Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1984 Planning MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1984 7;30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Ihomas fVahm SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:30 p.m. tt877 Richc.rd Perry, 440 h. 450 Willow Drive South Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement 2. 7:45 p.m.«fci79 Malcolm MacKay, 1145 Sii:th Avenue North - Preliminary Subdivision 3. 8: ' *0 p.m.«882 Farm at Long Late, Inc., 1765 West Farm Road Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement ACTION ITEMS 4. H874 Duane Barth and Mrs D. Johnstone, 1810 Shadywood Fvoad Variance - Second Review &«B76 Randy Asplund, 3424 «< 3444 EastlaFe Street - Variance - Public Hearing 6. «878 Thomas i aul, 19u0 Shoreline Drive - Request to confirm interpretation of coning code Public Hearing 7. «B80 Steven Ruce, 4625 West Branch Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 8. «081 William Krutriq, 1629 Bohns Point R--ad Variance - Public Hearing 9.Fence Ordinance Amendment ADDITIONAL ITEMS 10. Planning Commission approval of October 22, lV8‘t minutes. 11. Planning Commission to select ropresentative to attend the December 10, 1984, Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT .■-•i i -1-1 ( ' - MIU’JTES op the planning COMMISSIION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 1 ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM The Orono Planning Commission mot on the above date with the following members present: Chairperson Goetton, Planning Commission members, Sime, Rovegno, McDonald, Kelley, and Adams. Planning Commission member Callahan was absent. Council Representative Thomas Frahm was present. Building and Zoning Administator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and Recorder Naab represented City staff. 1877 RICHARD PERRY 440 6 450 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:31 - 7:45 Kr. & were Mrs. Richard Perry and H.H. f, Ann L. White present. Gary Phleger was present to represent the Perrys. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Phleger noted that there had been a court case involving the lot lines and that the Perrys and the Whites had agreed to agree where the line would be located and to straighten it and make it parallel with Willow Drive. This application has been made as a result of that agreement. There is a fence that runs along the common boundaries of the Perry residence and the White residence and a fence that goes at an angle. Phleger noted that as of today he had received a final revised drawing and descrip­ tion from Mr. Coffin and noted the line had to be moved slightly because White did not want it at her gate post. So it was moved slightly to the west to accomodate her request. If approval is obtained the Perrys will be taking that fence that now runs at an angle swinging it to a parallel direction with the road and matching it up with her gate. We are not intending to create any new lots or altering lot sizes or gain so. footage for any purpose. n MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSIION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 2 #877 RICHARD PERRY Jk Mnbusth noted that there are no problems with setbacks for the existing structures. The lot line changes have absolutely nothing to do with the setback lines or required building envelopes. Kelley inquired about the access to the lot and the width. White replied that they have a permanent easement of 20’. Phleger stated that there will be a 20' easement which the Vihites have now but for clarification when the deeds are exchanged it will be again noted for the record. The easement is across the Perry property. Rovegno asked that the plat map be clarified. Mrs. White said the easement was created because the Old 87 Road used to run right in front of Perry's driveway. There i s an aerial view map that their surveyor,Tom Burquist, found at the court house that verifies the easement. Phleger noted that the descriptions, which look forebodingon the certificate survey, will not increase the legal descriptions for the properties. The White property will be described as its present description excluding anything west of that lot. Kelley questioned the fill that was going in there and Mabusth explained that that has already been reviewed by the city in a previous conditional use permit review. Rovegno stated that we have to make sure the White house maintains road access. Adams moved, McDonald seconded recommendation of approval of the Perry/White application of the lot line rearrangement finding no negative affects on the existing building envelopes. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. Parcel homestead . A is to be combined with White 2. Parcel B is to be combined with Perry homestead . Motions, Ayes (6), Nays (0). I » .5 .'1 I MINUTES OF THE WANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 3 1879 MALCOLM MACKAY 1145 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:48 - 7:57 John Taylor represented Mai com MacKay. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication* There was no one present from the public. Taylor stated this a matter of subdividing an 18 acre parcel for tax purposes into one 12 acre parcel and one 7 acre parcel and having the 12 acre parcel adjoining the property which would lead to potential sale. Gaffron noted he had received the septic testing report for the existing house on Parcel A and there is adequate room for future septic needs if existing system fails. There are some wetlands shown on the plat maps, leaving on Parcel A, 5.6 dry acres and Parcel B, 4.4 dry acres. There is an easement of 50' width for private roadway. There is a road that serves the MacKay house and two houses to the west of it. Adams questioned the possible rearrangements and subdivision/variances that might be brought up in the future because of the size of the parcels. Adams further stated thi'*; he assumed that the ultimate plan must be to combine the two parcels and then further subdivide the property. Taylor stated ho was unaware of any future plan. Rovegno asked Gaffron if a Flowage and Conservation Easement was needed for the wetlands. Gaffron stated that they are wetlands and so we should take a Conservation and Flowage Easement now at the time of subdivision. The wetlands were added in at the last minute by the surveyor. On the original survey the lakeshore was shown closer to the house, which has been determined incorrect. Kelley clarified to Taylor what is needed. Asking for a Conservation and Flowage Easement means the surveyor will have to describe the boundaries of the wetlands. The applicant would be responsible for the legal description. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 4 V879 MALCOLM MACKAY Kelley moved, Simc seconded to reconur'end approval of #879 Malcolm MacKay, preliminary subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Conservation & Flowage Easement 2. Payment of $100.00 park fee Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1882 FARM AT LONG LAKE, INC., 1765 WEST FARM ROAD SUBDIVISION OP A IX)T LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:08 - 8:12 Tim Adams was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affida'/it of publication. There was no one present for the public hearing. Mabusth explained that the division involves a buildable lot in the Farm at Long Lake plat. The lot had specific limitations; a view easement over it, and the topography. Mabusth sees no problem with the proposal as each affected building envelope will be improved. Mabusth stated that Parcel C will retain riparian rights, the other two lots will not. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to recommend the approval of the Farm at Long Lake Inc.'s application of a lot line rearrangement finding the building envelopes of each affected property to be improved subject to the following conditions: 1. Parcel A to be combined with Lot 17, Block 1 2. Parcel B to be combined with Lot 15, Block 1 3. Parcel C to be combined with Tract G, RLS 1275 4. Combined Tract G shall have riparian access to Long Lake combined Lots 15 and 17 are not riparian to Long Lake Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 5 1874 DUANE BARTH i MRS. JOHNSTONE 1810 SHADYNOOD ROAD VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW Duane Barth was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. The following neighbors were present: I -I Charles Pyle of 1820 Shadywood Road Dave and Holly Eiss of 1790 Shadywood Road Gaffron stated that this application had been tabled at the October meeting pending submittal of a number of items, one of them being the applicants hardcover development proposal which is explained on Exhibit E. Barth explained for Lot 21 the applicant proposes a 75-250' hardcover of 22.7% using a porous paving block driveway "grass pavers" which would eliminate some of the hardcover problem. They are 80% open on the top - we used 50% open in our calculation. They are also set in sand 6 - 8" so all the water goes through them. Sidewalks and decks are not shown on the proposal. The existing garage would be removed. Barth further noted for Lot 22, with the existing house, a proposed addition and a porous pavement driveway (to be consistent), without decks or sidwalks, the hardcover is 16.4%. Gaffron's comments included a necessity to regulate in the future the possible pavement of driveway on Lot 21 and since we don't require a permit for paving a driveway, how do we regulate it? Gaffron went on to comment on the assessment record. The vaccint lot has not been taxed at a lower value, than the lot with the house, hence it does not appear to have been considered as accessory property to the lot with the house. In fact, the land valuations have been almost equal through-out the research period. Gaffron explained Exhibit F, Plat Map of neighbor ­ hood existing development. It is from Coffee Bridge to the intersection of 51 on the east side of Hwy 19. Lot sizes are quite variable from .22 to 1 acre with house. Lot 21 is 0.35 acres. Of the 25 properties in the strip, 11 or 44% are equiva ­ lent or smaller than either Lot 21 or 22. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 6 #874 DUANE BARTH & MRS. JOHNSTONE . . , . The total acreage of this area divided by the no. of houses yields an average lot size is 0.48 acres. In past applications the precedent for this type of application has been set. Would this application be a precedent for smaller lots? Sime questioned whether the Planning Commission could approve this aplication because of the following facts: the lot was there first and it was approved, it has been in single ownership, they have done nothing to alter what was a buildable lot and it would seem that they are grandfathered in. Don Peterson stated that there are 7 - 60' lots to the north and of the 7 the Johnstone lots are the largest. The Johnstone lots meet the hardcover standards where some of the other lots don't. I think this proposal fits in well with the neighbor­ hood . Dave Kiss asked if a variance would be needed to put a house on Lot 