Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-1988 Planning MinutesHIHUTBS OP THE PLMnilW: OMMISSIOH MBBTIHG HELD JUEE 6, 1988 ATTEEDABCB 7:23 P.N. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Bellows, Moos, and Johnson. Hanson, Cohen, and Brown were absent. The following represented the City staff: Building S Zoning Adminstrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning fc Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. CounciImember Sime was also present. #1289 ROBERT i ARM WILL 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD WORTH CLASS III PRELINIHART SOBDIVISIOH PUBLIC HEARIW6 7:24-7:37 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Present for this matter were applicants, Robert & Ann Will, and owner of the property, Vernice White. Mabusth explained the proposed 3-lot plat of a total of 8.03 acres. Each lot satisfies the 2 acre dry contiguous land area requirement and the 200' width to the rear of the front yard setback line. The existing house on Lot 2, Block 2, will continue to use the existing access off Old Crystal Bay Road. The other two lots will achieve access via an extension of Wear Lane North. Septic testing has been done and confirms adequate area available for sewage treatment systems. Kelley mentioned the issue of putting in a temporary road across Lot 2 to serve the two new lots until such time that Wear Lane North becomes a public road, in lieu of paying the fee to the owner of Wear Lane North for the use of the road. Mr. Will stated that because of the recommended time deadline, they may eventually have to pay the fee for the use of Wear Lane North in addition to putting in a temporary road. Mabusth noted staff's recommendation for a cul-de-sac from the outlot. Kelley recommended tabling the application until the exact location of the temporary road is determined. Mabusth recommended that the Planning Commission pass the application on to the Council because the access may be an issue the Planning Commission cannot solve and should be resolved by the Council. M ms or fnt fiuunus coMussioii I joini •« lfl» 912Sf mu COBTIMID Bttllows f«lt it was the Planning Coeeission's responsibility to define the access location before passing the application on to the Council. She also noted there is a chance that the tMiporary access eight becoee the permanent access if the homeowners association denies access from the outlot. Planning Commission stated they would like to see a plan with a cul-de**sac from the outlot; and a plan with a 50* easement location for a temporary/permanent driveway access and its impact on the lot sizes. There were no comments from the public regarding this •1025 4115 me I. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table this a|q;>lication pending the above stated information. Motion, Ayes 4, Hays 0. . I I tlCH ’ «e: COmiHOATIOM OP PUBLIC 1BAB1B6 7s3S-Bs00 The Certificate of Mailing was noted. Present for this matter were Edward and Phyllis Henricb and their attorney, George MacDonald. Gaffron explained that the applicant owns a 0.19 acre lot next to his existing house and would like to build a new house on the lot. Lot area and lot width variances are required to build on this lot. In addition, according to the proposed plan, an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance would be needed. mm ♦Edward Henrich explained his plan to eventually build a house on this property since he bought it noting that a house existed on the lot until 1975. He stated that the adjacent neighbor approves of the proposal. He noted that the proposed house would not encroach the 0>75' lakeshore setback area, has an existing sewer connection, and they have no plans for a deck or patio or garage due to the topography of the lot. He stated it was their desire to build a retirement home on thii. lot. Kelley felt is was inevitable that a future garage would be requested. •1025 LD am i, 19M » "'iBfc * • •. . 3»49 &»». K«CM K^t«li I M Bellows noted that according to the plana* applicant proposes a 3>bedrooai 2>story hoa« on this lot, which is the seal lest lot in the area. She also felt it was Inevitable that future requests will coee for a deck or porch and a garage. She stated that applicant has been using this separate lot as part of his hoeestead lot. She suggested the concept of a eother-in~law apartMnt as a possible solution in this case. Attorney MacDonald stated that this lot is not dissieilar to the neighborhood and that a fully sewered lot has never been denied bnildability In sieilar circuutances. It wan noted that a eajor fact in this application is that the owner owns adjacent property to this substandard lot. Attorney MacDonald suggested that the lot line could be adjusted if the 1,000 s.f. is the issue. ised that this could not beattorney MacDonald was a< accoeplished. Attorney MacDonald stated that the Planning