Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1995 Planning Commission MinutesORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 159 1995 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg. Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaf ron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member J. Diann Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - #2020 JAMES BRUCE - 565 LEAF STREET - 7 :00 -7:30 P.M. A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT B. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Bruce was present. • The property will be served with sewer from Oxford Road, The City will ask for a 20' easement, 10' on either side of lots 1 and 2 for the sewer line to serve lot 3. Detailed grading and construction plans for future sewer connection must be submitted with building plans for new construction on lot 3. There is a concern with any impact the future sewer work would have on Oxford Road. An accessory structure located on lot 3 will be given one year from the final plat approval date for removal if a building permit for new construction has not been issued. The existing residence on lot 2 may stay as part of the principal residence as detached additional living space but not as an independent living space. Covenants will need to be placed on the property to alert future owners that this structure may not be used as an independent structure. The applicant met with members of the commission regarding tree removal on the property. 32 trees were noted to remain in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building envelope. Five mature trees will be removed. Nolan asked if the building enveloped noted on the plans was exact. The applicant said it was approximate and allowed a 75'x75' area to build the house but may deviate somewhat. An existing culvert may also be affected. • • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #1 - 42020 James Bruce - Continued) Nolan asked if any covenants will be put in place. Nolan's concern was with a future owner clear cutting the property to obtain lake views. The applicant noted that the open space around the proposed house will be more to the east than west and with primary views to the south. Bruce is willing to file a covenant to place tree removal restrictions west of the house, between Oxford Road and the house, and within the area to the north. Mabusth commented on the cul -de -sac issue. Bruce had wanted to keep the cul -de -sac due to landscaping features but Staff advised of potential problems. The cul -de -sac, in its present location, will never serve as a turnaround area. The sewer line that will run through that area, and the approximate 50'diameter paved cul -de -sac is inadequate to serve as a turnaround. The applicant said he could understand the City's view on this but would like to try to save the mature tree in the area. The Planning Commission agreed that the surface of the drive could remain until building was completed on lot 3. During the public comments, Sue Nelson, who owns the property to the north of proposed lot 2, commented that her swimming pool is located only 30 -40' from the shared lot line. The Nelson home is farther away. The closeness of the pool to the proposed building site could become a nuisance according to Nelson. She said she would prefer the open area to the south used for residential development and limit tree removal along the north. Peterson commented that the setbacks are being met. Nelson responded that Oxford Road is a private street, and the covenants state that property cannot be subdivided without the owner receiving approval of property owners to allow an amendment of the covenants. Mabusth confirmed that the City does not enforce private covenants. The applicant should be advised to commence the process of amending the covenants. Staff cannot schedule the subdivision and vacation applications before the Commission until this is finalized. Don George of 495 Oxford Road, lives across the street from the proposed development. George reported being aware of the covenants and is concerned with the new development. Peterson asked Bruce how he was not aware of the covenants. Bruce said he was notified this past week after an attorney's title opinion was completed. The seller had not informed Bruce of the covenant. I-] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #1 - 42020 James Bruce - Continued) Mark Randow, a member of the church located to the north and east of the property, said the church is surrounded by the property under discussion. The church has an outdoor chapel and its use would be overshadowed by any building done on the weekends. Randow said the church has been long standing and would like to see building construction curtailed on the weekends as well as around - the -clock type construction. Concern was also voiced on the increased drainaged from the property noting the drainage easement on the east side. Peterson noted a concern also for any new property owners because of the outdoor weddings being conducted. Randow noted a need for screening or landscaping as a barrier between the properties. Sue Nelson recalled past problems with their septic system prior to hook -up to sewer noting the need for these future lots to be connected to sewer. Peterson said he had no problems with the vacation of the easement within Staff recommendations but was concerned now having learned of the existing covenant. Peterson felt it would be necessary to table this issue until the matter of amending the covenants is resolved. The sketch review noted that the property is subdividable, and if the civision falls within covenant rules, would be subdivided. Other issues of sewer and • drainage will be addressed as part of the normal subdivision review. Lindquist agreed with this summation and the need to table the application. Applicant Bruce reported that the seller informed him that the covenant has been amended in the same fashion before, and there is an amendment process within the covenant, which the owner is now undertaking for this application. Bruce asked the Planning Commission for an indication of approval, subject to the covenant amendment, and an idea of the time frame. Peterson said the missing information could result in stopping this process but does show good improvements made from last meeting. Smith asked for clarification on the use of the existing unit on lot 2. Mabusth responded that the application is similar to the recent Kipler /Sargent application, where a covenant was executed to limit future use of an independent accessory structure as a guesthouse. The structure would have to be connected to sewer to serve a bathroom, but it was noted that no kitchen would be allowed. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2020 until more information is received on the existing covenants and their effect on the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #2) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - #2021 JAMES HALE AND JAMES BRUCE - 575 OXFORD ROAD AND 565 LEAF STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:30- 7:31 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Bruce was present. This Application is a follow up to the sketch review. There is a purchase agreement in process for the purchase of 0.10 acre from James Hale to satisfy the lot size requirement. There are no setback problems. The lot line rearrangement requires approval of the covenant homeowners, which have given approval in the past. Mabusth noted that the Staf has no concern with the division of the lot lines as proposed. Peterson said the application was good, except for the problem with the covenant described in Item #1. Peterson suggested the need to satisfy the requirements of the covenants prior to approval of the application. Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to table Application 92021, to review covenants. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #3) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - #2022 ROBERT MELAMED - 920 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 8:30 -9:27 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Melamed was present. The Applicant updated the Planning Commissioners on the preliminary subdivision. The property is 15 acres located on Old Crystal Bay Road across from the Carpenter residence. The proposal is for a 4 -lot subdivision with septic systems. Wetland areas have been delineated. An existing driveway will be removed. Applicant is asking for a variance to the code to use the City driveway rather than going to an internal road. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (93 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) The Applicant is desiring to keep away from the wetland areas which would require removal of 650' trees and excessive filling within wetlands. A permit is automatically granted by the MCWD if the wetland filling does not exceed 400'. The MCWD will review grading plans. No mitigation is needed but Applicant does plan to dredge wetlands in the future. Melamed would like to create a ponding area and deepen another pond. He advised that he received positive feedback on this from the MCWD. Mabusth said that this would be considered a major application involving a conditional use permit and variance. Mabusth asked Applicant the purpose of the alteration. Melamed said this would increase the wildlife areas and general aesthetic purposes, and to replace what has been destroyed in the past. It was noted that this is part of the general plan and not a part of the current review. The Applicant reported that after discussions with the Council, Park Commission, and Planning Commission, a 15' outlot is requested at the west lot line adjacent to county road for a bike trail and would be part of the park dedication. Melamed noted that the Park Commission was concerned with buffering the City preserve area on the east side from this property. A decision is needed on whether this should be dedicated on fee title as park dedication land or protected on private covenants. Melamed noted the Park • Commission preferred a park dedication, while the Council was in favor of a buffer zone as it was felt that better control was afforded if City owned land rather than controlled as in covenants. The driveway on the south side needs to be decided. If no internal road is built, then two - shared driveways are currently proposed, one off county road and one off City driveway. The question of whether the City desires to grant itself a variance or upgrade the drive to a City road needs to be decided upon. The upgrade would require a cul -de -sac, which Melamed said the neighbors do not want. Melamed said the Park Commission felt the area would not be enhanced by an upgrade. The Council is uncomfortable with granting a variance and is possibly looking at amending the code on the number of residences allowed to be served by a driveway. The Applicant prefers that a variance be given. Peterson read into the record a letter from Frances Graham and Robert Gumnit voicing their desire that the City grant itself a variance. Graham and Gumnit also asked that the developer not be allowed to use the word "preserve" in its name as they felt it was confusing and potentially misleading. They asked that trees and wetlands be maintained. During public comments, Mike Ellis, who lives next door to the property on the south, voiced his disapproval of bike trails on the property. Ellis asked how the creek would be crossed serving lot 4, and Melamed replied that a concrete culvert would be installed. Ellis objected strongly to the proposed Willow Drive to Brown Road trail. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 • ( #3 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) Duke Hust, who lives two lots north of the proposed development, reported that the bike trail would come very close to his home. Hust's house is built close to the road and would lose his front yard. He does not object to the plan except for the proposed trail. Bridget Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced concern over loss of tall trees where the trail is proposed. Hust noted that the trail would come within 10' of her home. It was noted that the Park Commission had voted against a trail on the west side, 3/2, but the Council was in favor of the trail at this location. Nolan asked if the concern was that trail connections might not be made if built on the east side of this proposed development, which Mabusth confirmed. Melamed noted that no connection would be made to the north unless Hust or Ellis should subdivide their property or it was acquired by the City. Hust agreed that this was a concern. Flint said that this was a matter of two decisions; whether to take an easement now or build the trail now. There is no plan to build now but it was the appropriate time to gain an easement. The possibility of having a trail on the east side and being unable to connect to the east was a concern as well as being obtrusive with the park. Peterson said decisions made at this meeting would not affect the trail issue as it will be resolved by the final decision of the Council. Goetten responded that it was not the intention of the Council to extend the trail to North Shore Drive. At this time, the trail is not yet able to reach the Luce Line. In regards to this specific application, Goetten said that nothing has been absolutely decided upon, and it will come up before the Council at a later date. The Council asked the Park Commission to look at a trail on the west. Goetten noted that the Council has never condemned a property for the trail. The Council will look further into this issue. Peterson asked for any further public comments. Hust commented that he agreed with the letter noted above. Ellis inquired about the size of the City -owned driveway. Melamed commented that it was his goal that the development would look like it was not even there from the road. Melamed does not wish to disturb the wooded landscape. Nolan asked if restrictive covenants would be placed on tree removal. Melamed said this would be accomplished through covenants or conservation easements. The restricted areas would correspond to the building setbacks. The purpose is to create a border on each lot that eliminates any tree removal. 40 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #3 - 42022 Robert Melamed - Continued) Smith inquired of the size of the borders. Melamed said he has drawn in buffer zones along the exterior lot lines of the property at a 50' width that is only encroached by septic areas. Staff has recommended a 30' wide buffer along shared interior lot lines. Nolan asked that where driveways extend along shared lot lines, that 30' wide buffer not include area of drive, but to extend buffer width to maintain 30' buffer. Peterson personally felt a variance should be granted to the ordinance, and no change be made to the ordinance. Peterson would like the City Attorney's ruling on whether a City can grant itself a variance. It was later noted by Gaffron that this had been done with the post office parking lot. Mabusth noted that the Applicant has submitted a letter stating he will follow the path decided upon by the City in regards to access roads. Melamed had thought that the drive would have to be upgraded to a road. The Planning Commissioners replied that another alternative for access would be decided upon but no upgrade of City drive would be recommended. Goetten said the problem is that there are already two homes there, and does the City grant a variance for two more. The Council does not look favorably on other developers doing so; then, why should the City allow themselves to gain from granting a variance. Goetten said the Council was also not in favor of an internal road. Nolan asked Goetten if the Council preferred two shared access drives off Old Crystal Bay Road. Goetten replied in the negative. Melamed's partner, Ron Lauer, asked if it was possible for the City to make the road a public road. Mabusth said the roadway is already public. By code, if a third house is built, then the driveway must be upgraded to a road. Applicant asked if the City were to find no legal problems with granting itself a variance, as it does with others, would the City look hard at granting this request. Goetten said the Council needs to look at the big picture and noted conflicts with several ordinances at this time. Lindquist voiced his favor of the bike easement along Old Crystal Bay Road. Lindquist also said he understood where the Council was on the issue of the drive; and even though it may be the best solution, the possibility of coming off of Old Crystal Bay Road was there. Mabusth said the Engineer recommended grading of the bike trail along with the developer's grading. The Engineer advised that it would be difficult for the City to do filling in the future. The filling of wetland areas was an issue as the City would be required to find mitigation areas. It is easier for developers to accomplish before 40 residential development. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #3 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) Hust spoke for Art Ellis. Ellis said a dike was formed when the existing drive at Old Crystal Bay Road was built. It had been dry prior to that time. Melamed reported that the Engineer had said the low land had to drain to the north. Hust commented that Ellis said the land used to drain to the southeast. Peterson said drainage was an issue in all applications and would look at ensuring that no further problems occurred. Smith asked for clarification on driveways being the personal decision of a homeowner. Mabusth said the curb cuts require approval, but where the drive comes off the curb cut is decided by the homeowner. Lindquist moved, Nolan seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision for Melamed/Lauer with the understanding that a variance be granted off the City driveway to allow two units served from the City drive with four lots in the total subdivision. Application must meet the 9 conditions stated in Staff memo in addition to conditions as follows: 10) create buffered zoning for driveway zones, 11) report received from City Attorney prior to going before the Council on the City's legal right to change the ordinance or allow a variance granted to the City, and 12) encourage developer to change the subdivision name from the "preserve" name. The Applicant asked for clarification if Park Dedication, a buffer zone, or an outlot would be done on the east side of the property. Mabusth said the City usually does not take wetlands as part of Park Dedication. Nolan asked if the purpose was to only provide a buffer zone. Flint said that other wildlife concerns have been noted, such as a north -south pathway for wildlife. Flint said granting a fee would be preferred but would like to see a buffer for the wildlife pathway. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #4) #1999 DAVID AND VICKI VICKERMAN, 2475 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:32 -7:42 P.M. Mr. & Mrs. Vickerman were present. Mabusth reported that the application was originally filed for a deck structure within the 0 -75' zone. The Planning Commission denied the application at the March meeting, but confirmed the need for a new staircase along with the removal of the boat house. The City Engineer will need to confirm whether an existing retaining wall will be needed once the boathouse is removed. The area where the boathouse sits will be restored with natural landscaping. Mabusth commented that a demolition permit will be needed and noted that 18 cubic yards of fill will be placed in low areas and to provide adequate soil base to allow planting of ground cover. Landscaping will minimize the fill. There is also the option of stones or chips but no geogrid material is to be used. s MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#4 - #1999 David & Vicki Vickerman - Continued) Nolan was concerned with the stabilization of the slope. It was noted that once the boathouse is removed, timing is critical. Nolan did not want the application to have to go through the Planning Commission process prior to stabilization once the boathouse was removed. The Applicant responded that Bill Niccum of Minnetonka Portable Dredging will demolish the boathouse and fill with a clay /dirt combination with dirt on top and attempt completion within a day. Mabusth noted that the City Engineer would need to be there when this was done to see that guidelines were followed. Mabusth asked the applicant to inform Staff of the date and time for the demolition. Nolan asked if the slope could be stabilized without a retaining wall. Mabusth said the Engineer thought this was possible as the rest of the ground appears to be stable, and loose earth and debris appear to have been swept to rear of boathouse giving the appearance of severe erosion. Mabusth also said that the area where the boathouse is now located is level. Both Peterson and Berg said the Planning Commission would rely on the expertise of the City Engineer. The Applicant commented that they proposed to use crown vetch in the landscaping. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application # 1999 with Staff recommendations, and specifically, that the City Engineer be on site when the boathouse is removed. The Applicant is to work with the Engineer on steps taken to stabilize the slope. Plans must be acceptable to the Engineer. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #5) #2005 SAILORS WORLD MARINA AND BOAT CLUB, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Application #2005 was tabled at the request of the applicant. (#6) #2007 TONY EIDEN COMPANY, 2800 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:42 -7:54 P.M. Ross Lineham represented the company. C7 is MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (96 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Lineham reported that the purpose of the berm on the north lot boundary, which continues on to the west, is a result of an effort to make lot 1 more saleable. A void was filled in between two berms to create a new berm. Work was done on an existing berm on the west and at existing grade on the east. There were no deviations. Mabusth said that the berm was partially completed. Mabusth said that the primary and alternate septic sites force drainage to immediate rear of residence. It was noted that the ground was wet in the back yard. The Engineer recommended construction of a swale to the rear by the house that would carry drainage from east to west. The applicant said there was enough elevation for proper drainage via the swale. Mabusth asked the applicant if he thought about a swale between the lots, draining to the south and direct drainage out to Countryside. The