Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners John Thiesse,Bruce Lemke,Kevin Landgraver, and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Kristi Anderson was present. Commissioner Christopher McGrann arrived at 7:10 p.m. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 2 and 4 were added to the Consent Agenda. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing for Items 2 and 4 at 6:33 p.m. There were no public comments regarding these items. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 17,2013 Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 17,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS *2. #13-3611 MARK SANDERSON ON BEHALF OF REVIS AND MEGHAN STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD,VARIANCES Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3611 Mark Sanderson on behalf of Revis and Meghan Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, granting of setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. #13-3612 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND BARBARA CORNESS, 4395 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 6:34 P.M.—7:02 P.M. Dale Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and a hardcover variance in order to remove the existing stair to the lake and construct a new stone lake access stair system which includes minimal grading and retaining walls within 75 feet of the lake. The applicant has also proposed a landscape plan which has been revised today. The revised landscape plan incorporates native vegetation and other plants to help screen the staircase. Page 1 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The current plan for the new home results in 13 percent hardcover where 25 percent is normally allowed within Tier 1. This does include the proposed 222.5 square feet for the proposed stair and retaining wall hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. Within the 75-foot setback area,the applicant's plan attempts to reduce the visual impact of the stair by setting it into the grade as much as possible. The plan results in the need for retaining walls on the up and down slope sides of the stairs. The bottom section of the stairs will be supported by a retaining wall up to four feet in height as viewed from the lake. The City's landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plans and the revised plans are included in the Planning Commission's packets. By code,the City must review the proposed conditional use at the property within certain criteria contained in Section 78-916. Staff has reviewed the criteria and has found that Items 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 are generally applicable to this property. Curtis indicated she can go through the Staff analysis if the Planning Commission has questions concerning any of the criteria. Based on Staff's analysis,the applicant's plan appears to be consistent with the City's goals and the criteria. Staff finds that the conditional use permit for the retaining walls and stair work within the 0-75 foot zone appears to be reasonable and consistent with similar properties in the neighborhood and the landscape plan offers a natural looking slope. The applicant has considered the City's comments regarding the landscape plan and has provided clarification and a revised plan today. The City's landscape architect has been asked to provide any additional comments. Those additional comments can be addressed prior to the City Council meeting if the Planning Commission wishes to move this application forward. Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance to allow 222.5 square feet of hardcover and a conditional use permit for the work within the 0-75 foot zone to construct the stair system,the walls, and the proposed landscape plan. The City Engineer has conducted a cursory review of this plan. The most significant concerns were noted at that time. However, a full engineering review will be conducted at the time of administrative permit. Landgraver asked if Staff has had time to adequately review the information that was distributed this evening. Curtis indicated not thoroughly. Dale Gustafson, Landscape Designer, stated in order to clarify the changes made today,they are based on the idea that additional screening can be done along the staircase. Some plants were added to the left of the wall that would be two to four feet high and will help hide the bottom edge of the stairway. The previous plants were smaller grass and were not really intended to help screen the staircase. Gustafson noted they also have identified a group of plants that was missed in the first landscape plan. Lemke asked if the 22-inch oak would be disturbed at all by the staircase. Gustafson stated in his view it should not be since they have attempted to keep a good distance away from the tree with the stairs. Gustafson noted some of the other trees in the area have been removed. Lemke noted to the west there is an existing staircase and asked whether that would be removed. Page 2 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gustafson indicated it will be removed. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. John Miller,4423 North Shore Drive, asked what the current erosion control plan is for the property. Curtis stated the applicant can probably address that issue better but that there should be erosion control fencing up. At the time of the issuance of the permit,the City will review the erosion control and the applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Miller asked what the current erosion plan is. Curtis stated if he is referring to the home that is going to be constructed, there should be erosion control fencing up. Thiesse noted there is fencing and straw bales up above the top of the bank. Miller asked what the distance is of the fencing. Thiesse stated he does not know the exact distance but that he walked the property today and the length of the fencing appears to be close to the length of the gray line depicted on the overhead.. Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead. Miller asked if that is in the 0-75 foot setback. Curtis indicated the plans show the fencing is supposed to be outside the 0-75 foot area. Miller asked what the purpose is of the silt fence. Curtis stated the purpose is to protect soil and debris from entering the lake from the construction project. Miller asked who checks on that. Curtis indicated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well as City Staff. Miller asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is represented at tonight's meeting. Curtis stated to her knowledge they are not here tonight. Curtis asked if there is an issue with the erosion control. Miller noted there have been some pretty heavy rain storms recently. Curtis stated Staff can check on the situation tomorrow. Miller noted one of the Commissioners said he was at the property today and asked if he didn't notice that there was erosion going down to the lake beyond the silt fence. Page 3 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse indicated he did see that there was some mild erosion but that the majority of the dirt was retained. Miller asked what will happen to the water that was collected in the foundation. Curtis stated she is not sure whether this is the venue for that discussion. Miller stated part of his concern is the consideration of the property for additional hardcover. Miller asked what has changed on the property. Miller asked if the property has a requirement on what can be used for hardcover. Curtis stated the hardcover on the lot is restricted and that the applicant is asking for additional hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. The applicant is not requesting any hardcover over the amount allowed on the site and are, in fact,well below the amount of hardcover that would be allowed. Miller asked what has changed about the property. Miller noted what has changed about the property is a big hole and construction going on but the shoreline has not changed. The homeowner bought the property knowing that that was their shoreline and their access. Miller asked why the applicants are asking for additional hardcover within the 0-75 foot setback. Curtis stated they are requesting 142 additional square feet. Curtis pointed out the applicants are allowed to replace the existing stairs in kind and to have a stairway down to the lake. Submitting an application to the City is the process by which the property owner can ask for consideration to construct the stairs they are proposing. The applicant is proposing a stair that is set in the grade and screened from the lake, which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Miller asked what type of consideration has been given to the property and to the construction. Miller noted the applicant is asking for additional consideration. Curtis indicated she does not understand Mr. Miller's comments. Curtis noted the applicant is not requesting any variances or special approvals as part of the conditional use permit. Curtis stated if there is an issue with construction, erosion or something else on the site, Staff would look into that. Miller stated there is a lack of consideration and yet they are asking for additional hardcover. Miller stated in his view there has been a lack of consideration with respect to the construction. Curtis asked if Mr.Miller has specific concerns regarding the application tonight. Miller stated he is concerned because in his view there has been a lack of consideration with the construction and that he is wondering what additional consideration should be given in light of the work being done in the 0-75 foot zone and the request for the additional hardcover over what is currently there. Schoenzeit noted the City's code allows the property owners to rebuild the stairs in kind. The applicant has chosen to rebuild the stairs versus remodeling them. The question before the Planning Commission tonight is whether the staircase they are proposing is reasonable and whether the staircase is allowable under the City's code. Schoenzeit noted the City does allow a staircase in the 0-75 foot zone for access to the lake. The applicant has chosen to rebuild it rather than remodel it,which is allowed. Page 4 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Miller noted the current staircase goes straight down and they are proposing it to meander it. Schoenzeit indicated that is permitted and would allow some screening and better vegetation than what is currently there. Miller asked why they would need to request permission if it is already permitted. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting additional hardcover and approval for their plan tonight. Schoenzeit stated the applicants are allowed to ask the City whether they can rebuild their stair access in the 0-75 foot zone and they have submitted a plan depicting what they are proposing,which is what the Planning Commission is reviewing to determine whether it would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated given what he has heard and looked at tonight, it appears the proposal is an improvement over what currently exists. Schoenzeit stated if Mr. Miller has concerns about the silt fence and erosion controls, he should bring those to Staff's attention and Staff will make the applicants aware of those issues. Schoenzeit stated he personally knows that four foot pieces of number eight rebar holding a silt fence will do a pretty good job because he has about 50 pieces at his house. Schoenzeit stated there are ways to properly do projects and what the applicant is asking for is very reasonable. Miller stated he understands that but his point is that they bought the property knowing what the access was. Miller stated in his view there has been a lack of consideration and that he is wondering why they should be allowed additional consideration. Miller stated it appears they are allowed additional consideration because they are the homeowner. Schoenzeit stated they are entitled to safe access to the lake. Schoenzeit stated it is likely it is no longer economical to repair the existing stairs and so they have chosen to propose constructing a new set of stairs. Miller asked who determines whether it is economical to replace the staircase. Leskinen stated she does not want to engage in a shouting match. Miller stated he is talking louder because he is further away. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission appreciates Mr. Miller's comments. Miller stated he understands there are rules and regulations but he is wondering who enforces them and reviews them. Miller asked if the City calls the Watershed District to see if they are monitoring the situation. Miller stated in his view there are some obvious concerns and he is curious as to why there is additional consideration being given in this case. Thiesse noted there are other properties in the City that have experienced problems because of the rain and that he is aware of a property next to him where the silt fence failed. Thiesse stated Mr. Miller is holding it against the property owner when it is the builder that is at fault and is responsible for the silt fence. Page 5 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Miller commented he does not know who is responsible and pointed out the builder was hired by the property owner and to him the responsibility goes back to the property owner. Thiesse asked if he was constructing a new home whether he personally would be responsible for the silt fence or whether the builder would be. Miller stated he would hold the builder responsible and would be reviewing the silt fence and was effective. Lemke stated the silt fence is not really a consideration for the Planning Commission at t this point but that he understands what Mr. Miller is saying. Lemke noted the homeowner is entitled to improve his property and what is being proposed is an improvement over what currently exists. Lemke stated from his standpoint, what is being proposed is better than what is currently there. Miller indicated he does not disagree with that but that he knows how severe the slope is. Miller indicated it was not his intent to offend anyone and that this is a learning experience for him. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Landgraver encouraged the builder as the landscaping occurs to make sure the engineering of the slope is appropriate and to monitor the erosion. Schoenzeit stated perhaps the Planning Commission could request additional erosion control. Thiesse stated that is really not the Planning Commission's call. Leskinen noted erosion control is not part of the application that is before the Planning Commission since it deals with the house and that the builder has obtained the appropriate permit for the house. Staff is now aware that there may be some issues on the property and they will follow up with those concerns. Leskinen stated she personally has a concern with tying the erosion control related to the house to this application. Landgraver asked what the process will be for the landscaping. Landgraver asked whether the land will be stripped bare and what steps will be taken to prevent erosion into the lake. Gustafson indicated there are two elements to the project and one is building the stairway and the other is the planting. In the case of the construction of the stairway, currently there is a straight stair with erosion underneath. There is no way to protect the dirt underneath the stairway from erosion since it is impossible to get something to grow there. This proposal offers a more stable area by meandering the stairs and constructing it a few inches above the grade and grading the area appropriately to get the water to go away from the stairs. Gustafson stated he will work on a daily basis with the contractor to protect what soil is dug up at the time and that they will not do any work on a rainy day. Gustafson indicated the rest of the bank is a bigger challenge but that generally what happens on steep banks is that people allow whatever to grow there and that eventually the ground erodes underneath the trees. Gustafson indicated they plan to plant that slope with lower vegetation that will spread out and hold the dirt in place. The first step is to go in there and kill the trees. The roots will be left in place to help hold the soil and then they will dig individual holes Page 6 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. for the new plants. Gustafson indicated they need those old roots to help hold the bank in place but that the new roots will eventually take over. Gustafson stated the issue with the water coming over the top is partly due to the fact that building requirements in general do not require specifications for erosion control on lakeshore that are adequate to meet a three to four inch rain. Gustafson noted one row or two rows of silt fence cannot hold that much water but it is difficult to build something that can handle that much water. Lemke asked if the area between the house and the slope will be sodded or seeded. Gustafson indicated that will be sodded. Lemke asked what the schedule will be for the work. Gustafson stated they will begin with the killing of the old vegetation and have the new plants in prior to the fall,which will give the new plants some time to get established. Leskinen asked if there is additional permitting required from the Watershed District for re-vegetating a slope like this. Curtis indicated she is not aware of exactly what the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would require. The City requires a copy of the permit from the Watershed District for the house and that Staff would send the applicant back to the Watershed District at the time of the issuance of the zoning permit to review the work being proposed in this area. Thiesse asked if the Watershed District would review the plans and possibly require some type of erosion control. Curtis stated they would. Landgraver commented in his view this is a vast improvement and is a good plan. Leskinen stated she likes the rearrangement of the stairs and the fact that the stairs will be built into the ground. Leskinen stated the applicant made a good point about the erosion under the stairs and that the new stairs,being built into the ground,will help address that. Leskinen stated in her view aesthetically this plan will look better and be better for the lake. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3612,Dale Gustafson on behalf of John and Barbara Corness,4395 North Shore Drive,granting of a hardcover variance and conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *4. #13-3613 GABRIEL JABBOUR,430,440,AND 450 BIG ISLAND,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3613,Gabriel Jabbour,430,440,and 450 Big Island,granting of a lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 7 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #13-3614 FRED JOHNSON, 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:02 P.M.—8:10 P.M. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting the following variances: 1. Lot area variance to allow construction on a lot of 9,641 square feet where 43,560 square feet is required. 2. Lot width variance to allow construction on a lot of 83 feet defined width where 140 feet is required. 3. Rear setback variance to allow rear(north) setback of 12.9 feet where 30 feet is required. 4. Side street setback variance to allow east side street setback of 25.4 feet where 35 feet is required. 5. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow the proposed residence to be located 75 feet from the lakeshore, an encroachment of approximately 50 feet lakeward of the average setback line defined by the adjacent residence at 1555 Orchard Beach Place. 