Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1991 Planning Commission MinutesC] `Planning Commission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE 1 PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Planning Commission Chair Ed Cohen, and Planning Commission Members Jeff Johnson, Sara Moos, Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette. Charles Kelley and Maureen Bellows were absent. The following represented City staff: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator; Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator; Glenn Cook, City Engineer; and Teri Naab, City Recorder. Council Representative Gabriel Jabbour was also present. ( #1) #1676 CITY OF ORONO 700 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 — 7:20 P.M. City Engineer Cook explained the proposal is for an elevated water reservoir on property owned by the City. The well is located east of the Otten property on Highway 12, and a water main has been constructed along Highway 12 and along Old Crystal Bay Road. He noted that they wanted a separate location for the tower for fire fighting purposes. They also wanted a site other than near the well as the area directly behind the well property is residential. Cook showed three common styles of water towers and noted that the Public Works Department favors the hydropillar design. The tower will be located on the City property, 50' from • the north line to the face of the bowl of the tower, or 80' to the center of the tower; and approximately 240' from the east lot line. Cook noted there is vegetation on the north and west sides of the proposed location but there is very little cover on the east side. Mabusth noted that a conditional use permit is needed as the tower exceeds the allowed 30' height and that tower is considered a public service structure. Peg Swanson, Orono School Board, noted that this can basically be considered an attractive nuisance. She asked about the access stairs shown on the sketch. Cook noted that on the two preferred designs, the stairway is on the interior, with the base being locked at all times. Neil Lawson, Business Manager of the Orono School District, asked about access to the tower. Cook explained that access will be provided on the east side of the lot, and there will be no access on the north and west sides of the site. Swanson asked if other sites were considered. • 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1676 — CONT. • Cook explained since the City owns this land, it is the recommended site. This site also gets the tower as far away as possible from the well site and provides better fire protection as it provides two sources of water for fire fighting. Johnson felt that this is an appropriate site and it is nice to have all public facilities and the tower together. Moos agreed with Johnson and noted that she would like to see the sleekest design built. Cook noted that the preferred two styles will be bid on and the lowest priced style will be constructed. Cohen asked about the feasibility of adding an antenna to the tower design. Mabusth indicated that it could potentially be added, and she noted that the amendment to the code regarding this very issue will be scheduled at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Schroeder asked what the anticipated cost of the tower is. Cook noted that it is between $550,000 and $600,000. Johnson advised that trees can easily be used for screening • a structure as this. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to comment on the setback of the tower. She asked if the setback should be from the base, which is thirty feet in diameter, or should the setback be from the bowl at a 70' diameter. The Commission voted 3 -2 in favor of the setback being measured from the base of the tower. u It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval of application #1676 City of Orono for property located at 700 Old Crystal Bay Road North to construct a water tower on the site. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #2) #1680 DANIEL & ROBERT VAUGHAN /TODD & MARIE ZIESMER 205 TONKA AVENUE & 3440 BAYSIDE ROAD LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT — PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 — 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Both Daniel Vaughan and Todd Ziesmer were present for this application. 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILK #1660 _ t®t: • Gaffron noted that this is essentially a two —part request, starting with a lot line rearrangement which by definition is a subdivision. He asked if the Commission felt that this type of subdivision was subject to the moratorium. Gaffron went on to explain that the property is located on Bayside Road, south of the Luce Line and west of Tonka Avenue. He noted the Ziesmer residence is on a parcel of 2.35 acres and there is a vacant lot of 1.56 acres. They are proposing to change the present lot line to a north /south lot line, and leaving a 2.0 acre parcel with the Ziesmer residence and the vacant lot would be 1.91 acres. Gaffron noted that a lot area variance of .09 acre would have to be granted for the vacant lot, and a lot width variance would have to be granted as it measures 130' instead of the required 200'. He noted that this property is within the Stubb's Bay study area. However, at this time primary and alternate septic systems sites have been required. Both sites have been located, but the septic