HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-1981 Planning Minutes' V-
0^AGENDA I
mw
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1981
”111^
Council Representative - JoEllen Hurr
'.lik.r
Call to Order
")uiM
• V.'
Av 'flf.iV,. jv.. ,A
1. Call to order/roll
Public Hearings
2.7:30 PM #653 f-cott Goldsmith, 245 Old Crystal Bay Road
Preliminary Subdivision
m 1 3.7:45 PM #657 Michael Pluhm, 2710 Walters Port Lane
Preliminary Subdivision
ii4.8:00 PM #654 DiCon, 2645 Watertown Road
Preliminary Subdivision
Action Items
5. #644 James R. Thaxter, 1055 Tamarack Drive
Conditional Use Permit
6. #661 Paul Fahlin, 1960 Shoreline Drive
Conditional Use Permit
s 7. #664 Scott Mann, 1396 Baldur Park Road
Variance
Work Session
7. #662 New Life Bible Church, 830 Old Crystal Bay Road
Subdivision
8. #663 Tim Peterson, 280 Orono Orchard Road
Conditional Use Permit
Information Items
9. The Marina Committee will hold a meeting November 19, 1981.
10. Planning Commission representative to go to the Council
meeting of December 14, 1981 - John Hammerel
11. Comprehensive Plan - Council adoption anticipated on
November 23, 1981,.
Approval of Minutes
O 12. Approval of the October 19, 1981, Planning Commission
minutes.
A
.i
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981
The Planning Commission met on the above date. The follow
Aing members were present: Chairman Hammerel, Goetten,
^McDonald, Rovegno, Adams, Callahan, and Opheim. The
Chairman officially welcomed the new members to the
Planning Commission. Councilmember JoEllen Hurr was
present. Mabusth represented the City staff.
Applicant was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of
mailing and the affidavit of publication. Two neighbors
were present: Mrs. Harry Wright of 285 Old Crystal Bay
Road and Mr. Steve Abrams of 245 Old Crystal Bay Road.
Mrs. Wright noted her concern that a dirt road located
along her property line would allow dirt to reach her
house. Her husband is an asthma victim. Goldsmith stated
that the driveway would be paved.
Rovegno wanted to know who the property owner was?
Applicant stated that it was Leroy Godfrey and that the
taxes were paid by Abrahm and Goldsmith.
Hurr noted that the terminology in the letter written by
Steve Abrahms, stating that they could not "board" animals,
should be clarified that they can not keep animals in the
barn whatsoever.
Callahan noted the second paragraph for Hurr that stated
that they understood.
Goetten asked about the selling of apples on his property?
Goldsmith stated that he does not plan to sell the apples
grown on the site.
Hammerel moved to approve the prelimir'iry subdivision
application of Scott Goldsmith for a 2 lot plat based
on the following findings:
1 - All lots meet the standards of the RR-lB zoning
district.
- Each newly created rural lot has been found to
meet the standards of the Orono Septic Code.
- Per Ordinance 34.047 - the owner of Lot 1 may
sell the apples grown on his property when
there is a principal structure established
on the site.
2
3
such approval is based on the following conditions:
1 - Dedication on the plat of 33* right of way for
2 -
3 -
r .1mL A
Old Crystal Bay Road.
Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility
easements.
That the accessory structure designated as a barn
on the preliminary survey dated September 9, 1981,
located 15* from the rear lot line may never be
used for the keeping of animals - to be included
in the resolution approving the final plat.
ATTENDANCE
7:30 PM
SCOTT GOLDSMITH
245 Old Crystal
Bay Road
Preliminary
Subdivision
#653
Public Hearing
7:30 - 7:38
S.• • • •.
■ : .V- •_a
i
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 2
m4 -
5 -
Owner of Lot 1 must have access location reviewed by
the Public Works Director prior to construction of
driveway.
Payment of a park dedication fee per current schedule
as follows:
6 -
Lot 1 (5 acres or more) @ $100.00 - no park fee
required for Lot 2 with existing house
Payment of $75.00 for legal review and filing fees.
McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Michael Pluhm was present. Mabusth noted the certificate
of mailing and the affidavit of publication. No one was
present from the audience for this application.
Goetten asked about the access easement to County Road 19.
Mabusth stated that in the final resolution access would
be limited to the existing platted corridor at Kelly Avenue
Rovegno asked about the connection of City water. Mabusth
stated that they needed a legal description of the utility
easement. Rovegno asked about the utility easement in
favor of Mernick house. Mabusth stated that they couldn't
use the same line.
