Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1991 Planning Commission Minutesit ] 7 P1Anning Commission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE dt7h J PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 J U L 2 8 1991 ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Planning Commission Chair Charlie Kelley, and Planning Commission Members Jeffrey Johnson, Maureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, Charles Schroeder, and Sara Moos. Candace Rowlette was absent. The following represented the- City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative J. Diann Goetten was present, as was Councilmember Jabbour. (J1)ZONING FILE #1653- JEFFREY JOHNSON 3825 CHERRY AVENUE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT -OF- WAY - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey Johnson was present. At 8:00 p.m., Kelley opened the Public Hearing, and asked Mabusth to provide a review of application #1653. Mabusth summarized the information set forth in her memo dated June 12, 1991 pertaining to Mr. Johnson's request to vacate a portion of an unimproved public right -of -way. She used a plat map of the area to show the section of alley that would be vacated. Mabusth noted that the alley restricts the area in which any improvements can occur to the rear of the existing house. She advised that the Public Works Director is asking the applicant to provide drainage and utility easements over the vacated portion of the alley. This, however, would limit the building envelope because construction could not take place within the easement. The rear lot line would be redefined, reducing need for setback Variance." Kelley asked Mabusth if she could elaborate on the request by the Public Works Director to have an easement dedicated for a future bike trail through that area. Mabusth replied, "I have nothing further to add at this time. It is a recent policy of the City to have the Park Commission review Vacations and Subdivisions to assist with their plan for a future bike trail. It is my understanding that this particular request would be reviewed by the Park Commission at their July 2, 1991 meeting." Kathryn Nevers, 3860 Cherry Avenue, stated that she and her son each own two lots on the south side of Cherry Avenue. She asked what impact Johnson's request to vacate a portion of the alley would have on their parcels. Kelley explained that Johnson's request would have no impact on the adjacent lots on the south side of Cherry Avenue. - 1 - Im ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #1)ZONING FILE #1653- JEFFREY JOHNSON CONTINUED Ms. Nevers asked if it would be the City's intention to now vacate the entire alley. Mabusth explained that it would be a complicated process if the City were to initiate the Vacation of the remaining portion of alley, in that the City would have to ask each property owner to grant utility and drainage easements. Nevers asked what the purpose is for Johnson's request to vacate the alley. Johnson replied, "One of the reasons for requesting the Vacation is that the alley does impact the building envelope. I had a choice of either seeking a rear setback Variance to construct a deck or a Vacation of the alley. I chose the Vacation because it would also resolve issues that relate to the location of the alley and legally combining the lots. I do take issue with the request for the drainage and utility easements. I would like the City Engineer to review that. If easements are located in that area, it would have the impact on the building envelope as the alley. The easements would unduly restrict building area. There is a wetland that would be located in the middle of the easement, which runs north and south. Also, there is already city water in North Shore Drive. The Public Works Director has indicated that a water line could be installed where the alley now exists to serve the properties on Cherry Avenue. However, it will be necessary to provide water to both sides of Cherry Avenue. A bike trail through that area would make no sense because of the wetland. The plat of this area is 100 years old. The City has found no use for the platted alley over that period of time." Councilmember Jabbour expressed concern about the fact that Cherry Avenue is closed off on one end, leaving only one way to access it. He also suggested it would be more efficient to vacate the entire alley at once, as opposed to having it done in a piece meal fashion. There were no additional comments from the public, and at 8:19 p.m., Kelley closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to recommend that Council approve the Vacation of an Unimproved Public Right -of -Way. The applicant is to make his appeal to the City Council regarding the issue of the drainage and utility easements. Motion, Ayes -5, Nays -0, Johnson abstained. Motion carried. - 2 - 17 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #2)ZONING FILE #1604 -CLAIR ROOD •2215 KENWOOD WAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Kelley noted that Clair Rood was present, and continued the Public Hearing on this matter at 8:20 p.m. Gaffron advised the submitted the additional Commission at their May revised plans show the F show that pillars are adjacent to Navarre