HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE -t ��-� �-` (-i / %
❑ COUNCIL
Er-PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) tt ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. no_ nr,v 5 4 0rL
ii
2. uA,• u`..
4. e:-'7,5 1 -7/Z 7-/ItC.) ,Skre
5. f1)c/aJ onomcoAed
7.
yam . 4.-��t.
8. J NuiT/N. 1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X:\APPS\WP W IN60\W PDOCS\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Dale Lindquist, Daniel Kluth, Sandra Smith, and
Jeanne Mabusth. Commissioners William Stoddard and Janice Berg were absent. The following
represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger,
Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative
Richard Flint was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
(#1) #01-2664 MITCH AND KIM OLSON,3265 CARMAN ROAD,VARIANCE
Mitch and Kim Olson, Applicants, were present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants appeared before the Planning Commission at their March 19, 2001
meeting,where they requested it be tabled to allow them time to revise their plan. The Applicants are
proposing to construct a 360 square foot attached garage on the street side of the residence. As a result
of discussions with Staff,the Applicants have reduced the size of the garage from what was originally
submitted. The depth of the garage has been revised and will be located approximately 36 feet from
the front property line where 35 feet is required,which has eliminated the need for a setback variance.
Variances to hardcover and lot coverage are being requested. The garage addition is located in the
75-250' setback zone. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone is currently 4,685 square feet or 54.4
percent(excluding rock/plastic which must be removed). The Applicants are proposing to remove a
large portion of the deck on the lake side of the residence in order to reduce hardcover and structure,
and will be rearranging driveway and sidewalk hardcover. After the proposed removals, hardcover in
the 75-250' setback zone will be 4,501 square feet or 52.2 percent, which is a reduction of 2.2 percent.
Bottenberg stated hardcover in the 0-75' zone would also be decreased due to the removal of deck
portions as well as a stairway and some retaining wall sections. Existing hardcover is 584 square feet
or 8.3 percent. The Applicants are proposing 249 square feet or 3.5 percent hardcover in the 0-75'
zone. Bottenberg stated the Applicants notified City Staff via fax last Friday that they wished to keep
a portion of the retaining walls in the 0-75' zone, which will increase the amount of hardcover in this
zone to 288 square feet or 4.07 percent.
Currently the structural coverage on the lot is 3,416 square feet or 21.8 percent. The garage addition
and removal of a portion of the decks will result in structural coverage of 3,280 square feet or 20.9
percent. The deck and pool comprise 8.1 percent of this amount,with the remaining 12.8 percent
consisting of the existing house and garage addition.
Bottenberg stated this property was granted a variance in 1978 to allow construction of a pool three feet
from the side lot line. The previous property owners also received an after-the-fact permit for decks
constructed around the pool area and along the lake side of the house without permits. The Council, as
a result of that variance approval,requested removal of certain portions of the new decks, while certain
segments of the deck were considered as non-hardcover due to height above ground,board spacing,
and permeable grass below. A third application was approved in 1997, for a conditional use permit to
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16, 2001
(#01-2664 Mitch and Kim Olson,Continued)
reconstruct retaining walls in the 0-75' zone.
Bottenberg stated the current survey received by the City shows that the required deck removals were
never completed by the previous property owner, although the decks were inspected in 1986. The
current owners have agreed to remove all unapproved portions of deck as well as additional portions
as part of the current request. The deck segments approved as non-hardcover in 1985, are now
considered hardcover under current code, and have been included in the hardcover calculations.
City Staff feels the Applicants have made a good faith effort to reduce the size of the garage addition
and bring the decks into conformity with the prior approvals. Although hardcover and lot coverage
will still exceed City standards, the Applicants' proposal does result in slight reductions of hardcover
and lot coverage. Staff would like the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed
reductions are adequate and appropriate given the stated hardships and the nature of the site.
The Applicants had no comments in addition to Staff's report.
Lindquist inquired what the hardcover would be in the 0-75' zone.
Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 0-75' zone would be reduced to 288 square feet rather than
249 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants have indicated they would like to retain some of the
retaining walls in this area.
Hawn inquired what the hardcover would be had the previous property owner complied with the
agreement pursuant to the variance request.
Bottenberg stated the portion of the deck that was to have been removed amounts to 384 square feet.
Hawn questioned whether the rock and plastic are included in the hardcover numbers.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are planning on removing all existing rock and plastic underlayment.
Hawn inquired whether the rock located at the rear of the house is the rock that will be removed.
Olson stated they would be removing all rock and plastic. Olson stated they were unaware of the
requirement to remove a portion of the deck until only recently.
Mabusth inquired whether the two keystone retaining walls are the walls that will be removed.
Olson stated the keystone wall bordering the two properties would not be removed.
Mabusth inquired whether the small deck would be removed.