applicant agreed saying the the hill carries major drainage from higher elevations at east. Mabusth reported that the septic is a mound system, and there is a need to direct drainage away from the toes of the mounds. Peterson asked how the berm by the City trail along Watertown Road impacts the drainage. The Applicant said the berm would have no impact on trail. Mabusth said the berm presents problems for the septic system sites and concentrates drainage via lot 1 to the immediate rear of residence. Lindquist asked if the plan would meet the 20' septic setback. The Applicant replied that it would when amended. Lineham also said that he was working with Steve Weckman, who approved the mound system, and asked to see Weckman on the site rather than through additional paper work. Mabusth said that the issue was of such great importance that it cannot be worked out on site only. Smith responded that it was needed to be on paper first. Peterson said he had no problem with the berm as long as it did not affect the drainage system to which Mabusth agreed. Peterson saw the issue as one of engineering and grading being worked out with the developer and Weckman. Mabusth said the Engineer has recommended that a swale be developed to rear of residence and/or along shared lot lines of 1 and 2 or a combination of both. Nolan noted the importance of maintaining a 20' septic separation with site drainage on the shared lines or directing away from it. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 is (#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2007 for the installation of an L- shaped berm on lots 1 and 2, block 2 subject to the berm maintaining a 20' setback separation from the drainfields. The Applicant must provide site drainage plans satisfactory to the City Engineer along with an integrated drainage plan along the shared property lines and between the residence and drainfield for lot 1 with an easement accompanying agreed swale. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #7) #2013 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:54 -8:12 P.M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chair of the Freshwater Foundation, and Board of Director members, Robert Searles and JoEllen Hurr, were present. Mr. Burton relayed the groundwork on the history of the institute, which was formed by Dick Gray in 1968 to do research on preservation of fresh water, and who then built the institute. An agreement was made with the University of Minnesota in 1974 and was given over to the university in 1976 as a research institute and named the Gray Freshwater • Biological Institute. Burton said the university has concluded, that due to budget restraints, they are unable to continue to afford operating the foundation. Two options were available; one, to put the foundation on stand -by, or two, give the foundation back. The intent is to not change the purpose but to be more of an educational organization informing the public on fresh water issues. The original construction cost paid by private contributions was 4 million dollars. Since then, another 3 -1/2 million has been spent on research. The building sits on five acres, with an additional 2 -1/2 acres south of the building, as well as two outlots. It was found that no conditional use permit was ever issued to either the foundation or the university. The foundation's application is to correct that mistake at this time. Peterson reported his pleasure in seeing the institute back in the community and would like to see school tours of the institute. Peterson is in favor of the CUP and asked Burton if he was aware of Staffs recommendation for the CUP. Peterson is concerned that no CUP be issued without written documentation that the university has removed all hazardous wastes, and that any hazardous waste be taken care of and disposed of in a proper manner. The Applicant said the formal decommissioning will take place by the end of July. • Smith asked who the regulatory agencies involved were and if they concur with these decisions. The PCA is the agency involved. 11 C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #7 - #2013 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired of the ADA requirements for the building. Burton said an inspection has occurred. Only small differences were found and few modifications needed. The plan is to comply but no time schedule has been decided. There are two levels to the building. The elevator is not ADA approved at this time but would only be necessary if the public were to be exposed to the lower floor in the future. Smith asked that a time frame be part of the recommendation. Mabusth said the institute acts as a polling place and could work out the details with the City on compliance. Appropriate Braille signage on bathroom doors were needed as soon as possible. Hurr asked when next election use would occur. Mabusth advised in fall of 1996. Berg asked about parking and any plans for paving or expansion of the parking lot. The Applicant says there are no plans to expand, and the occasional wet conditions of the lot are the only complaints received. Hurr replied that any additional parking would require a CUP. • Nolan asked if any conferences were held that would incur problems with parking. It was found that there were no guidelines in place for this situation, and Mabusth said no problems have been reported. • Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2013 for a CUP for continued use as a research facility as the Freshwater Institute. The Applicant will bring the building up to ADA codes within a year of their receiving the property, July, 1996. Proper certification will be needed from the MPCA. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2015 MARK HARRINGTON, 4080 BAYSIDE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9 :43 -9:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. John Arnot represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the application is for a 35'x44, 3 -story addition, which will double the size of the existing structure. A variance setback was granted for a detached garage in 1984. The detached garage will be removed when the attached garage, which is part of the application, is built. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C0MMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 i ( #8 - #2015 - Mark Harrington - Continued) A height variance is necessary. Measurements were taken at the garage level. 3 -1/2' of fill will be added to gain positive drainage from the garage area. There will be a transition space from the old and new construction in an attempt to stay above the septic level. A conditional use permit will be required for a guest apartment on the upper level of the addition. This will be non - rental and serve as a mother -in -law type apartment. Access from the principal structure will be via a hallway. There will be three entrances. One entrance from the outside will be by the mudroom. Another entrance will be off the garage, with travel through the garage and up the hallway to the apartment. Another entrance will be at the lower level basement. The basement will be accessed by a stairwell but will not be finished at this time. Mabusth informed the commissioners that future plan call for removal and replacement of the original structure. The application is the first step in the improvement process. Another addition will be placed in line with this proposed structure. Nolan asked about the pine trees in front of the residence. Arnot said trees have already been moved, and the trees there now will remain. . Arnot said the county has given their approval for the driveway. There were no public comments. Peterson said, while the Planning Commission normally takes a strong stance on grant height variances, this is not an issue here. Berg moved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #2015 with the four Staff recommendations and additional conditions as follows: 5) receipt of County permit for new driveway; 6) closing off the old driveway; and 7) obtaining demolition permit for the removal of the garage. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2016 MARK DUPONT, 2275 WEBBER HILLS ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Application was tabled at the request of the applicant. ( #10) #2017 WILLIAM HIBBS, 1905 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:13 -8:28 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. isMr. Hibbs was present. 13 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAX 15, 1995 ( #10 - #2017 William Hibbs - Continued) Mabusth reported that the applicant was before the Planning Commission a few years ago for a proposed enpansion of the residence. The application was denied by the Planning Commission due to the excessive amount of hardcover. The hardcover issue involved structural and non - structural hardcover. The current proposal involves the removal of the 25'x44.3, 1 story, west side of the residence and replace with a 23.5'x44.3', 2-1/2 story addition. The driveway would be relocated off of Fagersness Road. Two accessory structures will be removed, and a new driveway will be installed. The new access has been approved by the Engineer. Mabusth explained how side setbacks work on corner lots; 15' setback is required off Webb Street, and 33' is proposed. 30' is required for a front street setback. There will be 23' setback from Fagemess Point Road. Mabusth noted that if the structure was to be moved to the north to meet required 30' setback, more excavation would be required. All improvements result in hardcover reductions. Lindquist asked how close the deck is to the road. Mabusth said the deck is located about 15' -20'. • In reviewing the information, the structural coverage is reduced by 3% and is proposed at 23 %. The hardcover reduction is 18 %; reducing it to 31.97% in the 75 -250' setback area. Setbacks are improved. ID Peterson commented that the proposal is a major improvement to the lot and the structure. There were no public comments. Nolan asked if the shed on the property would be removed and received an affirmative reply. Smith asked that the yard be cleaned up and stuff removed. The applicant said it would be done after construction is completed as there was no place to store anything now. Mabusth reported that applicant advised that there will be no retaining wall to the west adjacent to garage but graduated landscaping. Mabusth asked applicant if he considered moving the structure to meet the 30' setback. Hibbs responded that this would require removal of a large Hackberry tree and would not want to lose the tree. 11 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #10 - #2017 William Hibbs - Continued) Nolan acknowledged the need for an apron on the drive but asked that area limitations be set. Mabusth said the back -up are was included in the hardcover proposals. The detailed site plan will be submitted prior to the application going before the Council. Nolan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2017 for variances to hardcover, structural coverage, side and street setbacks subject to apron dimensions being established before going to the Council meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #11) #2018 RICHARD BORN, 1991 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9 :33 -9:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Born was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a