Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1989 Planning MinutesMIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ATTENDANCB 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Conanission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley and Planning Couimissioners Brown, Hanson and Bellows. The following represented the City staff: Building and,Zoning Administrator Mabujth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Nettles was also present. *1475 JOHN MCOOffBLL 4045, 4105 AND 4135 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the proposal of Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen. Gaffron said that the City Attorney has preliminarily reviewed this application and has suggested that the City not file the subdivision until the issue involving an existing easement is resolved. Chairman Kelley noted that if it were not for the issue of the easement, this application would be straight fonward. Mr. Tom Owens, Attorney for Robert White, provided a brief history of the White property and adjacent properties. He said that he had discovered that the attempt to create an easement back in 1950/1960 resulted in an ineffective easement. He said that the title company that has insured the easement for the benefit of McDowell, Hayssen and Alt is trying to find some resolution. He said that Mr. White's position is that Mr. McDowell's proposed subdivision will not work without access to Bayside Road. Chairman Kelley asked why Mr. White had approved the construction of the Alt and Hayssen residences? Mr. Owens said that Mr. White was not aware of the extent of the easement at that time. Re said that a prominent Law Firm and Title Company had opined that there wan a proper easement, when in fact the easement was not properly established. He said that Hayssen, Alt and McDowell were placed on notice of this October 11, 1988. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Owens whether access would be cut off if Mr. McDowell decided not to go through with the subdivision? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBEB 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED Mr. Owens said that if there is no subdivision, one of Mr. White's options would be to blockade the road to get the attention of the neighbors. Kelley asked what would be accomplished by such an action? Mr. Owens said that Mr. White would be exercising his rights over his own property. Mr. White said that allowing access for the existing two residences was one thing, but adding additional houses that would require the upgrade of the driveway was another. He said that he had suggested to Mr. McDowell's attorney that they look at other options for accessing the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned the requirement to upgrade the driveway due to the existing density. Bellows said that she consistently takes the position that a driveway be upgraded at a 3-residence density. Mr. James Alt, 4165 Bayside Road, asked for a definition of "upgrade" and whether upgrading would be necessary only if there are more than 4 residences? Bellows said that the City has been enforcing the upgrade at a 3-house density. The City's standards for the road is 24' for a rural section, 28' for urban with curb. Chairman Kelley added that a cul-de-sac would also be required. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the cul-de-sac width must be 80' to provide for adequate turn around area for emergency vehicles. Mabusth noted the difficulty in determining from where the property for the road upgrade would come. Gaffron showed that the existing driveway is centered on the White and Rezebek property and does not abut the proposed outlot, but is separated from the driveway by a 10' to 15' gap. He said that the additional 25' needed for the standard 50' outlotwidth would probably come from the Rezebek property. The other option would be to take a total of 50' from the McDowell, Hayssen and Alt properties and construct an entirely new road. Mabusth questioned how that would affect lot areas? Gaffron believed there would be sufficient area to accomm.'jate the outlot. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour asked if the upgrade would occur as a result of a subdivision application, or whether the City's Zoning MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING N 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINl Code would require the upgrade based on the potential density of the properties in that area? Kelley agreed that Mr. Jabbour raised an interesting question that was an issue in and of itself. Mr. Alt questioned how the road width as discussed had gone from 24' to 50'? Gaffron explained that a 50' corridor is defined for private roads in Orono and within that 50' corridor is a 24' paved roadway. Mr. Alt asked what the City would require of the property currently at a 4-residence density if the new subdivision were to access from County Road 84, rather than using the existing driveway? Chairman Kelley replied that was a policy question beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this time. Gaffron noted that the existing lots ir. questions were created prior to the current private road policy being adopted. Mr. McDowell hoped that the City would not ask him to put in a blacktop road and a cul-de-sac. He said that the City would have to condemn the land needed to do so. Kelley asked whether it would be possible to proceed with only the lot line rearrangement portion of this application? Gaffron said that a revision of the application would be necessary if Mr. Hayssen and Mr. McDowell agreed to proceed that way. Mr. Owen suggested the use of Tonkawa Road (to the east) as an access. Mr. McDowell said that he no longer owned property on Tonkawa. Mr. Allan Rezebek, 4185 Bayside Road, said that he objected to the upgrade of the existing driveway and the construction of a cul-de-sac. He said that the cul-de-sac would destroy existing trees and eliminate his privacy. Mr. Rezebek noted that a ravine existed in the area that was not shown on the sketch. Mr. McDowell said that his subdivision has nothing to do with the property beyond the White property. He said that he wants to come out at the end of the Rezebek property and get out to Bayside Road if he and Mr. White can agree. Planning Commissioner Brown asked whether, in light of the problems involved with access, if Boyside Road could be used? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989^ ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTIN1 Planning Commissioner Bellows suggested that Mr. McDowell's existing homestead lot access be used rather than making an additional curb cut. Mr. Chip Hayssen, 4135 Bayside Road, asked if there was a specific reason that the lot line rearrangement and subdivision had to be a combined effort? He questioned whether it would be possible to proceed with the lot line rearrangement to Council? Gaffron and Mabusth said that was something that would need to be looked into further and that it would be necessary to have such a request in writing from Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen. Mr. McDowell indicated that he would rather keep the subdivision and lot line rearrangement together. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application, pending the outcome of easement and a possible revision of the subdivision if Mr. McDowell wished to do so. Kelley said that he would prefer to see the existing driveway (shown on the survey as "Bayside Ridge") used for access. Planning Commissioners Bellows and Brown indicated that they too would prefer to see "Bayside Ridge" used, but were not certain whether it would be possible in this case. Planning Commissioner Hanson was uncertain of whether "Bayside Ridge" was the best access. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays*0, Motion passed. *1289 ROBERT WILL 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REVIEW OP AMENDED PLAN RENOTIPICATION BY NAIL Mr. and Mrs. Will were present for the review of the amended plan for this preliminary subdivision. Chairman Kelley confirmed that renotification by mail had in fact occurred. Mabusth indicated that it had. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief history of this application for a 3-lot subdivision. She said that the issue of the use of private property over which the City has an underlying easement was reviewed by the City Attorney. Mabusth said that the City could provide a developer with the authority to construct a roadway through Rolling Meadows due to an existing easement. Mabusth said that in light of this, Mr. Will is now able to proceed with his subdivision, with a specific directive that the existing private road be extended through his property to a newly defined cul-de-sac. Mabusth clarified that the road would be public, rather than private, and could be maintained by the private homeowners association. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989* ZONING FILE #1289-MILL CONTINUED Chairman Kelley noted that the homeowners association may not wish to maintain the road. Mabusth said that there were many unanswered questions pertaining to the implementation and realities of this process. Planning Commissioner Bellows did not understand how the City could enforce the requirement that the homeowners association maintain a public road, constructed to meet City standards. Chairman Kelley asked for confirmation that Mr. Will had approached the developer of the Rolling Meadows subdivision regarding access. Mabusth indicated that a letter had been included in the information given to the Planning Commission confirming that. Mr. Wear said that he had offered, on a "one time only basis" to sell the property needed for access to Mr. Will for $10,000.00 per lot. He said that Mr. Will did not take advantage of this offer. Mr. Wear said that he was not trying to be unreasonable. Mr. Wear noted that it would be necessary to use Old Crystal Bay Road to access the front lot. Planning Commissioner Bellows believed that the entire subdivision should be served with one access. Mabusth clarified that the existing residence, which will be removed, was allowed to use the existing access. Mabusth said that the applicant is proposing an easement over the north 10' of Lot 2, Block 2. The City is asking for an out lot at least 25' in width along the northern border to provide access to the most eastern lot. Mabusth advised that the City Engineer had initially recommended that the southern access for Lot 1 be maintained off Old Crystal Bay Road. The revised recononendation is that access for all 3 lots should come from exicasion of the roadway. Mabusth said that the original septic test sites shown for Lot 2, Block 2, will be encroached by the outlet and the required 20' setback. Additional septic testing will be required and any kind of approval recommendation should be conditioned on the existing septic system being updated. The City will need to have written confirmation from the on-site evaluator that there is enough area to move the mound system south. Mabusth said that additional septic testing has been done for the most eastern lot now that a new residence will replace existing residence. Planning Commissioner Brown asked why the outlot could not be located along the south side of the property? Mabusth said that the access road for the Carlson subdivision had been revised so to be located further north. Mabusth said that it may not be necessary to take another access for the Will property. MIHDTBS OP THE PLAHNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 198S ZONING PILE «1289-HILL CONTINUED Kelley clarified that Brown was asking whether the outlet going east on the north side of the property could be located on the south iide of the property. Mabusth said that there are trees in that area that the applicant wo*-Id like to preserve. Mr. Will said that there would be less trees removed on the south side than if the cul-de-sac were placed up near the north lot line. He said that placing the cul-de-sac on the southern lot line would eliminate the need to plow down a large grove of trees to get to the north lot line. Chairman Kelley said that could be done perhaps on a temporary basis, but that the City would prefer to see the road extend all the way north. Kelley said that it probably would not matter where the cul-de-sac was located as long as the outlot extended north. Mabusth informed the Planning Couanission that the applicant was also being asked to remove the existing, temporary cul-de-sac that is part of the Rolling Meadows subdivision. Mr. Will noted that there was higher ground on the south side which would lend itself better for driveways than the northern property. Mabusth said that such a configuration would also preserve the necessary septic test sites for Lot 2. Mr. Wear advised the Planning Commission that there was a ravine on the south side of the property and very steep grades. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he had reservations about creating a public road that would be privately maintained. Hanson said that he would prefer to see a dedictated drive extending to the north. The cul-de-sac could be located anywhere within that north-south route. Hanson said that he would favor the outlot going to the east on the south side of the property. He indicated that he had no preference whether that outlot was located on the north or south sice of the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she has a problem with the concept of not developing the outlot to access the far eastern lot. Hanson questioned whether that outlot would actually be used as the access. Bellows said if the access to the subdivision is from the south, then that will be the only access to the far eastern site that the City will allow. Otherwise the access to the entire subdivision comes from the east. Bellows does not want to create a situation where the outlot is created, but Old Crystal Bay Road MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #12fi9-MILL CONTINUED is used to access that lot. Mabusth said if the outlet is created it must be used for access. Mabusth said that the outlet would serve a private driveway to Lot 1, Block 2. The existing access at Old Crystal Bay Road must be eliminated. Chairman Kelley clarified that all three lots would be served with a north/south road extending down to Wear Lane North. Out lot A wo-' Id extend all the way to the north, and the placement of the cul-ua-sac along Outlot A could be variable depending on whether the applicant would like to place the outlot to the east on the north side or south side of the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned how the north/south road would be maintained. She indicated that she could not support the notion of a public road being privately maintained. She said an alternative to that is to serve the subdivision off of Old Crystal Bay Road by its own roadway and its own homeowners association. She suggested that that City would still require the north/south outlot for future extension. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he would prefer that solution to the proposed access through Wear Lane North. Planning Commissioner Brown said that in light of the City's attempt to limit additional access on to County Roads, he was in favor of the interior access roads. Brown said he would like to see the creation of public road that would be publicly maintained with the cul-de-sac the variable on the north/south outlot. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the preliminary 3- lot subdivision with access through North Wear Lane, to be a public roadway, maintained by the Public Works Department of the City of Orono. Outlot A should be ^'ontinued to the north lot line of the subdivision and Outlot B should be placed on the south lot line of Loc 1, Blv->ck 2, to access Lot 2, Block 2; existing access off of Lot 2 should be terminated and the existing buildings destroyed within a certain period of time once building commences. Kelley then incorporated City staff's findings and conditions, with the exception of item c, g, and h. Kelley asked who would pay for the additional cost of extending the road to the north at a later time? Mabusth said that bcomes an issue with the variable location of the cul-de-sac. She stated that the City wants that road extended to the north boundary. Kelley said that at this time the applicant would have to go down into the outlot for the previous subdivision and make modifications. Kelley asked why the City could not have that done by the people who want to do it on the north side and come down and connect. Brown said that was the same way they were doing it with Wear's. Bellows asked for clarification regarding the configuration of the road. Bellows also asked about the LjL MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED ramifications to Mr. Wear's subdivision homeowners as a result of turning the road into a public road? Mabusth said that the homeowner's association would still maintain Wear Circle. Mabusth asked for specific reasons as to why the Planning Commission wanted the public road publicly maintained. Kelley replied that the Planning Commission had a difficulty with the concept of a public road that is privately maintained. Kelley asked how the City could mandate the homeowner's association to maintain the public road. Mabusth said that the City Attorney's opinion is that the City could make such a requirement. Hanson said that such a proposal is poor planning. Bellows said that such an arrangement was virtually unenforceable. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays^^O, Motion passed. tl465 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 PERMDALE ROAD WEST VARXANCBS CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. McCourtncy was present for this matter, as was Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained Mr. McCourtney's proposal and the history of the property. Mr. McCourtney said that the basis of this project was the need to add a closet. He said that their intentions had gotten out of hand, but they had not set out with the idea that they would get approval for hardcover increases every other month. He said that the proposal being presented was the best plan to service the property the way that it is set up. He said that the purpose of the driveway proposal is just to get the cars off of the road. Mr. Wenkus said that he had come into this matter after the initial building permit had been issued. He said that he had tried to work with the City in preparing the landscape plan and trying to resolve this matter in a way beneficial to both Mr. McCourtney and the City. He said that the hardship is the size and shape of the property and the fact that over half of the property is located in the 0-75' zone. He said he has cut back on the width of the sidewalk areas and the size of the patio areas from what they had initially proposed. He said that what is being proposed is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Wenkus noted that there had been a 6' fence existing in the right-of-way which had recently been removed. The fence being proposed is less obtrusive and would be located within the boundary lines of the property. Mr. Wenkus said that the replacement terrace will encroach nc closer to the la « than the pre-existing deck. He also said that he had taken into consideration the sight lines of the two neighboring properties 8 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MATING NOVI R 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1465-MCCOURTNEY CONTIW and only the tip of the terrace touches the sight line. He said that the terrace will only be 1.5' above grade with no railings. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown said that the Planning Commission has been very consistent in limiting additional hardcover beyond the Zoning Code Requirements. Brown said on the other hand he could understand the safety concerns of the applicant. He said that he would be inclined to say that hardcover should remain at its current percent. He said that the driveway could be constructed, but perhaps not the deck. Kelley observed that the deck would be located in the 0-75' zone. Gaffron said that allowing the driveway and sidewalks to go in would bring the hardcover total to 46% in the 75-250' zone. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that the remodelling and consequent hardcover were appropriate, but he wished to uphold the City's consistent policy regarding hardcover in the lakeshore. He said that eliminating the terrace would be a method of maintaining hardcover. Planning Conu^issioner Bellows said that she is not convinced that the driveway configuration will solve the safety problem. She said that it would be difficult to back out of the garage and get turned around to drive out of the circular drive. Bellows said that she was bothered by the significance of the house in relation to the size of the lot. She said that she was shocked to see that it had developed to the degree that it had. She agreed that there was a legitimate safety concern, but that it was self-inflicted. She did not think that allowing the large circular driveway would solve the problem. Bellows thought that there were other solutions and suggested that Mr. McCourtney be prepared for either "some hard trade-offs or for some sheer denials”. Mr. Wenkus said that with respect to the hardcover, the adjacent land is sparsely developed and there is quite a bit of additional square footage in the area for runoff and filtration. Mr. Wenkus also noted that the house had not varied much from the building specs to the finished product. He said that the front of the house was brought forward slightly and that the roof peak in the center of the house was 4' higher than the original house. Mr. Wenkus said that the lot is substandard by virtue of City of Orono actions in the 1970's. He said that it was developed as a substandard lot with less acreage because the City of Orono allowed a .75 acre lot to be developed in a fairly expensive neighborhood with high property values. Mr. Wenkus said that they have built only to those values and not tried to overbuild. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ij:4iZONING FILE #1465-MCCOURTNBT CONTIN1 Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the house was nicely done, but the issue is hardcover. She said that the Planning Commission had been through this with Mr. McCourtney before. She said that it would be difficult to approve a 10% increase in hardcover, especially due to the fact that the lot is small. Chairman Kelley said that he would be inclined to recommend that hardcover remain at 3.5% and 36.8% as required as part of the approval for Mr. McCourtney's 1988 application. Kelley questioned whether it would be possible for the applicant to obtain adjacent property? Mr. Wenkus replied that acquiring adjacent land was a possibility but he could not answer that question at this time. Mr. Wenkus reiterated that there was a definite hardship and that the square footages were appropriate. He said that if the Planning Commission recommends maintaining hardcover at the current percentage, he could not even put in a reasonable driveway, not to mention the patios and sidewalks. He said that the maximum allowed width of the driveway would be 16', not adequate to serve a triple width garage. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked Gaffron how this plan differed from what was approved so that only that much driveway would oe permitted. Gaffron replied that the addition of sidewalks was a factor as is the fact that the terrace is a bit larger than the pre­ existing deck. Gaffron said that the applicant in the previous application had "traded away" hardcover that he should not reasonably have traded away". 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 Hanson, to deny the hardcover variance and that the current hardcover percentages of 3.5% and 36.8% shoul'l remain. Motion, Ayes»3, Brown, Nay due to his concern for safrcy with the cars being parked along Ferndale. Motion passed. The portion of this application pertaining to the fence was then discussed. Gaffron asked the applicant if he would still require the fence, in light of the denial for the circular driveway? Mr. Wenkus said that they would still like the fence as proposed as it is more aesthetic than anything else. Bellows asked where the fence would be located now that there is no circular driveway? Mr. Wenkus replied that it would be approximately in the MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1465“MCCODRTNBY CONTINUED same location as proposed but it would have a straight configuration rather than curved. Chairman Kelley asked whether the applicant had explored the possibility of a 3.5' high fence? Mr. Wenkus indicated that it would be more appropriate to construct the iron fence at the height proposed. Chairman Kelley asked whether it was the applicant's intention to plant arborvitae along the fence? Mr. Wenkus said that they would be planting shrubbery and trees in the entire front yard and on either side of the fence. Mr. Wenkus said that the fence would also limit trespassing. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown said that normally he would not look favorably at a 6' fence and would prefer to see the standard 3.5’ height. Brown said that a 6' fence had previously existed in this location and the proposed fence would be less obtrusive. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he did not object to the height of the fence. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the Planning Commission normally does not vote favorably for such reguest. She felt that this proposal was appropriate however due to the openess of the fence. It was moved by Planning Commission Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, tr« recommend approval of this height variance for a fence as proposed. Hanson requested that the motion be amended to reflect the new location of the fence due to the denial of the turn-around driveway. Brown amended his motion, Hanson seconded. K-lley said that it was important to note that there was a pre-existing 6’ fence on this property. Motion, Ayes=3, Kelley, Nay due to his preference to see a 3.5' fence. Motion passed. #1481 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 PERNDALE ROAD WEST APTER-THE-PACT CONDITIONAL USB PFRMIT/VARIANCB PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. McCourtney was present for this matter, as was Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained how staff had discovered the construction of a basement MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1481-MCCOORTNEY CONTINl access door and the consequent grading needed to direct drainage away from the door. Gaffron said that the building plans did show a basement door, but did not show any landscaping plan. Gaffron said that the pre-existing swale, required as part of the 1975 subdivision, was constructed when the house was built to construct another swale near the property line to facilitate runoff draining to the lake. Gaffron explained that the applicant nas regraded the swale in the 0-75'zone, not only in connection with the riprap of the shoreline, but also excavation to provided gravity flow runoff away from the basement access door. Ms. Chris Lindstrom, 1065 North Ferndale Road, said that not allowing the drainage to continue to the lake would be similar to a "cork in a bottle". She said that not only would water back up to the McCourtney basement door, but all the way back to the property line, if maintenance grading near the shoreline was not allowed. Ms. Lindstrom said that she does not believe the contractors are through with the work in that area because there is still quite a trench near the lake. She said that she would like to see the old swale restored as it was because she has quite a few trees in that area that will rot if there isi no proper drainage. Chairman Kelley asked whether the City Engineer had taken a look at this project? Kelley did not know whether it would be preferable to have the swale continuing to the lake or the pipe/culvert. Gaffron said that the City Engineer had not looked at the project, but the pipe through the rip-rap has always existed and is necessary. Gaffron said that staff is comfortable with what the applicant is doing in that area within 20' of the shoreline. Planning Commissioner Brown said that it is hard to visualize what was there before the walkout was constru*'ted. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had looked at the work done and could not see any problems, especially if you look at the west property line. Bellows asked whether or not the walkout was included on the original building plans? Gaffron said that it was, but there was no grading plan shown. Hanson had no problem with the application, though he hated to see such variances after the fact. Gaffron said that the exact depth of the pre-existing swale nknown.was unknown Kelley asked the applicant if any of the work was done to »J ICmOTBS OF TBE PIJUlNIIlG COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE fl481-NCCOORTNET CONTINUED relieve drainage going into the house? Mr. Wenkus replied that ultiaiately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale would be used for drainage He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need tc cut an additional 6" to 12" nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additional cut near the lake. 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 Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to Include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN « ROTH PARTEN 4300 BATSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Hr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlot A into two outlots. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot B would serve only two lots, it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to shew the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2-Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlot A and the 60' easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlot A. MINDTES OP THE PLANMIMG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 198^ ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Kelley observed that if Outlot A were put in with only a 50' easement, Outlot A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlot A. Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot". Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration. Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property. Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic systems being located in a commc s area. She said that the septic system location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the 2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and tne location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to make unique findings that would still allow denial of other less unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance MIHDTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1470 PARTEM CONTINUED would not be necessary vitU the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved. Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRD should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that. Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running through the property over which it may be necessary for the City to take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. Ms. Parten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes, but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access* She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots, approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles' property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Stylos’ property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City, but it would also require the Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot MINUTBS OF THE PIANNIIK: C(MQIISSI0H MBETIMG NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE tl470-PARTEB CONTINUED subdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60* easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlot that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line. Gaffron observed that such a configuration woild create two flag lots. Brown said that he would favor the 2~lot subdivision. Nabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25* outlot the extends up to Lot 1 on the east side. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which w^ < 1 run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlot A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25'. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlot will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays»0, Motion passed . #1471 DARYLE DPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARIira 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Ophoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the MINUTES OF THE FLAMMING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE tl470-PARTEM CONTINUED proposed plantings be placed below the existing water lines, which will be approximately 6', rather than the 4' as Indicated. The joists on the planking should be staggered. Mabusth said that the City Engineer also called to the attention of the applicant the question of where the spoils would be disposed. Mr. Uphoff advised that the spoils would be placed off site. 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 Bellows, to recommend approval o^ the conditional use permit, subject to the observations of the City Engineer and suoject to approval of issuance of permits by both MCWD and DNR and the applicant obtaining a building permit. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1472 DAVE CARLSON 1960 SBORBLINB DRIVE COHDITICEAL OSE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:45 P.M. TO 10:00 P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dave Carlson was present for the review of this conditional use permit application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a history of the previous uses of this property and the present application for a fishing boat sales operation. Mabusth said that the applicant does not intend to store the fishing boats outside. Chairman Kelley asked if the landscaping requirements that were part of the approval of the previous application for this property would now be completed? Mr. Carlson indicated that the work would be done. Mabusth notrd that Mr. Carlson has been the manager of the Stillwater Marina for 5 years. Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he intended to tie the boat sales business in with the Smith Bay Marina across County Road 15? Mr. Carlson said that was a possibility. Kelley asked whether he anticipated any problems with pedestrians crossing from one business to the other? Mr. Carlson said that he did not believe that would be a problem because the marina will rent sail boats and his business involves the sale of fishing boats. HimiTES OP THE PLANNIINS COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBBS 20, 1989 zonuk; pii^ *1472-caalson continued Planning Commissioner Brown asked about the status of the crosswalk being proposed. Mabusth said that Public Works Director Gerhardson had received word from Hennepin County that a crosswalk would be acceptable. Kelley suggested that the City may wish to continue monitoring crossing of County Road 15 to see if it will warrant a crosswalk. Brown suggested going ahead with the crosswalk now since approval and funding was no problem. Kelley asked whether boats would be stored on the property in the winter? Mr. Carlson said that he had no intention of storing boats in the parking lot, with the exception of one vessel that may be displayed for sale. Planning Commissioner Bellows observed that it will be necessary to make sure there is ample room for parking cars with boat trailers that may atop to buy bait. Kelley recommended using Spates Avenue for parking such vehicles. Mr. Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, advised the Planning Commission that parking was not allowed on Spates Avenue. Mr. Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Avenue, said that County Road 15 would be used for parking rather than Spates Avenue. Bellows questioned whether an additional curb cut would be a more safe approach to the parking. Brown questioned whether the situation has changed to a degree that parking on Spates could be allowed and restrict parking on County Road 15. Mr. Crear believes that the use proposed for this location is much more intensified than what had previously existed. Ee was also concerned about the potential sale of jet skis. Mr. Crear also noted that due to changes in the design of the County Road 51 6 15 intersection, large trucks cannot use the intersection. He said the trucks use Spates Avenue, as do the Police and morning traffic trying to get onto County Road 15. He said that the business proposed for this building would only add to what is now a bad situation for traffic. Mabusth recollected that at one time there had been discussion about placing a cul-de-sac at the end of Spates. MIHOTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 Z(»IIHG PILE «1472-CARLSOH CONTINUED City Council Representative Callahan recollected that a use very similar to this use had been previously proposed and denied. Mr. Tourangeau asked what would happen to the water from the bait tanks? Gaffron said that he did not believe there would be any problem with running the water in the sewer, but he wou Id have to check further. Mabusth recalled that the reason the previous similar use was denied was due to sewer being unavailable. Chairman Kelley opined that the sale of power boats was an intensification in use than the sale of sail boats. He also said that safety on County Road 15 was a major concern. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour indicated that he did not see a hardship for the variance. Mr. Crear did not believe that placing a crosswalk on County Road IS would be practical. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission Hanson, to recommend denial of the conditional use permit application due to the intensification of use this proposal represents. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1473 JACOOELYMN KELLY 2058 SBADYNOOD ROAD AFTBR>THE<-PACT VARIANCES PUBLIC BEARING CONTINUED TO JANUARY 16, 1990 PLANNING COiTMISSIOM MEETING It was moved by Chairperson Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown to table t is application. Motion, Ayes»4, NaysaQ, Motion passed. #1474 DONALD BBLAHSKI 1695 CONCORDIA STREET VARXAMCS PUBLIC HEARING 10:17 P.M. TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Belawski were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained this application for a hardcover variance to construct a garage. 1 MmOTBS OF THE PIANNING COMHISSIOH MEETIIIG HOfVEMBSII 20, 1989 ZONIHG FILE «1474-BBLAWSKI CONTINUED Mr. Belawski said that he had built a house and sold it to his son and would like to build another house, remove the existing garage and move the garage across the way to his property. Kelley asked Mr. Belawski about the deck on the front of the he %e7 Mr. Belawski said that the steps to the house had been removed by the neighbor's pontoon boat that flew into the steps in the 1987 "super storm". Chairman Kelley asked why hardcover was increasing when there was basically a trade-off, one garage for another. Gaffron said that the replacement garage was slightly larger that the existing garage. 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 the hardcover variance to relocate a detached garage closer to the principal structure, requiring removal of the existing garage on the property within 6 months. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays«0, Motion passed. tl47€ DAVID ft SUZANNE PRASS 10<5 LINDEN LAME VARIANCE PtmUC HEARING 10:17 P.M. TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Prass were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided the Planning Commission with the details of this application for a variance. She said that she did not believe the applicants were notified of the need to remove the accessory structure once the principal structure was removed. The fence required around the pool has been installed. in'". Prass said ttiat he had no specific time frame for rebuilding the principal structure. Chairman Kelley said that the pool seemed to be in such a state of disrepair that it was unlikely it could be used again. Mr. Prass said that the condition of the pool was such that it would only take cosmetic repairs to bring it back to a usable state. He said that structurally it was sound. MINUTES OP THE PIANNIRG CtSOaSSIOH MEETING NOV]20, 1989 ZONING PILE «1476>PRASS CONTINI Kelley said that restoring the pool was fine but that, he wanted a specific time frame for the building of a principal structure. Kelley was skeptical that the fence would prevent children from getting near the fence. Mabusth informed Mr. Prass that the variance, if approved, will expire one year from the date of Council approval. Mabusth said that a building permit must be issued by that deadline date. She said that she realized that is not in keeping with the applicant's schedule as they are proposing a much longer period of time before construction on the principal structure begins. Mabusth suggested that the applicants come back to the City at least 30 days prior to the expiration date to apply for a renewal application. Mrs. Prass said that she and her husband had owned the property 19 years and it means a lot to the family. She said that whey are very serious about rebuilding. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked if the adjacent property also owned by the applicants could not be combined? Mabusth noted that the City will ask for a combination of the parcels, but that there is no structure on the adjacent property. Kelley said that he was concerned about children playing in the area and the safety risk of having an open, unattended pool. Mr. Prass said that the neighbors keep an eye on the property and call if there are any proble»"i. Bellows concurred that the pool is a real safety hazard. She said that a standard in the construction business is to disallow a pool to be filled unless the mechanical equipment is working to keep the pool clear. She said without it, someone could fall in the pool without being detected. Mabusth asked if there would be a way to cover the pool? Mr. Prass said that would be an option. Bellows said that she had a problem with the apparent fact that a house will not be constructed within the one year period as the City consistently enforces. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Prass if he was able to maintain any kind of liability insurance without living on the property? Mr. Prass said that he has property liability. Mabusth said that the City would like to see .=in up-to-date binder showing such a policy is in effect. r MINUTES OF THE PIANMING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 198!> lj;4tZCWING PILE il476>PRASS CONTIN1 Hanson said that if there is no policy in effect, the liability then falls upon the City of Orono and that he would be inclined to recommend denial of this application. Mrs. Brass asked about the use of a mesh pool covering to cover the pool. Kelley suggested that if the Planning Commission recommends denial, that the applicants bring insurance information to the City Council meeting. Kelley said that without the facta pertaining to liability, it is difficult to recommend approval. Mr. Brass said that he was unaware of the need to have such information. Mabusth agreed that the discussion of liability had not been discussed until Planning Commissioner Hanson's comments at this meeting. Mr. Brass said that he preferred not to go to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Kelley asked how long this situation has existed? Mabusth replied that the structure was removed in October, 1988. Mrs. Brass said that they were informed of the problem with the accessory structure in September of 1989. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that the best he could do under these circumstances was move to table. Mabusth said that the application would be tabled pending ^he receipt of insurance information and a recommendation from the applicant as to how he wishes to provide a secure covering over the pool. Bellows added that she would like to see a specific time frame as to when a principal structure will be constructed. Bellows said that the applicant should be aware that the Planning Commission is going to limit the time to re-build and there will be no extension. She said that she was disinclined to allow more than the standard one year period. Council Representative Callahan guestioned whether the Planning Commission really wanted to table this and allow the problem of liability to remain for another two o^ three months? Planning Commissioner Brown asked if it would be possible to recommend approval subject to the proof of satisfactory liabxlity f MIMUTBS OP THE PZANNIMG COMMISSION MBBTIHG NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1476-PRASS CONTINUED coverage and have the applicants proceed to Council? Mabusth said that was possible and that the Planning Commission could stipulate how they would like to have the pool covered. Hanson asked what the size of the pool is? Mr. Prase replied that it is 15’ x 30'. Chairman Kelley asked if the boat on the property belonged to Mr. Prass? Mr. Prass said chat it does belong to him. It was moved by Planning Commission Brown, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the variances, subject to having satisfactory property liability insurance and also a plan to cover the pool that the City Engineer has approved. Council Representative Callahan suggested that perhaps the pool could be filled with sand. Mr. Prass said that he would prefer to explore that option before being obligated to proceed in that manner. Hanson asked how it will be determined if the proof of liability is sufficient? Kelley said that the City Attorney will have to verify it. Planning Commission Bellows asked if there is a date of completion included with this motion. Brown amended his motion to include that a building permit must be issued one year from the date of Council approval if approved, Kelley seconded. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1477 DR. BOB WBITBSEL OP VINEYARD OP THE LAKE, INC. 850 WEST NATZATA BLVD. CONDITIONAL OSB PERMIT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN #1478 ROBERT RITCHIE 3572 SBORBLZHE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARIK'G 10:35 P.M. TO 11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Robert Ritchie and Dr. Janet Roshar were present for this matter, as was Mr. Harry Nasset, Mr. Ritchie's real estate agent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the present application and the history of uses of this property. Mabusth said that the conditional use permit suggests a need to review the parking needs, signage, and overall layout. Chairman Kelley asked how many veterinarians would be practicing in this building? MINUTBS OP TBR PIAmUHG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEIffiER 20, 1989 •i:oZONING PILE tl478-RITCHIB CONTIN1 Dr. Roshar said that she would be the only veterinarian and that she normally scheduled appointments 40 minutes apart. Mabusth reminded Kelley that should the use should be expanded by the addition of another veterinarian, or change in floor plan, another conditional use permit review will be necessary to review parking needs. Kelley said that he would like to see the site brought up to the condition of other businesses in Navarre that have upgraded the appearance of their buildings. Kelley referenced Lowell's Auto Parts in particular. Kelley said that he would like to see the garage and the shed on the property removed. He said that he had no objections to the veterinarian use. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred and added that she would be willing to compromise cn the number of parking stalls if decent landscaping is provided. She said that she would like to subject the building to a rigorous site plan review, showing a proposal for the exterior of the structure, lighting, signage and landscaping. Kelley said that the Planning Commission should let the applicants know how they stand on the use. The concensus of the Planning Commission is that the use is agreeable and appropriate for the site. Mabusth asked the applicants if there would be a problem tabling so that a commercial site plan review can be scheduled at the January Planning Commission meeting. The applicants indicated that they would prefer to move along due to the need to occupy the building and be ready for business by January 15. Dr. Roshar indicated that she has a client following and would risk losing them if she delays too long. She added that the closing for the property was scheduled for November 30, 1989 which is contingent upon approval. Mr. Nicholas Dohmen, 3551 Lyric Avenue, was concerned about noise from any barking dogs. Dr. Roshar said that noise should not be a problem because there will only be a possible one or two dogs that may need to remain overnight following a surgical procedure. She said in that ::ase they would be sedated and there will be no outside kennels. Mabusth notec that a group of neighbors on Carman Street had also expressed concern about noise. Kelley explained the dilemma of meeting the deadline requested by the applicant and the need to see a site plan review. MINUTES OF THE PLAMMIIiG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE fl478-RlTCBIB CONTINUED Mr. Nasset suggested that the Planning Commission look at the track record Mr. Ritchie has for upgrading properties. He informed the Planning Commission that he had been responsible for the upgrade to the BSC heating building. Kelley questioned whether approval of the conditional use permit could be recommended with the provision that the applicant come back with a site plan review. Kelley said that he would like to put " chain" on the approval that if upgrades do not occur to the satisfaction of the City, the conditional use permit can be revoked. Kelley suggested the time frame of a 4-month periond for the submission of the site plan review and a deadline of July, 1990 for completion of the work. Hanson suggested March, 1990 and September, 1990 for the site plan and work completion respectively. Planning Commissioner Brown noted that the Council Meeting for formal approval will not occur until aft^r the scheduled closing date for the property. Mabusth suggested to the applicant that they work on a conceptual s^te plan to present to the Council to aid in receiving a favorable vote. Mr. Dohmen asked about the adjacent property and the intended use? Mabusth replied that the adjacent property is also being purchased by the applicant, and a legal combination will be required. Kelley informed Mr. Dohmen that this use would significantly improve the situation for his property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Bellows said that in light of the adjacent parcel, the applicant could probably meet the required number of parking stalls. Kelley questioned the need to sprinkle the building. Mabusth said that issue would need to be discussed with the City Building Official. Kelley listed the items the Planning Commission would like to see addressed in the site plan review: Signage, lighting (directional lighting), hours of operation, landscaping, parking, drainage, exterior and roofing materials, removal of out buildings in back. Kelley added the provision that there be no outside kennels and suggested that the applicant become familiar with the fire codes. HmOTBS OP ttB PLAJIMlllG COMMISSIOM MBBTIMG MOVKMBJSR 20, 1989 Z0IHIH6 FILE «1478-KITCHIB COMTi; Planning Comnlssloner Brown suggested that exterior iff.proven>ents be consistent with the surrounding properties. Kelley asked if the existing curb cut is in the right location? Mabusth answered that the curb cut waa defined at the tine County Road 15 was improved. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, to allow a use as a single veterinarian clinic pending the receipt, no later than the March, 1990 Pla*.mir,g Commission meeting the commercial site plan to include, but not be limited to those items listed above, with a further proviso that the improvements be executed within 6 months of the approval. If these conditions are not met, the conditional use permit may be Immediately revoked by the City. The conditional use permit will also allow for the variances to the street setback and side setback provided that the fire code is met. Mabusth asked about the inclusion of a legal combination of the property with the motion. Bellows amended her motion, Hanson seconded. Brown noted that approval was being recommended in this manner to accommodate the applicant's professional time schedule. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1479 0006 WILLIAMS i LBCT COHSTROCTIOIl IWC. 1020 TOBKAHA ROAD VARIAMCSS PUBLIC BBARIliG 11:10 P.M. TO 12:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Williams was present for this matter, as was Mr. Jurgen Stlelow, the owner of the property. Gaffron explained this application for an average lakeshore setback variance. Chairman Kelley asked if the owner of the residence on the hill was present? Mr. Ray Hoffman, 1000 Tcnkawa Road, was present. Kelley said that he would be basing quite a bit of his opinion of this application on what the Hoffman's had to say. Mr. Hoffman said that the proposed structure would obstruct his view and would leave the door open for the Planning Commission to approve the same variance for a house just north of Mr. Stielow's. Mr. Hoffman said that this would create a zigzag effect. Mr. Hoffman said that his view would be further obstructed if the house to the north were allowed to proceed in the way Mr. Williams is proposing. Mr. Hoffman also said that he MiaUTBS OP TBB PIAMMIRG COtOUSSIOH TING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZC»1BG PILE tl479-lfILLlAMS CONTINUED could see no hardship to warrant the approval of this variance. Mr. Williams said that he had met with the Hoffmans when he was looking at this site. He explained that the elevations make it difficult to locate the house. He said that he "flip-flopped" the house plan so that the higher portion of the house would have the least impact on the neighbors. He said that he would prefer to build the house where the original house was located, but placing the house any further back would affect the way the garage is built. Kelley asked what the difference in height is between the proposed building and the original building? Mr. Williams said tltat the new building will be one story higher. Planning Commissioner Hanson noted that Lecy Construction was known for high-pitched roof construction. Mr. Williams agreed that there would be approximately another 12* for the pitch of the roof. He said that the Hoffmans will be able to see over his house, because it will be under the 30' code requirement. Hanson observed that in the summer the leaves on the trees will be so thick that you could not see Mr. Williams' house from the Hoffman house. Mr. Hoffman said that they could see the Stielow house through the trees. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked what the first floor elevation will be? Gaffron estimated a main floor elevation around 962'. Mr. Williams said that the proposed house will not be high enough to clear the top of the trees. Mr. Hoffman presented pictures showing the location of the his house and the location of the houses below and the average lakeshore setback. Mr. Hoffman said he was concerned not only with the height but with the aspect of setting a precedent for the property to the north to obtain an average lakeshore setback variance. Mr. Williams said that the lot for the property to the north is such that it will take excessive hardcover in the form of a driveway to access the property. Kelley said that height is his major concern. Mr. Williams said that his proposal will not block the mVOTBS OF THB PLANNIIK: COKMISSIOil HEET1N6 NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE tl479-MILLIAMS CONTINUED Hoffman's air and light. Hallows told Hr. Williams that he has provided nothing to substantiate that. Kelley noted that if the existing house is to be torn down, the Planning Commission would consider this to be a new lot and any buildings must conform to all of the required setbacks. Kelley asked what the hardship exists for a variance? He said that he may be willing to accept that the land elevations are a hardship, but that there may need to be trade-off of the height of the building for the variance. Mr. Williams said that the hardship is that the City Council ruled in 1976 that the house Mr. Williams is removing could be built in the same location of the house pre-existing Mr. Stielow's house. Kelley told Mr. Williams that he was not proposing to construct his house where the existing house is located. Mr. Williams said that he would prefer to build in that location, but was moving his house back. Kelley noted to that if Mr. Williams that he may only be able to construct a single story house in that location. Mr. Williams said that his purchase agreement was contingent upon his ability to build on this property. He said that he would have a difficult time with hardcover if he tried to build a sufficient one-story house. Kelley opined that the exiting house blends in very well with the surroundings, has a low silhouette and is covered with trees. He said that the house he is proposing is ambitious, especially when it adversely affects the neighbors. Hanson said that he was not convinced that elevation is an issue. Planning Commissioner Brown said that he is mainly concerned with the Hoffman's view and if they didn't object to the proposal, he would have been more flexible. Bellows concurred with Kelley that she could not grant a variance for a new building and questioned the hardship. She said that some lots just do not accept what you want to do. Kelley said that he cannot approve the proposal as is. Kelley suggested that the applicant take time to talk with the Hoffmans or re-design the house and come back. Brown said that it would be quite unusual for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this variance. MIHUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETHK. NOVEMBER 20, 1989 M *ZONING FILE «1479-lfILLIAMS CONTIM1 Mr. Williams said that he would like to have an opportunity to talk with the Hoffmans. Bellows informed Mr. Williams that it would be unwise of him to think that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of this application based solely on the Hoffman's acceptance. Bellows said that she was disinclined to approve this unless the height of the building goes down or she is supplied with hard numbers proving that the Hoffman's will not be impacted. Hanson said that he is less inclined to look at the Issues in the saune light as Bellows because the house is being built in nominally the same site. He thou9ht that it was a terrible waste to tear down the Stielow's house, but that is his opinion. He said that he had serious reservations about the other variances. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to table this application. Brown and Hanson indicated they would look favorably upon the proposal if the Hoffman's have no objections, Kelley said that he would approve a lakeshore setback if the house is single-story; Bellows wants to see the facts, the elevation of Hoffman's first floor, elevation of the proposed house and height of various peaks. She said that is the only way she would consider granting the average lakeshore setback variance. Ms. Marge Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, indicated that the proposed deck will extend beyond the site lines of her house, but other than that she had no comments. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays*0, Motion passed. *1480 ED t GBRTA TOTH 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOOTH VACATION OF DRAINAGE BASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 12:00 P.M. TO 12:05 P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Toth were not present for ’his public hearing. 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 application #1480, per staff's recommendation. Gaffron asked for comments regarding the .9' setback variance for the deck? Hanson said that he had no problem with that. Gaffron noted that the applicants' contractor had indicated if the variance was not approved, they would revise the deck proposal to meet the setbacks. The general consensus of the Planning Commission was change the deck. Hanson incorporated that into his motion. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINTING NOVlMBSR 20, 1989 AFPB0V?L OF 1990 SCHEDULE OP CITY MEETINGS Tnis was noi: addressed. REMINDBE THAT THE DECEMBER 18, 1989 MSBTIHG OF THE PLAHHING COIMISSIOH HAS BEEN CANCELLED NAVARRE REDEVELOP I : to A . I iTIMG APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMUSSIOM MINUTES OF OCTOmK 16, 1919 It was moved by Planning Commissioner Kelley, seconded by Planning Cosimissioner Bellows, to approve the minutes of the October 16, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes*4. Nays>0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Edward Brown, would represent the Planning Commission at the December 11, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The November 20, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.