Laserfiche WebLink
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 <br />ROLL <br />The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair <br />Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan, Jr. Candace Rowlette <br />arrived at 8:42 p.m. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee <br />represented Staff. The meeting was called to order by Chair Schroeder at 7:03 p.m. <br />SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING <br />( #1) 7:00 P.M. #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY <br />SUBDIVISION - 7:03 -7 :57 P.M. <br />The Applicant was represented by his attorney, Larry Berg of Fredrikson and Byron. Robert Hare <br />and Patty Napier of Burnet Realty were also representatives of the property. <br />Mabusth explained this application is for a subdivision of the property along previously platted lot <br />lines that were legally combined. Since this is a 5 acre zoning district, this 9.9 acre parcel would <br />never be brought before the City again for subdivision. The City will ask for dedication of road <br />• rights -of -way and a flowage and conservation easement over the designated wetland. Easements <br />and dedications for the remaining 22 acre parcel will be considered at a later time. The total <br />dedication of 66' of right -of -way road easement of Watertown Road at one section creates an <br />unbuildable triangular piece of property to the south which could either be legally combined with <br />the homestead parcel on the northern side of the road or combined with adjacent properties on the <br />southern side of Watertown Road. <br />Staff reviewed the 1989 ordinance amendment that dealt with oversized accessory structures. At <br />the time the larger riding arena and indoor barn were constructed, there were no limits on the size <br />or number of oversized accessory structures on a property. In 1989, the two structures became non- <br />conforming with the oversized accessory structure ordinance amendment, not as a result of the <br />current subdivision application. <br />A major issue for the review of this 9.9 acre parcel (8.41 dry buildable acres) is the 6 horse <br />allowance per current code. What other use could be allowed for these oversized accessory <br />structures if not the keeping of horses? When the Kokeshes purchased the 9.9 acre property in 1968, <br />the code stated that a stock farm had to have 10 acres and Section 10.03 would allow an increase of <br />25% without the need for a conditional use permit review. In 1985, variances were granted for the <br />commercial use of the property and a conditional use permit was granted for the riding stable and <br />instruction. In 1975 there were 20 horses and in 1985 there were 25 horses, which was legal as the <br />Kokeshes owned 31.2 contiguous acres. Based on 29 dry buildable acres, the code would have <br />allowed 27 horses. The 1968, 1975 and current code are basically the same as for the classifying <br />• of a farm at 10 acres. The applicant is looking for direction regarding the keeping of horses on the <br />property. The two oversized accessory structures can legally remain. <br />