Lane. Planning Commission that*Mr. Rood had information requested by the Planning 20, .1991 meeting. He stated that the illars and retaining walls, but do not also located on Mr. Rood's property Mr. Rood indicated that he would prefer to have the pillars at a height of 4h feet, rather than 3h feet as required by the City. He intends to plant shrubbery in between the pillars that would be maintained at a height of four feet. He noted that there were several fences in his neighborhood that were six feet in height. Bellows stated that the elevations of the pillars and hedges shown on the plan do not depict the plans explained by Mr. Rood, nor does it show what actually exists on Mr. Rood's property. She said, "The plan shows the hedges above the pillars. Mr. Rood has indicated that he wants the hedge 1/2 foot below the pillars. The plan shows that pillars are located along one property line when in fact there are pillars along two property lines. I am becoming concerned about this because each time a plan has been submitted, it does not show what presently exists on the property. We gave Mr. Rood very explicit direction as to what we wanted to see. We also indicated that we wanted the property to remain in as natural a state as possible. I am not sure that is occurring." Rood explained that he is requesting approval to construct the pillars 4h feet, which is the height of the existing pillars. He stated that if the Planning Commission will not allow the pillars at a 4h foot height, he would have to reduce the height to 3h feet. Kelley stated that Mr. Rood is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for excavation and creation of a pond within a wetland area. Gaffron confirmed Kelley's statement. Mabusth asked if Mr. Rood is now seeking a height Variance for the pillars /fence. Cohen stated that request is not included in the application being reviewed in this Public Hearing. • - 3 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #2)ZONING FILE #1504 -ROOD CONTINUED Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission focus only on • the application before them. He stated that, in his opinion, he would like to see the area behind Mr. Rood's home cleaned up, and that is what Mr. Rood is attempting to do. He asked Gaffron if the City Engineer has reviewed Mr. Rood's plans. Gaffron replied, "The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the plans for the excavation and pond. With regard to the retaining walls, I've not received anything written or verbal from the City Engineer. However, the retaining walls will only have a height of 3h feet, which is fairly insignificant." Kelley polled the Planning Commission for their opinion regarding the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the pond. Cohen stated that he would give a favorable recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Bellows stated that she had originally been in favor of Mr. Rood's proposal, but now cannot separate the issue of the excavation, pond, and retaining wall project, from the pillars and hedge project. Kelley asked Bellows how she would view the project if Mr. Rood was required to keep the height of the pillars at 3h feet. Bellows replied, "I am trying to say that I am leery of the project. It seems to me that we are not being told what is 40 actually going on out on this property. In my opinion, we should put some very tight restrictions on this, if it is the Planning Commission's consensus to recommend approval. Conceptually, I agree with Mr. Rood that clean up of this property is necessary. However, I think there are real problems with the way this is being approached." Kelley asked Bellows if she would prefer to review these issues in stages. Mr. Rood indicated that he had tried to present his plans in stages from the beginning, but was told to bring everything in at once. He said, "When I first started constructing the pillars, the City Building Inspector informed me that the structures could not exceed 3h feet. I asked him if there were any height restrictions for the pillars I intended to place along the rear and side of my property. He informed me that pillars along the side and rear could be six feet tall. I constructed the pillars at a five foot height and did not realize I would need permits. This was something new - -the pillars were not classified as a fence, and did not fall under any other category. I have not done anything with the pillars for some time because I wanted to wait until the final grade is done to be sure that the structures - 4 - 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 (#2)ZONING FILE $1604 -ROOD CONTINUED •are level with one another. I tried to put-that project on the back burner, but when I appeared two months ago, I was asked to bring in the plans for the pillars. If the Planning Commission would prefer to wait and address the wetlands issue now, and wait on the pillars, that is fine with me." There were no comments from the public regarding this application, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:37 p.m. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance to excavate and construct a pond within a wetland. Kelley stated that his motion did not refer to the pillars which must either be constructed to meet the City's requirements or Mr. Rood must submit an application for a height Variance. Bellows stated that it has been past policy of the Planning Commission to ask for a comprehensive plan of all projects proposed for a particular property when there is more than one project taking .place. She could see no reason to deviate from that policy at this time. Motion, Ayes -5, Bellows, Nay. Motion carried. ( #3)ZONING FILE #1644 -LARRY HORK (NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA) 3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE APPEALS- PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m. • Mabusth explained that this issue has come before the Planning Commission, more on behalf of the City of Orono, than Mr. Hork. She explained that there is a difference between Staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance, and that of Mr. Hork. Staff interprets the Sign Ordinance to state that a sign must be attached to a principal structure. Mr. Hork is seeking approval of a permit to attach a permanent sign to an accessory structure. It was Planning Commission's consensus that Staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance is correct and should be enforced. The Public Hearing was closed, and no formal action was taken. ( #4)ZONING FILE #1646- TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH 2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth advised Kelley that Paul Phillips, a property owner residing near Trinity Lutheran Church, was present to comment on this application. Mr. Phillips indicated that he had no objection to the garage, but indicated that the light over the side entrance door • _ 5 _ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #4)ZONING FILE #1646- TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH CONTINUED may shine into the bedroom of the Orono Woodland Group Home. He • suggested that perhaps the light could be situated elsewhere. The Planning Commission took no action on this item. ( #5)ZONING FILE #1647- GERALD BENOIT 3403 EASTLAKE STREET VARIANCES- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to table this item, as requested by the applicant. All voted aye. Motion carried. ( #6)ZONING FILE #1648 - RONALD 1920 SHORELINE DRIVE RENEWAL VARIANCE- PUBLIC HEAR It was moved by Cohen, Council approve the renewal the findings and conditions voted aye. Motion carried. & JULIENNE PRINEAS LNG seconded by Moos, to recommend that of a Lot Width Variance, subject to outlined in Resolution #2829. All ( #7)ZONING FILE #1649 - ELAINE PETERSON 1921 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Elaine Peterson indicated that she was present, and Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 p.m. Gaffron provided a brief explanation of Ms. Peterson's • application involving side setback and hardcover Variances to construct a detached garage. He noted that the applicant is now asking that she be allowed to construct a 20 foot by 24 foot garage, rather than 20 foot by 22 foot as initially indicated. Gaffron reviewed the hardcover existing and proposed hardcover information as outlined in his June 13, 1991 memo. Kelley asked Ms. Peterson if she intends to have a back -up area so it will not be necessary to back directly onto Fagerness Point-Road, and if so, where it will be located. Elaine Peterson advised that a small turn - around area would be located directly adjacent to the house and would be created by leaving a portion of the gravel drive. Kelley asked Peterson if she had given consideration to attaching the garage to the house. Peterson indicated that she had considered various ways to attach the garage to the house, but could find nothing that would work within the limited area up near the house. Kelley believed that everyone living in this State should be entitled to a garage to protect their car from the elements. - 6 - • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #7)ZONING FILE #1649- ELAINE PETERSON CONTINUED .Cohen concurred with Kelley, adding that there is really nowhere else on the property to locate a garage. Cohen referred to notations in Gaffron's memo concerning the location of Peterson's retaining wall in relation to the neighboring property. He stated that, in his opinion, this issue should be resolved between Elaine Peterson and her neighbor. There were no public comments pertaining to this application, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Kelley asked Gaffron if the hardcover calculations included the proposed back -up area. Gaffron advised that the hardcover calculations include all of the gravel area east of the sidewalk as shown on the survey. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend that Council approve the hardcover and side setback Variance required to construct a detached garage. Cohen stated that the hardship for the Variances is the need for a garage due to the weather in Minnesota, and the topography of the land at 1921 Fagerness Point Road. All voted aye. Motion carried. ( #8)ZONING FILE #1650- HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROADS 15 & 51 AFTER - THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE- PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth noted that there would not be a representative present on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. Kelley opened the Public Hearing on this matter at 7:45 p.m., and asked if anyone from the public was present to express his /her opinion on this matter. Mabusth noted that she had received a telephone call from a concerned resident living near County Road 15. The resident stated that the City had taken the position that County Road 15 is a Scenic Highway, and it would do whatever possible to maintain that character. Mabusth confirmed that Hennepin County's improvement plans do not call for widening the road, it will remain a two -lane roadway. She referred to a resolution passed by Council which allows improvements to County Road 15 at intersections by providing turn - lanes. The project currently undertaken by Hennepin County involves safety improvements, which they hope will encourage use of the County Road 15 and 51 intersection, as opposed to Spates Avenue. Hennepin County submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance in light of the installation of storm sewer done in conjunction with the safety improvements. Mabusth further noted that the resident, to which she previously referred, had also raised concerns about the quality of runoff into the Lake, and 0 - 7 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE'17, 1991 ( #8)ZONING FILE #1650 - HENNEPIN COUNTY CONTINUED whether riprap will 'serve as an adequate filter. The resident • asked her to have the City Engineer verify the effectiveness of the riprap. There were no other comments or concerns registered in connection with this application, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that Council grant a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to the Hennepin County Department of Transportation for improvements made at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 51 in the form of of a left -turn lane and installation of storm sewer. All voted aye. Motion carried. ( #9)ZONING FILE #1652 - DANIEL AND BARBARA FLEISCHMAN 500 HANLON AVENUE VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Barbara Fleischman was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m., and asked Gaffron to make his opening comments. Gaffron explained that the Fleischmans are requesting side and rear setback Variances, as well as a lot coverage Variance to construct a deck. He reviewed the issues pertaining to Fleischman's applications as set forth in his June 10, 1991 memo. Gaffron asked Mrs. Fleischman if the shed on the tax forfeit lot across the alley in fact belonged to them. Fleischman indicated in the affirmative. Kelley asked Gaffron to elaborate on the history of the tax forfeit parcel on the other side of the alley. Gaffron explained that this lot and Fleischman's property had at one time been owned by the same property owner (several owners before Fleischmans purchased the property). At the time the Minnetonka Bluffs Sewer Project was put through, the City assessed the lots on each side of the alley for half of the total, per unit assessment. Subsequent to that, the lot became tax forfeit and the half unit assessment charge was never paid. This property can only be purchased by an adjacent property owner, and is not deemed a separate, buildable lot. Gaffron added, "I have talked with Hennepin County regarding the parcel, and they informed me that it is valued at $500.00. The lot could be sold to an adjacent owner for that amount, and the City would probably then attempt to hold an Assessment Hearing to recover the half unit assessment charge. It would be the City Council's decision as to whether or not such an assessment would occur." Kelley asked Fleischman if she has any intentions of - 8 - 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #9)ZONING FILE #1652- FLEISCHMAN CONTINUED • constructing a garage on their lot. Fleischman stated that they have considered purchasing the parcel across the alley in order to construct a garage, but were not certain they could afford to pay the sewer assessment. She advised that they have no plans to construct a garage on their lot. Schroeder asked Gaffron if he is aware of what the outstanding assessment charge is at this time. Gaffron estimated it to be in the area of $5,000 to $6,000, due to interest and penalty fees that have accumulated over the years. Kelley asked what would need to occur in order for the half unit assessment charge to be waived by the City. Gaffron stated that the Finance Department would bring such a request before Council for their consideration. He noted that under normal situations, it would not be possible for an assessment to be removed. However, in talking with Hennepin County, he learned that they have apparently removed (or inadvertently lost or erased) the City's sewer assessment. •Cohen indicated that there seems to be a discrepancy in what the neighbors state will be the size of the new deck, and what the Fleischmans are proposing. Barbara Fleischman advised that the previous deck consisted of a three -tier design, and that the proposed deck will be slightly larger. Kelley noted that there is a difference of 5% lot coverage between what existed with the old deck and what it would be with the proposed deck. Gaffron clarified that his "existing" lot coverage