system area available would only support a three bedroom house for both lots and the Ziesmer septic system would encroach the setback required from the vacant lot. He noted that sewer may be available to this property in the future, but at this point there is no guarantee. Daniel Vaughan noted that the big problem with this application is the septic system, however he feels positive that the sewer will be available in the future. He noted that although the Ziesmer house has a potential for five bedrooms, both he and Mr. Ziesmer would be willing to covenant that there • will not be more than three bedrooms in either home until city sewer is available to the property. • Gaffron noted that the City design standards consider 2 persons per bedroom when determining septic size. Johnson asked Mr. Vaughan how he felt about investing money into a septic system and then looking at assessments for a sewer project in addition. Vaughan explained that he would install a tank and pump that tank instead of a full septic system. Gaffron noted that the Ziesmers were allowed a holding tank for 2 -3 years, and recently allowed the installation of a temporary drainfield in the front yard anticipating the sewer project. He noted that the best case scenario for the installation of sewer would be hook —up by fall of 1992. Cohen said they should address the first issue, that being the moratorium. 3 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1681 — CONT. • Jabbour rearrangement it can proc sewering the included and resolved. noted prior eed. Stub when that the applicants applied for the lot line to the adoption of the moratorium, therefore He also noted that the Council is intent to bs Bay area, however exact properties to be it will be installed still has not been Vaughan noted that the lot was originally included in the study and per the letter sent would be assessed for one unit. Rowlette asked about access to the site. Gaffron explained access would be achieved from the north end of Tonka Avenue, then going just south of the Luce Line and finally south to the property. He noted the DNR does not require any setback from the Luce Line. He also explained that when doing the Stubbs Bay Study, the City looked at all properties with the potential for a building, and assigned a proposed sewer unit. If they are assessed a sewer unit, it does not guarantee that the lot is buildable and it would still have to go through the variance process if needed. He noted that if the variance were to be denied, money might be refunded for the non — buildable lot. Johnson noted that he is not opposed to the lot area variance, but is opposed to the creation of a substandard lot and adding questionable septic sites. He felt they should wait until the sewer project has been approved. Rowlette agreed with the septic concerns and felt that they should not be approving a new lot which is substandard. Gaffron reiterated that they are not creating a new lot, just expanding a substandard, existing lot. Rowlette noted that the proposed lot size does fit in with the surrounding area. She noted that the public hearing for the sewer project will be held in November. Moos felt that the septic issue is the major concern. Cohen noted that he has trouble approving anything less than 2 acre lots. Gaffron noted that there are 2 lots on Tonka Avenue which are going tax forfeit, and may be available for purchase by Vaughan at a later date. Vaughan requested the Commission to table the application until the Stubb's Bay sewer issue is resolved. 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 20IN® FILE 01681 — CONT. • It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Moos, to table application ##1680 Daniel and Roberta Vaughan and Todd and Marie Ziesmer, 205 Tonka Avenue and 3440 Bayside Road, for a lot line rearrangement, until a definite decision on city sewer has been made for the Stubbs Bay area, or until applicant has a chance to revise his proposal so that the septic sites are deemed suitable with no variances needed, and relocating or redesigning the house so that no setback variances are necessary. Ayes 5, nays 0. LJ ( #5) #1608 JAMES HARTZELL 2987 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE — CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:47 — 7:55 P.M. Mrs. Hartzell and Erick Swanson of Baker Pools were present for this application. Gaffron explained that the applicants have revised their plans from a request for 35.9% hardcover in the 75 -250' zone to 27.3 %. There is a water tower which could be removed to further reduce hardcover, but it probably is a major undertaking to remove it and it wouldn't decrease the percentage much. Applicants are intending to keep the fence around the grassed areas adjacent to the pool to a height of less than 6', thus leaving the final lot coverage at 13.1 %. Applicants are also requesting an average lakeshore setback variance of 25'. Johnson asked how tall the retaining wall will be. Swanson noted 3' and Gaffron corrected that to 3 1/2'. Cohen asked if there was any way to get to the required 25% hardcover limit. Gaffron noted that the only way would be to make the pool smaller. He noted that 1% represents 180 s.f. Johnson felt that this was a reasonble reworking of the proposal. Cohen asked what the applicants felt the hardships for this request are. Gaffron stated the applicants' hardships, as stated in their application, are the pool area encroaches average setback line because neighboring homes are sited far from lakeshore and neighboring homes are setback from lakeshore and distanced considerably from pool area, thus creating no negative impact. There were no public comments regarding this application. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1608 — CONT. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval for application #1608 James Hartzell of 2987 Casco Point Road, approving a hardcover variance to allow 27.3% hardcover in the 75 -250' zone, and an average setback variance of 25' for the proposed pool. Schroeder asked if the pool could be downsized. Swanson noted that by scaling down the pool, it would not be as usable. It would also change the feeling of openness that the property projects. He noted that the pool is proposed at 684 s.f. and an average pool is 700 -800 s.f. Gaffron noted that the 27.3% hardcover does not include the water tower. Rowlette felt that the tower should remain for historical reasons. Johnson revised his motion to approval of 27.8% hardcover in the 75 -250' zone. Ayes 4, nays 1. Cohen opposed the motion because he felt they should not approve hardcover above the 25% limitation. ( #4) #1683 ROBERT F. SUESS 2590 WATERTOWN ROAD — PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION — PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 — 8:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. T.J. Haislet was present to represent the applicant. Gaffron explained this is a request for a subdivision of a parcel of 19.7 acres, which is currently two tax parcels, to create two new building sites. The subdivision creates lots next to the Hackberry neighborhood, and will create a 50' outlot along the western edge of the new lots. The sites have been tested for septic systems. He noted that the applicants would prefer to consider the outlot as a private driveway. Gaffron asked how the Commission would intrepret this subdivision, as a two or three lot subdivision. He noted the code requires a private road if it serves three residences. He explained the current residence accesses to Watertown Road. He also noted that the outlot in placed so it will accommodate future subdivision of the remaining property to the north. Haislet noted the applicant has no present plans to further subdivide. Gaffron noted the drainage concerns of the City Engineer. Cook has requested topographic maps for the entire property. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 MING FILE 01683 — CONT. Cohen read a petition submitted by a group of neighboring Is residents which requested that no septic tank drainfield be constructed within a reasonable distance from each boundary of the newly created lots as most homes on Hackberry have their wells on their western lot line and the drainage from the property proposed for development runs across the back yards of the Hackberry homes, and requesting that the "cartway" that runs along the eastern lot line to remain for use by the Hackberry neighbors. Dunwreath Peasley, 98 Hackberry Hill, explained the Mr. Suess installed a fence 21' to the west of his eastern lot line to be used as a cartway by himself and neighbors. He noted that cartway has existed for as long as he has lived there, 27 years. He also explained that drainage does run off the property into the Hackberry Hill neighborhood. He said he currently has 3" of standing water in his back yard. Richard Wagner, 35 Hackberry Hill, felt that Mr. Suess put the cartway in for his own use and should be able to develop his property without restrictions on that cartway by the neighboring property owners. He said there is a natural flow that runs down Watertown Road into the neighborhood. Dave Fisher, 141 Hackberry Hill, noted if the cartway were to remain it would be nice, but felt it would be up to the new owners to set up. Wagner said his wells are far enough away from the proposed subdivision and there should be no problem. The owner, 119 Hackberry Hill, noted that he lives directly on the other side of the proposed subdivision and explained that run off from the field does end up in his back yard. Peasley noted that 30' from his present well is standing water. Rowlette noted that site grading and drainage plans have not been submitted. Haislet noted that they are willing to supply those, but were notified too late for inclusion in the Commission's packets. Johnson felt that they are creating two addition lots, not three, and should be allowed to use the outlot as a private drive. Rowlette felt that more information is needed. She noted that the property to the north will more than likely be developed at some point, but it isn't necessary to install the private road or cul —de —sac at this point. She also felt it was a terrible waste and expense to have the current owner move his driveway. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1683 — CONT. • Schroeder felt the drainage concerns should be addressed. Moos felt the outlot should be developed as a private drive. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to table application #1683 for Robert Suess for preliminary subdivision of property located at 2590 Watertown Road to allow the applicant time to submit drainage plans for the property. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) #1669 JOHN WALKER 1310 SPRUCE PLACE VARIANCES — CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:22 — 8:27 P.M. Mr. & Mrs. John Walker and their representative, Dick Schieffer, were present. Schieffer explained that the applicants have reduced their request to 22% hardcover of the entire lot. They have also reduced the amount of hardcover to below the pre -1975 level as requested by the Commission. He noted that the request is for a variance for hardcover in the 75 -250' zone to be at 30.4 %, however the 0 -75' zone has been reduced to 7.2% from 14.1 %. Cohen asked staff how hardcover went from 30% pre -1975 to 50 %+ presently. • Gaffron noted that most of that percentage is in plastic or fabric lined landscaping and patio blocks, both of which do not require permits. �J Schroeder felt the increase was almost solely in landscaping. Cohen asked if the 0 -75' zone could be reduced to the 0% limitation. Gaffron felt that the stairway and retaining walls are needed. He noted that there is a pre — existing shed, and they would have to determine if they wish to require the removal of that shed. Cohen then asked if the 75 -250' hardcover could further be reduced. Gaffron noted that some of the driveway could be taken out which would reduce parking area for boats and cars. He also noted the drive, as is, is rather tight. He felt that the drive should not be reduced and it would be tough to further reduce the percentage in that zone. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 900 NQ FILE 01669 — CONT. • Rowlette noted that this type of application is hard because the entire house is within the 75 -250' zone. She also felt there is very little green space on this lot. Gaffron noted that lot coverage on this property is less than the 15% limitation. Schroeder asked when plastic was first considered as hardcover. Gaffron affirmed that plastic and decks were first considered hardcover sometime in the early 1980s. Rowlette noted that the total reduction in hardcover is non- structural. Johnson noted there is a patio being removed. Rowlette indicated that there is a deck being added on the other side of the house. She also asked that the Council include information regarding hardcover and permits required in their next newsletter. Schroeder concurred that the removals are all illegal non- structural hardcover, which makes the reduction figures look good, but in reality it shouldn't have been there in the first place. • There were no p ublic comments. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval for application #1669 for John Walker of 1310 Spruce Place, to approve 30.4% hardcover in the 75 -250' zone and approval of the reduction in hardcover to a level of 7.2% in the 0 -75' zone. Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson felt that the applicants have made a serious attempt to reduce proposed hardcover. Both Cohen and Schroeder voted nay because they felt that applicants should try to further reduce hardcover percentages. Schroeder also noted that reduction in hardcover is all from removal of non — structural hardocver. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that applicants pay the after — the —fact zoning application fee. Ayes 5, nays 0. 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ( 07) 01877 CEDRIC DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON STREET • VARIANCE — PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 — 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr. Dettloff, applicant's son, was present for the application. Mabusth summarized at 10'x32' that the applicant is requesting to remove a workshop area and replace it within the same footprint with a two —story storage area and a three season porch on top of it. The setback from the right —of —way will be 41' where a 50' setback is required. Lot coverage is not an issue as the improvement will not expand upon the present foot- print. There were no comments from the public. Cohen clarified that the proposed structure will be using the existing footprint, which is already over the lot coverage allowance, but was pre— existing prior to the lot coverage ordinance. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval for application 1#1677 Cedric Dettloff of 1255 Dickenson Street, approving variances for setback and lot coverage to • construct a two —story storage area and three season porch within the existing footprint. Ayes 5, nays 0. • ( #8) #1678 PAUL & MARCIA MERLO 2142 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES — PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 — 9:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr. & Mrs. Paul Merlo were present for the application. Mabusth explained that the Merlos are proposing a 24'x22' two —story addition to the east side of their residence which would extend along the same setback on the lakeshore side of their home. They also propose a second story deck, 22'x15'. There is no encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. She explained that they will be removing the slab in front of the structure, everything around the proposed addition, and trimming back the drive. The County has a drainageway that runs through the property on the east side and goes through a catchbasin and pours out over the spillway and empties into the lake. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE 01678 — CONT. Mr. Merlo advised the Commission that they need to retain • the looped portion of the drive because of parking problems with the shared portion of the drive and because of his invalid parents which live with them 6 -7 months out of the year. He noted that the drive is difficult to manuvuer. Mabusth noted that the structure is 100' back from the lake and there is no hardcover in the 0 -75' zone. Schroeder asked the applicant if it was necessary to have two drives. He felt that it would be more pleasing aesthetically with less driveway. Johnson asked if the turnaround worked the way it is currently. Merlo emphasized that it does work. He noted that the house was built in the 1970s by a contractor who put a slab and extra drive to facilitate his construction equipment. Rowlette indicated that if the application is denied, then the hardcover will remain at 50.7 %, however she felt that 40.9% was still too high to recommend approval. Merlo explained that they need to have an answer immediately and move quickly as their heating system has failed in the house and they need to know how they can proceed with the addition, if at all, and the new furnace. • Johnson asked if they had considered a total new drive with one access and a loop near the house. Merlo explained that there are retaining walls from the front door down to the garage entrance which would prohibit a loop in that area. Mabusth noted that a major portion of the entrance at the east curb cut is being eliminated, partly because it is unusable in the winter because the spillway at the entrance freezes over. Rowlette felt that part of the turnaround near the house should remain, but a larger portion of the drive should be eliminated which would take out a lot of hardcover. She felt the spillway should also be taken out of the hardcover calculation figures. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval for application 1#1678 Paul and Marcia Merlo of 2142 Shadywood Road, for variances not according to the plan submitted to date, but according to a plan to be submitted by applicants to the City Council with the removal of the middle drive, and in addition, with the removal of the spillway figures out of the hardcover calculation, to construct a two story addition to their . existing residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ( 09) #1679 WILLIAM F. MILLER 2691 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE — PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 — 9:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. William Miller was present for this application. Gaffron briefly reviewed that the applicant is proposing to remove an existing single car garage and a portion of the parking area, and install a larger garage with side opening doors. He noted that the second part of this application involves structural maintenance of an existing 8'x8' bathhouse. He explained that the building inspectors were on the site to review the garage proposal and noticed the work being done on the bath- house. They noted that the entire lower level had been removed apart and new posts were installed in the corners and a new slab was installed or at least new footings. The applicant was told to stop work on the project, but he continued to finish the project regardless. Gaffron noted that the code states that a non — conforming structure within the 0 -75' zone cannot be improved more than 50% of its value. It was the building inspector's contention that the improvements exceeded the 50% of the valuation. Cohen asked if the hardcover could be further reduced. Miller instructed that the patio could be taken out by the back door which results in 70 s.f., and he could take out all the sidewalks from the house to the garage and put in stepping stones which would result in reduction of 56 s.f. He noted that it is a matter of practicality, as if stepping stones are installed, you cannot shovel snow. Rowlette asked about the dog run. Miller noted that it was not added in the calculation • because it has a dirt floor. 12 Johnson asked if the platform and stairs are new. Miller stated that they pre —date his ownership and that he has recently washed and stained them so they may look newer than they really are. He noted that since he is a new owner, he was unaware of the restrictions on the bathhouse. He also noted that he has expended $359 for the repairs to the boathouse and did not feel that it exceeded 50% of the value. He explained that the inspector told the contractor to stop work on all structural work. He noted that at that time the siding was not on but all other work was done and because of high winds, he went ahead and put the siding on to prevent collapse of the entire structure. He also felt that putting the siding on did not constitute structural work. Cohen asked if the hardcover could be further reduced. Miller instructed that the patio could be taken out by the back door which results in 70 s.f., and he could take out all the sidewalks from the house to the garage and put in stepping stones which would result in reduction of 56 s.f. He noted that it is a matter of practicality, as if stepping stones are installed, you cannot shovel snow. Rowlette asked about the dog run. Miller noted that it was not added in the calculation • because it has a dirt floor. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE 01679 — CONT. • Gaffron reported that the proposed garage leaves about a 3' area of the existing gravel parking area behind the garage which will not be able to be used as parking in the future. However, it has been driven on before and it may be compacted and there- fore has been classified as hardcover. Rowlette asked what normal two —car garage dimensions are. Gaffron noted that it is about 20'x24'. Miller explained that the normal two —car garage is 22'x24', and he is proposing a three car garage with a 20' depth. He felt that it is necessary to have a three car garage for storage of cars, boats, etc. He also stated that the cost factor would not justify building a two —car garage. Schroeder felt that the garage is too large. Moos also concurred. Miller felt that he has reduced the hardcover down as much as possible. He also noted the other variances which were approved with excesses of hardcover. Schroeder responded that each application is different with different merits. Johnson felt there is a large amount of hardcover on the • property and felt that the hardcover should be reduced. Miller explained that if it is tabled or denied and the garage is not built, then the hardcover stays at 37 %, opposed to the 30% proposed. With respect to the bathhouse, Miller pointed out that only the bottom half of the structure was replaced. Johnson asked about the new slab. Miller stressed that only the foundation for the posts on the lake side were replaced. Rowlette concurred that if the deck /stairway /bathhouse is considered as one unit, then the value is probably far more than what was repaired. She asked if the deck and stairs could stand alone. Gaffron advised that they could. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the structural maintenance of the bathhouse. Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson voted nay because he felt it was basically replaced and Schroeder concurred with that feeling. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE ##1679 — CONT. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to table application #1679 William Miller of 2691 Casco Point Road, to allow applicant time to redesign his proposal to reduce the hardcover percentage. Ayes 5, nays 0. Cohen noted that the bathhouse issue will go directly to the Council for review at their October 14 meeting. (##10) ##1682 CHRISTINE BRICKLEY 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE — PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 — 10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Christine Brickley was present for this application. Brickley noted that the pre — existing hardcover shown on the sketch included is shown at 20'x24', which really should be 20'x31' because the garage was back further. Gaffron noted that there are not accurate records of where the garage actually was. He noted that the property is located between the marinas on North Shore Drive and this is a lakeshore property. He explained that there are a number of variances being requested. Applicant is replacing a number of accessory • structures used for storage with one large garage. He noted the inspector came upon the site when the slab was half poured and a stop work order was issued, but because concrete was on the way and could not be cancelled, he allowed the owner to proceed with the knowledge that it was at her own risk and may not be approved. The garage has a footprint of 1,056 s.f. where the largest accessory building that could be put on a lot of this size is 1,000 s.f. A garage over 1,000 s.f. would require 30' setbacks from all lot lines. This garage is poured at about 2 -3' setbacks. With a footprint of 750 -1000' s.f., a 15' setback would still be required, and anything smaller would require 10' setbacks. In the 75 -250' zone, pre— existing hardcover is at 46.5 %. In the 0 -75' zone, hardcover is at 15.6 %. Lot coverage is proposed at 19.8 %. He told the Commission that they must determine what size garage is appropriate and where should it be located. Donald Stauffer, 3268 North Shore Drive, concurred that the garage is important to free the shared drive of parked cars. Brickley noted that four properties share the drive. Cohen felt that the application should be tabled to give the applicant time to redraw the plans. He noted that a footprint of more than 1,000 s.f. cannot be allowed. Rowlette agreed. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE 01682 — CONT. Brinkley noted that the hardcover percentages have relatively stayed the same. She proposed getting rid of the deck in the 0 -75' zone. She also noted that to move the garage to meet setbacks would destroy all the trees in her yard. Johnson agreed that the applicant should scale back the plan and felt the deck was a good start. He felt that a 10' setback must be maintained. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table application #1682 for Christine Brickley of 3262 North Shore Drive, to allow applicant time to redesign her proposal to further reduce hardcover percentages. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #11) #1684 DAVID & ANNE GRAHAM 2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES — PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 — 10:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. David and Anne Graham were present. Mabusth explained the entire residence is located within the 0 -75' setback area. The applicants are proposing no major additions. Applicants propose an addition above the single story • portion of the existing residence with no expansion to the existing footprint. They are planning to build a 8'x16' deck to the west side of the existing residence and remove the two —story sun porch /deck along the south side of the property and replace that with a trellis area. There is a slight reduction in hardcover. They plan to reside the boathouse with cedar to match the siding of the house. Graham concurred with Mabusth that that is what they propose. He explained that the property is currently in a state of deterioration. He noted the addition will match in with the existing truss portion, adding the new portion in the form of a gabled massing. Rowlette asked if the driveway could be reduced. Graham noted that the turnaround was something that they really liked on the property, but felt that it is too wide and they plan to resurface it and it could be reduced at that point. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of application #1684, David and Anne Graham, 2745 Shadywood Road, to construct a second story addition, an 8'x16' deck, removal of a sunporch /deck area, and subject to the applicants reducing the turnaround to no more than 14' wide. • Ayes 5, nays 0. Eli MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ( #12) #1685 EDWARD F. BAKER 3059 FARVIEW LANE • VARIANCE — PUBLIC HEARING 10:10 — 10:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Edward Baker and JoEllen Hurr were present for this application. Gaffron explained that this is a request for a hardcover variance and a setback variance in the 0 -75' zone. There is also a 26' wetland setback which will be encroached upon. He noted that the walkway to the lake needs to be there to gain access. The house and pool were built in 1979; the deck and patio areas were built later. The deck area is in poor condition. Applicant wants to replace and increase the size of that deck. Applicant proposes removal of plastic in the 0 -75' zone. He noted that there is no adequate walkway around the pool and applicant is proposing a 3 -4' wide walkway. The stairway which would run to grade level from the second story pool area would encroach into the wetland setback 10'. Hurr noted that the hardcover in the 0 -75' zone has been reduced to 7% and in the 75 -250' zone, it is actually lower than the allowed 25 %. She felt that since plastic is counted as hardcover, there should not be a differentiation between structural and non — structural hardcover. • Johnson asked if variances were granted for the original home. Gaffron noted that the original building plans did not show any decks and there were no variances granted. Baker advised that the builder digressed from the original plans. He noted that they now just wanted to make it right and correct. He advised that only the bottom step will actually encroach the wetlands. Gaffron noted that in 1979 decks were likely not considered when hardcover was calculated. Schroeder noted that there is a reduction in hardcover, but only of non — structural, plastic —type hardcover. He felt that it should never have been there and therefore should not be presented as a positive. He asked if the patio /deck area is proposed at a minimum. Hurr noted that it is proposed at 647 s.f., and is about the same size as the pool. She noted that it is not that big. Hurr added that a pool without access to a bathroom other than through the living room is not a very good design feature. An open stairway down to the lower level to a bath and bedroom is a • necessity. 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1685 — CONT. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Moos, to recommend • approval of application #1685, Edward F. Baker, for property located at 3059 Farview Lane, for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct deck area and stairway. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #13) #1686 JOHN BURGER 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW John Burger and Dan Johnson of Burnett Realty were present for this application. Mabusth explained that Mr. Burger proposes a three lot subdivision. Lots A and B are within the LR -1A, 2 acre zoning district and Lots C plus C1 are within the RR -1A, 5 acre zoning district. Lot C is located on the north side of the Luce Line. Lot C1 is proposed as the building site, using Lot C for credit to meet the 5 acre requirement. Lot C1 is 2 acres +, which meets the 2 acre contiguous standard for rural lots. Mr. Burger would execute a special lot combination to combine both lots. Lot C on the north side would never be built upon. Within the last several years, Mr. Burger has tried to gain access to his northern lot, but to no avail. Lot C1 will need a width variance as the lot only measures 210'. She went on to explain that the subdivision as proposed is presented as if it were a sewered property. Mr. Burger is seeking credit of the wetland area. She asked the Commission if they would consider the subdivision based on density credits for • a sewered property, and condition the preliminary subdivision approval subject to availability of sewer in the future. She noted that this property has always been included in the proposed sewered district. Rowlette asked if this property is included in the moratorium. Mabusth agreed that the southern portion of the property is included within the moratorium. She noted that Mr. Burger has just received consent of an owner within Bayside Landing to sell an access easement to his proposed Lot C1 & C. Up until now, he has not been able to obtain any type of access easement. Cohen felt that the southern portion should be put on hold until sewer is approved for the area, but had no problem with the northern lots. Johnson noted that the moratorium restricts doing anything at this point. Mabusth explained that people can apply for a variance to the moratorium if they can prove that the subdivision will not be impacted by the shoreland regulations proposed, and at this Aft areas. we would be dealing with the property located in the rural areas. 