Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-1991 Planning Minutesiim rvy^-4- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 ROLL CALL; The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Planning Commission Chair Charlie Kelley and Planning Commission ’leinbers Jeffrey Johnson, Maureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, Charles Schroeder, Candace Rowlette and Sara Moos. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Mayor Peterson, and Councilmember Callahan were also present. Kelley called the meeting to order at 7:0C p.m. (#1)PUBLIC HEARING-AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNAS, TOWERS, ETC. Mr. Dennis Esterly, an experienced installer of antennas on water towers, was present. Mabusth explained what is allowed under the existing Ordinance in terms of locating antennas, towers, or other such structures, within the City of Orono. Johnson asked if it would be possible for a company to construct an office building on industrial-zoned property and install an antenna on top of it. Mabusth replied, "Yes, that \/ould be allowed under the existing Ordinance, as long as the property is owned by the company constructing the building and the antenna. I would just add that neither the B-6 Zoning District for the Highway 12 area, nor the PUD District makes any reference to antennas. If it is the intention of the City to allow antennas to be attached to a future water tower in the B-6/PUD area, there is nothing in the Code which would allow such use." Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would recommend an amendment to the Ordinance. Kelley asked the Planning Commission members for their opinions regarding free-standing antennas. Bellows noted that there are several free-standing antennas located in the communities just west of Orono. She said, "In my opinion, the structures are inappropriate for those areas, especially those that use guide wires. I have trouble with the idea of placing such structures within a residential community such as Orono." Moos and Rowlette agreed with Bellows. Johnson said, "I agree with Maureen, but I also think that there is a place for such structures. In the future, these structures may become much more prevalent." Bellows added, "Or less so." - 1 -V' mmmmMi fimm j;: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#1)AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE (ANTENNAS, TOWERS, ETC.) Mabusth stated that in the case of cellular phone antennas, there may not be a need for the structure to have the height it does now. She referred to information she had provided with her memo which indicates that as the use of cellular phones increases, and the radius for each antenna is lessened, the structure need not exceed 40 feet in height. Kelley asked the Planning Commission members if they believe that the City has an obligation to provide cellular phone service to its residents. Rowlette, Moos and Kelley agreed that the City does have an obligation to provide such a service. Kelley said, "The next issue then, if we agree that we do not want free standing antennas, is where and how we would allow these structures to be located in the City." Cohen asked how many of these structures would need to be placed in Orono to provide adequate service for the several cellular phone companies to operate. Mabusth referred the Planning Commission to Exhibit "F" included v/ith her May 16, 1991 memo. Dennis Esterly added, "The number and proximity of the towers will depend on the geographical terrain of the area and how many people are trying to use their cellular at the same time at any given time of the day." Rowlette recalled that during a presentation, U.5. West had indicated that cellular phone antennas could be placed on football field light standards, and church steeples. Schroeder asked Esterly if the cellular phone companies are indifferent about the use of one 150 foot antenna versus 25 40 foot antennas. Esterly replied, "Obviously, they would prefer to start off with the 150 foot antenna to cover a wide area until population fills in. The cost of constructing each cell site is relatively the same, regardless of the height of the antenna." Cohen asked if placing an antenna on a water tower would be the same as erecting one 150 foot tower. Esterly replied, "If the antenna is located at the same location, it makes no difference whether it is free standing or attached to another structure, it will provide the same amount of service." - 2 - r; r jv. %■ • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#1)AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE (ANTENNAS, TOWERS, ETC.) Moos asked if there could be two antennas from different companies on the same water tower. Esterly replied, "Yes, that ii> possible, however, the cellular phone companies prefer not to do that. It is necessary to install filtering devices so the two services do not interfere vfith each other." Bellows referred to Dennis Esterly's comment regarding the companies constructing one large tower and constructing smaller towers as the population increases. She said, "Allowing the construction of one tower within the City of Orono is not going to eradicate a later need for many towers." Johnson stated that one of the issues to be considered is whether or not cellular phones can be categorized as a public utility. Mabusth advised that the City Attorney had rendered an opinion in that regard which stated that cellular phones could not be compared to gas, electric, or phone utilities. Kelley indicated that he would prefer not to amend the Code, but to address any applications for placing such structures within the City of Orono as they are receive.. Cohen indicated that he agreed with Kelley. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission members if they would look favorably on a request to attach an antenna to a water tower, or light standard. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would have no objection to placing antennas on water towers. Johnson asked if it would be possible to have a police radio antenna attached to the same structure as a cellular phone ant jnna. Esterly replied, "There are design and engineering considerations that have to be taken into account. It is quite probable that the police department radio would not cause any problems with a cellular phone antenna. However, a police department and paging company may have problems." Rowlette stated that if the Planning Commission basically agrees to locating antennas on water towers, or similar structures, that the Ordinance should be amended to address that. She said, "There are other metropolitan cities that have already adopted policies in this respect, and we could take advantage of what they have done. At some point in time we are going to have - 3 - •ii :k ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#1)AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE (ANTENNAS, TOWERS, ETC.) to amond our Code to address these structures# Mabusth offered to bring back further information pertaining to an Ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission agreed that Staff could provide additional information. No formal action was taken at this point. (#2)ZONING FILE #1604 CLAIR ROOD 22X5 KENWOOD WAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE-CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Clair Rood was present, and at 8:10 p.m., Kelley re-convened the Public Hearing on this application. Gaffron presented the Planning Commission with Mr. and Mrs. Rood's restoration/vegetation plan. He noted that the plan does not show any specific retaining walls or berms, and asked Mr. Rood if those items have now been excluded from his proposal. Rood replied that it is his intention to incorporate a retaining wall into his landscaping proposal, but that his landscape architect had inadvertently omitted the structure from the plans. Kelley suggested tabling the application to give Mr. Rood the opportunity to meet with his landscape architect and have the plans revised to show exactly v/hat Mr. Rood intends to do on the property. Bellows asked Mr. Rood if he would also be sure to address the existing fence/pillars in his landscape plan. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to hold this Public Hearing in abeyance until such time that the applicant has a revised plan showing the retaining wall/berm and fence/pillars. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#3)ZONING FILE 11545-TOM a MARYLOU LUTZ 258 CYGNET PLACE VARIANCES-PUBLIC HEARING Tom Lutz was present, and Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 p.m. Gaffron gave a brief summary of the issues involved with this application, noting that this is a continuation of an original application filed by Mr. and Mrs. Rodwell, who previously owned the subject property. Kelley asked what the City’s standards are in relation to the proposed privacy wall. - 4 - 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE #1545-LUTZ CONTINUED Gaffron replied, "Staff's interpretation is that a wall extending beyond six feet in height, attached to the house, would be considered as part of the principal structure, rather than a fence. The six foot \/all will be attached to the house, and to the deck which will be I*} feet above grade level. If Planning Conunission wishes to consider this structure as a fence, then a fence height Variance would be required." Kelley asked Mr. Lutz if he has discussed his plans with his neighbors on each side of him. Lutz indicated that neither neighbor raised objections when Rodwell's filed this application, and to his knowledge there have been no subsequent objections. Gaffron advised that the everyone v/ithin 150 feet of the Lutz property were re-notified of the revised plans submitted by Mr. Lutz. Kelley asked Mr. Lutz to state what he believes are the hardships that support his request for a Variance. Lutz replied, "I view the hardships as being the shape of the lot and the re-zoning of the property which changed the setback requirements from what was required in 1971 when the house was constructed." Bellows asked Mr. Lutz if it is his intention to keep the screen porch as such, and not convert it into a room addition. There were no comments from the public pertaining to this application, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. Bellows asked v/hether it may be appropriate to place the applicant on notice that any further upgrade to the screen porch will require additional approval from the City. Gaffron advised that Staff viewed the screen porch as a full addition to the house, and that if the Variance is approved, enclosing it within the roof and v/all lines of the screened area should be allowed without a future Variance. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that Council approve the side setback Variance to construct a three-season porch, and side and rear setback Variances '•o construct a 7’6" privacy wall. The hardships on which this recommendation is based are the shape of the lot and the change in zoning. Kelley added that, in his opinion, any further requests for Variances to the rear (south yard) of the property would not be as favorably considered. All voted aye. Motion carried. - 5 - P m MpUW gitura ^X9^nsmsiw\ #a Si 19XS»{ MVI«RmKiii [•SiT« PS^Kim"■'wm % K' ^ i-r- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#4)ZONING FILE 11639-FERRIL CONTINUED and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Rowlette agreed with the Ferrils' hardship pertaining to the need to locate the greenhouse at the proposed location. She said that if the greenhouse is to be located on this end of the property to meet the required setbacks, the only options would be CO reduce the size of the structure, or remove the deck. She asked Mrs. Ferril what purpose the deck will serve. Mrs. Ferril explained that the deck will provide a mea..s of reaching the windows of the greenhouse when cleaning is needed. Johnson agreed w.-;"-h Rowlette, adding that it will be difficult for the neignboring properties to see the proposed structure because of the dense vegetation around the Ferril property. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that Council approve a side setback Variance, as well as a Variance allowing an accessory structure to be nearer the front or street lot line than the principal scructure, based on the hardships set forth in the Ferrils' application. All voted sye. [••otion carried. (#5)ZONING FILE #1640-ORONO LIONS CLUB SECTION OLD LONG LAKE ROAD ft HIGHWAY 12 VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing on this application at 8:15 Mabusth summarized her May 15, 1991 memo outlining the Variances required to install a ‘Welcome to Long Lake" sign on pj-Qperty within the City of Orono. She noted that staking will be done by a surveyor to insure that the sign is not placed within MNDOT's right-of-way. be. Kelley asked how far off the traveled roadway the sign must Mabusth answered that it must be at least 10 feet in from the road right-of-way. Kelley suggested that it v/ould be best if the City of Long Lake would indicate where they would like to place the sign, and then come to the City of Orono for approval of that location. Rowlette noted that there is a "City Limits of Long Lake" sign just west of this property on which they are asking to place the new sign. She questioned why the "Welcome to Long Lake" sign could not be placed in the same location as the "City Limits" sign. 7 - 4. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#5)ZONING FILE #1640-ORONO LIONS CLUB CONTINUED Kelley stated that the "City Limits" sign is MMDOT's and can be located within the right-of-way. was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to continue this Public Hearing until such time as the location of the proposed sign is indicated. Motion, Ayes-6, Johnson, May. Motion carried. Johnson believed that there was no need to delay a recommendation as the proposed sign is fairly small and should have little impact on the area. (#6)ZONING FILE #1641-RICHARD KEAVENY 3145 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-PUBLIC HEARING At 8:25 p.m., Kelley opened the Public matter. Hearing on this Mabusth stated that she had spoken to the applicant today and he indicated that the structure will meet the 35 foot setback. Johnson asked how long the temporary building will remain in this location. Mabusth stated that the process will take five to six years to complete. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:2f p.m. It was m'-'ved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to recommend that Council approve application #1641, a Commercial Site Plan Review for locating a temporary structure on property owned by Richard Keaveny at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Ail voted aye. Motion carried. (#7)ZONING FILE 11642-KEITH a NOLA SWANSON 75 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Keith Swanson was present, and at 7:25 the Public Hearing. p.m. Kelley opened Gaffron summarized the information provided in his memo dated May 15, 1991, pertaining to Swanson's application. He stated that the request for a side setback Variance stems from the need to maintain a suitable buffer zone between the alternate drainfield site and the proposed house. Rowlette asked if access to the house would be achieved from Stubbs Bay Road as opposed to Watertown Road. Gaffron replied, "There is no intent to use Watertown Road, and in fact constructing a driveway to Watertown Road would - 8 - ■I 5 k'- \: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#7)ZONING FILE #1642-SWANSON CONTINUED negate the use of the alternate drainfield." Bellov;s referred to Gaffron's notation in his memo that this property is located across the street from property that is zoned two acres. She suggested that such a reference not be made in any other documents as it may place the City in a precarious situc-wion. Bellows also indicated that she was having a difficult time with this application. She said, "I am pleased with the aspect of combining the two lots. However..." Kelley agreed with Bellows that the Planning Commission consistently takes the stand that new construction must conform to all aspects of the Zoning Code. He said, "In this case, the applicant has acquired additional property because he had a deficient lot. He is doubling the amount of acreage and by doing so, is providing a primary and alternate drainfield site." Bellows said, "However, the lot size is still less than 50% of what the Zoning District requires." Cohen said, "I look at it this way. The applicant has no alternatives. He