Olson stated that it would be.
Mabusth inquired what the orange-colored structure located under the deck was.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2664 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
Olson stated it is a hot tub. Olson indicated he is unsure at this time where exactly the hot tub will be
located. Olson stated the current garage has a ceiling height of 6.5 feet with a post in the middle, which
makes it impossible to park two cars in the garage. Olson stated the foundation is also cracked, with
the garage door not being able to close level with the driveway which allows raccoons and other
animals access into the garage. Olson stated they also experience water runoff into the garage at the
present time.
Hawn commented the structural coverage and hardcover on this lot are already high on this property,
which makes it difficult to approve a variance. Hawn stated in order to approve the variance, the
Planning Commission needs to have a hardship demonstrated which is imposed by the land. Hawn
inquired what hardship the Applicant has.
Olson stated quite a slope does exist which causes water runoff into the garage.
Hawn inquired whether it would be possible to renovate the existing garage.
Olson stated in his view it would not be possible to renovate the existing garage due to the height of the
garage and a pole being located in the middle of the garage.
Hawn noted the Applicants' proposal does reduce the amount of hardcover and structural coverage on
this lot from what currently exists. Hawn inquired whether it really is a reduction if the new part of the
garage is offset against the additional amount that the Applicant has indicated he is willing to remove.
Olson stated he was told to remove as much hardcover as possible to offset the new garage.
Gaffron stated Exhibit A shows the existing lot coverage of 3,416 square feet,which does not include
portions of the deck that are illegal. With removal of a portion of the deck,the lot coverage will be
reduced to 3,280 square feet, which results in a reduction of approximately 150 square feet. Gaffron
stated the Applicants would be removing a portion of the deck that is legal.
Hawn inquired whether a drainage plan has been submitted.
Olson stated he was not aware a drainage plan was required. Olson stated in his view he does not feel
the drainage will be affected.
Lindquist stated the Applicant, as a condition of approval,will need to submit a drainage plan for
review and approval by City Staff.
Hawn inquired whether a conditional use permit would be required in connection with this project.
Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is not needed.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth stated he would like to see additional hardcover removed.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2664,Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
Lindquist inquired what the time period is for removal of the illegal portions of the deck.
Olson stated he was told the deck had to be removed by the end of construction or the garage addition
would not be approved.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2664,Mitch and
Kim Olson,3265 Carman Road,granting of a variance to lot coverage and hardcover in the
75-250' setback zone, subject to all plastic and rock being removed on the property, a drainage
plan being submitted for review and approval by City Staff,the portion of the illegal deck being
removed prior to completion of the project, and with the understanding hardcover will be
limited to 288 square feet in the 0-75' setback zone and 4,501 square feet in the 75-250' setback
zone. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(2) #01-2673 GARY GERMUNDSEN,4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD,RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES,7:00 p.m.—7:05 p.m.
Gary Germundsen, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant has applied to renew variances for street setback,west side setback,
east side setback, lot area and lot width to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the
existing residence on the property. On April 22, 1996, owners of this property were granted the
variances and were renewed on April 28, 1997.
Bottenberg stated the current property owner is planning to make some revisions to the floor plan but
will be staying within the size previously approved. Bottenberg noted a suitable drainage plan will
need to be submitted for review and approval by City Staff.
City Staff is recommending approval of the renewal.
Germundsen indicated he has recently purchased this property but has resided elsewhere within the
City of Orono. Germundsen stated he has met with both adjoining property owners to discuss the
drainage situation,which is a problem along that street. Germundsen stated he intends to continue
working with the neighbors in an effort to improve drainage in this area. Germundsen indicated he
would like to start construction this year.
Hawn inquired whether it was the intention of the Applicant to stay with the same outer perimeter as
previously approved.
Germundsen said it was.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2673 Gary Germundsen, Continued)
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2673, Gary
Germundsen,4101 Highwood Road,renewing of variances for street setback,west side setback,
east side setback,lot area and lot width to permit the construction of a new residence to replace
the existing residence on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#3) #01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:05 p.m.—7:05 p.m.
The Applicants were not present.
Mabusth moved,Kluth seconded,to table Application#01-2668,Manley Brothers Construction,
1973 Fagerness Point Road, at the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2669 RICHARD J. WETT, 1396 BALDER PARK ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE,9:06 p.m.—7:09 p.m.
Richard and Marge Wett, Applicants, and John Miller, Contractor, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance to permit a four foot
overhang that was added over an existing sidewalk. Over the past winter the Applicants had some
remodeling done to their residence. At that time it became evident that the sidewalk leading to the
front door of their residence was covered with snow, ice, and was dangerous to walk on.