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1666 — CONT. Rowlette asked how we would deal with the future owner who • wants access to the northern lot. Mabusth noted that legal access to Lot C1 would have to be approved prior to final plat approval, and Lot C1 would be the building envelope with no access available to Lot C. Dan Johnson felt that it would be the future owners of Lot C1 and C's responsibility to determine prior to purchase their abilities to gain access over the Luce Line. Cohen had a problem approving the use of Lot C for credit for Lot C1 as you could never use that portion of property for anything. Johnson asked about rezoning Lot C1. Mabusth noted that they originally did not rezone this portion because they did not want to create higher density in this area. Schroeder suggested that Lot C1 be rezoned to 2 acre zoning with the provision that Lot C be given to the park. He felt Lot C has very little value to anyone buying the property. Burger noted that the market value on that piece is $16,000 and he pays about $800 per year in taxes. He noted that he originally bought the property with the intent of a PUD, however • that never materialized. He also had thought Lot C may be used for the septic system for Lot C1 if the DNR would grant a temporary building easement over the Luce Line. Burger noted that he could dedicate Lot C for park use, but he would rather do something else. Mabusth noted that the access easement from the property on Bayside Landing would be through the homeowners private drive, which would eliminate the need for a drive across the wetlands. Cohen noted that he would not approve a subdivision contingent upon the availability of sewer. Burger noted that if he cannot go ahead and purchase the access easement which is now available to him, he would have to build a drive across the wetland in the future, and he would rather not do that. Johnson felt that density credit should be given to Lot C1 for Lot C. Mabusth asked if the Commission would approve a width variance for Lot C1 if approved. Cohen noted that he would grant such a variance. He also . noted that two members of the Commission were absent. 18 C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1686 — CONT. D. Johnson asked the Commission to enlighten them about their feelings on subdividing Lots A and B. Cohen felt that even if sewer is available, each lot should have 2 acres dry buildable. Rowlette advised that when sewer is available, wetlands can be used as credit for lot area. Cohen noted that he would approve the subdivision if the sewer became available. Rowlette agreed with Cohen and noted that she would agree to Lots C1 and C being developed as one lot, if it were put in writing that they can never, never be subdivided, the zoning must always remain 5 acres, and building must never be allowed on the northern portion. D. Johnson repeated that the Commission would consider a subdivision of Lots A and B, subject to sewer availability. The Commission agreed. D. Johnson went on to note they would agree to combination of Lots C1 and C to become one developable lot. The Commission agreed and they noted the building envelope has to be on the south side of the tracks. 14 REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Mr. Cohen attended the meeting and had nothing to report. ( #15) LAKE USE COMMITTEE REPORT Schroeder noted they have continued to have meetings and invited anyone to attend. ( #16) REPORT BY FACILITIES COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE Mabusth invited everyone to the Design Committee meetings held on Tuesdays at 5:00 in the Orono Education Link Building, Room 107L. ( #17) OTHER ISSUES Gaffron asked the Commission how they would feel about granting an additional variance to the Traff property on North Shore Drive. He explained Traff sold the property to a new owner. 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 OTHER ISSUES — CONT. • Rowlette noted that the Commission disapproved the original request to be wider and felt that the house should be built within the setbacks. She felt that they should not grant any further variances. The rest of the Commission agreed. Rowlette noted that the Council did grant the 6' setback variance and she felt that shouldn't even have been approved. r� Gaffron noted that the variance approval would have to be clarified, was it granted for that specific house or was it for a house that met that setback. Cohen noted that if the house requires any other variances they would have to come back. Gaffron also informed the Commission that Paul Boyke on Lydiard Lake wants to subdivide his property which would need a variance to the moritorium. He could also be affected by the new shoreland regulations. The Commission noted that he would have to come in for the variance. (##18) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1991 as submitted. Ayes 5, nays 0. (##19) PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Moos agreed to go to the next Council meeting to be held on October 14, 1991. F.D14,I61R:iTI:4.iI Cohen adjourned the September 16, 1991 meeting at 11:10 p.m. Edward Cohen, Acting Chair Person 20