has exercised the only alternative he could, which was acquiring additional property. I will give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and agree that the lot is just slightly in excess of two acres. Though this property is located in what is now a five acre Zoning District, I would tend to look at it more from the standpoint of conforming to the two acre Zoning District requirements. The neighbors seem to be in favor of Mr. Swanson's plans." Johnson asked Gaffron whether it would be possible for the Stubbs Bay sewer line to ever serve this property in the future. Gaffron replied, "If the Stubbs Bay sewer line ever goes in, it would certainly seem technically feasible to serve this property with sewer by gravity sometime in the future." Gaffron noted that if the applicants undergo a Torrens Proceeding to clear up the discrepancy with the lot line, it may take some time. He asked the Planning Commission whether the lot line issue will have any bearing on their recommendation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the ten foot discrepancy would have no effect on their recommendation. Moos added that she is more concerned about providing adequate space between the house and the drainfield sites. Johnson stated that the applicant could have come forward with a Variance request to double the square footage of the existing house, without having purchased the additional property. He said, "It is possible that he would have been granted that - 9 - 1 1 ■■kiiir' I r . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#7)ZONING FILE #1642-SWANSON CONTINUED Variance." Kelley added, "He may not have required a Variance to do that, in which case, he would not have come before the City at all. " Rowlette agreed and said, "Then the existing house, which sits right on top of the lot line, would be increased in size with only one septic site." In light of the absence of any public comments on this matter, Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend that Council approve the application for a lot area, lot width, and side setback Variance, based on the hardships discussed in the course of this Public Hearing. Cohen stated that in his opinion, the applicants have done everything possible to upgrade the property, and their proposal meets with the neighbor's approval. Motion, Ayes-6, Bellows, Nay. Motion carried. (#8)ZONING FILE #1643-DAVID J. NELSON 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH RENEWAL VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING David Nelson was present, and at the Public Hearing. 7:40 p.m., Kelley opened Mabusth advised that this is an application for a renev/al Variance and that there are no changes from what had been applied for and approved in the original 1988 application, flabusth noted that subsequent to the 1988 application, Mr. Nelson has installed a new septic system. There were no public comments, and at 7:41 p.m., Kelley closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellov;s, to recommend that Council approve the request for a renewal of nine foot side setback Variance to construct an attached garage. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#9)A.J. GRAF-2008 SUGARV^OODS DRIVE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CURB CUT A. Jay Graf was present for this matter. Mabusth reported that she had met with the City Engineer on the site today, and that she could now confirm that the second curb cut would be located out of the one-v/ay road section. Shsj said, "Staff has also confirmed that the eastern access meets a sighting distance of 250 feet, however the mailbox and certain trees on the neighboring property may pose sighting problems for - 10 - 1 Hi M]' i H ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE #1645-GRAF CONTINUED vehicles pulling out of that driveway. The City Engineer has confirmed that the proposed west access would work well. Rowlette asked what impact on traffic circulation there would be if Sugarwoods Drive were to become a one-way street. Mabusth stated that such a proposal was not discussed during the Sugarwoods subdivision process, nor was the impact of an island separating the road discussed. Mabusth advised that there will be other properties within the Sugarwoods Development that will have similar problems. Kelley stated that, in his opinion, there will not be a significant amount of traffic going through this neighborhood, other than the Sugarv;oods residents. Bellows agreed with Mabusth that the islands were not included in the review process, and seemed to just appear. She stated that Planning Commission has reviewed this particular property before, and did not unanimously agree to grant a turn-around. Bellows indicated that she would have a problem recommending approval of a second curb cut. She said. We pointed out very early on in the review process of the curb cuts that any request to deviate from what we originally approved had to come before us before the lot in question is developed. I think it is inappropriate for this request to be before us at this point." With regard to the amount of traffic on Sugarwoods Drive, Graf stated that there wi 1 be three houses constructed for the Spring and Fall Previews, which will generate an enormous amount of traffic. Graf state * that there is also a great deal of construction traffic, am. that he does quite a bit of business entertaining in his horn.