Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 16, 1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder (arrived at 8:25 p.m.), Sandra Smith, William Stoddard, and Lill McMillan. Janice Berg and Elizabeth Hawn were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Kelley was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS ( #1) #2232 - WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST, VARIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 -7:11 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for construction of a 30'x40' detached accessory structure that exceeds the height of the residence. The structure is larger than • what is allowed for the lot size. Hardcover meets the requirements. The structure was originally intended for use in storage materials for a home occupation, but arrangements have since been made to store these items elsewhere. The issues involved in the proposal include the structure size exceeding the 1000 sT allowable and the office space in the building. The setback requirements would be met. Van Zomeren said she has not found any other past applications that request exceeding the accessory structure size for the lot size that has been approved. If the lot was larger, a conditional use permit could be granted. Walter Holzer indicated that he made the arrangements to store the materials for his plumbing business elsewhere after discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting. He now plans to use this building for hobby use and storage. Holzer requested the size be approved as substantial costs have been made in preparation for a building of that size. Holzer said he had not been aware of the size limitation. Lindquist inquired if Holzer would be satisfied with a 1000 s.£ building. Holzer said he would prefer the 1200 sT size but would acquiesce to this request if necessary. Stoddard noted that the decrease in size could be accomplished by reducing the building size by 5'. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 •( #1 - #2232 Walter Holzer Continued) Smith asked if Holzer had plans for electricity, heating, and cooling of the building. Holzer said he planned to construct a bathroom due to the far distance to the residence. He will use in -floor heating on the main floor and forced air upstairs, which would require that water be connected to the building. Holzer said he understands that having water connected may be a problem. Lindquist informed him that plumbing would create the problem and would require further approval. Holzer was informed that the water connection would be allowed. Lindquist said he was satisfied with the application at a size of 1000 s.f. Smith agreed with Lindquist and asked the applicant if he would clean up the property. Holzer said he has already cleaned out the majority of the materials on the property and would complete that task once the building is erected. Smith noted that the lot is lovely and the building would provide storage of any materials. Van Zomeren noted that the height of the building is an issue requiring a variance. There were no public comments. • Stoddard suggested the building height would decrease if 5' were taken off the dimensions of the building. He noted the property is heavily wooded and neighbors support the proposal. Holzer said the height of the building would not change. Smith noted that if the principal structure was of typical height, no height variance would be required. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application 92233 for a detached accessory structure with a variance allowing a 30' height maximum provided the footprint of the building be limited to 1000 s.f. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda Item #2 was moved to the end of the agenda after item #14 to see whether the applicant would be present at the meeting in order to discuss the application.) ( 0) #2242 - WAYNE A. JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:11 -7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • ( #3 - #2242 Wayne Johnson - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the RR -1B Zoning District requiring 2 acre lot size. The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The proposal is for construction of a 569 s.f addition to serve as a garage. A front yard setback variance is required to allow a 34.06' setback as currently exists from the 50' requirement. There are no further variances created by the proposal. Wayne Johnson said he would like to increase his garage size from a single to a two -car garage. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2242 for a front yard variance to allow the proposed garage to encroach into the front yard setback the same distance, 34.06', as the principal structure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2243 - JOHN D. BLACK, 4030 DAHL ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:13 -7:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. • The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the one family lakeshore requiring one acre size lots. The lot is .87 acres and of an unusual shape. The proposal is to change the lakeside of the existing residence to replace a deck and 12'x18' screened porch. Variances required include 0 -75' hardcover, average Lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The hardcover would increase by 13.5 s.f Van Zomeren said the hardships include the unusual lot shape and the fact that the structure is existing. John Black said he would like to replace the existing deck with a new deck that is farther from the lakeshore. He indicated the distance using a tape measure on the ground is over 80'. The additional room proposed would be located off the kitchen with a screened porch below over the existing deck that is to be replaced. Black indicated that he would be willing to decrease the size of the driveway if necessary. Lindquist informed Black that the Planning Commission does not favor any hardcover in the 0 -75' setback. Black noted that his property is screened from the neighboring properties. Lindquist, Smith, and McMillan indicated that the variance for the average Lakeshore • setback is not an issue. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • (#4 - #2243 John Black - C'ontmued) Lindquist asked the applicant if there was any change that could be made to the proposal to result in no increase in hardcover in the 0 -75' setback. Black said he was surprised when the survey showed the slight increase. He noted that the addition would be located over what is rock now. He indicated that he would make some change to maintain the 555 s.f of existing hardcover. Van Zomeren said the hardcover calculations were revised on June 5. The 0 -75' setback hardcover is 25'x.75 or 19 s.f with landscaping underlain with plastic. The Planning Commissioners indicated they did not want to see hardcover within this setback. Black said he had originally planned to rebuild the walkway but is no longer planning on doing so. He questioned whether the walkway was included in the calculations. McMillian clarified that the patio deck and screened porch were included in the calculations. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application 42243 for a variance to the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback to rebuild the deck and add a screened porch. The motion included that no additional structure would be allowed in the 0 -75' • setback and the 0 -75' setback hardcover must be maintained at its existing level. Vote: Ayes 4, Nags 0. ( #5) #2244 - WILLIAM W. WEAR, 2160 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7 :21 -7:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request to install a canopy over an existing gas pump island at the Orono Mall. The property is located in the B -1 Zoning District. The proposed canopy is located 3.6' from the highway right of way where 20' is required. Electrical wires are located overhead. NSP was contacted by Van Zomeren but have not made any recommendations. Van Zomeren reported Mn/DOT said they would support the proposal as long as the canopy was not in the right -of -way. Van Zomeren said staff was concerned with lighting and creation of problems for westbound drivers from the lighting underneath the canopy. She noted there are Ighting standards that would have to be met. Signage is also indicated on the plans. Van Zomeren said she did not know what additional signage would be indicated on the sides and back of the canopy. 