Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1987 Planning Minutesmums of plaiiniiig c nSSION MEETING HELD lARCB 16. 1987 iMCB 7:30 P.N. The Orono Planning Coirunission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Bellows, Taylor, Hanson, Cohen, Johnson, and Brown. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. Mayor Grabek was also present. NTS #1114 WILLIAM M. BRACKBM 1770 WEST FARM ROAD VACATIOM OF DRAIMAGB 6 UTILITY BASi FOBLIC HBARIMG 7:30 - 7:34 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. William Bracken was present for this matter Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that in 1984 the City approved a lot line rearrangement of Lot 16, the farm at Long Lake, that divided the lot into three parcels for combination with three adjacent properties. The Bracken property. Lot 17, combined with Parcel A was issued a building permit per the survey submitted v’ith application that failed to designate the subject drainage and utility easement. The house was placed over a portion of the existing drainage and utility easements located along the shared lot lines of Lots 16 and 17. Mr. Bracken had difficulty getting a mortgage because the title company refused to give clear title with the new house placed over the easement. Staff sent a letter to the title company advising that this specific s^ '.on of the drainage and utility easement serves no p. lie purpose in its present location and that the City would consider vacation. The Title Company accepted the letter from staff but Mr. Bracken has petitioned to vacate the 10 feet wide drainage and utility easement located adjacent to the share lot line of Lots 16 and 17. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval for vacation of a 10 feet wide drainage and utility easement along the share lot line of Lots 16 and 17, Block 1, the Farm at Long Lake, finding the easement not currently occupied with utility lines nor a drainageway and finding no future public purpose of the easement area in its present location. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. 41 -f'**- . * *-v ? ! Mimms OF THE PLAHHIliG C tISSIOM MBBTIHG BBID fttSCH 16, 1987 illl5/«lll€ PAUL BOTKB 795 FBBBDALB ROAD IK>RTH VACATIOB OF DRAIRAGB 6 UTILITY RASl SUBDIVISIOR FOR RBPLAT ITS/ PUBLIC HBARIH6 7:47 - 8:18 r «The Affidavit of Publication and Certificace of Mailing was noted. Mr. Boyke was present for these matters. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained zoning application request #1115 - Vacation of existing drainage and utility easement along existing interior lot line. Because no utility or drainage purpose is currently served by the existing easement, it is appropriate as part of the replatting process to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement along the interior division line, in exchange fot the granting of a similar easment along the re-platted lot lines. Chairman Kelley asked where the utilities to serve the new house would come from. Mr. Boyke stated that natural gas would most likely be brought in from Hollander Road along existing utility easements . There were no nomjnents from the public regarding this request. Assistant Zoning AdiViinistrator Gaffron explained zoning application request #1116 - Rearrangement of lot lines to make the existing vacant lot feasible for owner s preferred house location. Applicant proposes an alternate building site in order to utilize the natural views of Lydiard Lake. He addressed staff's concerns regarding the proposed driveway location and the topography of the property. Bellows felt it was in the best interest of the applicant as well as a necessity to have a topographic survey in order to make a responsible recommendation. Planning Commission concurred with Bellows. James Hunder, 265 Hollander, stated that he would also like to see a topographic layout. Mr. Boyke stated that both the builder and architect have walked the site and feel that it is a workable plan . MIHUTBS OP THB PLMmiHG CQMMISSIOH , I .<4 TING HELD MARCH 16, 1987 illl5/«1116 BOTKE COHTIVl Mrs. Richard Lyman, 715 North Ferndale Road, expressed concern regarding the proposed dedicated cul-de-sac, noting that she recently planted flowers in that area. She also asked who was responsible for road construction, as well as for repairing the existing road if damaged by home construction. Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that staff is recommending that the land be dedicated for a future cul-de-sac, however, it may be many years before it is actually developed. Regarding the damage to the private road during construction. Chairman Kelley stated that the residents must address that issue with Hie applicant, since this is a private roadway. Mr. Boyke asked the Planning Commission to conceptually approve the plan without regard to access in order to avoid delaying this process, noting that he was told by staff that a topographic survey was not needed for this review. Chairman Kelley indicated to the applicant that it was the Planning Commission's functional responsibity to request and review a topographic survey prior to making a recommendation to the Council. In order to save time, staff advised applicant that this application could be reviewed at the April 20th Planning Commission meeting and forwarded to the April 27th Council meeting. There were no additional comments from the public. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to table Applications #1115 6 #1116 for submission of a topographic survey. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. fills CITY OF ORONO 2500 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VACATION OF DRAINAGE BAS] PUBLIC HEARING 8:19-8:29 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Zoning A Iministrator Mabusth explained in 1984 the City approved a comprehensive drainage project for 2450 (Lot 2) and 2500 (Lot 3) Sixth Avenue North, which at that time were under single ownership. The plan consisted of the installation of a retention pond on the east, Lot 2, that would drain to the west to another proposed i 1 MIHUTBS OP PIAMNIIIG COMMlSSIOM MElTItiG HELD MARCH 16 p 1987 #1118 CITT OF OROHO COHTIHUBD retention pond on Lot 3. The plan provided for overflow drainage to run from the proposed second pond on Lot 3 south along a drainage swale to the drainage ditch at County Road 6. The pond on Lot 2 was installed in 1984 with the overflow drainage channeled through underground tiles under an existing driveway and surfacing at the east border of Lot 3. The pond on Lot 3 was never constructed and currently, the drainage, now above ground, flows westward to swale area and then south to County Road 6 drainage ditch. The current owner of Lot 3, Construction Mortgage Investors Co., does not plan to install the pond to the north of the residence and wants release from any obligations stipulated in the original conditional use permit and the Conserva*-ion and Flowage Easement taken over the proposed drainage area by the City. Per direction from the City Engineer and City Attorney, staff recommends approval of the vacation of drainage and utility easements as described in the Flowage and Conservation Easement and Waiver of Damages granted to the City over a proposed drainage area of Lot 3, Block 1, Willow Run, subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment by CMIC for all costs charged against the City as a result of this request. 2. Execution of a drainage easement over the now redefined drainageway that intersects Lot 3 to be executed by owner prior to Council action. Bellows questioned whether without the pond, would drainage continue to work once the house is occupied. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron felt there would not be a problem and referenced the City Engineer's recommendation. Because this property is for sale. Chairman Kelley felt the new owner may want the pond, therefore should deal with the new owner before formally vacating the pond. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the required poi i has hindered the sale of this property. Adjacent property owner Bonnie Keller, Willow Drive, had questions regarding the setback of a future animal pole barn. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the setback for a structure housing animals for non-commercial use is 75', setback for structures that house animals (for financial gain or commercial use) is 150', and additionally, this 4-acre parcel is allowed 2 horses. I i > >1 a \ *41 ♦ MINUTES OF TBS PLI^HIHG COHilSSlOH MEBTIHG HELD HASCH 16, 1987 OP OROHO COHTIBUBD There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 1. Chairman Kelley voted nay feeling the City should address this issue with the new owner. #1113 H. WILLIAM LORTOH/ROWALD C. WHITAKER 3135/3145 JAMBSTOWW ROAD SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINS RBARRAMGBMBIIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:32 - 8:34 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Applicant H. William Lurton was not present, however Planning Commission felt it appropriate to proceed in his absence. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request to relocate the lot line between 3134 & 3145 Jamestown Road. The land to be traded is about 0.15 acre of burton's in exchange for about 0.15 acre of Whitaker's. The new arrangement will place all of Lurtons existing driveway and shed on burton's property. He read into the record a letter from Ronald Whitaker indicating full agreement with the application. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Taylor, to recommend approval per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. #1106 R.F. POTAS 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW Mr. Potas was prese..’for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the new supportive information obtained since this application was tabled in February: a) No side setback variance is needed for proposed extension of the house. b) Drainage swale does not appear to be a problem and should be maintained. c) Applicant proposes a final reduction of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone to 45.4% from 46.7^ existing; and suggests a reduction in the 250 — 500' zone from 42% to 32%. MIHDTBS OF THB PLAHIIIHG COMUSSIGB #1106 POTAS COflTIHI : IH;TlllG HELD MARCH 16, 1987 *:■ d) The existence of a drainage manhole in the driveway which accepts a portion of the driveway runoff into a 55 gallon drum which would reduce the impact of hardcover on the property by collecting a portion of the runoff and letting it soak into the ground. e) Applicant feels that a reduction in size or change in location of the proposed addition, in order to decrease average setback encroachment, will not serve his purpose and intent for the addition. He contends that the neighbor to the south has trees which already effect the lake view and that his proposed addition will not significantly impact the neighbor's view. Mr. Potas noted another area in which hardcover could be removed in the 75-250' zone for an approximate overall decrease in hardcover to 42-43%. It was noted that the affected neighbor to the south has been in Florida since November, and it is questionable whether he is aware of this proposal. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the neighbor has been sent a notice and the notice has not been received back as undeliverable. It is assumed that the notice has been forwarded to the Florida address. Bellows felt that the tree issue brought up by applicant was not a valid consideration, that the addition is too tight creating a precedent if allowed. Hanson felt reluctant to recommend approval without some comment from the affected neighbor. He felt that another plan could be architecturally accomplished. Taylor felt that that the intrusion of 1 or 2 feet would be minor in relation to the actual view of the lake and that the applicant has been cooperative in reducing the hardcover. Johnson agreed with Taylor's comments. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Brown, to table chis application pending response from the affected neighbor. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 4. Motion fails. Taylor felt it unfair to applicant to table for this reason at this second review, whereas this issue was not mentioned at the first review. Johnson felt that it was reasonable to assume that the neighbor has been notified and two months is sufficient time to respond. Mimn’ES OF THE PIAMNING O f •»:ISSION MBBTIHG HELD MARCB 16, 1987 fll06 POnVS COHTI» I It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval as proposed with the modified hardcover noting that the average setback encroachment does not have a significant impact of the neighbors' views. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 5. Motion fails. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to deny Application #1106. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 2. Taylor and Johnson voted nay. Chairman Kelley and Bellows indicated that they would consider a modified plan of deck only, no structure. #1110 ROBERT MARTINSON 1840 SBORBLINB DRIVE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEW Robert Martinson was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator explained the request for average lakeshore setback variance for accessory structures; 1) Wooden deck at grade (railing not required), 30' in front of average setback line. 2) Pool/paved area at grade 60' in front of average setback line. Lot area and lot width variances are also requested. She noted that applicant no longer seeks a side setback variance for the principal structure. She also noted that the City code does not require a fence around a swimming pool nor does the applicant's insurance company require it. However, applicant is permitted to put a 3- 1/2' fence within the lakeshore yard up to the 75' lakeshore setback line. Mr. Martinson stated that he contacted adjacent property owner Alden Anderson, 1830 Shoreline Lrive, who expressed concern that the City would grant variances to area & width when they denied a similar request. Mabusth explained his request involved rural lots held under common ownership. Mr. Anderson was not present for this meeting. Mr. Martinson stated that Mr. Anderson appeared to have no problem with his proposal or the effects on his property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the other adjacent property owner, Pauline Bouchard, ^ 1860 Shoreline Drive, contacted the City offices to advise of her complete approval of the site development plan. There were no comments from the public. • w MIHUTBS OF THE PIAHHIliG O •'.i:IISSIOK MEETIHG HELD MARCH 16, 1987 #1110 MARTIHSOH COHT1M1 Cohen stated he felt the tennis court under the conditional use permit should be restricted to play until 10:00 P.M. as proposed by applicant. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of lot area and lot width variances, average lakeshore setback variance, and conditional use permit for pool and deck tennis court per staff recommendation and additionally restrict tennis court play to 10:00 P.M. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays C. #1112 SMITHS BAY MARINA INC. 1960 SBORBLIHB DRIVE OOHDITIOMAL USE PERMIT CONTIHUATIOH OF PUBLIC HEARING Present for this matter were: Charlie Stone, representing Smiths Bay Marina; Gerald Toberman, developer; and Gary DeSantes, former owner of Sailor's World . Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant seeks a conditional use permit to permit a less non-conforming use of the property. She explained the history of the present non-conforming use. The Plan involves public retails sales on the subject property and a private clubhouse on the Sailor's World property. It does not include any on-site boat repair. They would like consideration of some new boat sales. Mr. Stone indicated that they would like up to 10 of the proposed 16 parking stalls for boat use. Bellows asked if there would be enough parking to accommodate the number of slips, employees, and customers . Mr. Stone stated that the average marina use, even on peak days, is only 30%. Art Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., verified that a maximum of 15 cars are parked at one time to accomodate the existing 79 boat slips. He stated that he felt the proposed use would be a less intense use in addition to the use cleaning up the area. Bellows suggested that the appropriateness of the use be addressed as well as the intensity of use, finding that a marina use is a much more appropriate use on this shoreline property than a transmission shop. 8 MIHUTB6 OP THE PIAIINIHG O ISSIOH MEETIHG HELD MARCH 16, 1987 #1112 SMITHS BAY MARINA INC. CONTINUED Regarding the issue of pedestrian crossing on County Rd. 15, the representatives did not feel there would be much pedestrian crossing. Chairman Kelley reed into the record letters from Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, addressing his concerns; and Terry Morse, 2080 Spates Ave, indicating his support of the proposed use. Mary Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, stated that she was in favor of the proposed plans but had concerns regarding the location and number of boats stored, boat repair use, and the amount of blacktop hardcover. They would be ameniable to approximately 4 boats stored on the property. In addition, she would like to see a landscape plan. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed (except Cohen) that the proposal would not be an intensification of use, and in order to proceed with a recommendation they would need a more detailed commercial site plan. Cohen abstained from commenting and voting on this application because of past dealings with Gerald Toberman. The Planning Commission recommended issues/items/concerns to be addressed in the commercial site plan. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table Application #1112 pending revi ^d site plan. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstention 1 (Cohen). #1117 HILLARD C. SHULL 1125 SPRING HILL ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:31 - 9:38 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr. Shull was present for this matter Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to construct a track boat lift. The ramp will consist of a track, six feet wide and fifty feet long. Approximately 20 feet of track will be on the land portion of the lakeshore. The remaining structure will consist of a cart and winch to MINUTES OF THE PIAMNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 16, 1987 #1117 SHULL CONTINl •i:hi convey the boat to and from the water. The boat will be stored on the shoreline during the warm months of the year and will not be stored in the lakeshore yard during winter months. Applicant has advised that the soft, silt ]ike bottom does not provide adequate support for a boat lift and that dredging and filling the lakebed with crushed rock is not acceptable because of the need to constantly maintian with dredging and filling. Staff recommends approval finding no visual impact of the structure upon the neighbors. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval per staff recommendation and subject to applicant not being limited to 50 feet of track if more track footage is n^^^cessary. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. #1119 W. DUNCAN MacMlLLAN 1700 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6 VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:50-10:42 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Representing the property owner were: James McNulty of McNulty Construction Company and Edward Hasek of Howard Dahlgren Associates - planning consultants. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the request to construct a 1,200 s.f. detached caretake’ residence and and a 12,000 s.f. "sports center" for the private use of the MacMillan family. The sports center includes an enclosed tennis court, whirlpool and sauna, workout room, golf room, game area, kitchenette/wet bar, mens and womens restrooms, four garage stalls, plus an outdoor patio area. The proposal includes a separate driveway access from the private shared driveway serving the main residence. Conditional Use Permit required for a detached caretaker house. Variances required to: 1) construct caretaker house and recreational facility structures nearer front lot line than principal residence; 2) construct a caretaker house and recreational facility structures in excess of 1000 s.f.; 3) to allow recreational facility structure height in excess of 30 feet. He reviewed the following issues identified by staff: a) Location of structures in "front yard" b) Visual impact on neighboring properties II MIMUTBS OP THE PliMilllMG C [ISSIOH HEBTIHG BBLD NMICH 16, 1987 I #1119 MacMlLLAll COHTIHUB) c) Height of recreational facility (40' main ground level to pcuk, 33' average calculated height) d) Degree cf private controls on use of and access to recreational facility e) Floor area of the structures related to concerns regarding potential for future commercial use of the recreation facility (commercial use is not proposed or intended, but a detached structure of this magnitude in a residential zone in Orc*no is unique) f) Provision of utilities - - On-site sewage treatment - Water supply (building inspector's preliminary review indicates the recreational facility will require a sprin)cler system to meet fire safety code requirements) Mr. McNulty showed on the plans that there would be minimal, if any, visual impact of proposed structures from Fox Street because of the existing heavy vegetation. In addition, they plan to replace pine trees in the area of driveway excavation. Taylor felt it was near impossible to have no visual impact from a structure this size. He also expressed concerns regarding the effect on the residential neighborhood from a construction project this size. Chairman Kelley brought up the issue that the principal residence is a non-homestead property, not occupied by a family, and owned by a corporation. Mr. McNulty stated it is owned by the MacMillan family partnership. Bellows felt there were concerns with the intended use i.e. a large family associated with a large corporation and the fact that the main house is not occupied by a family member could be close to a commercial use. There was a big concern anong many of the Planning Commission members that the recreational facility and principal residence would bv’ used in conjunctioi. w Ln the family's corporation. Chairman Kelley questioned how a variance for an accessory use can be requested without the presence of a principal use. Staff advised that was a legal issue in which they would have to consult with the City Attorney. 11 • I ii^iriiiiiii iiii HT r tr\ t m . MIHUTBS OP THE PLMmillG COHMISSIOH , I .4 TING HELD MkR!^ 16, 1987 • I«1119 MacMlLLMI CX>HTIM1 As requested by Mr. Hasek, the Planning Cowmission stated that the following are their main concerns: 1. The main house is not a principal residence of any family member. 2. Size of stricture, future use, screening & aesthetics. 3. How to regulate use. 4. Access to proposed structure should be from the existing residences' driveway. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to table this application in order for the applicant and staff to address the issues of concern; and until the legal issues are resolved. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. #1120 RICHARD W. RAGATS 1945 COHCOROIA STREET VARIAECES PUBLIC HEARIRG 10:44 - 11:05 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr. Ragatz was present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the proposal to remove an existing 14'x 16' shed near the road and replace it with a 22'x24' garage. This would provide the opportunity to locate the garage to meet the 10' side and 10' street setbacks, however applicant is requesting a variance to keep the garage 2' from the lot line and 2' from the street, a slightly better setback situation than the existing but not meeting the code standards. Applicant’s stated hardship is the slope of the lot, however staff does not feel this hardship is valid. He noted that if the garage is moved to the 10' street setback line, a standard driveway will bring applicant's 75-250' hardcover over the 25% limit to approximately 27%. Mr. Ragatz noted a hardcover discrepancy which included the deck and disagreed that the deck should be considered hardcover because when it was approved to be built it was not considered hardcover. He noted that the hardcover amount is critical because he plans a future addition. Chairman Kelley agreed with applicant's stance on the deck not being considered hardcover in this particular case. MIBDTBS OP ¥HB PLIOlIilHG COMMISSIOH , I TING HELD MARCH 16, 1987 11120 RAGATZ COHT1H1 •)>» Planning Cominission unanimously agreed street setback should be required. that the 10* No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval as follows: 1. 10* street lot line setback 2. 