6. Conditional use permit and variance required for grading within the 0-75 foot zone in excess of ten cubic yards. Gaffron stated this lot was platted as a"commons lot" in the plat of the Saga Hill in 1885. It was not dedicated to the public. Staff has found no information to date regarding any special legal status that is attributable to a commons lot and the City sees common areas within PUDs regularly. However,there is no special designation or definition of a commons lot that establishes what it was supposed to be used for. Gaffron stated the fact that they designated that area as commons strongly suggests that this was originally platted as a neighborhood amenity rather than a building site. Staff has not been able to determine exactly when the property became individually owned rather than owned by some community association. Staffs assumption is that it was not individually owned in the beginning. A family by the name of Vedeler owned the site as early as 1926 and Staff is aware that there was a summer home on the property in the 1920s,which burned down in the late 1930s or early 1940s. The summer house was never rebuilt. There was a small detached garage that remained on the site until 1981. Gaffron stated there was also a community beach located at the end of Orchard Beach Place that existed in the 1950s and 1960s and perhaps earlier. Staff has been told that the property at 1565 Orchard Beach Place was used as an informal picnic area next to the beach. In 1962,the adjacent properties along the west side of Orchard Beach Place were regrouped into two building sites resulting in the current lot configurations for 1555 and 1535. The Planning Commission at that time recommended the City Council consider purchasing the 1565 property which was for sale at that time for$7,500. The City did not purchase it. Gaffron noted that in 1967,the owner at that time applied for a building permit for the property,which was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission due to the size of the lot and lack of sewer connection at that time. The Planning Commission again in 1967 recommended the City Council Page 8 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. consider purchasing the property. The Council referred the matter to the Park Commission and there is no further action indicated in the City's records. Gaffron continued that in 1978,the City processed a formal variance request by Arthur Heintz requesting lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. That application was denied per the findings of Resolution No. 885 dated March 16, 1978. Within a week following the variance denial resolution,the City received a petition from three neighbors requesting abatement of a nuisance, specifically the garage that was in poor condition located on the property. The City followed up with approval of a hazardous building resolution on April 13, 1978. On that same date the Council denied the applicant the ability to construct a dock, noting that a variance would be required since City Code does not allow docks on a property without a principal structure. The dilapidated garage was eventually removed in 1981 and the lot has been vacant ever since. In 1983, a dock was being installed by owner Pfeffer and he was ordered to cease installation. Gaffron stated that the property currently exists as a Lot of Record and is located in the Shoreland District. He noted that if there was a house on the property currently,the owner could rebuild it in kind. In kind means exactly what exists in size,height, and location. A house has not been located on the property for at least 65 years. Buildability of lots is regulated under Orono Zoning Code Section 78-72. A lot meeting the criteria of 78-72(b)(1),which does not meet the requirements of the zoning chapter as to area or width only,may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if all other requirements of the underlying zoning district are met, including but not limited to required yards, setbacks, lot coverage by structures,hardcover, et cetera. Based on the survey provided and the house proposed, development of the property will not meet all pertinent zoning requirements and a variance application has been filed. In reviewing the site development parameters for this zone, Gaffron noted that it is apparent that this lot is substandard not only in relation to City Code since it would require 140 feet of width and an acre,but also as compared to the surrounding neighborhood. The existing lot is less than one-fourth of an acre and is 83 feet in defined width. Because this is a lakeshore lot,the width is measured parallel to the shoreline and not along the side street. No additional land is available to increase the size of the property. Other lots in the neighborhood average 1.01 acres and range from 0.56 acre to 1.79 acres. The City has generally denied lot area variances for vacant lots less than 10,000 square feet. Gaffron noted this lot is also subject to lakeshore setback. While no lake setback variance is requested at this time, in meeting the 75-foot lakeshore setback requirement,placement of even a small residence as proposed would require a substantial rear setback variance. The house is proposed to be located 12.9 feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. This results in a separation from the neighboring residence at 1555 Orchard Beach Place of approximately 40 feet. That neighboring home is directly uphill from the proposed house and drainage from that home naturally flows directly toward the proposed house. In addition,the proposed house would be located 25.4 feet from the side street lot line where a 35-foot setback is required. As proposed,the garage would be a tuck-under facing the street. The right-of-way of Orchard Beach Place is 60 feet in width and the paved road is approximately 18 to 20 feet from the lot line. The code requirement for detached garages is 30 feet. While the proposed tuck-under garage is not an accessory structure,the principle of maintaining adequate room and street separation on the property for parking will be somewhat compromised. Page 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted the average lakeshore setback requirement for this property is defined by the lake setback of the residence structure on the only adjacent residential lot, which is 1555 Orchard Beach Place,which is approximately 125 feet from the ordinary high water level. Any proposed structure at 1565 would have to be set back 125 feet from the OHWL, which is impossible since the lot is only 110 to 120 feet in depth. In instances where the average lakeshore setback cannot be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval. Gaffron noted no evidence has been provided indicating that the adjoining property owner would agree to the approval required for issuance of an administrative average setback variance and development on this lot potentially could obstruct the lake views of the adjacent owner. Gaffron stated that the applicant is proposing a house that covers less than 11 percent of the lot area, meeting the 15 percent structural limit and below the 1500 square foot allotment the code provides for lots less than 10,000 square feet in area. Under the new hardcover tier system, 25 percent of the entire lot area yields just over 2,400 square feet of hardcover allowance. The applicant proposes a house and driveway totaling just under 1,600 square feet of hardcover and no variance is required. In addition,the proposed house appears to meet the City's established height limitations of 30 feet and 2-1/2 stories. However,the plans provided to date are not final construction plans and do not show dimensions. Height limitations will have to be analyzed once final plans are submitted with the building permit. Gaffron noted that the applicant has submitted a practical difficulty statement, and indicated there are a number of criteria that will need to be met in order to be granted a variance: 1. "The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls."Gaffron noted the property owner is proposing to use the property for residential purposes,which is permitted by ordinance. The question is whether the granting of a substantial number and degree of variances for that use is reasonable given the unique site background and characteristics. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." Gaffron indicated the property was platted before existing codes were enacted. While not created by the landowner,this circumstance is not unique, as a majority of the developed lots in the neighborhood were also platted prior to existing codes. 3. "The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality." Gaffron noted that while granting of the variances will alter the essential character of the locality is somewhat subjective,there are certain objective factors that should be considered which demonstrate the inconsistency of this proposal with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. These factors include the following: -The property at 0.22 acres is one-fifth the average size of developed residential lots within the immediate neighborhood. -The proposed lakeshore setback at 75 feet is significantly less than the setback of developed lakeshore lots within the immediate neighborhood,which range from 85 feet to 165 feet and average 112 feet. -The proposed street setback of 25.4 feet where a 35-foot setback is required places the Page 10 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. structure closer to the street than any other home on Orchard Beach Place. -Removal of nearly all vegetation in a swatch approximately 65 feet x 80 feet potentially will alter the visual character of the neighborhood. Gaffron noted the fourth criteria states that economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. While the applicant has not suggested that economics are a consideration in his quest for variances, he has suggested that the zoning does not allow a reasonable use of the property. Gaffron noted the property has been valued for tax purposes at a value significantly lower than buildable lots. Exhibit 1-2 contains a history of the assessed valuations for the property for the period 1974 through 2013. The value has consistently remained significantly lower than the valuation of the land for similar sized developed lakeshore parcels in Orono. A review of tax records for similar sized developed lots in the Baldur Park, Shadywood Road and Crystal Bay Road indicates land valuations of$300-500,000 as compared to the$71,000 value placed on the applicant's parcel for 2013. Gaffron stated the next applicable criteria states, "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." He noted that the conditions applying to this property apply to all other properties in theLR-1B zoning district, which are subject to the same zoning standards as this property. Criteria No. 9 reads,"The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." Gaffron noted that the property is extremely substandard in area under current codes and was originally platted as a Commons Lot, which traditionally and,in this case within the 1885 plat of Saga Hill, cannot reasonably be construed as creating a building site. Building lots within the plat of Saga Hill were given standard lot and block numbers and were significantly larger than the subject property. The conditions that have been in place regarding buildability of pre-existing record lots apply to all platted lots within the LR-1B District. Gaffron noted that Criteria No. 10 states: "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Gaffron noted that granting variances in order to construct a new residence on a very substandard property that has been devoid of a residence structure for at least 65 years is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. If the property contained an existing residence today,the owner would have the substantial right to reconstruct that existing structure"in-kind"which is not the situation here. Criteria No. 11: "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Gaffron indicated the filling and grading necessary in order to correct the existing site conditions to make the lot buildable if variances are granted; i.e.,redirect the natural drainage through the site to create a buildable pad that will not be subject to periodic flooding, requires removal of a substantial number of protected trees within the 0-75 foot zone. This would be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. With regard to Criteria No. 12,which reads: "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty", Gaffron noted that the question of whether a practical difficulty exists to such an extent that variances should be granted in Page 11 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. this situation must ultimately be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. On two occasions in the past,the City has determined that the lot should not be built upon. Gaffron indicated that in the resolution approved in 1978,the Council adopted a number of findings supporting denial. The current applicant claims in his practical difficulties statement that those findings include"numerous gross errors and mistruths,"but does not provide any supporting evidence or detail regarding this claim. Staffs responses to those errors and mistruths are outlined in the report. Gaffron stated as it relates to consistency with Orono's Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit Q is an excerpt from the Land Use Plan element of the 2000-2030 Community Management Plan. The Land Use Goals and Policies established in the CMP are further supported by similar goals and policies throughout the Environmental Protection Plan element. In each case,the City's philosophy has been to limit development density for the protection of Lake Minnetonka,to limit changes to the lakeshore,to protect lakeshore vegetation and to avoid overloading the natural surface water drainage and filtration systems. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission review Exhibit Q and other sections of the CMP. He noted the sections generally do not support the development of substandard property that leads to excessively high densities near the lakeshore. As it relates to the conditional use permit, Gaffron stated that Section 78-1286 prohibits grading, filling, or excavating more than 10 cubic yards of material within 75 feet of the lake. Because the proposed site grading plan will involve more than 10 cubic yards of earth movement within 75 feet of the lake, a conditional use permit and variance are required. The grading plan involves excavating for the new house foundation, fill lakeward of the house to alleviate drainage issues, and grading swales on either side of the house and within the right-of-way of Orchard Beach Place to direct runoff past the house and driveway. The proposed grading plan places the southeast corner of the ground floor of the house about two feet above existing grade and the northwest corner of the house about 2-1/2 feet below existing grade. The lower level is a story,not a basement, and the house proposed is,by definition, a two-story house with a defined height of 23 feet and a peak height of 29 feet. Gaffron noted the applicant would be required to adhere to the City's erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The applicant's grading plan does not appear to create unstable slopes and results in slopes that are flatter than 3:1. There are no alterations being proposed below the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron noted there are some potential impacts to the adjoining property to the west and north associated with construction of the new house but there are not inherently likely as a result of grading into the base of the steep slope and creation of swales along the westerly site boundary. In addition,there is a risk to a number of protected trees on the property as a result of the grading. Gaffron noted there are a number of letters from neighbors included in the Commissioners' packets that clearly suggest the neighborhood does not want this property to be granted variances to make it a buildable lot. Gaffron noted an additional e-mail was received this morning from the owner of the property located at 1530 Orchard Beach Place indicating his opposition to the project. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission review the summary of pertinent issues and potential findings included in Staffs report. He indicated it is Staffs finding that development of this property with a single-family residence would have negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood,which Page 12 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. would have negative environmental impacts and would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, Staff would recommend denial of the lot area and lot width variances; denial of the side street setback variance; denial of the rear setback variance; denial of the average lakeshore setback variance as proposed; and denial of a conditional use permit and variance for grading/excavation and fill within the 0-75 foot zone. Schoenzeit asked if the neighbor properties are connected to city sewer. Gaffron indicated they are. Schoenzeit asked if this property is connected to the city sewer. Gaffron indicated it has sewer available but it has never been connected. The property was assessed a front footage charge but not the unit charge. The applicant would need to pay the current unit charge, which is approximately$13,000. Landgraver asked if there is a fire lane in this area. Gaffron stated it is a platted right-of-way to the lake and that a fire lane is one of the terms that could be used to describe it. The road is 60 feet wide and is paved. Gaffron indicated he would probably characterize it as a city road since it is open to the public and a city lift station is located at the end of it. Schoenzeit asked if there are any restrictions on what can be done at the end of that right-of-way. Gaffron stated without looking at the Comprehensive Plan, it is his impression it is likely used for a snowmobile access. Gaffron stated he is not aware of it being used as a beach in recent years and that it is not used like some of the other fire lanes. Gaffron noted there is a bit of a drop-off down near the lake. Landgraver stated when he visited the site today,there were a couple of people with kayaks in the area. Landgraver asked if there are any other setbacks that are driven by the public utilities. Gaffron stated to his knowledge there are not. Paul Larson,Applicant, stated he has built several homes and lived in Orono for many years. Larson indicated he has been in real estate for 30 years and that he has been in front of the Orono City Council several times. Larson noted there has been a tremendous amount of work done by Staff on this application and that Staff has a tremendous amount of correspondence and documents going way back on this property. Larson indicated he did find a plan that would fit within the setbacks,would be under the structural coverage, and be under the City's hardcover limits. For years the property owners were told that there was no sewer there,but after some investigation, it was found out there is sewer and a stub for this property. In addition,the land was assessed for lateral sewer. Larson indicated they do not know for sure when the Pfeffers bought the property that variances had previously been denied in 1978 but it was determined there was a$150,000 loan on the land that was found in the archives. Page 13 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Larson noted in a 1978 letter in the Planning Commission packet(from the then owner Sigrid Vedeler Paige),Item 4 states, "The City of Orono, in not granting my recent request for a variance,has destroyed the value of my property,"which is exactly what happened.The tax assessor was told at some point in the past that there is no sewer stub and the demolition records from 1981 show sewer marked as none. Larson stated the archives show the neighbor across the street attempted to buy the property for 50 cents on the dollars but he was not able to purchase the property. The fence does encroach in the north corner and the fence is now acting as a natural silt fence that protects the runoff. Larson stated as it relates to runoff, it is impossible for this property to flood since it cannot flow uphill. The photo from 1978 that shows water up against the garage came from an ice dam that thawed in the spring and resulted in water backing up against the garage and flowing through it. Larson commented somehow or other that was considered flooding. Larson noted there are no drainage easements for this property and the neighbors and City do not have drainage easement. Larson stated the large boulevard of 19 feet should be considered in granting the street setback variance. Larson indicated they have hired a professional engineer,professional architects,and surveyors