Coneiission and/or Council was bound to address the significance of precedents froe previously approved sieilar applications. There were no coeaents froe the public regarding this Matter and the public hearing was closed. It was noved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to deny application #1025 per staff recoeeendation. Motion, Ayes 4, Mays 0. •1207 cm « cAnnm scamloh 2015 CASCO POIST SOAP COHDinOBAL OSS PBMIT/VABIABCB PUBLIC BBAMISQ 0t02-Bsl3 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mabusth reviewed the application to repair the shoreline, deck and boat house daeaged in the July 1987 store. She explained the conditions of variance approval for the deck that previously existed within the lakeshore area. Gene and Katherine Scanlon were present for this matter. They showed photos of the property and noted that the proposed replacement deck will be no closer to the side property line than what previously existed. % mmm m tm wmmnm cmmutm laitfiiB nm smm §, i§m #12f7 fCMniNI COMTIIIIU 4' - it tOMXIkfc i*.a 'V ■•Hows «tat«d th« applicants hava tha right to hava raasoaabla accass to tha laka, but fait tha dack and tarracing plan was axcassiva. Sha notad that tha dack plana wars not tha saaa sisa as applicant's proposal. Kallay and Ballows racMOMndad tabling tha application panding accurate inforaation on tha dack. There ware no coanents fro* tha public regarding this ■attar. It was aovad by Bellows, seconded by Mooa, to table this application panding receipt of an accurate dack plan that aaets safety coda standards and does not exceed the originally approved 15'x 11* diaansiona; and a site plan with the pressed structure. Notion, Byes 4, Nays 0. •12M 304B cam nrII . V’*-' ym :v i»»■ #•.« w« '■WN8r ■ • laid Paterson was present for this Mittar Gaffron explained tha revised hardcover calculations frea tha previous review Including tha proposed future dack configuration. Kallay asked applicant what ha planned for tha area around tha house where tha plastic is proposed to be raaovad? Mr. Paterson stated ha will probably plant Hostas around tha house and assured tha Conission that ha will not put tha plastic back after approval. Kelley reviewed tha new facts. Planning Connission's previous racosnendation, and staff recoma ndation . Nr. Paterson stated he felt the restriction not to allow anymore hardcover in tha 250-500* area was too restrictive and would not build his addition if this restriction was approved. Ha does not want to be this restricted in case ha nay want a future accessory structure. Planning Comnission felt the applicant's request was reasonable. It was moved by Johnso;,, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance per staff recommendation #1 and #2, subject to no additional hardcover being allowed within the 0-250* zone. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. Mimnu or na nMnw ooMassioa no OLD Jon c, !§•• «127S 13ff nuH nMIM tt2C>at34 Th« Affidavit of Fttblicatioa andi Certificate of Mailing were noted. l^glas Johnson was present for this SMtter. Caffron explained the request for variances for 0*75* hardcover# 0-7S* structure# average lakeshore setback# and building height# to allow construction of major additicms and decks to existing residence structure. He clarified the existing and proposed hardcover calculations. In response to Kelley's question regarding replacing the foundation# Mr. Johnson stated he intends to replace only a portion of the foundation at this stage. Be also stated that the neighbors have no objections to his plans and that he does not plan any steps or walkway to the lake. There were no coraents fron the public regarding this Matter and the public hearing was closed. Kelley felt that if it is found that an entire new foundation is needed# the house should be Moved to Meet the 0-75* and side setbacks. Bellows felt the proposed iMprovenents would ultinately required replacing the existing house. Mr. Johnson stated if he has to replace the entire foundation and/or tear down the entire house# he will wove the house to conforn with the setbacks# but it is his desire to save as cmch of the existing house as possible. He noted the location of the )ouse and proposed additions are due to the natural drainage ravine . It was Moved by Kelley# seconded by Moos# to rccoMMend approval per staff reconnendation subject to the existing foundation being reviewed by a structural engineer and if the foundation needs to be replaced# the structure will be Moved to conforn with the lakeshore and side setbacks. Motion# Ayes 4# Nays 0. ■mipttt OP m pyome oonnssioa mamm nu job §, i9tt •127C DAVID C. nu.3900 mhJtkTh woautm OOMDXnOHDL OSI PUMIT PODUC nBUODO 8t47-itS0 Th« Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. w»- fim- mma mm 41277 UO XtlMD nOOBD DOT 1 »XTX0ML un P Don Baker waa present representing the David C. Bell