5* north side lot line setback 3. Maximum 27% hardcover in the 75-250* zone 4. Existing deck shall continue to be considered as not hardcover - any new decks will be counted as Eardcover 5. 963 s.f. available to accommodate driveway apron and future addition. 6. Hardships justifying hardcover variance: a) Need to provide 2-car garage on property b) Safety concerns require side-opening garage doors, hence hardcover is necessarily increased. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. #1121 KEIIMBTH ZULLO 3160 MORTB SHORE DRIVE VARIASCES PUBLIC HEARIEG 11:10 - 11:33 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that an affected neighbor never received notification, due to County tax records never being updated, however applicant has talked to this neighbor and indicated no problems. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the plan to raze the existing residence and construct a new home on the site. Variances requested: 1. 100* lot width where 140* is required. 2. 8* encroachment into average lakeshore setback for proposed deck. 3. In the 75-250* zone, 27.9% hardcover proposed exceeding the 25% allowed. Ken and Jaye Ann Zullo were present for this matter, Mr. Zullo noted the need to have a driveway turnaround in order to avoid backing out of a long downhill driveway onto the county road, which would require more hardcover. Chairman Kelley questioned the hardship for lakeshore encroachment. I - ini‘rT -J TIMG HELD MIOtCH 1€, 1987MiaUTBS OP THE PIAMHIHG COMMISSIOH M «U21 SULLO COHTIHUBD Mr. & Mrs. Zullo stated that they wished to take advantage of the topography (hill) to create a walk-out and if the house were moved back to eliminate encroachment, it would be too close to a large tree. In addition, they would have views the neighbors' house. Planning Commission felt that all new construction should conform with lakeshore setbacks. They would be amenable to a lot width variance and 75-250' hardcover variance. Applicants noted that the adjacent neighbor to the east planned an addition wliich would ultimately affect their average lakeshore setback line, hence proposed deck would not be encroaching into the average lakeshore setback, if neighbor did construct his addition. Planning Commission and staff stated that no application has been made to the City for such a proposal, therefore, could not be considered. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing wa« closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend the following: 1. Approve the lot width variance. 2. Approve 28% hardcover variance in 75-250' zone. 3. Deny average lakeshore setback variance. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. #1122 BIG ISLAM) VEIXRAN'S CAMP BOARD OF GOVERNORS BIG ISLAND RECORD LOT 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT POBLIC HEARING 11:35 - 11:53 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. The Big Island Board of Governor's have presented a comprehensive, staged plan for the redevelopment of the veteran's camp at Big Island. In order to expedite the review process, staff has divided thf-. review into three phases as follows; First Phase - overnight camping for work crews for clean up of camp site. Second Phase - conceptual review of future development plan to be reviewed as a sketch plan at the May 4, 1987 meeting. Third Phase - the more detailed review for City staff and members of Board to determine what buildings will remain and required repair of same in addition to upgrading of water and sewer service.1 ( I i MIMUTBS OF THE PIAMMIBG COMMISSION TING HBIJD MM^CB 16, 1937 11122 BTC ISIAND VBTBRAN'S CMIP CONTINUBD Present for this matter were Alan Wisdorf and Joe Backes of the Big Island Board of Governors. Mr. Wisdorf noted the reconstruction plan of the Vet's camp included in Planning Commission's packets for their review. He requested that consideration be given in the limi-ed time with which they have to work. Planning Commission and staff felt that it was necessary to provide adequate sanitary facilities and a portable water supply for the workers. It was suggested that in the absence of approved permanent water and sewage systems, the Board of Governors would be allowed to bring in portable toilets and water supply to be verified and OK'd by staff. No one was present from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved bv Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of a temporary conditional use permit through September 30, 1987 to be reviewed every 90 days by staff and subject to staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. 11123 WINimARD MARINE 1144 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING applicant's request, thia application was tabled until the April 20th Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to approve the Minutes from the February 17, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE .Planning Commission member Brown was appointed to attend the April 13, 1987 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT 11.54 Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:54 P.M J