Bottenberg stated the four foot overhang does not increase the amount of hardcover in the 75-250'
setback zone. The current hardcover is 36.3 percent where 25 percent is allowed. In 1991, a variance
was granted to allow the hardcover to be at 36.3 percent. The overhang does,however, increase the
structural lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 13.8 percent where 14.6 percent is proposed and
15 percent is allowed.
City Staff recommends approval of the application.
Mrs.Wett had no comments in addition to Staff's report.
Hawn inquired why this application was before the Planning Commission since the structural coverage
is under the allowable 15 percent limit. Hawn stated a variance is not required since the structural
coverage does not exceed the maximum allowed.
Hawn requested the City Council make applications similar to this subject to administrative review.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2669,Richard J.Wett,
1396 Baldur Park Road,to permit a conversion from hardcover to structural coverage to allow
the four foot overhang but still remain under the 15 percent structural coverage allowed.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2669 Richard Wett, Continued)
Miller inquired whether the Applicants' fee could be refunded.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant a refund of the
application fee and a request would need to be made to the City Council.
(#5) #01-2670 CHERYL AND PETER KRAMER, 2140 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
7:10 p.m.—7:37 p.m.
Peter Kramer, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a six foot fence along the south
property line, which is located along North Shore Drive/County Road 51. In this location fences are
only permitted to be 3.5 feet in height within a required street yard setback. The Orono Zoning
Ordinance does not allow a fence greater than 3.5 feet in height within a required setback to a property
line adjacent to a street. The RR-1B zoning district as a required 50 feet setback to the south property
line.
Weinberger stated the property is located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood, with streets bordering the
property on three sides. Three portions of the property require the 50 foot setback for the construction
of a fence in excess of 3.5 feet in height. Access to the property has been relocated to Arbor Street.
Weinberger stated the zoning ordinance does permit fence six feet in height along the street lot line of
lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, as North Shore Drive is designated. A higher
fence is permitted along the street on the lake frontage lots because the rear of the house is usually
where outside storage is located and that portion of the property generally functions as a rear yard.
Weinberger stated also located along the property line is a row of shrubs that are between four to six
feet in height. The fence would be located between the shrubs and the house to minimize the visual
impact of the fence from the road. Weinberger stated a small portion at the end of the shrubs is
actually located within the county right-of-way. Weinberger stated at the present time the County has
no plans to upgrade or widen North Shore Drive.
The lot line along North Shore Drive is defined as a "side lot line adjacent to the street". The property
lines along Arbor Street and Briar Street are both considered front lot lines due to the fact they both
equally front on roads and are narrower in width than the frontage along North Shore Drive.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has indicated he would like to construct the fence due to the increase
in traffic and noise being experienced in this area as well as safety concerns he has for his children.
Weinberger stated to protect sight lines at each intersection, a 30 foot"sight triangle" is required. The
sight triangle is measured as a 30 foot setback from the property corner adjacent to an intersection that
is to be protected from any structures and/or fences from heights to exceeding three feet. No part of the
land area within the entire sight triangle shall have fences that exceed the three feet height. Weinberger
indicated the fence would be located behind the shrubs.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2670 Cheryl and Peter Kramer, Continued)
Weinberger stated issues for the Planning Commission to consider are as follows:
1. The fence is in a side yard adjacent to a street and is not the primary entrance to the property.
2. Established vegetation is located on the property that would form a natural screen outside the
fence. The vegetation should be required to remain in place and maintain a minimum height of six
feet to screen the fence.
3. The property fronts on three streets, which is highly unusual, eliminating the property owners from
constructing a fence greater than 3.5 feet along virtually the entire perimeter of the property.
Nearly every other property that fronts on a major thoroughfare would have other portions of the
property where a privacy fence could be constructed.
4. The subject property is one of the most southern lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. A visual
impact would be apparent if a fence greater than 3.5 feet would be constructed on the two side
streets because the streets have seen a development pattern that has not included fences in the
front yards.
Weinberger stated a survey would need to be submitted by the Applicant.
Kramer indicated along Arbor Street and Briar Street there are very tall lilacs and other shrubs, which
makes the property look very natural. Kramer stated he has concerns regarding the noise and the traffic
along North Shore Drive and would like to construct the fence on the side of the shrubs closest to the
house. Kramer indicated he would be willing to taper the fence down to the 3.5 foot maximum if it was
required. Kramer stated he has attempted to trim the bushes and shrubs along the property lines in
order to prevent a visual obstacle.
Mabusth inquired if the Applicant is aware of the boundary along North Shore Drive on the south side.
Mabusth inquired if the mail boxes are located within the right-of-way or within the Applicant's
property.
Kramer stated he is unsure.
Weinberger stated Staff has taken some measurements from the road, and it is his understanding that
the majority of the shrubs are located within his property. Weinberger stated it is a situation where half
of the shrubs lie within the right-of-way and half are located on the Applicant's property.