21. Simo stated that this is the whole point. These are two individual lots, always have been. This is how the tax assessor has treated it. Goetten's concerns were that 10 to 15 lots within the zoning district could come in and ask for a buiIding permit. Rovegno asked if both lots had been homesteaded. It was clatified that only the lot with the house had been. He then asked if it is possible to get a tax refund based on the fact that the lots have been treated as one lot. Sime clarified that a person can file for a refund for three years prior. Gaffron stated that the difference being these are legally combined lots for tax purposes and it becomes a subdivision through our ordinances vs two separate lots - no subdivision is needed to sell the property. Sime moved, Rovegno seconded, to recommend approval of Lot 21 as a separate building site based upon the following findings: i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 7 «874 DUANE BARTH & MRS. JOHNSTONE 1. The proposal can meet all hardcover require­ ments of the LR-IC Zoning District. 2. Al] setback requirements for the new lot can be met. 3. From the tax record it appears that the lot has been valued and assessed as a separate lot, not incrementally as part of the adjacent property. 4. The applicant has owned the property since before the current zoning went into effect. 5. The property has been assessed for sewer. 6. The lot area is consistent with many other properties in the neighborhood and is equivalent to or larger than 11 of 25 lots in the neighborhood. Conditions for granting approval; 1. Granting a variance to the setbacks for the existing house. 2. No other performance standard setbacks allowed for either lot i.e. both must meet all hardcover and setback requirements. 3. $225 plant charge to be paid with building poermit along with standard SAC charges, etc. 4. Removal of existing garage on Lot 21. 5. the applicant to bear tlie expense of bringing sewer to the property if no stub exists. Adams stated he is in oposition of this motion because we would be creating a substandard side yard setback on Lot 22 by allowing Lot 21 to built on. The fact the Lot 21 has a garage on it and Lot 22 has a house on it suggests that for many years the owner of this property has used it as one lot. Mad they had both the house and garage on one lot that would indicate the intention of selling the adjoining lot at a later time. But I see this property as one that has been used as a single piece of property for all intents and purposes and for that reason I am oppossed to this motion. S f- minutes of the planning commission meeting held NOVEMBER 19, 1994 PAGE 8 #874 BARTH/JOHNSTONE Rovegno questioned Adam's opposition, referring to a similiar situation in which a larger piece of land would be subdivided with a house on one lot and a garage serving that house on another. Would you disallow that subdivision? McDonald agreed with Adams stating that we have got to be strict in this matter to protect Lake Minnetonka. Motion, Ayes (1), Nays (5). McDonald moved, Adams seconded, to recommend denial subject to the following findings: 1. The lots were used as one property, house on one lot and garage serving house on the other lot thus indicating that they had planned to use it as one homosite. 2. There is no sewer stub and plant charge has not been paid. 3. The lot areas proposed are significantly less than the average lot area in the neighborhood. 4. This could set a precedence in that 10 to 15 new building sites might have to be allowed to be created from existing common substandard ownership lots if this is approved in this zoning district. 5. A side yard setback variance for the existing house would have been necessary. Motion, Aye (5), Nay (1). I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 9 «876 RANDY ASPLUND, 3424 t 3444 EASTLAKB STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Goetten announced that #876, Randy Asplunds application for a variance has been tabled until the next meeting of the Planning Commission. The following neighbors were present for the meeting; Harriet Hehl of 3348 Bayside Road Esther Addison of 3382 Bayside Road Barbara Huber of 3390 Bayside Road Kathe Jukish of 3280 Bayside road Don Boylan of 3240 Bayside Road Rovegno moved, Kelle'y seconded to table the application. Motion, ayes (6), Nays (0). «878 THOMAS KAUL INTERPRETATION OP ZONING CODE PUBLIC HEARING 9:45 - 9:49 Thomas and Kristi Haul were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. The following neighbors were present for the public hearing : Mary Ann Stinson of 2040 Spates Avenue A.J. Tourangeau of 2060 spates Avenue Pauline Bouchard of 1860 Shoreline Drive Ronald J. Prineas of 1980 Heritage Drive Mabusth asked if any of the members of the Planning Commission were able to attend the open house given by the Hauls at 1900 Shoreline Drive. Goetten hadn't received her invitation. Rovegno said he had tried unsuccessfully to reach Goetten. Sime and McDonald were unable to attend. minutes of the planning commission meeting held NOVi^ER 19, 1984 PAGE 10 #878 THOMAS HAUL GoGtten wanted to note that she had received a ca 11 from Kathy Coward, owner of 1950 Heritage Drive, now residing in NY. Mrs. Bouchard introduced a copy of Kathy Coward's letter which Chairperson Gnrtten read to the people present. (See attached letter.) Mrs. Bouchard presented another letter representing tpo Fox Hill Association which Chairperson Goetten also read. (See attached letter.) Mabusth commented on the phone call she recieved from Mr. Stinson regarding the