Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners Lizz Levang, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, Kevin Landgraver, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:35 p.m. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 3 was added to the Consent Agenda. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2012 Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of August 20,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #12-3572 MATTHEW FRITZ,4055 ELM STREET,VARIANCES,6:33 P.M. -6:40 P.M. Matthew Fritz, Applicant,was present. Levang stated she would like to know about the previous approvals. Curtis indicated they were lot width and lot area variances. Levang asked if the driveway has been changed with the new proposal. Curtis illustrated the driveway as proposed. Levang asked if that is the same location for the previous driveway. Curtis indicated the applicant is removing the existing driveway approach and that she is not sure if the proposed driveway is in the exact same location as the existing driveway. Levang asked if the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage and grading plans for this application and whether Staff has any concerns with the grading. Curtis stated the City Engineer will be working with the applicant's engineer on his plans and he will be required to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations. Curtis indicated she does not have any concerns with the grading at this time Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Fritz stated the starting point at the street for the new driveway is the same location but that the shape of the driveway has changed due to the new house plan. Levang asked how the house plan has changed. Fritz indicated the garage was on the west side and the house was on the other side. Curtis noted this is a new owner from the previous application. Fritz stated the old driveway swooped more to the west and that they have changed it to be more of a straight on driveway. Levang asked what the intention is with the trees. Fritz stated their intent is to keep as many trees as possible. Levang asked if the applicant has any concerns regarding the drainage. Fritz stated he is going off of what his designer is recommending and that at the present time he does not have any concerns. There is a house to the west and the water will be diverted away from there. The majority of the water will be directed towards the street. The flat area by the driveway is where the majority of the runoff will go. Levang noted there is a pretty steep drop off where it appears the water will run off towards the neighbor's property. Fritz indicated they will be diverting the water away from the neighbor's property.. Levang asked if the applicant is amenable to working with the City Engineer. Fritz stated they are. Gaffron stated the most recent application was submitted in 2010,and the driveway in that proposal came to the street at approximately the exact location as proposed but it came at an angle across the lot and came into the house on the left side. Gaffron indicated the configuration is basically flip-flopped from what it was prior. Levang asked if they are concerned about visibility. Fritz stated he does not have any concerns. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Schoenzeit commented it appears to be a reasonable plan for this lot. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3572,Matthew Fritz,4055 Elm Street,granting of lot width and lot area variances,subject to Staff and the City Engineer's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *3. #12-3574 GUSTAFSON DESIGN,INC.,ON BEHALF OF CHRIS PATNODE, 1430 CHERRY PLACE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3574, Gustafson Design,on Behalf of Chris Patnode, 1430 Cherry Place,granting of a hardcover variance within the 0-75 foot zone and granting of a conditional use permit for land alteration within the 0- 75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD,4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES,6:40 P.M.- 7:26 P.M. Scott and Melissa Musgjerd,Applicants, and Mike Sharratt, Designer,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting the following variances in order to build a new residence on the subject property: 1. A lot area and a lot width variance to allow redevelopment of a property 0.26 acre in area and 50 plus feet in width where 1.0 acre and 140 feet of width is normally required. 2. A 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance to allow 37 percent hardcover where 42.8 percent currently exists and 25 percent is normally allowed. 3. A side yard setback variance to allow a 6.2 foot setback for the proposed home where a 10-foot setback is required. 4. A side, street setback variance to allow a 10-foot setback for the home and a 5-foot setback for the deck where a 35-foot setback is normally required from the undeveloped alley right-of-way. The subject property is located in the LR-1B zoning district. It is a narrow property which gets narrower as you move toward the road. Abutting on the west side is an undeveloped 20-foot wide public alley. The applicants are proposing to redevelop the subject property a construct a new residence. Because of the size, shape and orientation of the property,the applicants are requesting lot area; lot width; 75-250 foot zone hardcover; side yard; and side street setback variances in order to construct the proposed 1,580 square foot home. The subject property currently contains 42.8 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The new home and improvements will result in 37 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone, 905.5 square feet over the allowed 25 percent of this zone according to the City's current code. At the September 24 Council meeting, Staff anticipates the adoption of new hardcover regulations which will change how hardcover is calculated. The new regulations place this property in Tier 1 of the newly designated Stormwater Quality Overlay District. Tier 1 properties are allowed hardcover up to 25 percent of their entire lot area. Based on its area,this property would be afforded 2,860 square feet of hardcover or slightly below the level the applicants are currently requesting. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The subject property abuts an undeveloped 20-foot alley right-of-way. As it is a platted, public right-of- way,the alley is considered a side street for the purpose of measuring setbacks and a 35-foot setback is required. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot setback from the alley for the home and a 5-foot setback for the proposed deck. The existing home is situated as close as three feet to the east side lot line. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the narrowing of the lot closer to the road,the applicants are requesting a side setback variance of 6.2 feet from the east lot line. This will allow them to construct their home and garage with a 23-1/2 foot width. The property's narrow width,when combined with the required side and side street setbacks, only allow for a long,thin triangular building envelope five feet wide at the widest point. Staff finds that the applicants propose to use the subject property in a reasonable manner. The subject property has a very narrow configuration with almost zero legal buildable area. The buildable portion of the lot consists of a narrow triangular shaped area with a buildable envelope approximately five feet in width at its largest part. The lot's shape is due to circumstances unique to the subject property not caused by the landowner. While the proposed home and hardcover does not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood, Staff would suggest that a minimum of a 10-foot setback be imposed along the western property line abutting the alley. If the Commission is amenable to the reduction of the alley setback to ten feet or less, Staff suggests it may be appropriate to reduce the proposed deck and move the home to the west slightly to avoid the encroachment into the eastern property line requested by the applicants. Additionally, Staff would suggest the Planning Commission consider requiring a landscape plan on the applicants' property along the right-of-way which offers screening and delineates the right-of-way from the subject property. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission discuss the following issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? Is the level of hardcover proposed within the 75-250 foot zone reasonable? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Should the applicants redesign to avoid the encroachment into the 10-foot side yard setback? 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 5. Should a landscape plan or vegetative screening be required to clearly define the separation from the applicants' property and the City right-of-way? Planning Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance,a lot area variance, and a side street setback variance resulting in a 10-foot setback from the alley in order to redevelop the subject property. Additionally, Staff recommends approval of a 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance at a level which does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot. Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the City has received an e-mail from a neighbor to the east containing his concerns regarding the application. The e-mail reads as follows: "Per our discussion this morning regarding the variance application for our neighboring property at 4156 Highwood Road, I am submitting our comments/questions since I may not be able to attend tonight's meeting. My wife Nancy and I live at 4149 Highwood Road,which is the adjacent property to the east of the variance request for 4156. I had a chance to view the submitted plans of Scott and Melissa Musgjerd and would welcome the proposed home as a significant improvement for our neighborhood and our property. I would suggest the home conform to the 10-foot standard setback on our shared property line by moving the home's footprint to the west by the 3.8 feet being requested in the variance and as I understand the Orono Staff is also recommending(I would not want this to be a deal breaker for Scott and Melissa however!). I also inquired about how the grade of the lot as it exists today would change on our lot line for the proposed new plan. Currently there is a cement retaining wall along our common lot line that extends from their driveway to roughly 10 feet beyond the porch of the existing structure that accommodates the elevation difference between our properties. Is the elevation of the final grade going to remain relatively the same; and if so, what would be done during construction to maintain the integrity of the wall?" Schoenzeit asked which property owns the retaining wall. Curtis indicated the retaining wall belongs to the applicant. The concern of the neighbor was regarding the grade and the existing vegetation along the lot line. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could recommend that a swale be constructed in that area. Curtis stated the City would require that. Thiesse commented that it appears from the elevations on the drawing that they are planning to fill in that area. Curtis stated the City Engineer has not reviewed the plans in detail at this point and, in fact, requested more detailed plans. Thiesse asked why Staff is recommending the applicant not approach any closer to the alley. Curtis indicated typically 10 feet is a standard minimum setback that is used but that there is no planned or intended use of the alley by the City at this time. Landgraver asked if there is any significant difference between an alley and a street. Curtis stated in this instance there is not. The existing garage is located in its present location at a 0 foot setback. Schoenzeit asked if the basement meets all the requirements of the City in order to be considered a basement. Curtis indicated she has not conducted a review of that at this time. Page 5 --- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if the existing garage will remain. Curtis indicated it will not. Levang asked whether the alleyway would be considered a public roadway. Curtis stated she does not consider it a public