Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-1973 Planning Minutes€ VILLAGE OF ORONO Regular Meeting of the Planning Coninission, March 19, 1973 7:35 P.M.1 The Planning Coanission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Poisson, Elliott, Gasch, Guthrie, Kokesa, Kullberg, Paurus, and Van Nest Absent: Hays, Ryerse, and Searles. Hr. Kullberg departed the Council chaoibers at 7:35 P.M. Gasch moved, Elliott seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 1973» be approved. Motion, (7) - Nays (0). Chairman Poisson asked the Zoning Administrator to review for those present what transpired at the Commission work session. At tae work session. Mr. Van Nest presented the problems concerning height, density, and traffic generation that would occur as a result of tue IDS project. Mr. Van Nest was of the opinion that the request by IDS would require variances that could not be justified, and that the traffic generation would be so great that it would add further pressure to widen County Road #15. Mr. Paurus felt that the committee that had been appointed on March 13, 1973, to study the Navarre area should be allowed to present its findings before a final decision is made. Elliott moved, Poisson seconded, that the Navarre area committee present to the Planning Commission its finding at a special meeting to be held at 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, April 4, 1973, at the Village Council chambers, ilotioa, Ayes (^) - Nays (0). Chairman Poisson made reference to a letter submitted by Rolfe Worden, an attorney from the law firm employed by tlie Village. •Ir. Worden's letter states that a resolution suould stipulate tiiat Registered Land Survey 727 and Parcel A be only one building lot, and this resolution siiould be recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles. Guthrie moved, Gasch seconded, that the approval of the Fullerton division be conuitioned upon their fulfilling the provisions listed in *lr. Worden's letter, lotion. Ayes (7) - Nays (0). MINUTES IDS - NAVARRE DIVISION Fullerton iJ © MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 19, 1973 Since approval had already been given to the Cashin division by the Council and Planning Commission four years ago and this request meets all the current zoning requirements, it was determined that the Registered Land Survey should be approved. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, that the request to divide Auditors subdivision #169, Lot 1, into Parcel A and Parcel B, be approved. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0), Chairman Poisson expressed three concerns regarding the Guetzkow request: 1) that the soil borings were not taken where the house was to be constructed; 2) that a percolation test .'wo,...i *'e necessary to determine whether the land could adequately handle tae effluent from the two homes that would be constructed; and 3) that tae soil conditions would require a great deal of excavation--soil borings in the area indicate that for each foot you go down, you must go one foot out to slope the sides of the hole. Other commission members expressed a concern about the feasibility or desirability of building a house in this location since the letter from linnchaha Creek Watershed District recommended that the north 1/2 to 2/3 of the lot remain as a wetland area. Chairman Poisson moved, Gasch seconded, that approval of the division be based on : 1) the maintenance of the drainage along the western edge of the property in its natural state; 2) a report from a registered engineer indicating the land proposed for a drainfield is capable of handling two drainfields, and if it is not, the western lot should have a holding tank for the effluent--this report should also be approved by the Village Engineer; 3) that no fill be placed in an area that is more than ISO* from the shore of Browns Bay. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). Mrs. Elliott departed the Council Chambers at 8:30 P.:i. Because the lot that would be created in the Betts' request exceeds the lot width requirement for 1/2 acre lots, and because of the character of the neighborhood, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission tiiat a variance for lot area could be granted. Paurus moved, Guthrie seconded, that tiie request for a division and variance be approved. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). Page 2 DIVISION Cashin DIVISION Guetzkow DIVISION Guetzkow DIVISION 5 VARIANCE Betts € 0 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 19, 1973 Page 3 Mr. Ankeny expressed that he would have no objTOtion to combining Pcrcel B of his Registered Land Survey witii the rest of his property to the south to avoid land*locking the parcel. DIVISION Ankeny Van Nest noved, Gasch seconded, that approval of Mr. Ankeny's division be granted on the condition that he combine Parcel B with Lots 5 and 6 to the soutn. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). Gasch felt that the commission should first determine whether Mr. Lofrano's proposed garage would create too much hard cover on his lot. Since the concept of allowing a garage on ^h. Lofrano's property had already been approved by the Council and Planning Commission, it was felt that our only concern should be what kind of setback from the railroad property should be required. Chairman Poisson warned t]iat any sunken wall that is as close to a property line as indicated in I!r. Lofrano's proposal should be able to withstand more than normal stress requirements. Heavy equipment,such as trucks, on railroad property could cause the walls to buckle according to the cliairman. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, that a variance be granted subject to a survey showing that a minimum of one foot remain between the proposed garage and the rear property line. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). The Planning Commission agreed that Mr. Howell's property seemed to be more ideally suited for two homes rather than four because of the contour of the land. Gasch moved. Van Nest seconded, that the request be denied because the area and width variance would be too large, the natural contour of the land would be destroyed if four houses were constructed on this parcel, and also, smaller lots would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding one*acre lots. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). Mr. Potas explained to the Planning Commission that the scaled drawing of his new addition was incorrect and the overhang would not go over the property line, but would end approximately 3 inches inside his property. Mr. Potas told tlie Commission that he assumed (Continued) VARIANCE Lofrano DIVISION « VARIANCE Howell VARIANCE Potas :ilWUTES OF A REGULAR ^fEETING llELi) MARCH 19, 1973 that there would be no problea in getting a variance since he has hxs neighbor's approval so he has already purchased all the materials for construction. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, that Mr. Potas* reouest for a variance be denied because of insufficient setback. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0). Page 4 VARIANCE (Continued) Since the lots to the south of the Ogland property are small, Mrs. Gasch felt that a variance in lot area would not be unreasonable. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, that If Mr. Ogland*s lot had been owned in single separate ownership and not owned by the individual on Lot 142 to the south, the variance should be granted. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0). VARIANCE Ogland Chairman Poisson moved, Gasch seconded, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0). Respectfully submitted. ADJOURNMENT Dexter ?farston Zoning Administrator