Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1980 Planning MinutesI . :4r ^’iiiSiStip o f ■ ; ' '/:. AGENDA f»LANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. m < * CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL 1. Call to Order 6 Roll PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS 2. 7:30 P.M. #563 Stephen Ward, 4705 North Shore Drive - SUBDIVISION 3. 7:45 P.M. #571 Gregg Hannah, 3185 North Shore Drive - SUBDIVISION ACTION ITEMS 4. #456 Wolsfeld Lake Compamy, Brown Road & County Road 6 - FINAL SUBDIVISION 5. #546 Jack Rhode, 1410 Bohns Point Road - VARIANCE 6. #572 Donald W. Nelson, 2705 Walters Port Lane *- VARIANCE 7. #573 Erwin Martin, 3360 Shoreline Drive - COMMERCIAL BUILDING PLAN REVIEW 8. Pl2uining Commission recommendation regarding two vac2mcies on the Commission. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 9. #574 James MacKinnon, 3468 Lyric Avenue - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. Meeting of July 7, 1980 ■ L' >• I m Siii MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 The Planning Cominission met on the above date. Present were the following members: Chairman Hammerel, Adams, Frahm, Jabbour and McDonald. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE 7:30 P.M. Hammerel announced the Public Information Meeting for Stephen Ward's metes £uid bounds division of property located at 4705 North Shore Drive. Mabusth noted she had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing. Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Ward and Mr. Dennis Meyer, 4680 North Shore Drive, were present. STEPHEN WARD 4705 No. Shore Dr. 1 SUBDIVISION Public Info. Mtg. 7:30 P.M.-7:45 P.M. (#563) Adeuns asked that the reason for the subdivision be clearly stated for the public record. Mabusth stated that Mr. Ward is requesting a lot line realignment between his property and his western neighbor, Steve Major. The subdivision will correct the zero lot line setback of Mr. Ward's residence £uid give him the required 10' side yard. The Plauining Commission questioned Staff's recommendation concerning the off-street parking requirements placed upon the applicant since thib is just a subdivision application. They questioned any connection between the parking concerns of staff and this subdivision, and felt this should not be noted as a condition of approval, but a concern that should be worked out with staff. Mabusth stated that a site inspection of the property revealed the residents use of parking was in direct violation of the City's ordinances. She reminded them that this was the neighbor to the west of Dave Butler. The Wards park at graveled vertical stalls, portions of which are located within the County Highway Department's right-of-way and require backing onto County Road 19 creating a hazardous condition. If the Pleuining Commission does not feel this should be noted as a condition of approving the subdivision than at least we have made it a part of the public record and staff will deal with applicant to enforce the ordinance. m •mtfm^rnvy MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 2 Adams moved to recommend approval of the lot line realignment subdivision of Stephen Ward based on the following findings: 1. Correct existing setback problems for the principal and accessory structure STEPHEN WARD 4705 No. Shore Dr. SUBDIVISION Public Info. Mtg. (#563) Cont. 2. Division will not create setback variances for Major's property 3.Applicant may now maintain his property and structures without encroaching on neighbor's property based on the following conditions: That the smaller parcel, legally described on the Certificate of Survey, be combined with the Ward property Adams added that Council should be aware of parking use at the Ward property. Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Hammerel announced the Public Information Meeting for the subdivision application for Gregg H2uinah. Mabusth noted for the record she had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing. The applicant was not present and there was no one in the audience to address the application. The Planning Commission found no problems and had no questions concerning the proposed subdivision. GREGG HANNAH 3185 No. Shore Dr. SUBDIVISION Public Info. Mtg. 7:45 P.M.-7:50 P.M. (#571) H£unmerel moved to recommend approval of Gregg Hannah's application of a metes and bounds division proposing a lot line realignment of Darrell K. Stewart's property based on the following findings: 1. division reflects natural topographic lot lines 2. will not create setback variances 3. Hannah's substandard lot will be increased in area subject to the following condition: 1. Newly created lot must be combined with Hannah's property to the west. Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0) . Motion passed unanimously. aSSSM r;- ■ 1 MtNUTES OP A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 3 Mabusth reviewed the subdivision for the Commission because of the lengthy time lapse since this body recommended preliminary approval. Adams questioned the logic behind not requiring a park dedication fee for a newly created residential lot ~ wouldn't a new residential lot result in an additional burden on the City park system? Mabusth stated that since a major portion of the land involved in the subdivision was donated to the State for nature purposes, Council had waived the normal park fee WOLSFELD LAKE CO. Brown Rd & Cty Rd S\ FINAL SUBDIVISION i (#456) ! Fredim moved to recommend approval of the Wolsfeld Lake Company's plat subject to the findings and conditions cited in the staff resolution prepared for this meeting Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Jack Rhode and James Swenson were present. There were no other persons present to address this application. Staff noted for the record that Mr. Becker, Mr. Busse and all others on the Property Owners list had been notified of this PC meeting b^ mail, and that this date of review was publicly announced at the June 30, 1980 Council meeting. Swenson presented to the Commission a revised site plan that he observed was a direct result of a conversation with the City Planner. Olson advised him that the original plan submitted with this application would require a lakeshore setback and a side yard setback variance cuid a major hardcover variance of 17fs%. JACK RHODE 1410 Bohns Pt. Rd. VARIANCE (#546) Swenson reviewed the new plan noting all setback problems have been corrected cUid that the hardcover has been reduced to £ui even lesser extent than the plan submitted in 1977. Frahm confirmed that the hardcover appeared to be 3% over the allowed 25% - the 1977 site plan would have required an 8% variance. Hammerel asked staff to review the policy of the City in regards to gravel driveways and hardcover. Mabusth noted in 1977, the City's poli*:!y was to not consider gravel areas as hardcover and as a result the original application did not require a hardcover variance. Since then, policy has chcuiged to so include gravel driveways as hardcover. Today, a review of the 1977 application would require a hardcover variance of 8%. Swenson called attention to Judge Nicholson's review of the intent of the average lakeshore setback provision of Section 34.202 of the Orono Code. He reviewed the origins of the four designated setback lines A-D and noted that only two of those lines applied to the review of this application: B, the lakeshore setback line and D, a line designating the front line of the Becker house as extended across the Rhode property. MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 4 Jabbour added that the Lauers have written a letter stating no objection to the location of the house on the site 2uid based on Nicholson's review it is the neighbor to the north that we must protect. JACK RHODE 1410 Bohns Pt. Rd. VARIANCE (#546) Cont. Swenson noted that one of the findings of fact cited by Nicholson was that Line D was determined to not impair the view of the lake from the Becker house. Planning Commission agreed that Line D appeared to protect the interests of both property owners by not impairing their views and by allowing the applicant to construct a house comparable in value to his neighbors. A 1 , > Frahm questioned the 8' high deck extending 5' beyond the D line. According to the Zoning Code this deck would be considered a structure and subject to setback requirements. Planning Commission reviewed the front line of the Becker house and noted that portions of the main structure extend beyond the D line. Mabusth was asked how she would determine the lakeshore setback for the Becker house. She stated that a measurement would be taken of a line drawn from that portion of the house extending the farthest into the setback area. The D line to6k into consideration the view from the side windows of that lakeshore extension on the Becker house. Planning Commission doubted whether the 5* extension of Rhode's deck given the natural screening would interfere with the Becker view of the lake. Adams moved to recommend approval of plan #546, per revised plan received at meeting July 21, 1980, designating line D as the setback line, limiting hardcover to 3% variance emd further finding that 8' high deck extending 5' beyond the D line not require a variance because the Becker house extends more than 5' beyond the D line. The Planning Commission based their recommendation on the following findings: 1. We find that comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and health considerations such as sewer £uid nearby lot development have not changed since 1977. Therefore, there is no change in the buildability status of the lot. fSSSTi m MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 5 2. We find that the new plan does conform to the 75 foot lakeshore setback. 3. We find that the new plan does conform to the 10 foot side and 30 foot rear yard setbacks of the LR-lB district. JACK RHODE 1410 Bohns Pt. Rd. VARIANCE (#546) Cont. 4. We make the following findings concerning the purpose of the average lakeshore setback provisions of Section 34.202: a) to protect the views of the neighbors toward the lake. b) to protect the views of the new building toward the lake. Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (5) , Nays (0). Motion passed un2uiimously. Donald Nelson was present. Mabusth reviewed the variance application noting that originally the application was to cover the Nelson's request to extend a portion approximately 6* into the 75* setback area. The reviewing process disclosed the need for a hardcover variance for the entire patio area being constructed. Planning Commission reviewed the unique hardship condition of this property. The lot is the low point of the Walters Port neighborhood. The steep slopes of the adjacent properties create severe drainage problems in heavy rains. Nelson notes the water rushes down the slopes like a river and seems to collect to the east of the hoiise. The majority of the runoff disappears within minutes, but in a wet season the east side of the property will have standing water. The east portion of the lot, adjacent to the Reese property, is the principal retention area on the property. The applicant stated that all outdoor activities on a property like this must be limited to a paved area The request to extend into that specific section of the lakeshore setback area was an attempt to gain additional sunlight. The only sunlight for the property comes in the late afternoon and does not extend to the rear of the house. The new patio, approximately 80* X 20', 1,600 s.f., replaces an old patio area of 324 s.f. The existing hardcover on the property was already 3% in excess of hardcover. DONALD NELSON 2705 Walters Pt. Ln. VARIANCE (#572) T ' • I .. . . . . MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 6 PAGE 5 The patio under construction, excluding the 6' X 20* portion into the lakeshore setback area, will require an additional 7% or total 11% hardcover variance. Adcuns moved to recommend approval of the hardcover variance for the Donald Nelsons based on the findings that: 1. the lot is approxgj as a building site 2. the unique elevation and drainage character of the lot, and subject to the following conditions: 1. no hardcover is allowed within the 0-75' setback area DONALD NELSON 2705 Walters Pt. Ln VARIANCE (#572) Cont. .SOM !rs Pt. Ln 2. the approved patio cannot exceed a 11% total hardcover variance 3. no additional hardcover permitted on the property unless a similar amount is removed 4. drainage changes or additional tiling shall be reviewed by staff and the City engineer. Motion seconded by Frahm, Vote: Ayes C5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Tom Martin and Dick Freeborn, the applicant's engineer, were present. The Martins propose construction of an additional bay 31' X 24' on the northeast side of the existing structure. The side yard setback on Navarre Lane side is 7.5'. Two options were presented to the applicant. Apply for a street side yard setback variance of 27.5' - Commission cautioned of the difficulty in getting such an excessive variance approved, or complete the vacation application submitted last year and conceptually approved by Council at their February 11, 1980 meeting. The members agreed the site plan provided adequate area for the proposed expansion in use and cited the need for additional screening. Frahm moved to recommend approval of the request of Erwin Martin to construct a 31' X 24' addition subject to the applicant completing the vacation of Navarre Lane and submitting a landscape plan to be reviewed by Staff. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. ERWIN MARTIN 3360 Shoreline Dr. Commercial Building Pleui Review (#573) m MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 21, 1980 - PAGE 7 i ( Mr. MacKinnon was present. The appliccuit presented his request to divide three lots, each 50* X 130* into two residential units. He explained one lot would be slightly under because of an existing garage that must meet the 10* side setback. He noted two water units had been charged and paid and that each of the lots was stubbed for sewer. He stated he was aware of the minimum area requirement of a 1/2 acre, but noted the majority of the existing houses on the subject block were built on 50* X 130* lots. Planning Commission advised the applicant that they are aware of the pattern of neighborhood development and felt it was far too congested with severe parking and traffic problems. The 1/2 acre zoning standard will prevent additional burdens on a severely limited neighborhood. Applicant should remember that the majority of rhe existing residences were there before the zoning standards were established. McDonald noted water unit assessments were never subject to a zoning review and advised he could apply for a refund. Hammerel advised the applicant that a vote is not called for with this type of application and cautioned that if a subdivision application is filed, this body would recommend denial. JAMES MACKINNON 3468 Lyric Avenue SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan Review (#574) David Bie asked the Planning Commission to conceptually review an office building projeot that he would like to construct on the corner of Lyric and Shadywood, northwest quaframt. The Planning Commission noted the lot was considerably under the area requirement of 20,000 s.f. Jabbour advised the parking requirements should be reviewed by staff since the proposal reflected 200 s.f. to one stall. This is a B-1 zone and doesn*t Council require the more restrictive interpretations of the code by requiring 150 s.f. to one stall. McDonald stated for the record that she would oppose a commercial use like this so close to a residential neighborhood. Bie stated that he was informed the property had been rezoned to residential and a legal action zoned it back to B-1. Plcuining Coimnission asked that the applicant submit proof of the Court action euid that a survey was necessary for a complete review. APPEARANCE DAVID BIE 'V