Investswnt Cospany. Mabusth explained the unique history of this property's non*-conforaing use. She stated that the only change in the current request is a change required by the building inspector with the review of the building plans. There were no couents froai the public regarding this ■attar and the public hearing was closed. It was noved by BellowSf seconded by Kelley* to recoaeend approval of the application per staff rece—sndation. Motion* Ayes 4* Bays 0. MIT-PBABB 2 A1 Bisdorf and Larry Sharpe ■atter. were present for this Mabusth explained the current review involving the second phase of the conditional use pereit that would allow the Big Island Board of Governors to open the facility to the public for day use recreation only. She noted that staff would like to see a detailed plan to acconpany the application for a joint use dock permit. Mr. Bisdorf stated they would suhnit a plan to staff. Bellows felt that the proposed 8'x 8* Big Island Veterans Canp sign to be located by the dock was too large* noting that the sign should be needed only for identifying the camp location* not advertising the camp to the public. Mr. Bisdorf stated they had no problem with reducing the sign to meet the sign standards. Staff recommended that the larger camp sign be located 75* from the lakeshore setback area and that the proposed 3'x 5* camp rules sign be located close to the dock. imPRS OP ns PuyonM comissioa iPIMC %, 1988 *1277 BIG 18LB1 BQBBD OF OOVSnOBS COUBOBO It was Boved by Ballowa# seconded by Johnson* to reconnend approval of the conditional use permit for phase 2 per staff recommendations l”9r subject to the 4'x 6* and 8'x 8* camp signs be reduced in sise to meet the sign standards for ccwMrcial sites and be located 75' from the lakeshore and that the 3'x 5* camp rules sign be placed by the dock. Motion, Ayes 4, Mays 0. •1278 BOH VUBI 4498 MOUTH 8B0BB DBIVB VABTABCB PUBLIC BBABIH6 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter. Due to the absence of the applicant or a representative# it was moved by Kelley# seconded by Bellows# to table Application 41278. Motion# Ayes 4# Mays 0. •1280 HBBDT L. MBIHB 1378 BALOOB PABK BOAD w ^ • .*« VAKIABCB PUBLIC BBABIBG 9t01-9s37 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Wendy Welhe and her architect were present for this matter. Ms. Weihe reviewed her request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to conscruct major additions to the existing residence. She stated that the proposal is the only alternative to solving the space problem noting that due to water problems# she cannot make Improvement to the basement area. Kelley noted that although the plan shows a slight decrease in both the 0->75' and 75-250* sones# the proposal involves adding structural hardcover. Bellows questioned the structural integrity of the existing structure to support the proposed additions. Ms. Weihe stated that they purposely spread the proposed additions out so that the existing structure could support the additions. Kelley felt the structural hardcover was excessive. ■ai •i2to mil ' .S m ^ ■ F i ' '■■'■ 1 ■ >4 - - i»" , ^'t>A ' .’. ■ r- it ms or TBS FumiiK comissiai mbrik nu> jud «» ifts OOBTHinD M«. Weihe stated she was under the inpresslon that a hardcover trade-off would be acceptable to allow her to build her additions. Johnson felt that the applicants proposed hardcover trade-off was consistent with past applications. Williasi Franklin, owner of Lot 1 adjacent to applicant's property, stated that he has a legal easeeent access across applicant's property and showed the Planning CoBwission a survey locating the easenent. Ms. Meihe stated that according to her l<*gal research. Nr. Franklin does not have a legal easeaent but has tried to work with Mr. Franklin regarding this issue. She did not feel this issue was relevant to this application. Bellows voiced concern with recossMUidlng approval of the variances prior to resolution of the easesMsnt issue. Planning Cossiission wade the following recousendations to applicant regarding her application: The structure-to-structure setback must be 10' if detached, and if an attached garage is built, it nust have footings and a firewall. Johnson and Bellows felt the house could be decreased slightly to decrease the hardcover. Moos felt there were nany issues to be resolved before making a recosstendation. Kelley felt the structural hardcover should be reduced. Bellows suggested that applicant find out if the existing foundation can support building additions upward rather than outward to create less hardcover. Ms. Weihe felt that by looking at the house, it was evident that the house could not support building upward additions. She noted that she is removing a substantial amount of hardcover which should justify allowing the proposal. There were no other comments from the public regarding