Rovegno explained that the applicant would need a permit
to work within the public owned corridor.
Pluhm asked if there would be any problem in constructing
a storage shed within the 250 - 500* area of Lot 1.
Mabusth stated there would not be. Pluhm asked for
confirmation concerning the removal of the loop driveway
being required if the subdivision in not completed.
Mabusth stated that Council's action in approving the
original variance specifically required the removal of
the loop area of the driveway by March 31, 1982, if the
subdivision was not completed by February 1, 1982.
Rovegno moved to approve Michael Pluhm*s subdivision
based on the following conditions:
1 -
i 2 -
o 3 -
Relocation of access to Pluhm residence to consist
of removal of "ramp" area or old access onto
Walters Port Road. Disturbed area to be regraded
and landscaped per plans of licensed engineer.
City will review the drainage along north property
line at that time.
Readdressing of the Pluhm residence and adequate
signage for the Pluhm and Mernik residences out
at Kelly Avenue.
Obtain a legal description for the water line
to Lot 2 property line for a utility easement,
but with no forcement into connecting up to City
water.
(GOLDSMITH CONT^^>
i
MICHAEL PLUHM
2710 Walters Port
Preliminary
Subdivision
#657
Public Hearing
7:45 - 7:47
f- ^
• •
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 3
#
4 -
5
6
7
8
Kt
9
Legal descriptions for existing sewer line and
other utilities for private utility easements that
will run through Pluhm property.
Dedication on the plat of 10* on each side of the
existing sewer and water main locations.
A flowage and conservation easement over the paved
area (below 936 contour), culvert and ditch area.
A legal description of that area must be created
for the filings of the easement document.
A private driveway, ingress, egress and access
easement over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2.
No additional hardcover allowed within the 75* -
250* lakeshore setback area of Lot 1.
Permit will be required for any work done within
the public right of way and all proposed future
improvements of driveway.
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Applicant was present. Mabusth noted the certificate of
mailing and the affidavit of publication. No one was
present from the audience for this application.
Adams was concerned with an overall look at the development
of the property.
Mabusth stated that the M.C.W.D. will require a drainage
and grading plan for the entire developed 53 acres.
Rovegno questioned if it was a logical way to have through
streets. He asked for the planner to write a memo on the
City's policy concerning acceptable standards for the
design of plat roads and feet location for accesses on
public roads.
Opheim stated that he could not see why the lining up
of the streets was so important.
Adams noted that from a safety point of view it is
significant.
Mabusth stated that a meeting with the developer has been
scheduled to review the proposed pattern of roads and
accesses and the need for an overall drainage plan. The
Planner and the City Engineer will report on the outcome
of that meeting and make recommendations to the Planning
Commission at an upcoming meeting.
Applicant stated that if they were to change the road
design that they would have lots abutted by roads on
two sides.
McDonald moved to table DiCon's subdivision application
until staff can review it further.
Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
(PLUHM'C0NT;7.
DICON
2645 Watertown Rd
Preliminary
Subdivision
#654
Public Hearing
8:04 - 8:05 PM
r
• •
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 4
Applicant was not present. Rovegno asked about the planting
f useful vegetation. Goetten noted that the City would
te obtaining the flowage and conservation easements.
Rovegno asked if it was denied would it be a misdemeanor;
before of after the fact?
Goetten moved to approve the "after the fact" conditional
use permit of James Thaxter subject to the condition that
the applicant complete a quit claim, and flowage and
conservation easement, over the wetlands prohibiting all
future filling, dredging and oxygenation of the wetlands
and to encourage the natural vegetation to return to the
area. Final goal to restore the area to its original
state.
Adams seconded. Hammetel asked if there was any further
discussion.
Opheim stated that he couldn't see how the City could
force the applicant to execute the deed if denied.
■■ *
Rovegno suggested denial of the application. He stated
that the applicant was in violation of the Zoning Code
and the wetlands ordinance.
JAMES R. THAXTER
1065 Tamarack Ihri!
Conditional Use i
Permit
#644
Opheim noted that if it was an honest mistake and not
a flagrant violation of our codes that they could
recommend approval. Then if the City was to approve
it they would be likely to obtain the deed and easements.
Callahan stated that they should deny it but that the
City can not legally force him to sign, all they can
do is request it.
Goetten stated that they were not "approving" what was done,
nor have they in the past, but that their prime concern
is for the future of this wetlands area and that in
"approving this conditional use permit and obtaining a
flowage and conservation easement, the City will now have
control over this sensitive area".