Mabusth commented in her view there might be a sight problem along Briar Street.
Kramer stated the shrubs are a nice natural barrier and in his opinion does not really create a sight
problem for traffic along Briar. Kramer reiterated he would be willing to taper the fence down if
required,but would like to construct the fence due to the noise and safety issues.
Mabusth stated once a survey is provided to the City, Staff will be able to help the Applicant determine
the exact location of the triangle areas. Mabusth suggested the survey be submitted prior to this
application proceeding to City Council.
Hawn stated if the Planning Commission should approve this application, submittal of a survey would
be a condition of approval.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2670 Cheryl and Peter Kramer, Continued)
Smith inquired whether the Applicant has considered constructing something other than a solid wood
fence.
Kramer stated due to the traffic and noise,he would like to construct a solid wood fence. Kramer
commented the problem with the noise does continue into the night-time hours.
Lindquist commented if the Applicant is interested in blocking the noise,he could probably achieve
that by planting a row of arborvitae trees. Lindquist stated he has a concern that if this fence is
approved, other fences in the neighborhood will be erected and will create a tunnel effect.
Kluth inquired whether the fence could be located closer to the house and still be six feet tall.
Weinberger stated the fence would have to meet the principal building setback in order to be
constructed six feet in height without a variance.
Hawn commented in her view if the property owner wants to keep out environmental noise and
pollution, he does have a right to do so, especially since a public owned marina is located in the area,
and that the City may have an obligation to reduce that impact to the homeowners.
Kluth stated if the Applicant is interested in erecting a fence for his children, he could possibly
accomplish that by constructing a fence closer to the house which would not need to be six feet tall and
address the noise issue by planting a row of arborvitae trees. Kluth indicated he is concerned approval
of this application may set a precedent and that each property owner needs to be treated consistently.
Kramer stated he is aware of the need to avoid creating a tunnel effect, but in his view he is unsure
whether planting some arborvitae will solve the problem.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2670, Cheryl and
Peter Kramer, 2140 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to setback standards to allow the
construction of a fence six feet in height,to be located behind the vegetation bordering North
Shore Drive/County Road 51,with the understanding the fence will be limited to three feet within
the two sight triangles, and subject to the Applicant submitting a survey for review and approval
by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 3; Smith,Lindquist and Kluth Opposed.
Kluth stated in his view approving this fence would set a precedent.
Lindquist and Smith concurred that they feel the fence would set a precedent and that planting of
vegetation would help alleviate the noise problem in this area.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#6) #01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KRISTIN JACQUES,645 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD,
VARIANCES, 7:37 p.m.—7:37 p.m.
The Applicants were not present.
Lindquist moved,Hawn seconded,to table Application#01-2671,Alistair and Kristin Jacques,
645 Old Long Lake Road,at the request of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#7)#01-2672 JIM AND SHARON WALKER, 2685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, 7:38 p.m.—7:59 p.m.
Jim Walker, Applicant, and Dave Erotas, Contractor,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to hardcover in
the 0-75' setback area. Currently there is a residence on the property that was originally constructed in
1903. The house is scheduled to be removed and a new house constructed on the site. Presently the
property contains two unique accessory buildings that would remain on the parcel during the time the
principal structure is removed and the new building is constructed. One building is a screen house
located near the lakeshore within the 0-75' setback and the second is a tower approximately 50 feet in
height that has been on the property for many years. Both structures are in good condition.
The Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment that would be
located within the new proposed residence. Weinberger indicated there would be an internal walkway
which would be part of the main structure leading out to the garage area. Located above the three-stall
garage would be a guest apartment, with a third story being added for additional living space for the
guest apartment.
Weinberger stated Orono's Zoning Ordinance defines a non-rental guest apartment as"an apartment
within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal
residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access
door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to
the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage
treatment, entryway and interior access method." Weinberger stated there would also be a main
entrance to the guest apartment. Weinberger stated typically the guest apartment is located entirely
within the principal structure.
Weinberger stated technically a variance is required because a door that would function as the primary
entrance to the guest apartment is located on the exterior of the structure. There will be access from
within the primary part of the residence; however,the access is via a corridor between the two
residential portions of the house.
Weinberger stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission are the accessory
buildings,the guest house, and access to the guest house.
Erotas had nothing to add to Staff's report.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2672 Jim and Sharon Walker, Continued)
Hawn inquired whether the walkway is completely enclosed.
Erotas stated it is.
Kluth commented in his view there may be a problem with semantics here. Kluth inquired why the
guest house is not considered a part of the main residence.
Weinberger stated the requirement for guest apartment is looked at as an individual unit within a
primary structure, with the primary access to that guest apartment being located within the residence.