CUP to install a permanent dock. The dock is existing but the applicant is asking to expand it. There are no setback problems. The DNR has issued a permit, which Staff has received a copy. The applicant will need to review his proposal with the LMCD. The applicant responded that he has begun this application process. Mabusth commented that the visiting Planning Commissioners remarked on the construction of the railing on the upper deck. A permit was issued for a new rail. The original rail was of solid construction. The new railing will be more open. Approval was given in 1991 for this construction. Nolan commented on the landscaping on the lakeshore portion of the lot, which has plastic underlayment. The Applicant responded that this was installed when he bought the property. Peterson informed the Applicant that the plastic is considered hardcover and would be desirable if removed. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application 92018, subject to LMCD approval. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #12) #2019 LEISEL COX, 3445 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:37 -9 :43 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Leisel Cox was present. • 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 i ( #12 - 92019 Leisel Cox - Continued) Mabusth informed the members that the application was for a conditional use permit for a Class 1 restaurant in the Overson Building. The Keaveny property is to the immediate east of this property. Mr. Keaveny was present and still owns that building. Mabusth showed the survey of the building and the parking, which has 28 stalls. Mr. Keaveny confirmed that there was no shared docking or parking areas. Cook said the parking will still be workable after improvements on CoRd 15 is completed. Nolan questioned if it was appropriate to ask for a certain number of parking stalls. Mabusth did not believe this was necessary, noting there was never a parking problem at this property. The site plans call for a coffee shop type restaurant serving espressos, sandwiches, and soups. Peterson said the CUP application is consistent with the use. Smith moved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #2019 for a conditional use permit to include the three recommendations. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mabusth added a third condition to the application. There is now one bathroom. Separate bathrooms must be provided for men and women. • ( #13) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - #1800 MICHAEL PLANK, 4115 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Michael Plank was present. Gaffron reported that approval had been originally given in February of 1993; but through an apparent miscommunication, final exhibits were never submitted by the applicant. Consequently, the applicant never went before the Council and expired in February of 1994. The backlot ordinance was adopted since the original approval, and any new subdivisions after January of 1994 need to meet the current standards. An example of how that affects this application is the requirement for 150% of the lot area and width. Gaffron stated that at this time, this is a sketch plan review and requires no formal vote. In way of background, prior to 1988 this property was a 25 acre parcel. In 1988, it was subdivided into three lots and a 30' width access outlot. Approval was given for the shared use of the driveway outlot for the new house on Lot 3 and a second lot which might be split from it in the future. In 1993, preliminary approval was given to rearrange the boundary between Lots 2 and 3, leaving 6.2 acres with the house on Lot 3 and 13.6 acres with the house on Lot 2. Plank then would have the ability to sell the house on Lot is3 but maintain control of the outlot and enough acreage for a possible split in the future. 16 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) On Exhibit C, proposed Lot B will consist of 6.2 acres. Gaffron noted that in Staffs opinion, new lots are created if this lot line rearrangement occurs. If Planning Commission concurs, then Lot Bwould need to meet the 7.5 acre requirement. Neither Lot B proposed now or Lot C proposed for the future would meet the 300' width standard at the front line where they would abut the outlot. To avoid the backlot acreage issue, a 6.2 acre lot that abuts a platted 50' road with a 100' cul -de -sac would not be considered a backlot and would not have to meet the 150% width and area requirement. There would still be the need for lot width variances on the cul -de- sac. Gaffron noted that with the Highway 12 studies underway, there could be changes in the status and character of Watertown Road in the future. Also, Planning commission is reviewing the current status of driveways in regards to the threshold number of driveways required for upgrading to road status. Gaffron also asked the following questions: • Does the road have to be built if it's platted? • If, in the future, a third driveway (from the old house on Lot 2) becomes the third . driveway using the outlot, will it have to be upgraded to road status? • How will expanding the outlot to a platted road and cul -de -sac width affect the acreage needed for splitting off an additional lot? Plank said he bought the original 25 acres in 1976. He indicated the intent at that time was 4 total lots. One lot was divided off in 1977 and remained the same for the next 11 years. In 1986, he noted there were 20 acres along with the old house. There were 3 potential lots left at that time. The house that is now on Lot 3 was moved in; and since timing was of the essence, a lot line was drawn rather quickly. Plank would now like to keep Lot 2 