Rovegno read from the Zoning Code Section 32.460. He
stated that they did not have the findings to recommend
approval, and that if there was no practical way to
solve it why approve it?
Opheim stated that they should have tagged him right
away. If the City wants the deed then approve the
conditional use permit and they are more likely to
get it. «
Rovegno stated again that the applicant was in violation
of the wetlands ordinance and all the City's policies
on dredging.
Planning Commission asked staff to get the City Attorney's
opinion regarding the City's postion in relation to "after
the fact" conditional use permits.
i •
/•■ 'x: ^€\
■■■." v v > ‘ttt'Jf *-. '•'•».■■r; y*
-,i ,;v;. . .i*]
•V •• :. • ’ ;
ife-l;^.
mpm
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 5
Hammerel questioned why Thaxter wasn't tagged in the first
place? Mabusth explained that the majority of the people
don't understand the policies of the City and that it is
the policy of the City to wait for a specified period of
time once applicant is notified of violation if there is
no response to the warning the resident is issued a tag.
McDonald asked what the purpose of coming in for an "after
the fact" conditional use permit if they have already
done it anyway.
Adams suggested that Council consider tripling the fee
for "after the fact", applications and suggested tagging
be done immediately. ,
Vote: Ayes (^), Nays (3).
Minority Opinions:
Rovegno - He stated that no "after the fact" conditional
use permits should be approved in a designated wetlands
area regardless of the easement. The City still could
obtain the easement even if they denied it. He noted
that the applicant violated the wetlands ordinance and
the zoning code. Even if they denied they could condition
it so that the applicant would have to sign the quit
claim deed and conservation easement over the wetlands.
McDonald - She felt that he violated the City's wetlands
ordinance. She felt that the City could still obtain
the easement if denied.
Callahan - He concurred with the others.
Applicant was present. Mabusth noted that no action
could be taken on this application because the notices
were never sent out to the neighbors. She explained
that the envelopes were never received from the applicant
and that the City contacted his office, but no one ever
responded to the request. Applicant explained that he
was out of town and that he did not know.
Rovegno, being one of the neighbors, had no problems
with the application. He stated that the place had
never looked better than it does now.
(THAXTER' CONTv ) -
i.1
•y 'v :
• aiF /. -rw"
■■; c.= . :• A*
PAUL FAHLIN
1960 Shoreline Dr
Conditional Use
Permit
#661
Applicant asked the Planning Commission if they could
issue a permit to just operate the gas sales. Mabusth
noted with non conforming uses the City has always required
a conditional use permit for new ownership.
Hammerel explained the setback problem for the existing
L.P. tanks.
•4
i ; ’'J • '
CON®.) -i
i
IN
eline Dr
al Use
* ^W>yw iri»y V*^
m u
minutes op the planning commission meeting of NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 6
Mabusth asked the applicant for the proposed hours of
»peration? Applicant stated that they would be open
from 6:00 AM to 6:30 or 7:00 PM 7 days a week.
The applicant was asked about other sales that he would
have in the shop. Applicant stated that he would have
the same inventory plus gas and also cigarettes and
soft drinks.
Applicant stated that they had a 4 year lease and that
they could consequently operate a bait shop at two
locations.
Hammerel moved to table Paul Fahlin's application
until the neighbors are notified.
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Posnik and Mann were present. Mabusth noted that an
additional 5’ of right of way would be needed. Hurr
noted that there was a boat and dock without a principal
structure. She explained to them that this was in
violation of the code.
Rovegno noted the hardcover problem and that there wo\\ld
be an additional 1,000 sf if garage was not detached.
He suggested detaching the garage and putting it closer
’to the road and moving it back to meet the setback line.
He cautioned that the applicant had only 750 sf of
additional hardcover for a driveway.
Mabusth stated that tfie only response from the neighbors
was that they wanted to know if there would be a two
story house. Applicant explained that it would be a
two story basement walkout.
Mabusth explained that staff would take the average
lakeshore setback for the principal structures.
Rovegno moved to approve the lot area and lot width
variance for a lot of record which has not been held
in commonownership since January 1, 1975, and on the
following conditions:
Hardcover not to exceed 2385 sf
No other variances will be issued
5* additional right of way, quit claim deed
to City
No dock until certificate of occupancy is issued
Principal structure must meet average lakeshore
setback of abutting lots.