Weinberger stated in this instance the guest apartment could be looked at as a separate dwelling unit,
and in reality functions more as a guest house. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is still
required in this case.
Walker commented the reason they are requesting the tower to remain is that in his view it is appealing
to the property and many neighbors have commented that they would like to see the tower remain.
Walker stated they would like to maintain the history of the property by keeping the two accessory
structures.
Lindquist inquired how many square feet there are when the principal structure and the guest apartment
are combined.
Erotas stated there would be 7,400 square feet of living space.
Hawn stated she has some concerns regarding the screen house,which is located in the 0-75' setback.
Hawn inquired why the Applicant would like to keep the screen house.
Walker stated due to the hardcover requirements,they were required to locate the house back further on
the property,which reduced their view to the lake. Walker stated his family has used the screen house
frequently and would like to see it remain.
Mabusth requested Gaffron discuss the ordinance that regulates entrances to guest apartments and guest
houses.
Gaffron stated the City Ordinance was adopted in approximately 1989 or 1990. One of the applications
that brought that ordinance forward was where an attached garage had an apartment located above it
and the only access was via a stairway located in the garage to the apartment. Gaffron stated to his
recollection that application was approved, and discussion followed whether the City wanted to create
guest apartments that look like a secondary dwelling unit on the property or does the City want to
maintain the integrity of the single family residential neighborhood and allow access to a guest
apartment through the principal structure.
Mabusth stated at the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was faced with a number of requests
for mother-in-law apartments and the like. Mabusth stated one of the concerns of the City was that
these apartments would be used for rental property and how the City could regulate that.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with this application.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2672 Jim and Sharon Walker, Continued)
Kluth inquired whether the screen house located within the 0-75' setback could be relocated to another
spot.
Walker stated it would be difficult to move the screen house since it consists mainly of a floor and
screens, with a foundation underneath. Walker stated they would like to maintain the screen house,
which is in good condition at the present time, due to the historical significance. Walker stated they do
plan on maintaining the tower and the screen house.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn commented in her view she does not see a hardship for keeping the screen porch.
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2672,Jim and Sharon
Walker,2685 North Shore Drive,granting of a variance and conditional use permit to allow the
tower to remain as an accessory structure and non-rental guest apartment,with the
understanding that a restrictive covenant will be placed on the land to prevent the use of the
guest apartment as rental property. The restrictive covenant will be subject to review and
approval by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Kluth moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2672,Jim and
Sharon Walker,2685 North Shore Drive,granting of a variance and conditional use permit to
allow the screen house to remain as an accessory structure because of the historical significance
of the structure. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Hawn Opposed.
Hawn stated she voted in opposition to the motion because the structure is located within the 0-75'
setback zone, and on new construction, the Planning Commission typically does not give variances
without a hardship.
(#8) #01-2667 RICHARD ANDERSON OF NORTH SHORE MARINA,3222 NORTH SHORE
DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:00 p.m.—9:20 p.m.
Richard Anderson,Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting formal approval for the use of 72 existing dry-stack boat
storage spaces for on-demand public boat launching. Historically the use of the 72 spaces has been
limited to 20 boats for lake use by a 1977 stipulated agreement between the City and a former owner of
the property. The LMCD, however, has for many years required that all 72 spaces be licensed for boats
that are for lake use. Last fall the Council indicated it may be appropriate for the City to allow use of
all 72 spaces for on-demand launching per the LMCD licensing.
Gaffron indicated the North Shore Marina site has been used for commercial purposes since the 1950s
or even earlier. The property was first zoned in 1957 for commercial use. In 1966, the City chose to
rezone it to residential. The property owner at that time sued the City, with the courts ruling that the
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson,Continued)
rezoning was arbitrary and capricious. As a result the City was ordered to rezone it back to commercial
in 1967. As part of the 1975 City-wide rezoning,the site again was rezoned to residential based on the
directives of the Comprehensive Plan, claims that access to the site was dangerous for vehicular use,
increased commercial use would intensify the traffic hazard, and the marina is surrounded by
residential uses.
In 1977, the construction of a dry-stack boat storage system began on the site. An agreement was
reached with the City allowing construction of a pair of two-tier, 24 space storage units without roofs,
and a storage height for the second tier of boats not to exceed 15 feet at the deck line of the stored
boats. The storage units were originally constructed to contain a third tier,but did not have a roof. In
1984,the property was rezoned again to B-2 Lakeshore Business District, as it is today, and at that time
permits were issued for the service building and for the roof on the dry stack units.
In 1994, Rich Anderson, current owner,purchased the marina. Since 1988,the LMCD has been
licensing all 72 of the dry stack spaces for boats intended for lake use as opposed to boats"for sale",
"Waiting for service", "company boats"or other boats not owned by customers for on-demand
launching. The Applicant pays annual LMCD license fees for the extra 52 spots even though he is not
currently utilizing them.