calculations of 17% do not consider a deck on the property at all. He estimated the pre- existing deck to have approximately the same lot coverage percent as the proposed deck. Bellows asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to include a notification to the property owner that they must acquire the tax forfeit parcel west of the alley if they ever intend to construct a garage. Gaffron suggested that the Planning Commission could include such a notification as an advisory statement in their recommendation to Council, but that this would not bind the property owners in any way. 0 - 9 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #9)ZONING FILE #1652- FLEISCHMAN CONTINUED There were no comments from the public, and -Kelley. closed • the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. Johnson stated that he appreciated the opportunity to review this application before the deck became an after - the -fact issue. Cohen asked Fleischman to state her hardship for the Variances she is requesting. Fleischman explained that the pre- existing deck was removed because of its unsafe condition. Two of the three entrances /exits for the house would otherwise have a five foot drop without a deck. She added that the lot is only 50 feet wide, but is located in a Two -acre Zoning District. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend that Council approve the side and rear setback Variances to construct a deck, the hardship being the extremely small size of the lot and the existing configuration and elevation of the entry to the house in relation to the ground. Further, it is recommended, that the applicants be notified that 22% lot coverage is the maximum that this lot should sustain. All voted aye. Motion carried. ( #10)ZONING FILE #1654 -DEAN TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE VARIANCES- PUBLIC HEARING • It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to table this item, as requested by the applicant. All voted aye. Motion carried. ( #11)ZONING FILE #1655 - ELAINE PAGONIS 2740 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Elaine Pagonis indicated that she was present and, at 7:23 p.m, Kelley opened the Public Hearing on this application. Gaffron displayed a survey of Ms. Pagonis's property taken prior to any of the subject improvements being done. He reviewed the chronology of the various improvements to the property, and the hardcover statistics, as outlined in his June 13, 1991 memo. Kelley noted that the applicant is asking for 1.2% additional hardcover beyond the 25% allowed. Gaffron confirmed Kelley's statement, adding that the additional 1.2% increase will occur within the 75 -250 foot setback area, and is due to the additional driveway area and front sidewalk. Pagonis noted that at one time, a portion of the driveway - 10 - 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #11)ZONING FILE #1655 - PAGONIS CONTINUED • existed in the 0 -75 f6of setback area, but has since been removed. Gaffron advised, that with respect to the hardcover percentages shown in his memo, Planning Commission should consider that the hardcover resulting from that portion of the boathouse that exists on land in the 0 -75 foot setback, has been subtracted from 25% of the land area within the 75 -250 foot setback area. Gaffron referred Planning Commission to a June 12, 1991 letter of opposition that had been received from John Fiebelkorn (Ms. Pagonis's neighbor). Kelley indicated that he would prefer to see the applicant maintain a level of 25% hardcover in the 75 -250 foot setback zone, using her own discretion as to how to reach that percent. Johnson believed there to be several unique factors involved with this application. He said, "There is no encroachment into the 75 foot setback, and no encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Approximately half of the lot is located within the 0 -75 foot setback zone, and there is a large peninsula. There is an acre of property here, which I believe meets the intent of the Hardcover Ordinance." Bellows concurred with Johnson, that the applicant has done a good job in trying to meet the spirit of the Hardcover Ordinance. Kelley asked Ms. Pagonis if she has plans to do additional landscaping around the house, noting that landscape areas have not been included in the hardcover calculations. Pagonis stated that she intends to put something below the deck where the walkout is located. Kelley referred to information given to the Planning Commission regarding Council's recent action which allows residents to use non -woven fabrics for weed control beneath landscaped areas. He expressed concern about enforcing the use of non -woven materials, versus woven fabric or plastic. Gaffron suggested that Planning Commission's recommendation include a stipulation requiring the applicant. to use non -woven weed barrier .fabric under any landscape areas on the property. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m., in light of there being no indication of public interest in this application. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend that Council approve a 518 square foot hardcover Variance, and that the applicant be placed on notice that further requests to - 11 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #11)ZONING FILE $1655 - PAGONIS CONTINUED increase hardcover on this property will not be favorably considered. Further, any additional landscaping on this property should be done using non -woven fabric. Motion, Ayes -5, Cohen, Nay. Motion carried. Cohen indicated that, in his opinion, hardcover in the 75 -250 foot setback area should meet the required 25 %. ( #12)ZONING FILE #1657 -NICK SIMONDS 2007 SUGARWOOD,DRIVE DRIVEWAY REQUEST Nick Simonds was present, and referred to a letter dated June 8, 1991, which he had sent to Planning Commission members. He explained that the reason for the request to vary from the Development Standards is to preserve several trees that provide screening for the residence from the street. A curved driveway will also better facilitate access to the garage. Mr. Simonds noted that Sidney Rebers, Developer of Sugarwoods, and adjacent property owner, had no objections to his request. Kelley stated that he had no objections to Mr. Simonds' request. Bellows disagreed, stating that, unless there is an extreme hardship situation, she could not approve a Variance from the original requirements. Bellows. stated that there is not an extreme hardship in this case, and that curving the driveway will • preserve only-two major trees, one of which is an Elm. Johnson indicated that he concurred with Kelley. He asked Mabusth how far into the side setback area the driveway would encroach. Mabusth advised that the proposed driveway would be located 19' from the side lot line instead of the required 30 feet. Moos stated that her first inclination is to recommend approval of Mr. Simonds' request, but that she has reservations due to the number of such applications that have, and potentially could come before the Planning Commission. Schroeder indicated that it seems this situation arose during the construction phase when it became clear that the trees would have to be removed to construct a driveway with the required straight alignment. Simonds confirmed Schroeder's observation, adding that the excavator is attempting to take the path of least resistance for installing the driveway. Schroeder stated that he agreed with Kelley, and though the trees in question are not significant, they are a fairly large - 12 - 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ( #12)ZONING FILE #1657- SIMONDS CONTINUED • size. Bellows said, "My concern is that if we give in on this request, for which there is not an extreme hardship, we are going to be hard pressed to do this again. The Developer insisted on constructing houses in this area that cannot realistically meet the requirements. It is not the fault of the property owner." Cohen and Moos concurred with Bellows. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to recommend that Council approve the applicant's request to construct a driveway that varies from the Development Standards for the Sugar Woods PRD. Motion, Ayes -3, Bellows, Moos and Cohen, Nay. Motion failed. OTHER With regard to Council's recent action allowing the use of non -woven fabric beneath landscaped areas, Kelley expressed concern about the potential for an extreme scenario where someone does excessive landscaping in the 0 -75 foot setback area. He indicated that from what he has read, there is nothing that would prohibit or limit the use of non -woven fabrics on the lakeshore. Kelley suggested that Council may wish to better define the extent in which the fabric can be used. Johnson noted that soil is not 100% permeable, especially clay soils. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission and Council would like to have an ordinance which allows only a certain portion of lakeshore area to be something other than grass. Councilmember Jabbour stated that the 0 -75 foot setback area should have nothing but grass. The Planning Commission, and Councilmembers Goetten and Jabbour agreed that further consideration should be given to this issue. ( #13)PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ATTACHED ANTENNAS Mabusth explained to the Planning Commission that this item had been referred back to them for further direction. She asked the Planning Commission to consider whether the Ordinance Amendment should be expanded to not only address antennas in the B -6 and PUD Districts, but possibly those properties zoned Residential that are not used for residential use. Mabusth cited the watertower in Navarre as an example, noting that the proposed Amendment would not allow an antenna to be attached to that particular structure. • - 13 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 ($13)ORDINANCE AMENDMENT- ANTENNAS It was the Planning Com Amendment be drafted to reflect only to a watertower, regardless indicated that he would prefer individual basis. CONTINUED mission's consensus that' the that antennas can be attached of where it is located. Cohen to review each request on an APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to .approve the minutes of the May 20, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Maureen Bellows would attend the July 8, 1991 Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. ADJOURNMENT At 8:50 p.m., the June 17, 1991, Orono Planning Commission meeting was adjourned. - 14 - • • n U