application. Mabusth reported on his position. Mr. & Mrs. Stinson have a rental unit in the Virgin ■‘^’ands and they would not like to see this type of activity in this neighborhood. Goetten read the letter written by Pauline Bouchard to Jean Mabusth. (See attached letter.) Kristi Kaul asked to state her feelings. She realizes that there is a lot of opposit'on and teels that the neighbors have a predeterjr.ined notions C‘ what a Bed and Breakfast (hereafter referred to as a B&B) would be like elsewhere. What we really want to do is first and foremost is have this as our home. We would have very limited house guests coming and staying, mainly 3ust on week-ends. Our main objective is to restore the house to its original state and maintain it. We have contacted all of the neighbors and informed them of our plans. We feel that the way the house is located and because of the existing vegetation, the extra guests that would be staying, wouldn't even be noticed. There are seven bedrooms but only four rooms would be available for guests. We feel that the history of the area is so valuable to maintain. So much of it has been lost. We are looking at our .home - not a business. McDonald stated she felt that what the neighbors were trying to say is that people are people and it is hard to control their actions. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 11 1878 THOMAS KAUL Kaul stated that she and her husband had visited the other B&B's in the area and that they are listed through the B&B directory which limits the amount of traffic through your home. There are 40 homes in Minnesota. One example that is similiar to what we are trying to do is on Mount Curve Place. It is in a residential area and the house doesn't look any different than any of the others in the area. My suggestion is to have a represen­ tative of the neighborhood and of the Planning Commission come with us to talk to these people and their neighbors. Kaul asked about a CUP permit. Goetten stated they would then have to make some changes in the zoning code. It is not considered a conditional use at this time. Goetten suggested that the issue of a B&B may have to oe looked into and possibly amend the code to include a B&B. Rovegno asked Mabusth if the residential area is not the place for a BSB, which zoning area could accommodate such a facility? Goetten stated this a question of interpretation of the home occupation code. S..me referred to code book under 10.20 section 4(c) for a home occupation only three (3) parking spaces are accepted and the occupation cannot be visable from the outside of the home. Mabusth noted that tnis applied only to professional people such as doctors, architects, etc. who used their homos on a temporaly bases. McDonald asked the Kauls if they had considered any other homes in this area for their B&B. Kaul said they had but they thought this was the best area because of the location on a major street. There would be no conflict of a private street where a few extra cars on a given night would bo noticed. We had considered the Pierce- Wyer House in Excelsior but the size of the house would tend to be more corimercial than we want since this is to be our home. i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOV0IBER 19, 1984 PAGE 12 1878 THOMAS KADL Adams commented that he thought this is a marvelous idea and that it would be good for the community but he felt that the neighbors views should be heard. Rovegno commented that he did remember the application for the subdivision on this property and the court findings. He felt that this is a prime example of the houses of the erra and felt it would be a good use of the land. He has known the Hauls for several years and finds them to be a hardworking, honest couple and feels they will comply with the limitations set forth. He did, however state that he is uncomfortable with the "home occupation use". Goetten stated B&B's are something that we should address elsewhere because of the neighborhood reactions. She recommended that staff look into possibly amending the code to cover B&B operations. Kelley moved, Sime seconded, recommendation for denial of #878 Thomas Haul, 1900 Shoreline Drive, subject to the following finding: 1. That a B&B does not meet the original intent of the home occupation code Section 10.20, Subdivisions 4 (C). Motion, Aye (5), Nay (1). Rovegno voted nay. Minority Opion - Rovegno stated that under Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 (C) home occupations code, he felt that B&B is accessory to residential use based on review of performance standards provided by staff. It is only carried on by persons residing in the residence, there are no paid employees, the use is conducted within the principal residence, there no visible signs of use from the street, no accessive stock stored on the premises, no overcounter sales, the entrance is through the principal residence and the septic system is up to the B&B as well as the 8-10 member family that could live there. I find the three (3) stall f)arking not applicable because it only pertains to profession practice. Further I find that County Road 15 is a major throghfare and probably a suita­ ble residential road on which to place such home occupation. And the applicants appear to be willing to subject themselves to ¥ J fr. t I* ' • I MINUTBSOP THEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19,1984PAGE 13 1878 THOMAS RAUL further regulations beyond those provided for the zoning code. I find that this is a home occupation that doesn't require application to the Planning