Gaffron stated the Applicant has over the years made a number of improvements to the site. The
Applicant is working with City Staff to continue his landscaping improvements and has expressed a
willingness to improve stormwater management facilities on the site in conjunction with a long-term
site renovation plan that he is planning to bring in later this year.
Gaffron stated the North Shore Marina has more than adequate space available for parking to serve the
dry-stacking needs as well as the slip customer needs. Orono's ordinances require six parking stalls per
ten boats,plus eight additional spaces for the service/retail component of the business. Total required
parking is 103 spaces. City Staff feels there is sufficient parking for the current use and requests that
the Applicant submit an updated parking and landscaping plan.
Gaffron indicated the Applicant is only requesting a change to the number of storage units that may be
utilitized on the site and not any other improvements at this time. Gaffron stated the Applicant has
indicated he intends to continue to improve the property and is willing to work with Staff on these
issues.
Anderson stated he did count the number of parking stalls available on his site and arrived at 106.
Gaffron stated the City at this time does not have a formal parking plan for 106 spaces. Gaffron stated
the City would require the approved landscape plan be adhered to, with the possibility of additional
landscaping being added in conjunction with this request. A revised, updated parking plan is also
required.
Gaffron reiterated that the Applicant does have enough room available for parking to accommodate the
additional storage units but would need to provide a formal parking plan to the City. Gaffron stated
the Planning Commission would need to address issues relating to traffic, drainage, and impact to the
neighborhood.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson,Continued)
Anderson stated he has been a resident of Orono for 47 years. Anderson stated in his view the
additional storage units will not heavily impact the traffic in the area. Anderson commented he has
chosen to limit his business by not adding retail sales or sponsoring boat shows. Anderson stated in the
past on his heaviest day he has accommodated 124 cars on his property, and has made efforts to define
each parking spot available on his property. Anderson remarked it was his opinion following the
Council meeting that this is merely a housekeeping matter that needs to be taken care of.
Anderson stated in his view the City would rather have dry storage units available than to have the
boats stored in people's yards throughout the community. Anderson stated he is intending to continue
with the improvements to his property and is addressing the non-compliant issues that have been
brought to his attention as quickly as he can. Anderson stated he attempts to keep his facilities clean
and wants to be a good neighbor.
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
Fred Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Drive, commented that the Applicant has taken steps to improve this
property and that he is happy with the way things have been progressing to date. Pacovsky stated he
does,however,have some concerns relating to the impact on traffic that the additional storage units
would have.
Hawn noted for the record the City did receive a letter from Michael and Donna Wallace, 3160 North
Shore Drive, expressing their concerns relating to the traffic issues.
Dennis Libby, 3210 North Shore Drive, commented he also has seen the Applicant make some
improvements to this property and he personally finds the marina to be an asset to the community.
Libby inquired whether additional storage units were being constructed or whether he was merely
utilizing the ones that are currently there. Libby stated he has no current objections to the traffic,but
was wondering what the City was anticipating in terms of additional traffic to this property. Libby
stated he was aware he bought next to a marina at the time he purchased the property.
Anderson stated he does winter storage of boats and would like to increase the number of storage units
that he utilizes to 72 total. Anderson stated he is unsure how the impact to the traffic in the area can be
determined.
Hawn stated the City is looking at a potential of 52 additional boats if this application is approved.
Anderson stated it is his intention to get rid of the boats that are in disrepair and that are not being
launched.
Mabusth indicated the City's current agreement with the Applicant allows him 20 units. Mabusth
stated the Planning Commission needs to get an idea of the Applicant's business.
Anderson stated the average boat user that utilizes his marina would launch his boat ten to fifteen times
during the season.
Mabusth inquired whether the number of boat slips used for dry-stack customers would be increased.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson, Continued)
Anderson stated he currently has 16 boat slips for dry-stack and does not expect that number will need
to be increased.
Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated he has concerns regarding the increased traffic and
noise that would occur if these additional storage units are approved. Windenburg expressed
frustration with a loud bell that rings quite frequently for people who wish to purchase gas at the
marina. Windenburg commented his property faces the back side of the marina and it is not a pretty
sight. Windenburg noted the back side of the buildings are not painted at the current time.
Windenburg stated he was aware he bought property next to a marina at the time he purchased his
residence.
Anderson commented he would like to be a good neighbor and is willing to work with his neighbors in
order to resolve their concerns. Anderson stated he was not aware of the concern relating to the back
side of his buildings until tonight.
Windenburg commented he also experiences problems with people cutting across his property in order
to access the marina.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission would prefer to let the neighbors work out their problems
amongst themselves. Hawn stated if the problems cannot be resolved that way, the residents are free to
come back to the City.