-;. He said, "My primary concern is that the property juts in and it is difficult for traffic heading west to see anyone coming out of my driveway. It is especially difficult to see young children, of which I have two. The second curb cut provides better sight distance for my children to see on-coming traffic up the road, and is much ea.sier for motorists to see as well." Kelley suggested closing off the existing curb cut. Graf replied, "That would leave me with a significant amount of asphalt in my front yard that would serve no purpose." Kelley asked who had put up the "Keep Right" sign, and for what reason. Mabusth replied, "The City put up the sign because there is not adequate width for traffic to meet in the section of road on - 11 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (19)ZONING FILE #1645-GRAF CONTINUED the left side of the island (as you are looking west)." Kelley suggested reducing the width of the center island. Rowlette suggested removing the center island entirely. Mabusth noted that "No Parking" signs v/ould also be posted at the north side of the center island. Rowlette stated that she had driven in and out of Grafs' driveway and agreed that sighting is a problem. She also noted that she has a small car and had little difficulty maneuvering into the driveway, but that would not be the case for someone v/ith a large vehicle. Rowlette said, "There are two options, in my opinion. Either v/e grant Mr. Graf's request for the loop driveway, or we take out the center island." Cohen agreed that removing the island would solve the problem. Graf agreed also that removing the island would alleviate his problem. He noted, however, that the island was constructed around two large Maple trees and that Mr. Rebers has provided additional landscaping. Bellows indicated that closing off the existing curb cut would address Mr. Graf's safety concerns, and that he could then relocate his driveway to the safer point. Bellows suggested that the issue of the center island should still be reviewed given the fact that other properties v/ill be similarly affected. Moos recalled that the road configuration shown to the Planning Commission during the PRD process indicated cul-de-sacs located in the corners of the property, not in the middle of the roadways. Graf stated that he v/ould need at least a portion of the existing drive in order to access his garage. Mabusth noted that the City Engineer had confirmed that the proposed west curb cut would have to fan out to provide a turning radius to facilitate access to the property from both the east and west. Kelley asked Mr. Graf if he would prefer to have Planning Commission table his application so he could come back with a revised plan showing one curb cut. Rowlette stated that the proposed westerly drivev/ay will be steep and that she would prefer not to have it be the sole access for the property. She reiterated that she would either like to - 12 - ■i Hrr- i ■ S - Kl •! ifcirii ateif fli li ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 (19)ZONING FILE #1645-GRAF CONTINUED see the island removed, or a recommendation to approve two curb cuts. Moos stated that she would prefer one curb cut, and that the only benefit of the island, in her opinion, is that is may curtail traffic speeds coming around the corner. Schroeder indicated that the island is aesthetically pleasino, but was placed in the wrong location. Mr. Graf's request stems from the inappropriate location of the island. He said, '‘I would rather retain the island and recommend approval of two curt cuts." Cohen sail, "The trees in the island are pretty, but unfortunately, the island is creating a problem, which we never intended. The Planning Commission intended to have the trees on the lots pri.served, but not in the middle of the street. I would recommend one curh cut and removal of the island." Johnson also preferred one curb cut, and agreed that there needs co be further review of the island. Bellows and Kelley concurred with Johnson. Graf indicated that removing the island would not solve the sight line problem with the existing curb cut, and that he would prefer not to have the second curb cut as his only driveway as it is steep and would create difficulties in accessing the garage. Kelley stated that the t.r?ffic from the Fall and Spring Preview, and construction, will be temporary. He added that there are probably sighting problems on every street in Orono. It was noved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that Council dery the second curb cut, leaving the access to the property a' it is. Kelley indicated that he would prefer to see the islan i left where it is. Cohen reiterated that the island should ha removed. Motion, Ayes-5, Schroeder, Rowlette, Nay. Motion rarried. (#10)APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to approve minutes of the April 15, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, voted aye. Motion carried. the All (ill)PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Charlie Kelley would attend the June 10, 1991, Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. - 13 - iiLi. -’j--'.--Tfrr. p«ryw"'- r f ' ~r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 ' :>ZkT. OTHER The Planning Commission, Mayor Peterson, and Councilmember Callahan agreed to hold the Joint Planning Commission/Council meeting on June 12, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The May 20, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ^^4 S' ■ vtSJIm Sir ■ mnmm Ri msmmm - - : V ■ - ; yt''M- BSwiSi B'-' '■ '5 " -B-■ ■yy\x .-’^r. ■ . - w-a I-. t i •• • '^r- r t-- r- • K u-. r H^’-‘ ' *'V - 14 - mm __'>^ g,-i* * >5 1:'i ig*ilii mtl ■'■