Commission or City Council. McDonald added that the home occupations code should state that hotels and boarding houses not be included in the code. Kelley moved, Rovegno se'-'mA' ecommendation to staff to review the planp’*-i ..nces to find the appropriate sections tha«. •• vuld be amended and reviewed by the PC and City Council for B&B's within the City of Orono. Adams commented that he believes there is a place in Orono for B&B's and this is a oversite in the code. Is a 100% in favor of the motion. Motion, Ayes (6), Nay (0). f880 STEVEN RUCE 4625 WEST BRANCH ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 - 8:06 PM Steven & Joyce Ruce were present. Zoning Adminis­ trator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public. Ruce is requesting to build a greenhouse 10 x 25 in the rear of the property attached to the house. Gaffron stated that it does meet all setback requirements and doesn't affect the septic system. There is a deck in the back of the house. The question arises because Mr. Ruce has some commer­ cial dealings outside the home. Ruce explained that ho is a gardener and works in other peoples gardens. In the spring of the year he grows plants to use in their gardens, which is the purpose of the greenhouse. There is no walk-in traffic. Ruce also stated that the deck would be removed so the greenhouse may be built. This would not include the deck on the east side of the house. Gaffron noted that there are no hardcover problems. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19^ 1984 PAGE 14 1880 STEVEN RUCE McDonald clarified that the CUP goes with the property if the house is sold but Council can ask to have it reviewed. Mabusth stated that there is no need to put on a review policy of once a year because of the boiler plate language used in the resolution. Rovengno questioned the fact that it was considered as a commercial greenhouse because it is not large enough/ there are no people or vehicles coming in. Rovegno stated he would like to have a recommendation that they overrule staff/ because a X 25* attached greenhouse used to grow plants not for sale on the premises should not considered on a size basis to require a CUP. Kelley moved/ Rovegno seconded/ to recommend appro ­ val of #880 Steven Ruce, with the condition that the structure conform to all pertinent Building Code requirements and also to recommend to the City Council to review the posibility of refunding $150.00 filing fee based on the finding that there is no retail sales activity taking place on the property. McDonald questioned the use of trucks and Ruce clarified that he only had two pick-up trucks that would be used. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). minutes of the planning commission meeting held NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 15 #881 KRUTZIG CUSTOM HOMES, INC., 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:43 ~ 10:30 PM Bill Krutzig was present. Assistant Zoning Aflmini strator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. The following neighbors wore present for the public hearing : Douglas and Ceil I.ohmar of 1635 Bohn's Point Road Mr. Iiohniar stated he was concerned with the drainage along his let line and that Krutzig's lot is a low lot and has accepted drainage from the hills. Lohmar noted that Krutzig will be filling in quite a large area which will affect the other properties, and I would like to see a study done to see if the very narrow strip remaining will take care of the drainage. If the drainage can be taken care of, he would have no concern. He stated that he had specifically sloped his existing driveway to take care of the drainage problem. Mrs. Lohmar observed that within the last 10 years she hasn't been able to walk across Krutzig's lot because of the water level. Gaffron stated that this lot is not a designated wetlands. Krutzig stated tnat there wi 1 1 not be a basement in the house. He had consulted with *-he neighbors and had come to the conclusion that a two story home would bo disproportioned to the other homes in the area . Gaffron stated that the original application came in requesting the house as shown, the decks, and the driveway of indeterminate proportions and some hardcover in the courtyard area. The proposed house without the decks and additional hardcover and with a bare minimum driveway meets the 25% hardcover. Another consideration is the lot behind the 250' point zone is quite substaricial and we have in a number of other applications considered giving the applicant credit for that area in calculating hardcover. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 16 1881 KRUTZIG HOMES GoGtten stated that one way we protect drainage is to limit hardcover, and that the 250'-500' credit has only been used for existing situations, not for new lots for new construction. Rovegno stated that the property must accept the drainage that it has formally taken and not discharge at a faster rate or direct it other than the direction it has gone. That is a building matter. Lohmar questioned Krutzig about the fact that this is a "spec" house. What are they going to do? What kind of guarantee will be provided? Krutzig noted that the certificate of occupancy given by the City will be the guarantee because before it is issued everything is inspected by the building department. Gaffron noted that the grading will have to be done in a way that the water will flow onto the property in the past way. Also, you may be creating more of a problem by putting a house on this lot than was there before even if you stay