Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-1989 Planning Minutesr. ■‘ft / r-. imniTBS OP THR PIANNIliG C SSION ITING JAHUARY 17, 1989 AYTBHDAVCB 7:00 P.N. The Orono Planning Coninlssion met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Johnson, Bellows, Brown, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. The following represanted the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Goetten was also present. #1366 LORBH BUTTERFIELD 3925 WATERTOm ROAD CLASS II PRELIMIEARY SUBDIVISIOH PUBLIC BEARIBG 7:00 P.M. - 7:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Butterfield was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Butterfield was requesting to subdivide a 5** acre dry buildable lot from a 17 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing to use Out lot C, which is 28* in width, as an access to the new lot. The accessory structures on Lot 1 will no longer meet a 10* side setback, but will be only 1* from the new side lot line. Outlot A and Lot 2 will be subject to a special lot combination, yielding a 5-acre parcel that cannot be separated. The DNR has indicated that they have no specific setback requirements from the Luce Line Trail. Chairman Kelley asked whether the lot to the south of the Luce Line could ever be accessed from the south. Mr. Butterfield stated that he had a right-of-way agreement with the DNR to allow crossing the trail. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked for the combined total of Outlots B and A? Gaffron replied that it would total approximately 3.5 dry acres. Bellows expressed her concern about the Luce Line Trail dividing the property.Mr.Butterfield interjected that the Luce Line was in a deep cut at that location.Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned the ramifications of dividing the property in such a way. Gaffron explained that the code section allowed 5 acres to be split into 2 parcels that are not contiguous as long as the building site has a minimum of 2 acres. Another code section addresses the issue of a lot being split by a road or road easement. This would bring forth the question of whether the Luce Line would be considered a public road or a public road easement. Bellows, Hanson and Kelley expressed their concerns and reservations about the involvement of the Luce Line in the subdivision. Bellows asked whether building restrictions could be placed upon the lots to the south of the Luce Line. Her main •f MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE «1366-BOTTBRFIBLD CONTIN1 objective was to discourage any further crossing of the Luce Line. Kelley asked whether it was the concensus of the Planning Commission to have Out lot B combined with Lot 1, and combine Outlot A with Lot 2. Hanson asked Mr. Butterfield why Outlot B did not go with Lot 2. Mr. Butterfield replied that he wanted to maintain access wO Lot 2. Gaffron observed that Outlot A would only be accessible by foot, given that the crossing easement would not be within the new lot. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to consider whether there were any alternatives to this proposal. Kelley recollected an application where access was allowed through a wetland area. Mabusth reminded Kelley that the DNR would not allow such an access since alternatives were available. Kelley commented that Outlot A was landlocked. Brown mentioned that the building envelope for Outlot A was severely limited. Planning Commissioner Hanson commented that after thorough consideration, he had no problems with this application, with the exception of setting forth a specific provision pertaining to access. Setback requirements were another issue to be considered. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission should determine setbacks from the Luce Line, since the lot configuration both sides of the Luce line made questionable the interpretation of which is the "rear" lot line. The other setback concern involved the fact that the greenhouse would be located only 1* from Outlot C. Kelley observed that the Luce Line Trail was staked considerably wider than the trail that is actually travelled. Bellows added that the Trail was actually 100 ft., though the travelled portion was only 10 ft. Cohen believed that the setback from the Luce Line should be 100 ft. All other Planning Commissioners concurred. Johnson suggested designating Outlot C as a driveway easement to resolve the problem with the greenhouse location. The remaining Planning Commissioners agreed that would solve the problem. Gaffron stated that such a solution would not provide the City with any access for future development of adjacent lots. Bellows noted that this was a special condition and where Outlot C could normally be considered a driveway easement, it should be designated as an outlot only for future planning considerations. Gaffron stated that technically a 10' lot width variance would be required due to the property not meeting the width requirement at a point 100' back from the right-of-way. In addition, the City Engineer had suggested that the existing access where Outlot C and Watertown Road intersect may need to be realigned so it would be perpendicular to Watertown Road. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZCMIMG PILE «1366>B11TTBRFIBLD CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Brown mentioned the fact that the percolation testing had not yet been done. Gaffron stated that soil borings were taken and preliminary testing indicates that the soils were typical for the area. Before Mr. Butterfield can obtain a building permit, the perc tests must be performed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of application #1366. Approval would be subject to staff recommendations 1 through 7, and in addition thereto, that no structures be built upon the area south of the Luce Line. Kelley clarified that no building could begin until positive results were obtained from septic tests. Gaffron added that this matter would not go before the Council for final plat approval until such time as those results were determined. Motion, Ayes»6, Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. #1334 SIDNEY RBBBRS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT/PRD AND « CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Rebers was present for this matter, as was Mr. Stephen Pflaum and Mr. Robert Kost, representing Mr. Rebers. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed for the Planning Commission the reason why Mr. Rebers was back before them. The City Council, at their December 12, 1988, meeting, had amended the subdivision proposal to have only 4 lots along the northern property line rather than 6. This realignment would cause the pad size on each of those four lots to increase considerably. The Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission to have them review and determine if there was a need for additional controls on those lots because of the larger sized building pads. CounciImember Goetten clarified that she wanted the building pads on those 4 lots decreased to limit the size of homes that could be built. Planning Commissioner Bellows believed that five lots would have been a more equitable solution. She stated that in nearly all subdivisions, lots had their narrow dimension to the street and were deeper. This allowed for more lots and less street frontage^ By using a 4-lot proposal, there has been a creation of "abnormal lots” because they have more width than depth. This would allow for more density in that area than five lots would have allowed. It was her suggestion that this matter be forwarded on to the Council with a recommendation that there be 5 lots along the northern boundary. Planning Commissioner Johnson concurred. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked for a comparison of lot MIKUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZOaniG FILE «1334-RBBBRS COMTIEUBD sizes and building envelopes between the 4 lot proposal and 2- acre lots. Mr. Kost said a 2-acres would yield a lot size approximately 80,000 s.f., which would allow 60,000 s.f. of building pad area. The largest 2 lots in the original plat have a lot size of 54,500 s.f, building pad of 21,400 s.f., and 50,800 s.f. and building pad of 20,600 s.f. Lot 1 of the 4 northern lots is 52,400 s.f. with a pad size of 20,800 s.f.; Lot 2 would allow for a building pad of 23,000 s.f.; Lot 3 would have a building pad of 20,600; Lot 4 would allow for a building pad of 17,200. Kost commented that these 4 lots are more in conformance with the larger lots approved in the original plat. Mr. Kost observed that as the size of the building pad it becomes more difficult to control where on the property the house is to be located. This would also make it more difficult to preserve the maximum number of trees, which is one of the main objectives of the proposal. He reminded everyone, however, that the total amount of hardcover in the entire development would not change more than 1,000 to 2,000 s.f. Bellows agreed, but added that there would be a change in the number of protected strips between each lot, due to the decrease in lots. Kelley suggested adding more width to each strip of trees between each lot. Kost said that he had discussed an increase in the sideyard setbacks of lots 2, 3, and 4 with Mr. Rebers. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that there be a 40' sideyard setback on each side of the shared lot lines between lots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4. Chairman Kelley asked about restrictions pertaining to accessory structures. Mr. Kost said that the covenants would address that issue. Mr. Pflaum added that the concept of the building pads was to leave as many trees as possible. The original plan was to allow only a house and a detached or attached garage, nothing more. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed her belief that building height limitations were inappropriate in that they restricted the design and function of the house. She believed that there should be no further restrictions beyond the 30* limitation. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of application #1334 topographic and building pads. Lots 1 through 4 as follows; 1. That 80% of the building pad may be hardcover; 2. That the sideyard setbacks that have been identified between lots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 be increased from 30' to 40'; 3. That no accessory structures of any kind, be allowed. Mr. Kost asked that rather than excluding accessory structures MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZOanK PILE fl334-RBBBRS CORINDED entirely, if that issue could be addressed in the final homeowner document. Kelley asked whether the Planning Commission would see the homeowner document? Mabusth replied that the Planning Commission would see the subdivider’s agreement and the covenants. Kelley rescinded his portion of the motion pertaining to accessory structures. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes»6, Johnson, Nay due to his preference not to restrict the subdivision any further by increasing the sideyard setbacks; Motion passed. *1359 DAVID LlflDSTROM 1315 WOODHILL AVBHUB VARIAHCBS PUBLIC HEARIB6 8s05 P.N. “ 8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter, as was Mr. Steve Sather, the applicants* developer. Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that an amended site plan had been submitted showing the proposed deck location to be on the east side of the property. The street setback, originally thought to be required, will not be necessary. The only variance required will pertain to the separation setback required between the garage and porch addition. Chairman Kelley's opinion was that the garage should be attached to the addition. Mr. Sather explained that could not be done due to the garage having a floating foundation. It would also limit the size and purpose of adding the porch. The applicants are trying to have an open room and minimize looking out the back wall of the house into the garage and maintain a porch-like atmosphere. Planning Commissioner Brown asked whether the addition could be located on another side of the house? Mabusth explained that there was steep topography and the septic system that limited expansion to the east. The location of the well on the west side would prevent expansion in that direction. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked why the mud room and porch could not be interchanged? Jane Delaney explained that such an arrangement would not fit in with the present layout of the house. Mr. Sather gave a brief explanation of the floor plan of the existing house. Bellows believed that there were other alternatives to this proposal. Planning Commissioner Johnson concurred with the applicants regarding the limited area in which the porch could be built. Brown concurred with Johnson. Kelley stated that one of the hardships would be the garage located on a floating slab. Mabusth explained that such a MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COIttilSSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZOHIHG PILE il359-LI«DSTROM COHTIM1 hardship would be merely financial and should not be considered. She cited the topography to the east, the well location, the undesirable aspect of expanding into the street yard area. Bellows asked about the restrictions involved with expanding south from the mud room. Mr. Lindstrom replied that the driveway was located in that area. Planning Commissioner Hanson interjected that such a proposal would interfere with the well. Kelley confirmed that the addition would not be any closer to the garage than 6*. Hansen wanted confirmation that the fire codes would be adhered to. Mabusth replied in the affirmative and added that the windows would need to be examined for compliance with fire codes. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of application #1359, with the variance setback of 4* between the garage and the porch, subject to staff recommendations. Motion, Ayess4, Nays»3 (Kelley, Bellows, Cohen) due to their belief that other options could have been explored. Motion passed. * :i:CHARLTON#1360 ROBERT NERXOif 6 J( 2340 6 2380 ABINGDON NAT VACATION OP EASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 8:21 P.N. - 8:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations 1 through 4. Motion, Ayes»7, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1361 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 980 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD VACATION OP BASEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:23 P.M. - 8:25 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Tom Haislet was present as a representative for the Orono School District. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 SOMIH6 FILE #13€l-ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT COHTIN1 It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, to allow the vacation the drainage and utility easements as described on Exhibit C, based on the findings of the staff as set forth in their proposal. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays»0, Motion passed. *1362 PAUL HAUSER 2801 CASCO POIHT ROAD VI^RXAKnSS PUBLIC HEARIH6 8:25 P.M. - 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter, as was Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter, the applicants' developer. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this was a request for variances to construct an addition and decking to an existing residence. A variance will be required for hardcover in the 250-500' zone. An average lakeshore setback variance will also be required. Chairman Kelley clarified that even though the applicant was allowed credit for unused hardcover allowance in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones, he still exceeded the limit by 417 s.f due to excessive hardcover in the 250-500' zone. Kelley suggested that hardcover be removed from the garage area. Mr. Hauser indicated that the portion of hardcover to the north of the garage was of least importance and could be removed. Planning Commissioner Hanson inquired as to the size of the garage doors. Mr. Hauser replied that they were standard size for a two-car garage. Hanson suggested removing a portion of the access to achieve the 417 s.f. Mr. Hauser felt that would not be necessary. Kelley suggested allowing the applicant to remove the 417 s.f. from any location he chose. Gaffron explained that there was a curve on Casco Pointy that limited sight distance from Mr. Hauser's driveway. He believed it would be best, from a safety standpoint, to maintain a turn­ around area in Mr. Hauser's driveway. Bellows concurred, adding that the 417 s.f. removal could be achieved by taking hardcover from the north of the garage, and a small portion from south of garage. Mr. Hauser stated that he required the area to the south for additional parking. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested removal of the walkway in the front of the house. Mr. Hauser stated that he would remove the 417 s.f. and leave the turn­ around . Planning Commissioner Cohen stated that in his opinion, the average lakeshore setback variance should not be allowed. He believed the City had been consistent in upholding the average. Gaffron said that he had not received any letters from concerned neighbors, nor were any present for this meeting. Kelley asked MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 198^ 11HIZONING PILE «1362-HAOSBR CONTIN1 the applicant if he had discussed this proposal with his neighbors? Mr. Hauser replied that he had and the neighbor to the south had no objections. Mr. Schoenwetter explained that the neighbor to the north had no opinion, mainly because he was selling his house and moving to Florida. Bellows commented that the "leap frogging" circumstance was typically considered when reviewing average lakeshore setbacks. She questioned what would happen to the property directly north of Mr. Hauser's. Gaffron depicted the lakeshore setbacks for the properties to the north. Kelley observed that if one were to draw a line between the two houses on the north to the south, it would run out into the lake. The same would occur on the south side. This is typical of properties located on points or peninsula's, as is this prop«»rty. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of application #1362, subject to a hardcover reduction of 417 s.f. from whatever source available, and to approve the average lakeshore setback as defined. The hardships of this application would be the property being located on the point and the addition being 160' from the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=0, Motion passed. ^ #1363 ROGER 6 BECKY BERRY 1392 BALDOR PARK ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. ~ 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, the Berry's were seeking variances in order to demolish an existing residence and rebuild. Currently the hardcover on the property consists of a detached garage, as well as a driveway that continues uphill to the existing house. The proposal calls for a new residence with a porch, deck and attached garage. The driveway would remain in the same area, but would become slightly steeper. It is the intention of the Berry's to maintain the detached garage. In order to access the new, attached garage, it will be necessary to raise a portion of the yard by bringing in fill in the south 0-75' zone. The Berry's are proposing a walk­ out which will requ^e grading to be done within the north 0-75' zone. One of the reasons the Berry's preferred not to locate the house further back to meet the average setback, is to preserve a mature red oak tree. Gaffron said it would be necessary to make a 2' cut in order to achieve the walk-out. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed her reservations of 8 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 »l :-t»ZOHIMG PILE «1363-BBRRT CONTIW allowing variances for a new residence. She felt that a walk-out should only occur as a result of the existing topography of the lot, otherwise another plan should be used. This would be especially true if grading in the 0-75' zone were necessary to achieve a walk-out. Mr. Berry explained that the walk-out would not create that much difference than the existing basement. Mr. Rod Lund, the Developer for the Berry's, presented photographs showing the existing residence, garage and the oak tree. He gave a brief description of what he was proposing to accomplish. Planning Commissioner Hanson did not believe the proposed house fit well with the site. Hanson questioned whether the oak tree would survive the construction. Mr. Lund had consulted a professional who informed him that the tree would bend toward its roots, hence this tree appeared to have its main roots away from the area to be disturbed. He also had an estimate from a tree service that valued such a tree at $4,400.00. Planning Commissioner Johnson believed that any grading that occurred would threaten the oak tree. Planning Commissioner Brown said that the Planning Commission had been fairly consistent in making new structures conform. Johnson commented that Baldur Park Road was a unique area that seemed to consistently require variances. However, due to the 3/4 acres that the Berrys had to work with, he did not believe there should be a need for variances. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to table this item. Kelley provided some direction for the applicants. The Planning Commission did not want to see any hardcover or cutting and filling on the north side in the 0-75'. Within the 0-75' zone on the south side the attached garage must be offset by removal of the detached garage. Mr. Berry expressed his desire to build a three-car garage if the detached garage had to be removed. Within the 75-250' zone it was the concensus of the Planning Commission not to allow more than 30% hardcover. They also wanted the applicants to adhere to the average lakeshore setback. Bellows informed the applicants that compliance with the Planning Commission's requests would cause a substantial reduction in the size of the house. Kelley suggested that a footprint be drawn prior to an actual house plan. The applicant questioned the Planning Commission's opinion regarding the walk-out. Kelley stated that they would not allow a walk-out to be cut on the north side if it required grading in the 0-75* zone. The natural contours of the property must remain. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays*0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 #1364 BDWIH GAGS 480 TOHKAWA ROAD COHDITIOHAL DSB PBRMIT/VARIAHCB PUBLICS HEARING 9:00 P.N. - 9:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dale Gustafson, a representative for the applicant, was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was seeking approval to construct a 6* wide access/walJcway through a wetland area partially in the u- 75' lakeshore setback zone. Gaffron showed the Planning Commission where the proposed walkway would be located. The 6' width exceeds the 4* standard and would therefore require a 2* variance in addition to a conditional use permit. The walkway would consist of wood and wood posts that would extend approximately 187*. Chairman Kelley asked how the property owners currently accessed the existing dock. Mr. Gustafson said that currently the only way to access the dock is by using a neighboring property. Planning Commissioner Bellows inquired as to the hardship for the 6* width as opposed to the standard 4*. Mr. Gustafson explained that the 6* would offer more stability and would provide more walking room and safety. Gaffron questioned whether railings would be added to the walkway in the future. Mr. Gustafson replied that the owner would rather not install railings. Bellows asked why the walkway did not continue all the way to the seasonal dock as opposed to stopping at the little knoll? She bell''*^e0 there would be a risk of the water level rising, making that area unpassable. Mr. Gustafson stated that to the owner's knowledge, that area had never been under water. Bellows questioned whether there were any future plans to put a gazebo or storage shed in that spot? Mr. Gustafson, replied that the owner had no such intentions. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1364, the hardship being the safety aspect of the 2 additional feet. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=3 (Kelley, Bellows, Cohen), Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 #1365 MARTY B. SCHMBIDBR 2180 MORTH SHORB DRIVE COHDITIOHAL USB PBRMIT/VARIAMCB PUBLIC HBARIMG 9:11 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter, as was Mr. John Stockman, a Board Member for the Art Center of Minnesota. Zoning Administrator Mabusth briefly reviewed this application. Mr. Schneider was seeking a conditional use permit and variances for the purpose of converting the Old Hill School into a duplex. Mabusth showed the proposed floor plan for levels one and two. Mr. Schneider did meet with the City's Building Inspector, and based on preliminary proposal, there was no problem with the stucture meeting all fire and building code standards. The plat map shows the 1350* setback from the B2, nearest commercial zone. The standards for a duplex do not require that all lot standards be satisfied. If the Planning Commission feels that the duplex use is a more intense use than the school use. Section 10.03, Subdivision 4 would require that substandard lot standards be addressed. The performance standards for a duplex state that a commercial or industrial zone must be adjacent to the duplex property and duplex must be built 200* from that zone. The 1986 application of Margaret Bjork is similar to Mr. Schneider's current proposal. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned why Mr. Schneider, not the Art Center, was the applicant in this matter. Mr. Schneider replied that he had a signed purchase agreement. He informed Bellows that Mr. Stockman was present to answer any questions that may have to do with the Art Center. Bellows questioned how this application would affect the Art Center's parking and setback requirements. Mabusth replied that the subdivision would have a definite affect if division occurred along lot lines 5 and 6. Mabusth added that Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 all have separate property identification numbers. It was her understanding that Lot 4 would be included in the sale of property to Mr. Schneider. Mabusth also noted that the City could not allow division of this property without maintaining a minimum 50' setback to the Art Center structure. The issue of parking was briefly discussed, but it was determined that issue did not have any bearing on Mr. Schneider's application. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the hardship for the duplex use. Mr. Schneider stated that there was quite a bit of confusion on behalf of the citizens as to his plans. Mr. Scheider clarified that he held the contingency for the purchase agreement, not the Art Center. Should the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the duplex use, it was still up^ to Mr. Schneider as to whether or not he would purchase the building. I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 II ■(»ZONING FILE #1365-SCHNBIDBR CONTIN He intends to keep the exterior of the building as is. In his opinion, he was lessening the intensity of use of the Old Hill School. Mr. Schneider also intended to register the property with the Historic Preservation Society which would forever reguire the building to remain in tact. He agreed that he was seeking an ambitious variance, but he believed the^ building lent itself to the proposed use. He also stated,^ that in his opinion, he would not be appearing before the Planning Commission if the Art Center and citizens were able to finacially support the Old Hill School. He believed it would be in the best interest of the Art Center to concentrate all activities into one building. He said that the size of the building would be more suitable for a duplex, rather than a single family dwelling. He said that he would consider the fact that there was far more square footage than he would require to be his hardship. Mr. Stockman informed the public and Planning Commission that the Art Center of Minnesota was having some significant financial difficulties. He said that the community has not been supporting them as well as they did in the past. One of the solutions to their financial problems is to dispose of excess property. The Art Center cannot afford to support the Old Hill School and consequently, must sell it. If the Art Center does not sell the school to someone who will use it for its current purpose, then it must be used in a non—conforming purpose. He said that any use, other than a single family dwelling, would be non—conforming, and there were no offers from anyone to purchase it for that use. He said that the group headed by Mr. Hillegass would have to obtain a change in zoning to use the building for commercial use. He said if they want to use the building as a school, they would have to go through great deal of trouble with the IRS and State of Minnesota to qualify as a school. , Mr. Jim Hillegass stated that his group has presented the Art Center with an offer to use the Old Hill School as a children's creative and dramatic art center. He said their offer was similar to Mr. Schneider's offer, yet Mr. Schneider's offer was accepted. He believed the reason for this to be that their intended use would compete with the activities of the Art Center. He said his group had no intention of competing with the Art Center. Mr. Hillegass explained his involvement arose due to work that he had done to the Old Hill School 12 years ago. He said the building had been in public service since it was built in 1892. He believed it was one of the few structures of its kind left in Orono and he wanted it to remain in public service as opposed to becoming privat ly owned. Kelley asked the Planning Commission to focus their attention only on the issue of zoning and variances. Ms. Ann Warner asked whether such an application should be treated differently due to the building being in public service for so long. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE «1365-SCHNBIDBR CONTIN1 Ms. Julie Peterson believed at one time that it was favorable to live near the Art Center. However, she has been very disappointed with the maintenance of the property. She thought the "Hillegass group" to be very motivated and well meaning, but questioned whether they would be able to keep the property maintained. She said that there was already considerable traffic and parking occurring due to the Art Center. She did not think that a duplex use would create any additional traffic or parking problems. Mr. Judd Dayton said that he was one of the four private individuals that has a second purchase agreement into the Art Center. He wanted to clear up any mis-communication that had occurred. He said that he wanted to cooperate as much as possible with the Art Center. It was not his intention to compete in any way, but wanted only to preserve the Hill School. Ms. Gail Harris asked what Mr. Schneider intended to do with the buTlding should the variance not be granted. Mr. Schneider said that it was his intention to purchase the building and use at least a portion of it for his own living space. He reiterated his desire to keep the exterior of the building intact and preserve it to the best of his ability because he valued property such as this. He invited any committee or group to aid or supervise him in his attempts to fully maintain and preserve the building. Ms. Joanne Rich stated that she it saddens her to see the building deteriorate. She said that it would be wonderful if Mr. Hillegass could purchase the property and restore it. Planning Commissioner Hanson inquired about the tennis courts. Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that a lot line rearrangement would have to occur once this application was resolved. Mr. Schneider stated that the original purchase agreement included lots 4, 5 and 6, and he indicated to the Art Center that he would like the tennis court included. As long as the parking criteria can be met, it is his intention to purchase those lots and through a lot line rearrangement attain the tennis courts. Mabusth mentioned the fact that the lots in question were never combined. Legally, the Art Center could sell them individually with the tennis court extending into property which they still own. The issue of the property lines could then be privately resolved at a later date. Bellows questioned whether the City would see to it that the remaining lots were combined. Mabusth said that with the idc line rearrangement, the City would ask for a complete inventory of parking, all existing improvements, and how the subdivision would affect the Art Center. Hanson then asked whether the Planning Commission could legally consider Mr. Schneider's application. Mabusth responded MIKUTES op the planning commission meeting JANUARY 17, 1989 II .-IIICmiWG FILE «1365-SCHHBIDBR COETIMl that if the Planning Commission declined the duplex use, they may act on the application immediately. If the matter were tabled, Mr. Schneider would bring the matter back with * e lot line rearrangement. Bellows commended everyone in attendance for the way in which they presented their concerns and facts involving this issue. She believed that the first order of business was to determine whether a duplex use was an intensification of use of the property. Kelley observed that should a duplex use be approved# a 4—car ^ara^® would be put on Lot 5. Hanson inquired as to the zoning for the Art Center Building. Mabusth stated that it was RR-IB, Rural Residential, with conditional use permits for school use and a non-conforming use for the food service. Johnson asked whether there would be a conditional use permit reguired for the duplex? Mabusth answered affirmatively. Bellows stated that the intensification of use must be based upon the zoning classification. Chairman Kelley stated that in his opinion, he could not see a duplex in that area. Brown concurred. Cohen stated that he did not like rental property there. Johnson stated that initially he agreed with the "Hillegass group". He now felt that if the building must be sold, it must be sold, but wanted to see it historically preserved. Brown stated that he could not see the hardship for the duplex use. Bellows concurred. The remaining Planning Commissioners concurred by stating that either they could not see the hardship or they did not like the aspect of rental property in that location. Mabusth advised that the code does not prohibit rental of a single-family residence. Mr. Schneider asked that this matter be tabled to allow him more time to investigate the opinions of the adjacent property owners. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to table this item. Motion, Ayes®7, Nays*0, Motion passed. PLAMMIliG COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to approve^ the Minutes of the November 21, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes«7, Nays^O, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commission member, James Hanson, would represent the Planning Commission at the February 13, 1989 City Council Meeting. •S MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ADJOUsnoniT The January 17, 1989 Planning Conmiission Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. % ■'4r vrrv ^ f . . . . . . .“■ ■, fv%f ■' - '!■>- 4P'< ' ‘'iA4E,‘^%i ■ ■ -km ? V