mr. Rebers on his proposal. Mr. Wear stated that he already had sewer hooked up to his property. He wondered whether he would be assessed for the sewer lines for the Rebers project. Kelley stated that he did not know NIHUTBS OP THB PLMnilBG COMNISSIOII . I :VIBG OCTOBER 17« X^8S Z0H1H6 FILE «1334-RBBERS CONTIMI the answer to that qucrtion and advised Mr. Wear to call the Mayor. Mr. Wear stated tnat it was time the City determined that issue. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of #1334, subject to items #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as set forth in staff's recommendations and conditions, and to the additional items as follows: 1. That the access to the subdivision be moved to the crest of the hill on Brown Road. 2. The building pad will be defined by the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30* side setbacks. 80% of the building pad can be hardcover. The 80% hardcover figure includes the driveway which will be outside the building pad. Within the 30' and 50' setbacks, there will be a limit placed on the removal of trees with diameter of 2" or greater, with the exception of the driveway area, where any size tree may be removed. 3. The Planning Commission did not recommend a fence for the north side of the property because of the precedent that would be set with other subdivision reviews. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays*0, Motion passed. NOTE: At this point of the meeting Planning Commission members Bellows and Cohen departed. #1344 ROGER RODER 1099 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH VARIAMCE PUBLIC HBARIHG The applicant was not present and this matter was tabled for a future date. #1345 JOHN THEOBALD 4017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 11:20 P.M. - 11:30 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 applicant is now proposing to attach a new 30' X 32' garage to the existing 16' x 22' garage. This would make MIMUTBS OF THE PIANNIHG COMaSSIOH TIHG OCTObKR 17, 1988 XOHIE6 FILE «1345-THBOBALD COHTITOBD the structure 1323 s.f. The applicant is proposing to revert a portion of blacktop back to grass. There would be a hardcover reduction from 30.3% to 25.5% in the 75-250* zone. Chairman Kelley, upon verification of the 0.6 acre lot size by Gaffron, stated that he would have a hard time approving such a large structure on such a small lot. Other Planning Commission members concurred. Planning Commission member Johnson agreed in part, but preferred to see the new structure over the existing garage. Planning Commission member Moos concurred with Johnson. Mr. Theobald asked if he would still be required to remove blacktop if he built the addition on top of the existing garage. Planning Commission member Brown asked if that would allow the hardcover to remain the same. Mr. Theobald explained that hardcover would increase. Brown asked how there could be an increase in hardcover if the addition was built over the existing structuj. ». Kelley expressed his confusion as to how the hardcover calculations decreased from 30.3% to 25% by moving the garage back and making it larger. Brown answered that it was due to the amount of driveway he was proposing to remove. Brown asked Mr. Theobald why he could not do the garage as he wanted and take out enough hardcover so there would be no increase. Mr. Theobald stated that he could do that if he kept the garage where it is. He added that he was at 33.5% hardcover before he even started. Brown preferred to keep the garage below 1,000 s.f. and either reduce the hardcover or keep it at its current level. 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 keep the hardcover at or below its current level of 30.3% and keep the accessory structure to less than 1,000 s.f. Mr. Theobald asked if he could maintain the old structure until the new structure was built? Kelley advised him that would be acceptable. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1346 BIHAR HAGBBRG 740 HORTH ABM DRIVE VARIAHCB PUBLIC HBARITC lls30 P.M. - 11:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Einar Hagberg was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Hagberg was seeking a hardcover variance to build a detached storage garage. The current level of hardcover in the 0-75* zone is 18.6% and would not increase. However, hardcover within the 75-250* and 250-500* zones would MIHDTBS OP THE PIAHNING CQMIIISSIOH MBBTI1IG OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZOHIEG FILE il346-HAGBERG CONTIN1 increase. U » Chairman Kelley commented that he would not object to the hardcover increasing in the 250-500' zone, but he did not agree with the proposed increase for the 75-25C zone. Kelley asked if there would be any hardcover Mr. Hagberg could remove to keep the hardcover the same? Gaffron replied that there was plastic underlying some rockbeds that Mr. Hagberg could remove. Kelley asked about the road to the back cx Mr. Hagberg's property. Mr. Hagberg explained that it was a City access for the sewer lines. Kelley asked what the hardcover in the 75-250* would be if the road was removed from the calculations. Gaffron replied that the road was 900 s.f. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of #1346, the hardship being the City access road. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1347 MICHAEL HALLEY HOMES, INC. 2715 PENCE LANE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARI^ 11:35 P.M. - 11:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Robert Martinson was present as a representative of Michael Halley Homes, Inc., and Mr. and Mrs. Dean Terry, the property owners were also present. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were proposing to construct a gateway system at the entrance of the driveway serving 2710 and 2715 Pence Lane, about 150* in from Kelley Avenue. The existing wooden planters will be removed. Planning Commission member Brown asked why this structure needed variance approval. Kelley replied that the 4* height did not conform to the 3-1/2' maximum set forth in the ordinance. reminded the Planning Commission that if the structure were placed 30' back from the property line and at least 10' from the side property line, a setback variance would not be necessary. Gaffron pointed out the fact that the proposed structure would encroach on a 10* drainage and utility easement. If this application is approved, the City will require a Hold Harmless Agreement so that the City or any other utility company can make repairs to their utility lines and not ba held responsible for any damage that might be done to the wall. Gaffron expressed the concerns of the neighboring property MINUTBS OF TLF PLAHNIHG CQMMISSIOH TIMG OCTOBER 17, 1988 Z0HIM6 PILE #1347 'MICHAEL BALLET HOMES COHTIIIUBD owner, Dailey. H: s driveway has been and would continue to be used for a turnaroun.