4 • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 ( #5 - #2244 William Wear - Continued) Van Zomeren indicated that the hardship for the application is the highway right -of -way that was taken from the front yard of the applicant's property. Lindquist indicated that the Planning Commission would require further information on lighting and signage. He asked how close the canopy is to the curb. Mr. Wear estimated the distance to the sidewalk at 6' and 9.5' to the curb. Wear said the canopy would not extend over the sidewalk. He indicated an alternative to the canopy design would be angling the corners of the canopy to further the off -set 4' from the road side. Lindquist believed that would be a good idea to lessen the encroachment. Stoddard inquired where the support columns are located. Wear said the support columns were 14' back. Smith was informed that the canopy would be of a metal material. Lindquist received confirmation from Wear that he understood the approval of the variance would be subject to approval of plans, signage and lighting. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2244 to install a canopy over existing gas pump island subject to staff approval regarding height, signage, and lighting plans, with corners to be angled to further off-set the canopy 4' from the roadside. The approval is contingent on favorable consideration from NSP and Mn/DOT. The applicant must remove the portable sign and reinstall the pylon sign in compliance with zoning code requirements. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Wear reported that he was currently in the process of removing the portable sign and reinstalling the pylon sign. (#6) #2245 BARBARA THEISEN AND CLAYTON F. FREEBURG, 4465 NORTH SHORE DRIVE AND 4485 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VACATION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 -7:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Barbara Theisen was represented by her two sons. Clayton Freeburg was present. MINUTES O1; THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NJEE11N(i tiELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • 06 - #2245 Barbara ThPise_.n anti 0.9vton Fre bjirg - rontinut -Ai) Gaffron reported that the request is for vacation of an alleyway paralleling North Shore Drive. It has existed since 1889 as a public dedicated right-of-way as part of the Bergquist's Addition to Saga Hill. The request is to vacate the portion as noted with an option to vacate to North Shore Drive. Stoddard was informed that the vacation request does not include the farther distance. Gaffron indicated that the parcel between the platted right -of -way and alley, known as Lot A, Tonkaview Gardens, is a tax forfeit parcel acquired by Hennepin County for future right-of-way purposes. The Freeburg garage is located in this area. The alleyway is also used to gain access to the Theisen property. Gaffron reported that staff is concerned with any approval of the vacation as the alley might be needed for future expansion of the County road to correct the curve radius. If it is vacated, there is a possibility that Hennepin County would then have to repurchase it for road expansion. There is also a drainageway at the shoulder of the roadway with a County catch basin and outlets. Gaffron reported that a significant amount of stormwater runs through this area, and the County may need the property for drainage improvements in the future. • Gaffron said the utility companies have been notified. No response has been received yet, but easements are normally maintained when vacations are approved. • Gaffron informed the Commissioners that any approval would require meeting the findings 1-4 as indicated in the statt memo. The three possible public purposes were also noted which are included in the memo as well. Gaffron reported that impacts are both positive and negative. The five impacts as noted in the staff memo were reviewed. Gaffron noted that while the homestead lots would gain in area, they would still be substandard. Gaffiron said staff does not recommend approval of the vacation. He noted that a withdrawal of the application by the applicants would allow a fee refund less staff and notification costs. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • cl C lavtnn FrPPhtirsy - ('nntiniiPCi) (ft6 - #774S Rarhars Theisen And _ Clayton Freeburg, owner of lot 6, indicated that even with having built the rock up around his garage, water still runs through it. He said Hennepin County informed him that they would correct this problem. Freeburg noted that it was difficult to drive out of his garage with the few feet available now. Freeburg said the alley could never effectively be used as such due to the steep banks. He said he was informed by his title company at time of property purchase that his garage was located on his property and the alley was included in his property. He would like to straighten out the problems with the question in ownership. He was notified that he did not own the property under his garage and the alley when he attempted to refinance his property. Freeburg said grassing over the area would improve the drainage. The curb and catch basin have recently been installed. Tom Theisen, son of Barbara Theisen, who owns lot 5, reported that his family has owned the property for 40 years and are only now finding out that they do not have legal egress to their property. They must cross Lot A, the tax forfeit parcel, in order to access their property. Theisen reviewed the requirements for the vacation as noted in the staff memo. He indicated in response to finding #1 that the rural ambiance of Orono would be changed if County Road 19 was made straighter thus creating a raceway. He noted that the vacation affects only the Freeburg and Theisen properties. He is concerned with the access coming • across public property. Any improvements to the road by the County would result in creating more traffic and higher speeds according to Theisen. He felt finding #4 was self - evident and only finding 93 was subjective. Theisen questioned whether he has the right to go across Lot A to access his property. Lindquist said he did not have the answer to that question. Theisen said the access and road condition were his concerns. Lindquist indicated if Lot A is owned by the County, the City has no control over it. He suggested the applicants speak with the County. Lindquist said he has to consider the staff recommendation regarding public purpose noting future needs are difficult to determine. Stoddard noted that this vacation was more complex as it involves drainage and future County plans for the roadway. He also suggested the applicants contact their attorney regarding access through Lot A noting the long use of the lot for access possibly might provide them the right to use it. Stoddard asked staff if a vacation has been previously approved which grants future permission to reacquire the property for a nominal fee. Gafii-on said it has not been done to his knowledge and would be problematic. It would limit what the applicant could do with the property. Theisen informed the Commission of an incident regarding a County truck dumping salt and killing grass and trees. "Phis resulted in their determining that they did not in fact own 40 the piece of property used for access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • l n Freeburg ( #C - # ?