behind the 930' elevation line. Kelley stated he would have a hard time approving a variance for hardcover since there is such a problem with water right now. Krutzig said he wasn't aware of a hardcover problem until after the permit application was made. Mabrsth had talked to the applicant prior to going to Council and suggested building a 2 story house or nuilding rather than out and reducing some of the hardcover because Council does not look favorably upon hardcover, variances. Gaffron noted that Krutzig was told before the permit was issued that we can't approve it with the decks and the extensive driveway. That was his risk to construct pilings before the additional requests were approved. McDonald questioned Krutzig about ever building a house in Orono before. He has but stated he was unaware of the hardcover stipulations until now. 4 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 17 1881 KRUTZIG HOMES Lohmar brought up another point about the lot. Their sewer line is directly under the rear of Krutzig's house, however, the house is on pilings so that is not a problem. Lohmar stated that he would like Krutzig to assured him that an easement showing exactly where the pipj^ is and a right to access his property will be drawn up. Gaffron stated our sewer responsiblity ends at the City's sewer manhole in the street. This is a private easement serving these houses. We don't have any code standards ttiat require sewer pipes to be a certain distance from the house and this is a case that we wouldn't allow today. But at this time we have no responsiblity. Krutzig explained that Gordon Coffin had gone out and described this easement and we intend to describe it by Metes & Bounds on an easement and put it on fo a drawing. A formal written document protecting the neighbors will have to drawn up by Krutzig's attorney. Gaffron stated that another issue is where will Krutzig's house hook up to sewer? There is some question as to whether the existing shared line can handle another hookup. But this is considered a building issue. One option they have is to move the sewer lines but this is between the private parties. Rovegno moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend denial of application #881, Krutzig Homes, 1629 Bohn's Point Road, based on to the following findings; 1. At the time of application, the applicant was informed by staff fully of the hardcover limitations within the 75 - 250' zone. 2. This is a substandard lot in area and slightly substandard on lot width. 3. It is a low lot that provides hydraulic capacity for the drainage of adjoining properties and the building department should address that issue. 4. An adequate house ror this lot could have been constructed, meeting the 4595 sq. feet of allowed hardcover. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 18 1881 RRUTZIG HOMES 5. That the additional hardcover is not necessary, to maintain a substantial property right. 6. This problem of hardcover was brought on by the applicant. Krutzig clarified that he was not aware of hardcover, he had his plans done according to the setbacks, structural engineer had worked on the plans, and all those plans had to be submitted at one time. At the time they were submitted was the time that Gaffron called and said we have a hardcover problem. Krutzig stated that he had at that time already spent $7500. He stated he had the option to drop his plans or continue on the basis that he apply for hardcover variance. Krutzig also asked if a pool is considered hardcover. Rovegno clarified that a poo 1 is not considered hardcover, the deck is but the pool has its own closed recirculating movment. It doesn't drain, it collects. Motion, Aye (6), Nay (0). FENCE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mabusth clarified that she would like the input sheets back to her by December 10, 1984. ,lv^ Rovegno questioned how long grading has to sit there before it becomes existing grade? I feel if we have a reference point that you know wi 1 1 be consistent and then setting a height from that point. Rovegno feels that the fence issue should be addressed as a total case including commercial and residentia 1. Mabusth noted that Council asked that only the residential fence ordinance be looked at. They also asked that controls bo considered for privacy fences that are constructed as accessory structures. Another issue is protecting the view of neighbors. All of the sample codes submitted for this review deal with protection of adjoining property not protection for the person on the other side of a major thoroughfare. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 19 PENCE ORDINANCE Rovegno stated that we need some kind of performance standard. Kelley asked how wo project the image that we would perfer natural plantings opposed to fences? Mabusth noted that we can do this by encouraging natural plantings through staff input and if not effective require that person to file a variance. r Rovegno stated that he would like to have all the compiled input back by January 10, 1985 so there is time to study the comments before the joint meeting on Feburary 4, 1985. APPROVL OP MINUTES Sime move, Goetten seconded, to approve the Planning Commission iiiinutes of October 22, 1984 subject to the changes noted by Rovegno. Motion, I'ycs (6), Nay (0). REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNMENT 10:45 PM Sime volunteered to attend the Council meeting of December 10, 1984. Sime moved, Rovegno seconded, to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion, Ayes (6), Nay (0). 4