^ for persons attempting to drive to 2710 and 2715 Pence Lane and encountered "Private Road" signs at the existing entrance. Kelley observed that such a problem would exist with or without the security gate. Planning Commission member Moos asked whether there was a "No Trespassing-Private Property" sign on the corner of Kelley and Pence Lane. The applicant stated that there was a sign but it was not at that location. Mr. Martinson said that such a sign could be placed at that intersection. Mr. Steve Bakke, 2765 Pheasant Road, stated that the private road was previously used by his family for pedestrian traffic to access Kelley Avenue. Mr. Bakke wondered whether the gates would restrict such a use. Mr. Bakke stated that part of the driveway is built on an easement for his property. He wanted to know the intent of the builder as to freedom of movement. Mrs. Terry stated that the cars were their concern, not the children walking through the property. Mr. Martinson informed Mr. Bakke that a survey had been done and the driveway does appear to "meander" over the easement. Kelley asked what the hardships for the variance were. Mr. Martinson stated that security was the major hardship. Moos inquired 'as to the number of cars that trespass per day, Mr. Jerome Skifter stated that there is constant traffic, especially since Michael Halley had begun construction. Mr. Skifter did not think the gates were an effective method of dealing with the problem. To the contrary, it would cause more of a problem for himself and the Daileys. He said that the gates would be an enticement for the public, rather than a limiting factor. Kelley asked if there would be lights on the top of each monument. Mr. Martinson said that there is a light adjacent to the structure. Kelley asked whether the entryway was presently lit? Mr. Skifter said there are currently lights down the driveway. Mr. Skifter added that his kitchen window looked out directly at the proposed monuments. He was also concerned about the removal of trees. Mr. Martinson said that it was his intention to retain the trees and natural buffer on the property line, which he estimated to be 5' to 10' in depth. Ms. Debbie Rice, Kolley Avenue, commented that the Parade of Homes caused a dramatic increase in traffic. She reiterated Mr. Bakke's concern about the children using the private road to get to Pheasant. Mr. Frank Dailey sympathized with the Terry's desire for privacy. However, he believed that the entrance gate should be placed farther down and that a turnaround be provided. Otherwise, he would have more people using his driveway for a turnaround. Mr. Terry said he wanted to eliminate the traffic and MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TING OCTOBra 17, 1988 ZONING PILE il347-MICHAKL BALLET HONES CONTINUED vandalism that had been occurring on hie property. He agreed that there had been an increase in traffic since construction of the Michael Halley home began. He said that they were planning on putting up a security gate anyway. Kelley asked whether the gates were mechanical? Mr. Martinson stated that they would be electronic. Kelley asked how the fire department would geL through in case of fire. Mr. Martinson replied that the gates would be rode and/or key activated, besides being activated from the house. The arress code would be given to appropriate entities that would require entrance. Kelley informed Zoning Administrator Mabusth that the issue of emergency vehicle access should be addressed with all applications for mechanical/electric gates. Brown asked for clarification about a proposed turnaround. Mr. Terry said that right outside the monuments they were proposing to broaden the area to provide a turnaround. Kelley asked whether the Terrys would be willing to move the gates back far enough so that a side yard setback would not be required? Mr. Martinson said that was feasible. Hanson asked if it would have any impact on the neighboring properties, Gaffron pointed out that if the gate was moved further away and the 10' and 30' setbacks were maintained, a variance would not be required. The qate/wall would become an accessory structure and as long as it meets the accessory structure setbacks, it could conceivably be as high as the house. Mr. Martinson stated that he would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation and asked for direction with regard to the turnaround, Kelley said it was possible that the variance application could be entirely withdrawn. Mr. Martinson said that it would in the best interest of the Terry's and Mr. Skifter if the gates remained in the location they were now proposing. Johnson asKed how far from the property line the wall would be? Mr. Martinson replied it could be approximately 20' from the front property line and that the 10' side setback requirement could be met. He added that there should be plenty of room to back up and turn around. In addition they would put a sign on the corner of Kelley and Pence. 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 this application for a height variance and front setback variance, provided that the applicant brings a revised plan showing the turnaround and safety access issues to the City Council Meeting. Kelley asked about delivery boxes being put in the gate. Mr. Martinson said that they had already considered that in their plan. Motion, Ayes=3, Kelley and Moos Nay, Motion HINUTBS OF THE PIAHNIHG CONNISSIOH : I TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 ZONING FILE #1347-IUCHAEL HALLEY H passed. •j, I S CONTINUED APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1988 and October 3, 1988 Planning Commission Meetings. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 12:05 A.M. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:05 A.M.