_.L.4 c ,Barbara Theisen and C ayto g - Continued) Stoddard told Theisen the Commission would like to assist them but the circumstances made it difficult. He felt the first step for the applicants to take would be to find out if they had any legal recourse and to contact the County regarding their needs. Theisen asked Commission for direction regarding whether the City would approve such a vacation. Freeburg added that the County told him to contact the City first. Lindquist, Smith, and McMillan all agreed that they could not approve the vacation. There were no public comments. Lindquist informed the applicants that a denial would move the application to the Council for consideration. Theisen questioned what could be gained by contacting the County. Freeburg said he would like to have his garage in conformance and on his own property. The additional property would also bring his lot closer to conformity. Lindquist suggested Freeburg may have action against his title company who did not • recognize the garage was not on the applicant's property. • Smith suggested moving the garage. McMillan indicated that the garage still straddles the alley and Lot A presents another problem. Smith cited a past example of an alleyway located between two homes with the City maintaining the right -of -way and a utility easement. This application is more difficult as it involves a road with expansion possibilities in the future. Lindquist asked the applicants if they would like the Commission to deny the application or if the applicants would like to withdraw their request for vacation. Gappa noted that if Lot A is owned by the highway department, a driveway permit may be sought. Theisen questioned whether Lot A is a right -of -way. Gaffron indicated that it has apparently never been designated as such. Gaffron said Lot A is shown on a 1921 plat of property that became Tonkaview Gardens extending across it. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 g - Continued) (#t6 - #2245 Barbara Theisen and Clayton Freebnr�, , A brother to Tom Theisen asked if any of the special conditions involved in this application have been reviewed. Lindquist said he has not reviewed similar issues in the past. McMillan indicated that the stormwater drainage issue is of vital concern. McMillan suggested the issue be taken up with the County. Gaffron said the application could be tabled to allow the applicants to speak with the County first and then come back before the Planning Commission. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application 42245. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #7) #2246 - DONALD 3. CURRIER, JR., 60 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCE /C:ONDYfIONAL USE pERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: 7:58 -5:24 Y.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by his wife, Peg Currier. Van Zomeren reviewed the proposed variances. A setback variance is required to locate the antenna closer than 70' to the property line. The antenna is proposed at a height of 70' • which exceeds the 65' maximum height allowance. A conditional permit is required because the proposed antenna does not meet the requirements for an accessory antenna. The antenna is proposed to be located 55.26' to the side yard. The side yard requirement of a distance which is the same height of the antenna is due to failure of the structure and where it would fall if it does fail. Van Zomeren said the applicant has indicated that the determined location was made due to the trees on the property. Currier indicated his neighbor supported the antenna location. Van Zomeren said she spoke with the City's consultant. Information on the construction drawing, information citing legal cases and handouts on local regulation regarding reasonable accommodation of amateur radio operators is included. The survey does not note the trees on the property but Van Zomeren said staffhas viewed the property. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the antenna cannot be denied based on aesthetics. Peg Currier informed the Commission that the antenna is on a nesting support structure that is retractable resulting in a 3 5' height when not in use. Lindquist received confirmation from Gaffron that another application had been denied due to its location closer to the property line than what was required. Height had not been an issue. Lindquist questioned whether the retractability of the antenna makes a difference. Gaffron said it would depend on whether the antenna was extended if it failed. 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 07 - - #2 245 Donald C rrier - Continued, ') Smith questioned how the height issue should be decided. Van Zomeren reviewed the ordinance. The old code of 65' maximum height was maintained when the ordinance was recently redrafted. Van Zomeren said the consultant had recommended a maximum height of 55'. Council maintained the 65' height requirement as stipulated in the original ordinance. Staff was unaware of any existing antennas that exceed the 65' height requirement. Smith questioned where technology was going_ Peg Currier indicated that 66' was required to allow for international communication. Lindquist said he would support a 65' height and side setback of same distance. Currier said that distance would be impossible with the lot layout as it would require major tree removal and placement in the front yard to meet the lot line setback requirement. Van Zomeren indicated that 140' width would be needed and optimal location is where the trees are positioned. Lindquist questioned whether the 35' height when retracted results in a 35' high antenna. A member of the public noted that most antenna towers fail at mid point and would not require any more setback than that distance as it would be self collapsing. Lindquist said he would need more information or would deny the application. McMillan noted the support of the neighboring property owner but could become problematic if that property should sell. Stoddard noted the recent review of PCS antennas and new ordinance adoption attempting to limit the number of variances required. He supported a 65' height. John Bellows indicated he was assisting Mr. Currier with information on antennas. The 70' height needed is to allow the transmission over the height of the trees. Communication would be lost at a lower height. Stoddard questioned what occurs when the trees grow taller. Bellows said the trees are mature and are at their maximum height. Bellows indicated that the front yard is the only place that would meet the setback and is not allowed for such use. He noted that the code calls for reasonable allowance of such • structures. Bellows said a least visible location is also preferred for aesthetical reasons. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 0 ( #7 - #22 46 Donald C'u i e r - Continued) Bellows said the rules applying to PCS are different than those of amateur radio operators. He noted PCS structures are not retractable. The applicant's antenna would only be Wended when in use. Bellows said the setback restriction regards failure of the structure. Such failure would most likely occur during stormy weather. The antenna would be retracted at that time as it is not used during stormy weather. Smith was informed that the retraction process did not create excess noise. McMillan questioned whether the antenna height was restricted by trees on the property or surrounding properties. She suggested pruning the trees when informed that the restriction was from trees on the property. The large number of trees present a problem for pruning to satisfy the suggestion. Smith asked what occurs when the property sells. Currier said the antenna would be removed and taken with them. Stoddard was informed by Bellows that the cost of a retractable antenna is 75 -100% more than an unretractable antenna. Bellows said the special rules applying to amateur radio • operators would be negated when the property is sold. Gaffron noted a similar discussion involving an antenna on Woodhill road. He indicated the array of the tower spanned a 25 -30' width. Bellows said the V aluminum tubing creates little visibility and blends in with the sky. The 30' diameter width of the antenna would result in a loss of many trees. Van Zomeren said she would like to review the construction plans with the City's consultant regarding the break -off point of the antenna. The applicant was asked to survey the property for the canopy of trees to know tree interference and hardship. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2246 for a conditional use permit and variances for an accessory antenna subject to the antenna being of a retractable type, at an extended maximum height of 70', located 55.26' from the north property line, with staff review of construction plans and sketch plan of tree canopy provided prior to Council review. McMillan questioned why a sketch plan would be required if located at this height. The plan would assist staff in determining hardship and horizontal effect. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Lindquist, who did not support the location of the antenna 55.26' from the property line. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONI IISSION MEETING HELD ON TUNE 16, 1997 ( 97 - #2246 Donald Currie} - C`ontinued} i Van Zomeren informed Bellows that the Council review of the application would occur on July 14. She asked that requested information be supplied by July 3. (#8) 42247 WAYNE A. HOLMES,1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:24 -8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request for lot line and side street yard setback variances for construction of a detached 920 s.f. accessory storage building. The property is located on Park Drive adjacent io an undeveloped 60' right -of -way with potential to be used as an access to Highwood Park. Gaffron said there are no plans to develop the right - of -way but it may be needed in the future. If so, this would create a problem with the proposed 2 -1/2' setback. The building size is proposed at 24.5'x37.5'. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) Gaffron noted that the topography of the property presents problems with locating this • accesso ry structure. He reported that the house was replaced last year. The garage is intended to be tucked into the slope, and during the house grading a terrace was created and fill pushed down into the right -of -way. Gaffron said there is a flat area extending from Park Drive for a possible driveway. He indicated there is a large oak tree and a row of lilac bushes next to the garage which applicants wish to preserve. A 35' side street yard setback is required. An accessory structure of this size requires a 15' setback from any lot line. Gaffron said stair recommends at least a 10' setback in this case. The proposed side street setback and lot line setback is at 11' at the front of the proposed building and 2.4' from the rear. Gaffron suggested the applicant pivot the building into the slope. It may result in the loss of the lilac bushes. He noted there is no home to the rear that would be impacted. Gaffron reported that the hardcover (35% allowed) currently exists at about 21% and with additional building at 26 %. The addition of a driveway to serve the new building would still meet the hardcover requirements. The building size is permitted under the code as well. Gaffron said the issue for the proposed building is its location. He is concerned with the grading and recommends no fill be allowed to fall within the City's right -of -way. He asked the applicant to present a grading plan that would not impact the right -of -way. City approval of a second curb cut would also be required if a driveway was installed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 • I - #2247 Wavne Hn1mPS - Continued) Gaffron said the building is fairly high but will be tucked into the hill and meets the height requirements. He indicated that the hardship with the size of the building for a 15' side setback is created by the land owner. The issue of the unimproved street cannot be resolved at this time. Gaffron said the oak tree is worth saving but the lilac bushes may not be. He noted no neighbors are impacted by the proposed building. Wayne Holmes said he prefers to build a boulder wall near the property line at the back side of the proposed building. He would then pull the building forward 6' to 8', angle it 4' on the back right corner, and cut 2' off the side resulting in a 10' back corner setback and 10'+ in the front. Gaffron reported that the building inspector would not approve a boulder wall at a height noted by applicant to be at 6' -8' high. He noted that it is difficult to build a boulder wall to standards that would satisfy an engineer. The applicant said railroad ties with drain tile was another suggestion. Lindquist stated there are other alternatives for a wall which would be approved by the engineer. • Gaffron voiced support for the proposed location changes noting the 10' separation must be maintained to the house. • There were no public comments. Holmes informed the Commission that he does not intend to add a second driveway. It would be grassed over and the building used for storage only primarily for his 27' motor home, trailer, fishing boat, classic car, and other seasonal items. He has a pad along his other garage that he uses for seasonal items. Smith suggested expanding his existing garage instead. Holmes said his motor home would not fit. McMillan was informed that the applicant would not plow out the area by the building in the winter time and would use the accessory pad for his snowmobiles. Smith said she was originally concerned with the location of the building but supported the changes proposed by the applicant. The applicant indicated that the building size would be 22'x37.5' or 825 s.£ 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET ING HELD ON TUNE 14, 1997 •I8 =!247 Wayne Nolnec - I'r�ntinued) Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application 42247 with the understanding that the building cannot be closer than 10' to any property line or other structure, at a maximum of 825 s.f., with retaining walls to be approved by the City Engineer, and plans submitted to staff prior to construction. The applicant asked if a separate permit was required for the retaining walls. Gaffron said it would be part of the building permit approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2248 - DAVID AND JODI RAHN,1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 -9:02 F.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a proposal for construction of an addition to an existing cabin to square off the residence and restore an existing deck and screen porch. The .3 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district. The structure is located in the 0 -75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to increase the hardcover from 9% to 19%. Lot area and Lakeshore setback variances are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation in the flood plain and 0 -75' setback from the shoreline. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property noting that the shoreline contour is at the 924.9' elevation. The 930' contour follows the lakeshore; the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be in the flood plain. The concern is where the 931.5' elevation is located. The applicant said he has lived on Wildhurst Trail since 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for this residence. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired what the Watershed District's comments were. Rahn said the Watershed did not require any mitigation for the entry, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the variances required. Rahn said his history as a contractor and building official relates to his desire to restore the cabin with the addition to square it off and has not considered relocation; more flood plain mitigation would be required, and its present location is the high spot on the property. He would like to maintain the character of the property. He noted that in order to move the structure behind the 75' setback would require use of a holding area in that • setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur elsewhere. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 ( 119 - #2248 David and .lodi Rahn - Continued) • McMillan asked if the applicant had future plans for a garage. Rahn said he has no plans currently. He noted he built a garage on his present property after living there for a while to get a good sense of the layout and appropriate location for the garage. He indicat the future garage would be outside the 0 -75' setback near the st H ed e said he understood he needed a 35' setback. He does not intend to have an atta reet. ched garage. McMillan noted the currently driveway to be about one car's length. Rahn said he would locate the garage and driveway further uphill and close to the 35' setback. Lindquist inquired about having a bathroom located in the flood plain. The applicant said he was not altering anything in the flood plain. McMillan inquired about the side yard setback. Rahn said the structure would be located 5.3' on the closest corner. Van Zomeren said the construction on the other side does not increase that side setback. Smith was informed that the applicant plans on residing in this residence. She asked if he had considered a two -story design rather than expanding out. Rahn said his neighbor expressed concern with a two -story design. The proposed design is one story with a steep pitched roof. Smith said she had a problem supporting a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0 -75' and asked for less impact in this setback. Rahn said the current house is 600 s.f and the proposed is at a minimum at 1,300 gross floor area. He noted the residence next door is at a 29% coverage and was built in 1983 which has the same standards as currently exists. He noted a lot line rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable. There were no public comments at this time. Lindquist noted that buildable properties are allowed 15% structural coverage and the proposal is at 1328 s.f. Concern was voiced with the structure location in the 0 -75' but Lindquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2248 for a conditional use permit for land alteration for setback in the flood plain, hardcover at 19%, lakeshore setback as existing, and side setback if necessary. Schroeder inquired if a side yard setback is required even though no changes are made due to the original variance required for the property. If necessary, a side yard setback variance would be included in the above motion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINu fiELU ON JUNE 16, 1997 • F R T3.S< MARSAAT, 2245 FRENCA TAKE (#10) #2249 - KET,I,V S[ LLIVAN Q , ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:02 -9:06 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a lakeshore setback variance for construction of an on -site sewage treatment system. The property abuts French Lake, which is a Natural Environment Lake requiring a 150' setback. The septic site evaluation determined that the location at 97' from the OHW is the only feasible site that meets the septic requirements. The existing system does not meet the 3' separation. The new system would meet that requirement. The prior setback for the septic system, which would have been adhered to prior to 1992 was 75'. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the proposed location for the septic system and finds the 97' setback appropriate. Kelly Sullivan said the proposed plan was determined to be the best way to remove the old system and tie it in with the new system. There were no public comments. Sullivan noted that the U.S. Government owns the property which was seized through a narcotics violation. It is their attempt to bring the property up to code in order to sell it. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application 92249 as submitted. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #11) 42250 - MAUREEN BELLOWS FOR ELLEN AND STEVE POLANSKY, 1900 FOX RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:07 -9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant and representative were present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.32 acre property is located in the RR -1B Zoning District where two acres are required. The applicant requests a rear yard setback variance to extend a porch by 5' and add a third stall garage. The zoning lot conforms to lot width and side yard requirements. The existing residence encroaches into the front and rear yards. Van Zomeren indicated that the shape of the lot creates the hardship. There is a utility easement in the area and steep topography to the rear. Staff recommends approval. Maureen Bellows reported that the proposed location for the third stall was the only viable location creating the hardship. She noted the porch needs reconstruction. The septic • system location also creates a problem in locating the garage. 16 NnNUTJES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON 1U-NE 16, 1997 • r _ 225 Bellows for Ellen and Steve Polansky - Continue-d) ��,�_ 0 ?lyfaureen • There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the neighbor to the south was notified. Van Zomeren said the neighbor was going to come and review the plans. Bellows said she talked with the neighbor on this date. The neighbor was concerned that the proposed improvements would affect a possible subdivision for the neighbor. Bellows informed her it would not. McMillan asked if there would be a retaining wall by the garage. Bellows said a retaining wall would be located by the comer of the garage at about 4. S' -S' height down to 3.5' to maintain the driveway. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval of the application due to the unique nature of the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #12) #2252 - WARREN AND CHRISTINE BIELKE, 2565 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:12 -9:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.2 acre property is located in the LR -1C, 1/2 Acre Lakeshore Residential District. The proposal is to add 6' and 4' to the side and entrance of an existing 2.5 car garage replacing non - structural hardcover with structural hardcover. Van Zomeren said stag had been unaware that the applicants had removed plastic under landscaping and had not been given credit for doing so. A previous owner was to have removed said plastic as a condition of a prior application which increased the property's hardcover to 35.6 0/o, The current proposal is to increase hardcover of 34.95% to 35.1 %, or 2936.5 s.f. Schroeder noted that the plastic should not have been there in the firstt place and does not satisfy reasoning for excess hardcover. Lindquist asked if the applicants were aware of the restrictions regarding fixture hardcover increase limitations on the property. The applicant said they have lived there four years and were aware that the plastic should have been previously removed. They then removed the plastic in order to submit this proposal in order to come with an application that included the hardcover amount for variance granted in 1991. Mrs. Bielke said they removed more hardcover than had been required. 1? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NNE 16, 1997 0 - Continued ( #12 - #2252 V�arren and f'hrist�ne 13selke ) Mrs. Bielke indicated there is a large turnaround space, and they are taking a 4' wide driveway section and 6' dog kennel and turning it into structure. The net gain of 44 s.f is the sidewalk which will run around the edge of the garage in area that is currently rocked. Schroeder inquired if there was any other hardcover that could be removed. Mrs. Bielke said the only other hardcover is the house itself. McMillan noted that the sidewalk is to provide access around to the driveway, and the garage is being set back for aesthetic reasons. There were no public comments. Schroeder noted that the Planning Commissioners periodically place conditions on applications requesting no additional hardcover be allowed in the future. He indicated that this application is a result of such a request_ Smith questioned how it should be handled. Lindquist responded that the hardcover requested is less than what had previously been allowed by the variance approval in 1991. • Schroeder agreed with Lindquist citing the hardcover calculations. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2252 for a hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback subject to the hardcover not exceeding 35.6% in the 75 -259 setback area for construction of 6' and 4' additions to the corners of the garage. No additional hardcover variance will be allowed in the future. Smith questioned whether that was already said in 1991. McMillan reiterated that the hardcover amount was less than allowed in 1991. Stoddard noted that in the future if any improvements are requested, the same amount of current structure to new structure would have to be removed to accommodate the request. He noted that no structural coverage variance is required. Smith noted the fine line being drawn but acknowledged that no future hardcover would be allowed and an equal amount of structure would be removed for any additional structure. Stoddard said the application conforms to the 1991 application conditions. Schroeder agreed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A 5 minutes recess occurred at this time.) • 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 T SKETCH PLAN S ( #13) #2240 - JIM WATERS, LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION /SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gaffron reported that this was a continuation of a sketch plan review. The Planning Commission had previously requested the applicant to consider clustering. The applicant has submitted two additional sketches providing open space preservation and future connection to West Branch Road. Sketch plan 3 involves the creation of 19 lots averaging less than one acre. The properties are located in both the one acre and two acre zoning and are within and outside the MUSA boundary. The plan would require sewering, a MUSA amendment, a PRD, rezoning for density, and a comprehensive plan amendment. Sketch plan 4 involves 28 smaller lots averaging 80" in width, 1/3 acre in size, in a linear clustering format with open space around the perimeter. A longer open space area is provided along the park boundaries. The homes would be closer together. Sewer would be required and a comprehensive plan amendment. The plan would provide a corridor to West Branch Road. Waters said he found the clustering concept interesting. He noted sketch plan 4 would provide substantial open area, preserve the slope, provide tree and woodland cover, and a potential access to West Branch Road. He noted there would not be room for flexibility within the lots, and it would require more cutting of swaths of ground cover to achieve this clustering. He does not believe this plan makes sense and prefers a more modified clustering as shown in sketch plan. 3. Waters said sketch plan 3 preserves open space and undisturbed areas allowing for wider lot widths averaging 140` and and one acre lot averages. There is also more flexibility in siting homes. Open space would be created on the south, along the road perimeter, the back and side areas, and preservation of dense wooded areas and slopes would be preserved. He suggested conservation easements be considered. Waters said this plan also allows for more movement of the homes to preserve the side lot treed areas. Clear cutting would not be necessary except for the roadway. The access to West Branch Road would be preserved. The sites would allow for sewering. It would allow elimination of the problem with access to the park from the north. Access to the Hennessey parcel would be from the other proposed subdivision property. Plan 3 would eliminate unnecessary traffic through the park. He noted while the plan requires MUSA amendment and comprehensive plan amending, the layout makes sense. • 19 Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Council did not recommend a MUSA amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines of sketch plan 2 wnirlrl wgrk. HP noted that the road would probably be as presented in sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct recommendation. Lindquist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch plan 3. He feels it would not make sense to by -pass the two -acre lots from sewering. 2 _► MINUTES OF THE ORONO pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 r a) _ 4 it - nt _ SS eldh L laF1 L Ltiili���tC# Gaffron showed Lindquist the boundary lines of the MUSA through this property. Gaffron said the property would have to be within the MUSA for the plan to work. Lindquist, Stoddard, and Smith agreed that there were problems with sketch plan 4 as presented. There were no public comments at this time. Waters renorted having attempted to contact Irene Silber; a neighbor of this property, to no avail. Lindquist agreed that it is important to receive neighborhood input. McMillan said she saw the biggest obstacle as being whether the Council would and applying for a MUSA amendment. She recommend amending the comprehensive plan acknowledged the impacts of development without sewering while noting the higher density required in severed areas. Lindquist responded that sketch plan 2 that involves two acre zoning would answer these concerns. Gaffron indicated that this plan calls for 16 lots averaging 1.68 acres. Gaffron lots septic sites with the steep topography. • said he does not believe all of the could supply 2-acre lots according to the Schroeder indicated that sketch plan 2 would include seven _h_ _ _-der _ lots could septic. zoning but not septic requirements. He questioned how many provide Gaffron indicated there were about 14 lots that could provide septic noting lots 9 and 11 could not. McMillan noted that running sewer to the property at this density might not be economical. Schroeder indicated that the cost concern would be a problem for the developer to consider. Gaffron indicated that if no change was made to the 7,oning and the properties were sewered, sketch plan 2 would work. If sewering is not possible, sketch plan 2 would not work. Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Council did not recommend a MUSA amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines of sketch plan 2 wnirlrl wgrk. HP noted that the road would probably be as presented in sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct recommendation. Lindquist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch plan 3. He feels it would not make sense to by -pass the two -acre lots from sewering. 2 _► • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 !1 7 # ,I ,i 7 C tc r tir (�-1_T - ;�2 2 ��.� . &rip � titers .�l�zea�.ii rlan - CvT3alaai,ie.d j Waters indicated that the use of sketch plan 2 would not require a PRD. Lindquist and Smith felt sketch plan 3 made most sense. _M_cMfillan said she preferred either sketch plan 3 or two acre septics. She did not support mixing two acre and one acre zoning. Lindquist said he felt all of the lots should be sewered or not be sewered. Waters said he would need to speak with the City Engineer. He noted that the septic systems would not serve the public. McMillan said she was concerned with removal of trees and creating more traffic. Schroeder said the. perimeter bufFering is reminescent of SticrAr Wood -, in maintaining the. trees. He saw sketch plan 3 as having similarities to the Sugar Woods development plan. He would prefer less lots but understands the economical ramifications. Schroeder said he would prefer 16 sewered lots versus following the MUSA boundary. • Stoddard indicated that this would follow the concept presented in sketch plan 1 with MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clustering and open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished under sketch plan 3. • Stoddard inquired whether there would be demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and either plan would sell. He felt the difference came to tree preservation and sewer in the street that would not be used in the immediate future. McMillan noted that three lots in sketch plan 3 were less than 40,000 s.f, and asked the reasoning behind it. Waters said the lots could be enlarged by diminishing the outlot, but he was trvine to create more common areas with walking paths and eliminate creating one riparian lot. He does not wish to see a boat dock but possibly a fishing dock only. Schroeder indicated that a homeowners association might request such a dock for boats. Gaffiron said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevent that from occurring. Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want hard surface trails. wl is MINUTES OF TjjE ORONO 6, lOMWSS1014 MEETING HELD ON n- s,.c140 Jim F'i'c[LCiJ SketCdl. Plan -- C17FilY!lididJ Smith questioned what "undisturbed areas" were and how they would be controlled. Waters said this could be done through conservation easement, association regulations, covenants, depending on the level of restriction desired. Smith said she would not want to see ball fields or uses that would deviate from the open space concept. Lindquist said the controls could make, that deter-mination. Smith_ said other appliPations where. such intentions were made resulted in other uses. She requested controls be placed that would maintain the open space. Lindquist received confirmation from Waters that he would meet with the Council and the homeowners in the area. Gaffron asked for clearer direction regarding MUSA, zoning, clustering, noting the Park Commission's review indicated requesting park fee or land would depend on the plan. Lindquist said he preferred all of the property be within the MUSA under a PRD. McMillan questioned whether accessory structures should be allowed. Schroeder indicatred that two acre zoning with sewering could accommodate accessory structures. If a PRD was »se.d, the City could innsist nn Covenants. f affrnn said the developer could be asked to restrict the use in the PRD. • Schroeder said he, preferred the, property all tip within the 1Vl(lS q use of clustering concept at a density level less than 19 lots (preferring 14 or 15 maximum), trails tied in to the surrounding area, noting sketch plan 3 as the preferred plan. Smith said she agreed with the comments made by Schroeder and Lindquist. Asa second choice, Smith said she would recommend all lots be 2 -acre zoning with both MUSA and non -MUSA. She would like to see controls placed on the open spaces, undisturbed areas, outlot, and stormwater pond. Schroeder questioned whether the 1 acre lots could be required to be changed to 2 acres. Gaffron said such a "downzoning" might create potential problems, getting into the issue of a "taking ". Stoddard said he. preferred all lots be within MT1SA with sketch plan 3 preferred with one. acre minimum lot size. He supported sketch plan 1 if all were within the MUSA at general 1.5 acre lots sizes. Stoddard said he appreciates the clustering concept. Ga fron noted that the Council will review the sketch plan at their upcoming meeting. 22 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 1Lt .1 Jl �tr E=f� # 1 ,5[ 1 - TRACY IFTr RG i• F n , 17�6! r 0 L i1 iN i T$ N - SUlBDWISION /SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr_ Rr Mrs. Whitehead were present. Gaffron reported that this sketch plan is similar to the plan reviewed for a subdivision six years ago. That review went through the preliminary plat process with many recommendations but stopped at that point. He indicated that the dedicated portion of Lyman Avenue ends and a private gravel road continues to a partially dedicated cul -de -sac which has not been constructed. There are wetlands on the property, an existing house with driveway that runs through the neighboring property with easement rights, steep and hilly topography, and a small man -made pond. Gaffron said the main concern with the plan is the narrow roadway and maintenance. He noted that much of the area has slopes of 18 +% which would not allow for mound septic systems. He noted these lots were most likely buildable but voiced concern with erosion control. The proposal calls for three new lots in addition to the lot with the existing residence that runs north and south. A driveway outlot would be created for lots i and 2 but has to cut across steep slopes. Gaffron indicated that there is an issue with the amount of acreage • noting the back lot requirement of 150% standard. He said the code does not specify whether the 150% back lot acreage must be all dry buildable but is usually spoken of as such. The back lot would then not meet the area requirement. Lot 2 would be 2.23 acres including the wetlands. Lot I would be 3.9 acres. Lot 4 could access Lyman with a house located on the hill. Gaffron said septic siting is critical. Septic locations have been found but are very restrictive_ The existing house has a new septic system with alternate site. One septic site location for Lot 4 may conflict with the needed right -of -way for the existing road. The wetland at the north end of lots I and 2 is in the National Wetlands Inventory and would require buffering. • Gaffron indicated that the cut for the driveway would require filling, retaining walls and be close to the dredged pond area. Gaffron said staff believes the road should continue with a cul- de-sac at the end but is not within the applicant's control noting the applicant's driveway comes through the neighboring property via an easement. For the short term for this development. C,af'fron said a cul -de -sac could be located olitgide of the, property line, but would impact the septic sites if located within the property. A cul -de -sac within the property would also cut into the hillside. 1" .�J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON R NE 16, 1997 • (UTA U Il T ud - Contir.ued) ' � YF lE Gaffron noted that during the earlier review, it was suggested there may be only two additional lots instead of three. That review did not reflect the septic site used for the existing house. Recommendations had been made to eliminate the narrow driveway and the back lot. He presented a sketch of how two additional lots might be oriented. He noted all lots would abut the road but require a width variance at the cul -de -sac. He questioned whether access to the house could be accomplished across the pond. Gaffron suggested a roadway with cul -de -sac would impact the neighbor as well as impacting the rural feel, hence, this sketch might not be practical. Smith noted the attempt in balancing the needs questioning the cul -de -sac and use of existing driveway. She noted that there may only be two additional lots. Gaffron agreed that this may be the case with the existing residential lot and two additional lots. Mrs, Whitehead reported that they currently have two separate tax parcels. Mrs. Whitehead indicated that the reason for abandoning the project before was due to a heavy work load. They are now pursuing the issue as they are being relocated. She said they would like to create a development with the least amount of impact maintaining the park atmosphere. Whitehead said they do not want to impact the existing house. She noted the property is heavily wooded. • codes in 1991 in order to resent a plan that would be Whitehead said they reviewed the p in compliance. She said all lots would have two septic sites (designed for 5 bedroom homes), two acre dry buildable, and meet required setbacks. Lindquist was informed by Mrs. Whitehead that they preferred the road being improved without adding a cul -de -sac. She felt the road could come up around on the west side and include a driveway. Mrs. Whitehead suggested that the focus had been on Lyman Avenue previously. With the plans approved for Highway 12, Whitehead suggested a cul -de -sac could be placed on the property further back that will be taken for Highway 12, is It was noted that McMillan lives in the neighborhood as does Smith. Whitehead said their home was the second one built on the road, but they are facing consequences from being the last to develop their property. Schroeder indicated that there is an issue of the road serving_ the number of lots. Whitehead said one property was subdivided into three lots. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (441A �:it a !'L•1L _•S _tu!•J rr taaas•atvu4 +..