with the additional land but would like to swing the lot line downward. Nolan asked if Plank does not plan to subdivide further, why he would not keep the lot at 7+ acres instead of 6+ acres. Plank responded that he did not believe it would be wise to give up a possible lot, and the wetlands need to be considered in the calculations. Lindquist explained what he perceived the situation to be. The Applicant is looking for 3 total lots, but is not now at the point of creating the third lot. There are now two houses on a potential 3 lot property, but the 3rd lot would need a variance to make it a 3rd lot. These lots are not platted. There is current a backlot (Lot 3), which conforms to the 7-1/2 acre requirement. If it were reduced to 6.2 acres, it then would not conform. Lindquist asked if the road could be platted without actually putting the road in, or is the commission willing to grant a variance when the land is in the 5 -acre zone. 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) Plank asked if approval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindquist said the standards of today need to be upheld. Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul -de -sac. Peterson said the Planning Commission would probably look favorably on giving a width variance in this circumstance. Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would happen if changes were to be made to Watertown Road. Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the drive were to come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D -b, Peterson said if lot Y (the future 3rd lot) has a home with it, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would only be dedicated. Plank would maintain control of lots X and Y and road postponed. If X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X might need access off a cul-de -sac if Watertown Road were improved or its status upgraded to a level where limiting individual driveway access onto it is critical. Gaffron questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to close their drive from Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrangement application. Plank ask why he would want to do this. Commissioners responded that when applicant's desire a change in their properties, this is the time for leverage in gaining solutions to future "what -if' questions. Lindquist said an easement covenant would be required as a deed restriction on the sale of lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non - issue. Other commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul -de -sac in the future. Gaffron said if Lot 1 (X(Y) were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, and the road could be built for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be addressed at that future time. The commissioners informed him that it was being addressed now and was consistent with a 3 4ot division. Gaffron said the 1988 resolution which allowed lot line to happen, included a statement that the developer could use the outlot to serve lot 3 and a future lot split from it (Y and Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that split never occurred. Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likely not be enough land to have another lot. Nolan commented that future commissions and councils might view the property differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be . decided on at time of future applications, but, the time to gain the easement is now. 18 r� • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) Plank reiterated that it was necessary for him to sell the home on lot Z now. He was informed that any other changes would be reevaluated and cautioned as to what was done with lot Z as it could affect lots X and Y. Gaffron informed Plank of the time schedule for preliminary approvals. Peterson reported that a for sale sign could be installed now. A sale can be contingent on application approval. Peterson suggested Plank work out details with Staff. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #14) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 - JANICE BERG Berg reported that the Council approved the zoning applications. It was noted that the Palm application was amended. The 50' Lakeshore setback is to be met including any structure or deck. The findings on the grading and drainage pattern was removed. The Line application findings on drainage remained. ( #15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron was notified that there would possibly be no quorum for the May 18 public information meeting. If necessary, any vote would be continued to the next meeting. The Planning Commission members discussed the conceptual change in code in regards to the shelter proposal but not specifically tied to the shelter. Smith commented that she hoped public opposition to a commercial code would not hurt the possibility of the project. The Planning Commission also discussed the code regarding the number of drives coming off of a public driveway which is an issue in the proposed Melamed development. Smith said it was her understanding that the Council were against granting the City a variance. Gaffron noted that the City granted itself a variance for the post office parking lot. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0. 19 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 ( #17) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JUNE 12, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Peterson will attend the June 12, 1995 Council meeting. Lindquist is the alternate. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 10:48 p.m. Ayes 5, Nays 0. "s ea75ye� Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 20