Mrs. Windenburg commented that pollution is also a concern.
Libby stated he would like to know what the impact will be to the boat traffic on the lake as well as the
additional traffic going in and out of the marina.
Kluth stated in his view the traffic limit in this area should be lowered. Kluth stated in his view the
impact on the traffic will be difficult to determine and that one of the ways the City can control the
traffic in and out of the marina is to restrict the amount of parking available.
Robert Ritter, 3260 Bohns Point Lane, stated he has many of the same concerns that his other
neighbors have already expressed. Ritter commented there is a lot of debris and garbage located on the
west side of the service building,which in his view should be cleaned up. Ritter stated in his opinion if
a fence were erected on the marina property that would eliminate the problem of people trespassing
through the adjoining properties. Ritter stated in addition he also experiences problems with dogs
coming into his yard.
Libby stated they also are experiencing a problem with people partying at the marina until the early
morning hours.
Hawn indicated it was her understanding the marina is supposed to shut down at 10:00 p.m.
Anderson stated there are very few boats that stay out late and that he is not aware of any people
partying until the early morning hours at his marina. Anderson stated he also attempts to limit the size
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16, 2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson, Continued)
of the boats that are stored at his marina. Anderson commented he does not wish to be at odds with his
neighbors and that he is willing to work with them to address their concerns.
Hawn inquired whether by the end of the evening there are a number of boats that are waiting to be
returned to the dry-stack storage.
Anderson stated he has not had any complaints about that. Anderson indicated the new fork lift he has
purchased makes his operation run better.
Mabusth noted the Applicant has been following the direction of the City and has taken steps to
improve the property. Mabusth inquired whether the number of storage units could be increased in
phases rather than all at one time in order to better monitor how the additional storage units will impact
the neighborhood.
Anderson indicated he would be agreeable to increasing the number of storage units in phases.
Mabusth commented the main problem facing the Planning Commission is the lack of information they
have concerning the impact the increase in storage units will have on the Applicant's operation.
Anderson indicated he does have signs posted which says no dogs are allowed on his property without
a leash. Anderson commented he is aware that some of the neighbors do own dogs themselves and that
he really cannot stop people from trespassing across the adjoining properties.
Hawn stated from her view it sounds like there are some irritants to the neighbors which need to be
addressed. Hawn requested that the neighbors attempt to work with Anderson in order to come to an
acceptable resolution of the issues raised.
Hawn stated in her opinion the Applicant will be appearing before the Planning Commission in the
future as he continues to improve the property and that the City will be monitoring what occurs at the
marina. Hawn stated she likes the suggestion by Commission Mabusth. Hawn requested that the
Applicant provide a formal parking plan to City Staff
Kluth indicated he also was in agreement with the suggestion by Commissioner Mabusth, which would
help the City monitor the impact the increase in storage units would have on the marina's business and
the neighborhood. Kluth stated another option the Planning Commission could consider would be to
allow a test period. Kluth indicated he is unsure how the City or Applicant would be apply to measure
the impact the additional storage units would have.
Hawn stated the number of cars going in and out of the marina could perhaps be counted.
Gaffron stated a consulting firm could perhaps assist in that.
Anderson indicated he would like to withdraw his application. Anderson stated in his view the City
would prefer to have the additional storage units available in order to reduce the number of boats being
stored in people's yards.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson,Continued)
Kluth stated his comments were not intended to be critical of the Applicant's operation but that the
Planning Commission needs to discuss the issues that affect the neighbors and the marina. Kluth
commented he understands the complaints of the adjoining property owners but that the marina was
there prior to many of the residents moving there. Kluth stated in his view the Applicant can perhaps
do little things like changing his bell or erecting a fence which would help to alleviate many of these
concerns.
Anderson stated he is trying to be a good neighbor and would like to continue to improve his property.
Anderson stated he does have certain long-term goals that he is attempting to accomplish at the marina
but that they take time and he is financially unable to do all of them at once. Anderson indicated he
does not want to put in a position where he needs to count the number of cars going in and out of his
place of business.
Kluth encouraged the Applicant to be patient before withdrawing his application.
Anderson reiterated he has been making improvements to the property over the past few years.
Hawn stated it is her impression that the Applicant is not at odds with his neighbors. Hawn pointed out
that some of the neighbors have given testimonials about the good that has happened at the marina.
Hawn stated the role of the Planning Commission is to address the impact on traffic in the area and the
impact to the lake that would result by allowing the additional storage units. The Planning
Commission also needs to be informed about the Applicant's business prior to making any decision.
Libby indicated he was in attendance at tonight's meeting for information and has not objected to the
application. Libby stated he is the adjoining property owner and would be the person most affected by
this increase.