•vt :aaaty t•uJ McMillan said she had two concerns regarding Lyman Avenue. She noted the problem with the curve radius presenting a blind corner and adding more traffic on the road. McMillan said cul -de -sacs are more a priority than widening the road. She felt the suggestion of using the lot lost by Highway 12 project for a cul -de -sac is interesting. McMillan noted that the correction to the radius of the road would require use of the Whitehead property. Whitehead agreed. Mrs. Whitehead asked about the road width. Lindquist indicated that the road would be 2430' wide. Gattron said the City Engineer suggested a 20' paved surface with changes made to the curve. It would be widened to accommodate a fire truck and equipment staging which presently cannot be done. McMillan was informed by Whitehead that the wetlands have not been delineated. Gaflron said the Wetland Conservation Act protects the wetlands and will have an impact. Schroeder asked the applicants why they need to make four lots instead of three. Mrs. Whitehead said it was a financial matter in maximizing the number of lots adding that she thought the plan would meet the code requirements. • McMillan said the wetland delineation may result in the lots not meeting standards. Mrs. Whitehead said she would move forward on having the wetland delineation to make that determination. Schroeder was informed by Gaffron that the back lot does not meet the 150% standard. Gaffron questioned how the wetlands would affect the back lot. Mr. Whitehead said the wetlands are taxed and are then part of the parcel. Gaffron indicated that other parts of the code have to be considered. The Planning Commission will need to review the code and determination whether the wetlands are included in the amount credited for the extra back lot acreage requirement. Schroeder asked Gaffron what variances are involved. Gaffron noted there is the back lot issue and whether Lot 3 abuts a public road. He indicated that the lot areas and widths are probably satisfactory otherwise. The 50' front and 30' side setbacks should be met. Gaffron said the driveway on the slope may require an easement as this driveway probably cannot be constructed within a 30' corridor, Retaining walls would also be required. Gaffron said septic sites must be located 75' from wetlands and some sites are questionable. He also questioned whether the septic sites would meet setbacks from the radius of the road. Whitehead asked that Gafiron provide them with a list of the variances. Gaffron indicated • that this is not usually done in the sketch plan review but would provide such a list. Mr. Whitehead said he had not thought there would be any variances. �r • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1 997 tYI A 441)1? <l t!!d [ .. �.1: d 2tC.tVJ TT tttt Vtti'6it] 4'L•ttttdttA i't.lJ Schroeder asked that neighbor comments be gathered. McMillan said she is concerned with runoff, the woods, and wetland areas as well as removal of trees, access, and increased traffic. McMillan noted there is a substandard lot adiacent to the property. She believes there may be a more creative approach to a subdivision and three additional lots to the one existing will be difficult without requiring a large number of variances. Mrs. Whitehead said she believes the requirements will be met by the proposed plan. Schroeder inquired about the road. The applicant said two lots would be accessed from a driveway and all four lots from Lyman Avenue. Schroeder questioned whether the road is capable of handling this degree of development. Gaffron said the road is in need of an upgrade, and the radius should be changed. He questioned how the area would be affected by the development with three additional houses on a narrow road. Lindauist asked who would pay for the upgrade of the road. Gaffron said the developer would pay for improvements on his property. It has not been determined how the upgrade iswould affect other properties. Smith asked if one less lot would substantially help. Gaffron said it would make the subdivision easier. He is not sure how critical the variances will be. The concern is with the acreage for the back lot and how to bring the road across the slope. He questioned if the road was brought to the west whether the septic sites could be avoided. Mr. Whitehead indicated that there was some flexibility in the septic sites. • Lindauist asked Gaffron to put together a list of potential problems for the applicant. Schroeder noted the list of variances A -G noted in the 1991 review. Stoddard informed Whitehead that the list is included in the memo of February 14, 1991 on page 9. Schroeder indicated that the property is subdividable but questionable as to how many lots. He noted the road will be a consideration. Lindquist said if requirements are met, the lots are buildable. Stoddard said wetland delineation should occur next and be used as a tool to determine if the septic sites are adequate. It will also assist in determining the number of lots. The road issue would then remain. 4V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 rat n ���c � •r,- .,..<, Yan,.�ot,o.,a r,..,l,.,,,o,�� {:! t ! !f fsL•- 1 2 S Ct i•� ! S ddtd dldi•G1L � L'112122L1t•!ll Schroeder noted the needs of the fire department will be a factor. Mrs. Whitehead acknowledged the need for a turnaround in the cul -de -sac and the change to the radius. Schroeder questioned why the tree clearing that will be required for radius improvement was not done in the past to increase the level of safety. McMillan noted the problem with the hill as well. Gaffron added that along with the list of variances, there is also the concern in meeting the 150% back lot standard and affects on the wetland from the Wetland Conservation Act. Gaffron noted the need to create separation distances. There will be less impact on the front lots. McMillan added that the driveway and amount of dry buildable are issues. Gaffron indicated that the plan will need to be more fine- tuned, variances addressed, alone with the driveway, site lines, septic sites, dry buildable and 150% requirement prior to the public hearing at the July meeting. Gaffron informed the Commission that they will have to make a decision regarding dry buildable and back lot standards taking in account how it has been dealt with since the code went into effect. Gafhron will review prior applications. ( #2) #2238 - CHIC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON,1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - CONTIN UATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 11:01 -11 :02 P.M. The Applicant was not present. Gaffron was directed to determine why the applicant was not present and what are the applicant's plans. The after -the -fact application and enforcement issues were noted. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2238. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MAY 27, 1997 AND JUNE 9, 1997 Smith reported that the Council asked the Planning Commission at the June 9 meeting to study the issue of accessory structures and plumbing therein. It was noted that the accessory structure issue is both a separate but related issue to the home occupation licensing. Lindquist suggested the topic be discussed at the general work session scheduled for June 23 at which the home occupation licensing is to be discussed. I �I 1 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 1 b, 1997 /,�/1 C D�nv�a+aran T�mavaanoa.�» T?nr�na -t �F(snaaranil l�e(nn4 :rant. ('r�ssfiv»anrli tee a_• i auauuu� vvsauauuuavaz �.�ae.•p.•vz a vz vvuu+: ea _rza•i•s aaabu vvzuaus,aa ✓u f Van Zomeren will supply copies of the memorandum that was directed to Council regarding accessory structures, the minutes of the Council meeting relating to the topic, and the notice of publication. ( #16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION A member of the audience indicated he was disappointed with the sketch plans presented under agenda item #14, Application #2251. He is concerned with the roadway. Stoddard indicated concern with allowing the cabin improvements (agenda item #9) to be made within the 0 -75' setback and possibly setting a precedent for similar situations to follow. ( #17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1997 MEETING McMillan moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 19, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #18) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23,1997 AND JULY 14, 1997 June 23 - Schroeder July 14 - Stoddard ADJOURNMENT Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. A rlaic> T int�rnzi Ch it PP n na :..cs