roadway. Levang asked what the alleyway is intended for. Gaffron indicated its primary purpose is for drainage. The alley was platted approximately 100 years ago and exists now as a dedicated public right-of-way. If the alleyway is ever vacated by the City, each property owner on either side of it would get half of it. Levang asked if the City would like to keep it as is. Curtis stated they would since it provides access to the lake. Gaffron stated to his knowledge this alleyway has not been maintained by the city. Curtis noted there are some erosion concerns that the applicant has raised,which have been passed along to the City Engineer. If the applicants are willing to participate in a correction of that area, the City would be willing to work with them but that it is not a project the City is proposing to do at this time. Gaffron stated the City's Comprehensive Plan lists the alleyway as Highwood Road Extension and it is a 20-foot platted alleyway down to the shoreline. Melissa Musgjerd, Applicant, stated they have looked at a number of properties throughout the City and eventually found this property. The property has a good view of the lake and grassy area. They have three children and they would like to enjoy the entire piece of property. Musgjerd indicated she is an interior designer and has worked with numerous properties and that there is potential for this lot. Musgjerd indicated they have met a lot of the neighbors already and that they would like to construct a home that fits into the neighborhood and would increase their values as well. Musgjerd indicated she does have a couple of pictures of the alleyway. The alleyway basically is full of trees at this time. Musgjerd indicated they did ask the City if they could eventually purchase it but were told they cannot. There is runoff that is causing some erosion to the beach on this property and they would like to work with the City to correct that situation at some point in the future. Sharratt noted the Musgjerds'purchase agreement is contingent upon the City's approval of their application. Sharratt stated the area depicted in yellow on the survey is the only buildable area on the lot. The existing garage is located on the street property line. The existing home is only two and a half feet from the east property line. Sharratt stated when they began this process, they set out to try to cure every possible nonconformity that they could. The 6.2 feet is an alternative that was discussed with Surveyor Mark Gronberg. The site plan says a 10-foot side yard setback on the east side but the proposed plan shows the house as being 10 feet Page 6 _. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. from the west side,which is a discrepancy that will need to be corrected. Sharratt indicated they would be willing to have the 10-foot setback on the west side since that is what the neighbor would prefer. Sharratt stated in addition,they have resolved the existing garage setback issue and they are now in excess of the 30 feet required on the street side and 10 feet on the east side. The neighbor would prefer it to be shifted to the west, which can be done. Sharratt noted Staffs report states the lot on the street side is 50 feet wide but it is approximately 40 feet wide. Due to the narrowness of the lot,they will need to be over one of the setbacks no matter what in order to have a two-car garage. The Musgjerds would like to have an outdoor space at the main level,which is what the deck is for. The deck has been designed up on brackets so there are no posts in the ground. Sharratt stated he realizes the deck would still be considered structure but that they are attempting to minimize the impact to the setback on the alley side. They are also in complete conformance with the lakeside setback. As far as the hardcover is concerned,the existing hardcover on the lot is at 42.8 percent in the 75-250 foot zone,which would be 28 percent under the new ordinance. The applicants are proposing 37 percent hardcover under the current regulations,which would be 24.2 percent under the new hardcover ordinance. Sharratt indicated they attempted to keep the mass of the house low by designing the roof in this fashion. Landgraver noted the land drops down significantly and asked how the grading would change since the neighbor to the east is up higher and the alley is down low. If there are already erosion problems in the alley,there is a further potential impact from the house. Sharratt indicated they are basically taking the existing retaining wall on the east side and for the most part eliminating that. They are also proposing to raise the basement floor level starting with the existing grade and to raise the ceiling height in the basement by two and a half to three feet. Sharratt indicated they will also be eliminating the retaining wall on the east side. On the west side against the alley,there will be a retaining wall that goes to a maximum height of four feet and then dissipate. Sharratt indicated they are basically taking the retaining wall from the east side and placing it on the west side. Schoenzeit asked where the existing grade is. Sharratt pointed out the location of the existing grade on the overhead. The existing grade is at the top of the driveway and not the bottom. Schoenzeit asked what the total height of the building is. Sharratt stated the building is within the City's height restrictions. Levang asked why the deck cannot be reduced five feet so it fits without encroaching into the setback. Sharratt stated if the deck were reduced any further, it would become a nonfunctional deck. Schoenzeit commented the deck could be put on the backside of the house rather than encroaching into the setback. Curtis noted the patio is currently in that area. Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sharratt stated if the deck is located in that area,they would be up higher and not able to see what is going on in the yard. The applicants have two little children and they would like to be able to watch them from the deck. In addition,they would have a view of the lake through the railings of the deck. Schoenzeit asked if only the deck would encroach into the setback. Curtis indicated it would. Sharratt pointed out the 10-foot setback line and noted that the lot gets narrower the closer to the street you get. Lemke asked if the erosion in the alleyway area is a concern. Sharratt stated currently water flows perpendicular to the contour line, and that what is happening is that at the upper part of the lot the runoff is okay but then it changes further down the lot. Sharratt illustrated the area where the ground is eroding, and noted that the runoff is spilling over onto the applicants' land. In order to have a yard and proper drainage,they will need to address that at some point. Sharratt noted there are also a number of very large trees in that area and that there is only a very small path through that area. Thiesse asked if the applicants are comfortable with the house being parallel with the east property line. Sharratt stated if the Planning Commission recommends that,they would find it acceptable. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Jim Cusack, 4140 Highwood Road, stated he has resided at his property for the last 19 years and nine years he decided to build a new home. Cusack indicated he was required to comply with a number of regulations relating to hardcover and structural coverage as well as setbacks. Cusack stated he realizes that the Musgjerds have a very small buildable area and that he does not have a problem with the 10-foot setback on the alley side and maintaining the 10 feet to the neighbors to the east, but that it is unfair he will lose his entire view of the lake. Cusack stated when he constructed his home, he had built it so there was an upper deck that is utilized quite a bit in the summer. If the house is built as proposed, his view of the lake will completely disappear. Cusack indicated he invested heavily in his property in order to construct his new home in the Orono area. Cusack noted they maintained the setback from the street and conformed on hardcover and structural coverage. If this project goes forward as planned, Cusack stated he will not have a view of the lake. Cusack noted there are five other neighbors that live across the street from the lake and that there are approximately seven people who use the easement. The easement is typically used in the wintertime by ATVs and snowmobiles. Cusack noted there is a pretty defined path that goes down there and the area has been in that condition for the entire time he has lived there and it does not appear to be getting worse. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated whenever there is new construction being proposed,the Planning Commission should require the property owners meet as many of the City's regulations as possible. Schoenzeit indicated he would like to see a 10-foot setback given the fact that this is new construction. Thiesse asked what the rationale is for that. Schoenzeit stated the City is essentially giving them 25 feet of a required setback. Schoenzeit pointed out if the applicants were keeping the existing footprint,they would be allowed to continue to encroach, but that with new construction,the City has some opportunities to require them to meet the setbacks. Thiesse stated he likes the deck as proposed because it provides a good view of the lake and the alley. Thiesse stated in his view it is a perfect location for the deck. Currently there is a garage that sits right on the property line. The applicants will be moving that five feet away from the property line,which is an improvement. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse and that a smaller deck would not be very functional. Leskinen stated this is a very challenging lot due to the steepness and that she does not have a problem with the proposal. If there was structure below the deck, Leskinen indicated she would have an issue with that. Leskinen noted the current home is a two-story home and asked how the new home will change the view for the neighbor across the street. Leskinen asked if the proposed home is considerably higher than the existing house. Curtis indicated it is. Sharratt stated the existing home is 2-1/2 stories and that the proposed roof pitch is a little bit steeper in order to create space up inside the roof. They are also raising the first floor up approximately four feet. Sharratt indicated he did not do an overlay of the existing house onto the proposed house but that he could provide that if requested. Landgraver noted the applicant would like to take advantage of the wooded area across the alley but pointed out that it is a developable lot and that at some point in the future someone could build in that area. Levang expressed a concern with the impact on the neighbor's view. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission cannot tell someone they cannot construct on their property because someone has a view from across the street. Thiesse stated moving the house over 10 feet and providing that access allows a larger view. Thiesse stated in his view the neighbor will be able to see the lake between the houses. Cusack stated what is going to happen is the pitch on the roof is going to change and it will be a straight wall that runs down and parallel to the house to the east. Cusack stated due to the way his house is sighted,he will not be able to see over the top anymore. Thiesse noted Mr. Cusack currently does not have a view over the city property or the property to the west due to the large trees. Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Cusack indicated they can see through the canopy. Curtis noted the City has no regulations to protect the view of the lake from an off lake property. Schoenzeit indicated he is in agreement with that. Schoenzeit stated if the setback was in question,that would be a different issue,but the sight line from a non lakeshore property is not protected. Thiesse stated by rotating the house, it provides a better view for the neighbor across the street since the area is now opened up more. Thiesse asked if the City is looking at doing some remediation at the bottom of the hill, whether that would be incorporated now or whether that would be something that would be addressed in the future. Thiesse noted a retaining wall may be required. Curtis stated the property owners should work with the City on that and that if a variance becomes necessary,they will need to come back. Curtis indicated she does not want to incorporate anything now without knowing what the solution to the problem will be. Thiesse stated he does not want the applicants to have to come back and request a variance for a small amount of hardcover. Curtis indicated that is something the City Council could address. Schoenzeit asked if the retaining walls would be counted as hardcover under the new ordinance. Curtis indicated they would be counted as hardcover. Landgraver commented he can envision in a heavy downpour that that area could turn into a pipeline down to the lake and that the retaining wall will help with the drainage. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with the 10-foot setback. Schoenzeit stated the question comes down to whether they prefer the massing on the lake or on the side. Thiesse asked if there is anything stopping the property owners from dropping columns directly down if the deck is approved. Thiesse stated he would like the applicants to not cantilever off the house as proposed and to actually drop posts down. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can require that as part of the approval. Thiesse stated he would like to allow them to have vertical support underneath the deck. Leskinen asked if that could be converted into an enclosed structure at some point. Thiesse commented that would be true of almost any structure. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is going to allow the cantilevered deck because it is cantilevered and it is not going to have structure below or a screen porch above,the Planning Commission could incorporate certain conditions into their motion and those will be contained in the resolution if the Council agrees with that recommendation. Page 10 _ __. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted the envelope is five feet if approved as is and that they should expect it to be used in different ways unless it is specified that it cannot be. Thiesse moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3575,Scott and Melissa Musgjerd,4156 Highwood Road,as proposed,granting of a lot area variance,a lot width variance,side yard and side-street setback variances,and a hardcover variance in the 75-250 foot zone,with the understanding that there will be a setback of 10 feet on the eastern side of the property and allowing the deck on the west side a5-foot encroachment,subject to complying with the City Engineer's recommendations and per Staffs recommendation that total hardcover not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. #12-3576 JOHN AND SHERRY GORMAN,3585 FREDERICK STREET,VARIANCE, 7:27 P.M.- 7:58 P.M. John and Sherry Gorman,Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to allow the construction of a 3-stall garage and front porch additions to the home. The proposed additions will be completely within the 75- 250 foot hardcover zone. With concurrent proposed driveway hardcover removals,the 75-250 foot zone hardcover will decrease from 48.2 percent to 46.9 percent. Structural coverage is proposed to increase from 10 percent to 14.7 percent. The existing home was constructed in 1964 and has been remodeled a number of times over the past 50 years. The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to convert the existing garage space into living space and construct a new, attached approximate 26' by 24' 3-stall garage with living space above. Because the property currently has 48.2 percent hardcover, which exceeds the allowed level within the 75-250 foot zone, and because the proposal will not achieve the allowed level of 25 percent, a hardcover variance is required. In addition,the applicants are proposing to reduce hardcover in part by removing the loop portion of the driveway. However,the proposed hardcover levels still far exceed the code allowed 25 percent or 3,601 square feet. As the Planning Commission is aware,the City is about to adopt new hardcover regulations, which would classify this property as a Tier 1 lot and would afford this property 25 percent of the entire lot area or 5,296 square feet. At 6,756 square feet,the applicants' proposal exceeds this level by 1,460 square feet. Sherry Gorman, applicant, stated they purchased the property in December of 2008 and one of their concerns is lack of storage. Being that it is a lake home and there is a pool in the back yard, they have a two-car garage but they have more than two vehicles and a lot of boating equipment in addition to the pool equipment. The original intent of the project was just to add the three-car garage but it has blossomed into more than that because it became clear that some adjustments would need to be made on the home as far as the roofline. Gorman indicated they are willing to make the investment into their home to make those adjustments. They are adding some new lines basically to the front of the house, which will improve the street appeal for the neighbors and the resale of the home. Curtis displayed a picture of the existing home and a picture of the proposed home with a three-car garage. Page 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gorman indicated the proposed location for the garage is to stay with the property line. Adding the room on top of the garage was not something that they need to do or intended to do at the beginning but that they are requesting it now. If the Planning Commission recommends that it needs to be removed,they would be willing to discuss that. Gorman indicated they have attempted to lower the hardcover numbers from 48.2 percent to 46.9 percent. From a structural coverage standpoint,that is currently at 10.3 percent and they would be increasing that to 14.4 percent,which is below the allowed amount. Gorman noted they are over on the hardcover due to the pool and other things that were already on the property. Gorman stated there are some other items on the property that they would be willing to discuss in terms of decreasing the hardcover on the property. The existing