this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table this application pending resolve of .he easement issue and for applicant to review the proposal based on Planning Commission's comments. Itotion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. e muns or m luanmn comnissiob mbtok >eld jon $, 19S8 *12fl DBHI8 A. MBTHI 4731 ■Om 8B0RB DKIVB VMIAKE PUBLIC ■BBBIBG 9s3t-9t45 Th« Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Dennis Meyer was present for this natter Jk ? • Mabusth explained the variance request for the rebuilding of a detached accessory structure located on a lot without a principal residence and located 10* off the street right-of-way instead of the required 30* when the doors face out on a street. Applicant has subsdtted an engineer's plan to repair the foundation in sections. The City conaaenced hasardous building proceedings for this structure in 1987. Kelley felt that if the structure cannot be repaired* it should be torn down. Mr. Meyer explained the foundation work to be done noting that nost of the existing foundation will still be intact. M M9 mm Bellows stated it was her professional opinion that the plan effectively consisted of pouring an entire new foundation* therefore* she felt the foundation should be replaced and located to conforn with the setback. There were no conunents from the public regarding this asatter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows* seconded by Kelley* to recMnend denial of the request based on the extensive nature of the repair* however* allow the rebuilding of the accessory structure meeting all current setback standards. Motion* Ayes 4* Hays 0. •1282 KICHABD MAST 985 TOMKAMA KOAD VARIAMCP/COMDITIOMAL 08B PERMIT PUBLIC HBAR1B6 8i4€-10s05 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Richard Mast and his landscape architect* Dale Gustafson* were present for this matter. Kelley noted that staff recommended tabling this application pending additional information. imRins or n njunme cofiiiMidi me I jun c, !§•• ii2t2 COTIMOMI Dale Gustafson addressed the wetland issue noting the hardship as the topography of slopes and wetlands. He stated that an alternative location for the tennis court would require relocation of the sewer line and the loss of many trees. atated he has never and will never approve of filling a wetland area. Planning Commission recommended relocating the tennis court to a location not disturbing the wetland and move the sewer line to accomodate this. i:.. Nabusth recommended that the City Engineer review the and determine the best location for the tennis court. She advised applicant that any plans for grading the shoreline and rip rap work would require a separate variance and conditional use permit. There were no comments from the public regardino this matter. i SA.ll IWB It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to table this application per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes 4, Mays 0. M : I ••#1203 CART ft BETH 3550 UVIMBSTOM AVWIB ^ ^ APm>Tmi>f!BCT VAMIAMCB PUBLIC BBARIMG 10s20>10i35 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gary ft Beth Eschar were present for this matter. Mabusth explained the request for an after-the-fact variance to allow a newly constructed shed attached to the existing detached garage. She noted a discrepancy of a lot line stake which made applicant not realise that he was building on the lot line. In addition, applicant felt that a building permit was not required because he was merely replacing an existing shed. Mr. Escher stated that the new shed does not extend any further onto the lot line than the old shed. He stated he talked to the son-in-law (who will be buying the property) of the owner of the adjacent affected property and concern was expressed regarding keeping a 10' setback between the subject shed and their house for fire reasons. Mr. Escher stated that his shed is 19' from the adjacent property's house. MIHDTBS OP THE PIANMIMG COMMISSIOH HBBTIHG HELD JUEE 6, 1988 #1283 ESCHER COHTIW Mabusth noted that because the shed is attached to the garage, a 10' setback is normally required. Mr. Escher proposed moving the shed back, however because of the pilings he would only be able to move the shed back approximately 2' which would place the shed approximately 1.5' from the lot line. Mabusth noted that a firewall should be required because of the close proximity of the lot line. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recomment.* approval of the after-the-fact variance subject to the shed being moved back locating it 1'6" from the property line and subject to a firewall being installed. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 1. Johnson voted nay feeling the problem should be rectified either by lot line rearrangement or relocating the shed to the side of the garage. #1284 DOUGLAS KIRCBRER 1520 BOHES POINT ROAD APTER-THB-PACT VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 10t20-10s35 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. t Mrs. Douglas Kirchner were present for this matter. Mr. Kirchnex apologised for his actions involving the after-the-fact nature of his application. Kelley explained the request involving an after-the-fact average lakeshore setback and 75-250* hardcover variance to allow a constructed deck. The existing residence extended 11' in front of the average lakeshore setback and the deck now extends 26' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The 75-250' existing hardcover prior to the construction of the deck consisted of 25.9%, and total hcrdcover after construction of the deck consists of 29.3% (3.4% increase). Bellows noted that the adjacent property owner contacted her voicing concern regarding how far out the deck is extended, however, this is contrary to their written approval to allow the applicants to keep the deck because it does not obstruct their view. MIOTTBS OP m PLMniKG CCMIISSICai iTIK C, 1988 #1284 KU *w:i h-t VJk^ 9u»i,i V. comaoho Johnson felt that the request should be denied because applicant knowingly violated the procedure and out of respect to the many other residents who follow the correct procedure. Kelley felt a hardcover trade-off was necessary to allow the deck. He reconsnended reaovlng 3.4% hardcover within the 0-250' setback areas. There were no conaients fxoB the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact variance to allow the deck per staff recommendation #2, subject to reducing the hardcover 3.4% within the 0-250' setback area and subject to no future additional hardcover or additions to deck being allowed. Approval based on letters of approval received from the adjacent property owners. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 1. Johnson voted nay. •128S WMIC PAOLSCm 288S MAnniKB LANB camftitmML ubb permit PUBLIC BBABIB6 10i45-10l46 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Applicant was not present for this matter, however, Mabusth asked Planning Commission to take action on this application if they found nc problem with it. Mabusth explained the request for a conditional use permit to allow a permanent dock 40' Ir. length to be constructed on the shoreline of Lafayette Bay. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to T recommend approval per staff recommendation, subject to no navigational hindrance by the dock and no de-icing allowed. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. Mivons or tbb puaniiaG connissiob J A y 'ims amr €, I9it •I2t< GMnr roDBRicK comntocTioB nc. 1749 ■om FAim SORO VABIAKB PUBLIC BBBRIBG 10s47-10t4t The Affidavit of Publication and Cirtlflcate of Mailing were noted. Applicant was not present for this natter, however# Gaffron reconnended Planning Connlsslon take action without the applicant's presence, given applicant's previous constants to staff regarding his request. There were no connents fron the public regarding this natter and the public hearing was closed. oom It was noved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recomiend denial of Application «1266 for a variance to allow a 6' fence along the side lot line adjacent to County Road 6. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. #1287 JAMBS P. BROOKS 3785 NATBRTOmi ROAD VARIABCB PUBLIC HBARIBC 10t37>18t38 ^ The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Janes Brooks was present for this natter. Gaffron explained the request for a side setback variance to construct a roon addition. Staff received no coBinents regarding this request from the affected property owners. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval per staff recosimendation. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. 81288 HARD B. BDNARDS 2474 CARMAB STRBBT BPW—AL VARIABCB PUBLIC BBARIBG 10t39-10t45 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Hard Edwards was present for this matter. Gaffron explained the renewal request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variance previously granted in 1?P5 to allow the construction of a house. MllUnS OP THB PIAimiHG C0MMI6SI0B MBBTIHG HELD JUn 19St 11208 BDirAROS COETIVinED There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley* seconded oy Johnson, to recommend approval of the renewal variances per staff recommendation based on the findingr and conditions of the previous review and approval in 1985. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. AFPBOVAL OP MINDTB8 It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to approve the Minutes of the May 16, 198. Planning Commission meeting as sulunitted. Motion, Ay« s 4, Nays 0. marnxm amassum upkbsbrativk Johnson was appointed to attend the June 27, Council meeting. 1981 •;ii *IT lOtSl P.N. The Planning Commission meeting adjournti at 10x51 P.M.