(FAHLIN eONT.)■f-rv-.'r
■ _
r ••• V * • • • •...
>. f . .
SCOTT MANN
1396 Baldur Park
Variance
#664
A- . V
fi
I
r 1. m.Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
m'
■ -w-TftrT ■
‘W
OH^., ) W.r
ur Park
« 4*• ^
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 7 m
Si
'?,n
No one was present to represent the church. Mabusth
noted that no septic testing was requirid but at the
time of the conditional use permit it would be required.
A public hearing was scheduled for December 7, 1981.
No action required.
Applicant was present. Some neighbors were present:
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Rokke of 180 Orono Orchard Road;
Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Edstrom of 190 Orono Orchard ".or^d.
Applicant explained that the antenna had the maximum
height of 70’2” but that he would only operate it at
65*. He noted that his proposed hours of operating
time would be late at night.
Mabusth noted that the 70* height should be one
consideration and that a 5'2” height variance would be
required.
Peterson stated that he would make the necessary
structural changes to permit a height of 65' only.
Goetten asked if what he proposed would be commercial
use or hobby use. Applicant stated that it would
be hobby use only. He noted that the FCC came to
the neighbors houses while he was using the antenna,
and there were no problems then. The FCC is rc^viuired
to correct any problems, and that the City is required
to review the structural stability of the proposed
structure.
Mr. and Mrs. Edstrom had many complaints with the
antenna interfering with their telephone. They
stated that they can not use the phone at all when
Mr. Peterson is using the transmitter. It also
has an effect on the radio and television. Edstrom*s
stated that the telephone company came out and put
attachments on their phone but that it didn't help
any.
Mr. and Mrs. Rokke noted that their interference
was mainly in their radio and television. They
have had some trouble with the telephone but not
as much as the radio and television.
Applicant stated that he had talked to the phone
company and they admitted it was the phone companies
problem. He noted that he had his hobby since he
was 11 years old and that he was very experienced.
He noted that he has never received any telephone
complaints before from others.
NEW LIFE BIBLE
CHURCH
830 Old Crystal
Bay Road
Subdivision
#662
TIMOTHY PETERSON
280 Orono Orchard
Conditional Use
Permit
#663
''''''''
^■i
mi-y m
m
...
im
•itr*i
m -h'^:
iilp::::;::: :'i
Ks?jji
iW:
Hurr noted that xr compxaxncs are recerveu jLjLuiit iicxyiijjv-»xo
that he should be required to correct the issue.
Applicant stated that it was the phone companies problem
and that he was willing to help solve problems with them.
_,^Mrs. Rokke stated that she had called Mr. Peterson and
Qthat he did not do anything.
Mabusth presented a petition containing 19 names complaining
about the antenna. Out of those 19 complaints, the FCC
investigated 2 of them.
McDonald stated that many of the neighbors could have signed
the petition based on aesthetic concerns for the neighborhood.
Applicant stated that they were not going back to the
issues of aesthetics. We have judicial means of handling
this. The complaints have the right to contact the FCC
or take legal action against him personally. He, as the
applicant, has the right to have the structure since
he has placed it in compliance of the code. He contacted
the FCC and let them check it out for themselves.
Peterson noted that the neighbors have the legal right
to complain and they have the right to take action
against him, but if it is just prejudice he will take
action against them. He has a legal right to have his
hobby as long as it is in compliance with Orono’s
codes and the FCC.
Opheim stated that they really have no say beyond
the scope of Orono ordinance. They can restrict
^heights but not frequencies. As long as the applicant
^is in compliance with the FCC he has a right to his
hobby.
i.- -' f
. .., •K:
:fcW
•111#L;W'
Wrtr
•)in«
*.*. ■ * ."••* ... ' •*. i- ■■•
V '•• :; ••. • •; „ .:,;v:;-
'' : •'.•!•- .•• ■■: •' • • • .*.•' \
KUZ9
MM
incn
‘k'Mw
^>:i;:V=Tr
Bb'V-s?:'-vc:;...
Mr>-Ky':y\:-mKw i
.■:
iJj.
Vjiju
. . ■ : ............................................................................................................ . ■ . : •■■ '. :■
Ml: '■■;
t.- . r--:^
•.•••■-. 7 .- /■ -*3 .:::■••
lil yyyy':.yy|»::;'>:v:-%;|l
,; lyy:'\y:yxy-y:y^y-yrym^:.
ys8:®««sAi»
^ • ::v=" :
AV . A' "• A..,--:.A V :-v:v^