driveway can be narrowed. Some of the items that they are willing to remove were not taken off the survey. Gorman stated they are going to replace the fireplace and the chimney with picture windows and that they would like to start that project in a couple of weeks. In the front of the house,the brick wall can be removed and replaced with landscaping. Behind the brick wall is a sidewalk that is not used and can also be removed. On the right side of the house,there is a walkway to the back of the yard and pool area. They would be willing to remove that or replace it with something more permeable. The previous owners had added on a deck at the back of the house which is not usable since it can only seat two chairs. Gorman indicated they can remove the deck and the stairs as well. In addition,there is an area over on the side of the house that could also be eliminated completely. If the brick wall and the sidewalk are removed,they would be putting some landscaping in that area. Gorman indicated they did speak with the neighbors and they seem to be in favor of the project. The project will not affect the drainage or grading around the house since the structure will be placed on top of the existing driveway. Landgraver asked what the sum total is of all the possible hardcover removals. Gorman stated to her recollection it was 4,378 square feet. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Brendon Walcherski, 3580 Frederick Street, stated he lives across the street and that they have recently moved into the neighborhood on August 4. Walcherski indicated he does not want to hinder the applicants'plans for development but that they do have some concerns they would like addressed. The essential character of the neighbor is very wooded with very mature trees. Walcherski asked whether some of those trees would be removed in the process of the construction. In addition,there is a berm in the front. Walcherski asked if the garage would butt up to the end of the road or come right up to the end of the road. Walcherski commented the area is beautiful and peaceful. Walcherski stated their house, as listed on the MLS, is lakeview. They have approximately ten degrees between two houses and the trees but that you can still get the feeling you are on the lake. The applicants did look at angling the garage to retain that view, which is appreciated. Walcherski reiterated the neighborhood is very peaceful and beautiful and questioned whether a large,three-stall garage would affect the resale value of their home. The majority of the homes in the area are smaller, modest, ranch style homes with two-car garages. As you come Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. around the bend in the street,you get the feeling of old lake living. Walcherski stated he does not want to prevent them from adding more structure to their home but that he would like his concerns addressed. Curtis stated the garage looks to extend just past where the existing loop in the driveway is up at the house. Gorman indicated the berm and trees would stay. Walcherski stated in his view a three-bay garage will change the look of the neighborhood as you veer to the left. Walcherski commented everyone has a lot of things but that they live within their means. Walcherski stated he does not want to take away from the Gormans their enjoyment of their property but that he also does not want to be the one that has a hardship placed upon. Schoenzeit stated he would like to see all of the hardcover calculations and surveys completed prior to approving this application. Schoenzeit indicated he is not in favor of what is currently proposed and that he would encourage the applicant to table the application and come back with her best proposal that is designed as close to the 25 percent hardcover limit as possible. Landgraver stated he is in agreement with that and that Staff has suggested that the change would alter the character of the neighborhood. As you approach the property,the house to the left appears to be almost a twin to this proposal. Curtis stated the hardcover level being proposed is the concern with the essential character of the neighborhood since it is not consistent with the rest of the area. Schoenzeit commented the fact that the house tucks behind the berm and trees is nice but that the hardcover needs to be reduced and the plans finalized. Schwingler stated he also had the same question regarding the character of the neighborhood but that he thought it added to the character. Curtis requested the Planning Commission be more specific in their direction to the applicants as far as acceptability of hardcover and reductions. Schoenzeit stated 25 percent is the allowable limit or a practical difficulty needs to be demonstrated. Schwingler noted the applicants are reducing the hardcover from 48.2 percent down to 46.9 percent and asked if that is enough of an improvement. Schoenzeit stated in his view the hardcover should be reduced further. Leskinen noted there was some discussion about items that can be removed and asked if Chair Schoenzeit would like to see a plan with all of that removed. Schoenzeit indicated he would like to see that depicted on the survey and the final hardcover numbers calculated. Schwingler asked what amount of hardcover would be acceptable. Page 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the applicants will not be able to get to 25 percent unless they remove the entire pool and patio in order to offset what they are adding in the garage. Thiesse asked if the applicants could get to the 25 percent hardcover limit if they remove the pool and the patio. Curtis indicated they could. Thiesse commented he does not want to say that they have to remove the pool and patio. Schoenzeit noted the proposed hardcover reductions are not on the survey and that those should be incorporated into the survey. Gorman stated to her recollection the reductions amounted to approximately 4,000 square feet Curtis stated if they remove 1,400 square feet,they will get very close to the allowed Tier 1 level. Schwingler noted the applicant is off on her hardcover numbers and that it would not be 4,000 square feet. Landgraver stated as it relates to practical difficulty,the applicants have listed storage needs. Landgraver asked whether Chair Schoenzeit is requesting further elaboration on that. Schoenzeit stated if the goal is to have additional storage,proposing a two-car garage would not gain them anything. Thiesse stated there is no practical way to add a third stall to the existing garage and that living on the lake does demand additional storage space. If one of the garage stalls is being used for lake equipment, that is a practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated he does not know if it is enough of a practical difficulty to warrant a three-car garage and then convert the existing two-car garage into living space. Gorman noted they presently rent a storage unit to store a lot of their outside items. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission needs a practical difficulty to justify the uniqueness of the application to demonstrate that the property deserves an overage over the newly expanded rules. Schoenzeit stated the first step is to see a refined plan. Lemke stated he would like the applicants to give it their best shot with the hardcover. Gorman commented due to the shape of the lot,they do not gain much from the new hardcover regulations. Levang asked how the Planning Commission feels about the practical difficulty. Thiesse stated he sees a practical difficulty in that a three-car garage is not an unusual thing to ask for and that the existing garage cannot be added on to, but that someone will have to explain the practical difficulty for the room up above the garage. �.._ Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver encouraged the applicants to retain the berm and the trees. John Gorman stated none of the trees or berm will be removed. Curtis stated her concern is that they will come in with a proposal that is not at 25 percent and that she does not have the ability to guide them on how much hardcover will be allowed by the Planning Commission. Curtis noted given what has been discussed so far,the applicants will not reach the 25 percent hardcover limit. Schoenzeit noted the pool consist of a significant amount of hardcover. Thiesse asked if they purchased the house with the pool. Curtis indicated they did. Curtis stated it might be likely that the lot is completely built out and that if this addition does not fit on the lot, it does not fit on the lot. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission needs definite numbers to respond to. Gorman noted they will not be able to reach the 25 percent limit. Leskinen asked if they would like their application tabled. Gorman indicated they will make the changes and come back before the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application 32-33576,John and Sherry Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #12-3542 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-72, LOTS OF RECORD,7:59 P.M.—8:18 P.M. Gaffron stated in March of 2012,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 92, Third Series, which in part amended Zoning Code Section 78-72 to bring it into compliance with Minnesota Statutes. The statutes require that local governments allow nonconforming single lots of record within the Shoreland to be developed regardless of lot area if they, one, meet local setback requirements;two, have a sewer connection or conforming septic system; and three,have no more than 25 percent hardcover. The statutes also address lots that are part of a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under common ownership,which must be considered as individually buildable if each lot meets 66 percent of the DNR standards for lot area and lot width and has a sewer connection or conforming septic system and has not more than 25 percent hardcover. The significant difference between the two categories is that single lots of record are not granted an automatic lot width variance but just an area variance. In either case,the DNR standards are much less restrictive than Orono's historic lot area and width requirements for the"LR"zoning districts. Having spent the last six months implementing the new standards, Staff questions whether Orono's regulation for the ''A acre and 1 acre"LR"zoning districts granting automatic area and width variances Page 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. based on meeting 80 percent of the required standards, is still relevant. Further, it generally seems unnecessary to put property owners through a variance process just for lot area or width, if all other zoning standards can be met. In addition, Staff has found that the language adopted earlier this year in Section 78-72 regarding hardcover is somewhat confusing and will become obsolete as soon as the new hardcover ordinance is adopted. A revision to three sections of 78-72 is proposed to resolve these issues. Through the years Staff has noted that many existing developed properties and vacant lots not meeting the 80 percent standard have needed just a lot width and/or area variance in order for a new home or teardown/rebuild to occur. In cases where all other zoning standards were met,these area/width variance applications have generally been approved with little or no discussion and seem to serve no real purpose. Staff has compared Orono's standards with those of other west metro cities for allowing nonconforming shoreland lots of record to be considered buildable and have found those standards to vary quite a bit. Gaffron stated with a small number of exceptions, virtually all of Orono's '/2 acre zones are within the designated Shoreland Overlay District and would be subject to the provisions of the statute,which override the local zoning standards. Properties not affected are the Hackberry neighborhood along North Willow Drive and the Chevy Chase—Northgate- Ferndale Green neighborhoods on North Ferndale Road. Each of these non-shoreland neighborhoods is fully developed, so the potential for development of additional homes on existing substandard lots of record is minimal or non-existent. At the same time,tear downs and rebuilds are likely but would simply be replacing existing