Al Seran, 4099 Highwood Road, indicated he used to reside in this area and moved due to the amount
of noise and traffic in the area, which on an average basis is between 300 to 400 cars an hour. Seran
indicated the 30 to 40 additional cars that would result from the increase would not have a significant
impact in his opinion on the traffic in the area.
Lindquist noted the LMCD has already approved 72 storage units at this location while the City has
approved 20 storage units. Lindquist asked who has the authority in this matter.
Gaffron stated the City has authority over the land and that the LMCD has licensing powers over the
number of boats stored at the site. Gaffron indicated the Applicant does pay fees on 72 storage units.
Gaffron stated the City has attempted to make the LMCD aware of the reasons why the City limits the
number of boat slips and storage units.
Kluth stated it is his impression the Applicant is willing to address some of these issues raised by the
neighbors.
Anderson indicated he has been approved by the LMCD for 72 storage units since 1993.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would still like to withdraw his application.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(#01-2667 Richard Anderson,Continued)
Anderson indicated he would.
Mabusth suggested the Applicant consider tabling his application in order to give him an opportunity to
discuss his options with City Staff.
Gaffron stated the City would need a formal parking plan and that the property will need to be brought
into compliance with the landscaping plan. Gaffron stated in his view the only issue remaining for the
Planning Commission to address is the impact on traffic and the lake.
Anderson commented he does not know how that can be measured. Anderson stated he is the only
marina in Orono that does not have a parking issue. Anderson indicated if the boats are not launched at
his marina or another marina,they are launched at public access sites,which causes traffic and parking
problems.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to confine its discussion to issues relating to the
Applicant's marina. Hawn recommended the Applicant have his application tabled so he can discuss it
further with City Staff.
Gaffron recommended the Applicant have his application tabled so they can discuss the issues more
indepth. Gaffron suggested the Applicant consider phasing in the additional storage units.
Anderson stated he would like his application tabled.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to table Application#2667,North Shore Marina,3222 North
Shore Drive,to allow the Applicant an opportunity to discuss his options with City Staff and to
submit a formal landscaping and parking plan for review and approval by City Staff. The
Planning Commission recommended the Applicant discuss the option of phasing in the number
of storage units over a period of time. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Anderson inquired whether he would be getting a written list of the items he is to address.
Lindquist requested a copy of the minutes be provided to the Applicant.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like his neighbors to contact him in order to discuss their
concerns.
Anderson stated his main focus is to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Smith encouraged the adjoining property owners to work with the Applicant in order to resolve these
issues.
Hawn stated in her view she concurs the City should consider reducing the speed limit in this area.
Gaffron indicated the City Council is addressing the parking situation in that area and could also
address the speed limit.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19,2001
Hawn requested the minutes for the March 19,2001 meeting be amended to reflect that the Planning
Commission is also opposed to any private or commercial use of the two oversized accessory structures
other than for horses as it relates to the Alshouse application. Hawn further requested that the minutes
specifically reflect that the accessory structures should not be used for private or commercial storage.
Smith requested the minutes be amended to reflect that she was selected to attend the April 9 City
Council meeting.
The Planning Commission tabled the March 19, 2001 minutes.
(#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 26, 2001 AND APRIL 9, 2001
Kluth stated he attended the March 26`h Council meeting and that all the items were placed on the
Consent Agenda.
Smith indicated she attended the April 9th Council meeting. The Council acted on the Watertown
subdivision and basically discussed the same issues raised by the Planning Commission.
(#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
APRIL 23,2001 AND MAY 14,2001
April 23 —Mabusth
May 14—Lindquist
(#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission needs to be informed about any action taken by the
Council at one of their work sessions relating to the Stormwater Management Plan.
Council Member Flint stated the Council did discuss the Stormwater Management Plan and that there
needs to be a formal presentation given to the public.
Mabusth commented there was discussion about incorporating language regarding the fees into a
resolution rather than the ordinance.
Gaffron stated they are waiting for some information from Bonestroo on the Stormwater Management
Plan before it can be brought back before the Council.
Hawn inquired whether the plan would be brought back before the Planning Commission.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16,2001
(Other Issues, Continued)
Gaffron indicated it probably would not.
Council Member Flint stated he is impressed with the great job the Planning Commission does in
handling the applications. Flint indicated it allows the City Council to place a large number of the
applications on the Consent Agenda.
Hawn requested the Council look at the application for the residence located on Baldur Park
concerning the four foot overhang. Hawn stated in her view this is one application that perhaps should
be under administrative authority to avoid the need for the applicants to appear before the Planning
Commission.
Gaffron indicated City Staff is in the process of compiling a list of applications that would not need to
appear before the Planning Commission and could be dealt with on an administrative level.
ADJOURNMENT
Smith moved,Lindquist seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
11-0e,d3l/
/ ill
Elizabeth Ha hair
PAGE 19