homes. Also, while a small LR-1C '/2 acre zone area of Navarre between Northern Avenue and Togo Road is technically more than 1000 feet from the lake, all existing substandard lots in this area are fully developed and there are no substandard undeveloped record lots to be concerned about. The effective result is that Orono is now forced to allow many existing lakeshore and non-lakeshore lots to be developed or redeveloped that are much smaller than 80 percent of Orono's V2 acre or 1/acre area standards. If a property owner wants to build based on invoking the statute area and/or width provisions to avoid a variance, he is subject to the 25 percent hardcover limitation regardless of whether the lot is lakeshore or non-lakeshore,regardless of whether it is in Tier 1 or Tier 2 or Tier 3, and regardless of whether it is a single separate lot or part of a commonly owned group. Staff's goal would be to eliminate the need for a lot area or width variance in the V2 acre and 1 acre Shoreland sewered zones for existing nonconforming lots of record when all other zoning standards are met. Staff suggests there is no longer a substantial basis to retain the code section requiring lot area or width variances in the '/2 acre and lacre zones for shoreland lots that do not meet 80 percent of the zoning district requirement. A variance application would still be required for other zoning district standards if not met. Staff recommends that the 80 percent standard for lots of record in the sewered shoreland and non-shoreland '/2 acre and 1 acre zones be eliminated,with buildability remaining subject to meeting all other zoning district requirements. Gaffron stated the proposed language to Section 78-72(b0(1) is as follows: Page 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. "In R Districts of one acre or less and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approve if all other requirements of the underlying zoning district are met, including but not limited to required yards, setbacks, lot coverage by structures, hardcover, etc. However,the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed than utilization for a single-family detached dwelling unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter." In addition, Staff would propose the following language revisions to 78-72(c)(3): "A lot subject to either Sections 78-72(c)(1)or(2)remain subject to the hardcover restrictions of this chapter as follows: a. Where the hardcover square footage allotment as calculated based on the assigned Tier exceeds 25 percent of the entire lot area,hardcover shall be limited to 25 percent of the entire lot area. b. No portion of the impervious surface square footage allowed shall be placed within 75 feet of a lake OHWL or tributary ban, except for those items normally allowed in such location as regulated elsewhere in this Chapter. A similar language clarification is proposed for the sections providing standards for both the individual lot of records and for a group of two or more contiguous lots of record. Staff proposes to revise the language of 78-72(c)(1)c and 78-72(c)(2)as follows: "The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this Chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area." Staff is recommending that the City adopt these changes to the ordinance. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Curtis commented that one of the criticisms they receive is that it requires another$700 fee. Levang noted there are very few lots that would be impacted by these changes. Gaffron noted the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and is comfortable with Staffs recommendations. Levang noted this would be an efficiency for Staff. Gaffron stated this would allow Staff to approve lot width and lot area variances on these types of lots. Leskinen moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3542,City of Orono, Amend Zoning Code Section 78-72,Lots of Record. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Page 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 27,2012,AND SEPTEMBER 10,2012 Levang stated she attended the August 27th City Council meeting and the main issue was the police service proposal. Following a lengthy discussion,the City Council approved the contract. As it relates to planning issues,the Nelson application was adopted,the Pheasant Road application was adopted, and the application with the guest apartment was discussed with some concerns being expressed that it would be converted to a separate unit. Levang noted that application was eventually passed. Curtis noted the property owner was required to remove the door to the garage. The building inspector had indicated there was no requirement for entrance or egress purposes from the garage. Leskinen reported on the September 10 City Council meeting and noted that the hardcover ordinance was tentatively approved. The specific direction to the Planning Commission by the Council was that they and Staff watch for new patterns of issues or concerns that arise with the new ordinance. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron reported the City is going ahead with prosecuting the resident with the roosters and chickens. It is likely the court will rule on that matter sometime this week. At the next City Council meeting,they will be reviewing a one sentence change to the ordinance. The resident who owns the rooster has spoken with the mayor. If the court action does not solve the problem,then Staff will be recommending that they adopt a ban on roosters. Thiesse asked if the City is prosecuting the resident under the noise regulations. Thiesse questioned whether the City should be changing their ordinance based on one situation. Levang stated Commissioner Thiesse has a point with whether the City should do something because of a problem with one resident. Thiesse noted the new rental facility has placed a boat out in front with a sign on it saying they have boat storage. Curtis indicated they do have a temporary sign permit. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:34 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *Cse,A•vv. 410 ) Oc,t 2— Loren Schoenzeit, Chair Page 18