to assist with this project. The trees can be protected during the construction and the owners do not want them to be removed. Larson indicated over the years, since everyone was being told there is no sewer,the trees were planted in that area and that it has cost them$500 to locate all the trees. Larson stated the bottom line is that there was a house and garage there at one time and the city's engineers designed and installed a sewer stub on this property. Larson commented he is sure the former city fathers knew the sewer stub was going in there and that the intent of the sewer stub was that it would someday be hooked up to a bathroom for a house someday. Larson stated this is clearly a lot of record and that clearly the developer did not dedicate this land as commons. This lot is not a park and not a common area but rather private property. Larson noted the survey shows that a park at one time existed on one of the neighbor's properties that now has a house. Larson indicated this situation is no different than what just happened over on Maple Place. The developer was told there were no sewer stubs over there but, as it turns out,there is a sewer stub on every lot. The lots on Maple Place are 50' x 100' and this lot is 80' x 120'. As it regards the resolution that was previously approved, Larson commented it is a shame what was actually put into writing. Item 2-A states the lot is 8,000 square feet when the lot is actually 9,400 square feet. Under the practical difficulties law, if there is an error in the report, it supports a variance to be granted on the property. The resolution states the lot is 100 feet in depth when the land is 120 feet in depth. Larson stated there is an adequate area to construct a house and that it will fit into the setbacks. Larson stated the property owners were never assessed for a sewer unit but they were assessed for a sewer lateral. As far as tax purposes,the property has never been evaluated properly since the tax assessor was told there is no sewer there. Larson indicated his attorneys have looked at the property and that they feel it is a building site. Larson stated they are willing to work with the City and the neighbors on this project. The proposed home will not block the neighbor's view of the lake since their house is 20 feet higher than this house will be. Page 14 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. In addition,the drainage issues have been resolved. Larson stated the neighbors should be controlling their own water and the City should be controlling the water coming off the boulevard. Larson stated they are willing to allow the water from the boulevard run on to this property and that they are willing to work with the City to address the other drainage issues. Larson reiterated it is impossible for this property to flood. As it relates to traffic congestion,Larson noted this will be a two-bedroom house with a tuck-under garage and should not result in significant increased traffic. Larson stated this project will also not result in diminished values to the surrounding properties. Larson indicated this project will cost less than the exterior stone on the house next door and that there is a well on the property. Larson commented he is not sure who wrote the word commons on the plat drawing in the 1980s but that this lot is private property. Larson indicated he does not see how granting the variance would be adverse to the City's Comprehensive Plan since this is a small 26' x 40' foot house. Larson noted they are requesting lot width and lot area variances,which should be a shoo-in since a number of properties in the city have been granted those. Larson indicated they can narrow the house if the City desires. Larson noted the property owners were told they cannot have a dock without a principal structure. If you look at the tax records,it is classified as seasonal recreational. Lots classified as seasonal recreation on Big Island are allowed to have a dock there with no house but yet these folks were denied a dock. Larson stated if they are allowed to build a house,they would like to have a little dock. Larson stated the property owner,Patricia Pfeffer,hired his company to sell the property and the sale is subject to obtaining a permit to construct a house on the land. Larson stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to review the 1978 letter from Mrs. Paige where was begging the City not to do what they did. Mrs. Paige did not have professional representation at the meeting and was unable to personally attend the meeting. The letter clearly states she and her husband owned the property since 1910 and that they never had any flooding on the property. Larson encouraged the Planning Commission to correct the huge injustice that was done in 1978. Schoenzeit stated one of the items the Planning Commission has to decide is whether the proposed house is compatible and fits within the neighborhood. Schoenzeit asked how the applicant would address the compatibility of this house versus the rest of the neighborhood. Larson stated the only house that will see this house is the big mansion. Schoenzeit asked how this house and lot would compare to the rest of the other properties in the neighborhood. Larson indicated he sells cabins across the street from million dollar homes every day around Lake Minnetonka and that they can make the house fit within the setbacks. The proposed house is a nice looking house and is about the size of the neighbor's garage. Larson indicated the plan is not etched in stone and that they will work with the City on the proposal. Larson noted they have constructed this exact same house out in Mound on lots that were only 40 feet wide. Larson indicated they are not going to put a radical, contemporary styled house with a flat roof on the property. The house will be located down on the property and the neighbor on top of the hill will be looking at the side of the garage. Larson stated by all rights they should be attempting to construct a 1,500 square foot print since that is what the law allows for substandard lots. Page 15 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the law does not does guarantee a person the hardcover needed to accomplish that or the setbacks. Larson stated they will add some amenities to the house to make it more attractive but that it will not be of the caliber of the house next door. As it relates to the house up on the hill,that whole house faces the other direction. The setback that is being requested for the rear abuts her driveway. That house and dock are oriented the other way. Larson stated in his view it will fit into the neighborhood just fine. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Lisa Wysocky, 1555 Orchard Beach Place, stated her mother inherited the house from her grandparents and that she personally has lived there since 1958 off and on. Wysocky stated she would like to address the flooding issue. Since 1948 the property has been observed to flood several times each year. The runoff comes from the gullies and sometimes from the lake but it also comes up from possibly a spring on the property and is wet all the time. Wysocky indicated she has a photograph that was taken this past Saturday which shows a clear path of flooding that is regularly observed on this lot. Wysocky stated she is very opposed to this small lot size being built upon in this part of Orono. The one acre lot size is to prevent high density and over population of the lake. The 0.22 acres is far below the required lot size. Wysocky stated the dampness of the lot is very,very typical of what they see several times throughout the year. Wysocky commented she understands the applicant has talked about filling and grading,but when the water also comes up from underneath, it will likely be an ongoing problem even if fill is placed in there. The 0.22 lot size is far less than anything else in the neighborhood and will change the character of the neighborhood. Wysocky noted lots in this area also have to have 144 feet of lakeshore frontage and the 83 or 86 feet is far below that. The required lot width is to prevent overpopulation of the area and also to be environmentally sound for the lake. Wysocky stated in her view this house will impact their view from the south and southwest side of their house since there are windows that face the lake on those sides. Wysocky stated if this house has a 29- foot elevation,that will impact their view. The summer house that was there in the 1930s was just that- a summer house. Wysocky indicated a lot of the small, summer houses around the lake consisted of 600 to 800 square foot homes and were not intended to be lived in year-round. Wysocki stated the original house on the property was a summer home and was never homesteaded. Wysocky stated the average lakeshore setback is also a concern. As Mr. Gaffron suggested,the average lakeshore setback for this neighborhood is 112 feet for this neighborhood. Many of the homes are set back further than that and the 75-foot setback for this house will be far ahead of the other homes on the lake and will change the character of the lake. Wysocky indicated she has always been told by city officials that Orchard Beach Place is a fire lane and that they cannot park on the street. Wysocky commented she probably sees city workers working on that lift station approximately once a week and that they currently are putting in a new generator. Because it is a fire lane, Wysocky stated they have a concern that a house on this property would block emergency Page 16 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. access to the lift station. Assuming the new property owners have guests at their property and they park on the street,that would block access to the lift station. Wysocky stated removal of the trees is also a big concern. Wysocky noted they maintain the 75-foot setback on the shoreline as well as the neighbors and that there are a number of mature trees on this property that will need to be taken out or killed. Wysocky noted her mother has lived on this property since1958 and that they are strongly opposed to the rear setback variance from 35 feet to 12.5 feet, which would locate this house 40 feet from their house and is too close for that neighborhood. Wysocky stated they routinely see people walking up and down Orchard Beach Place all the time for access to the lake. As it relates to the 1980 sale,Wysocky stated the new property owners should have been aware that this was an unbuildable lot since it was declared unbuildable in 1978. It is also very clear in the Orono records that this is an unbuildable lot and it was declared unbuildable several times. Wysocky stated she would like to correct something in the application relating to city water. Wysocky noted everyone in the neighborhood has their own well and that there is not city water. There is city sewer available but not city water. Wysocki indicated she would like to state on the record that she and her mom are very opposed to every variance that is being requested. Les Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated his father purchased the property from Lisa Wysocky's grandfather and that his father has been there since 1963 and he has personally been there since 1965. Delton stated they have always been told it is a fire lane. Delton indicated they did have a dock at the end of the road from 1963 to 1993, at which time the City required the dock be removed. Delton indicated when they did have their boat down there,they were told they could not park at the end of the road. Since the early 1960s,Delton indicated they have always been told that is a fire lane and for emergency access. Delton stated in his view building a small house will change what is happening in the neighborhood and that they are currently being surrounded by big million dollar mansions. This small house will change the look of the area and that he is definitely opposed to the variances to allow for a house to be built on that lot. Nancy Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated she has resided there since 1993 and that she routinely cleans the beach and the fire lane. Delton stated as it relates to the environment,there are typically hundreds of lady slippers, especially during rainy seasons, all the way from the lift station to well within this property line. Delton indicated she has also witnessed flooding on this property over the years and that a person cannot walk in there in the summertime due to the mud. Delton noted the guys who did the survey had enormous trouble this spring given the heavy rains but that it is not uncommon for this property to be wet and muddy. Delton stated she is opposed to all variances they are requesting. Patricia Pfeffer, 2850 Taniger Lane, Excelsior, stated she is the owner of the subject property but at the time of purchase she was not aware a dock or a tent could not be put in. Pfeffer indicated her kids put a dock in one year and within 24 hours the City had tagged it but yet there was a dock at the end of the street. Page 17 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pfeffer requested the Planning Commission approve the application. Pfeffer indicated she is tired of throwing money down a hole every year for taxes and that she would like to sell it. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Leskinen stated she did review the report in detail and that included in there was a great deal of historical information on the property. Leskinen stated the main concern is that the property is so small and that she does not see anything that would change that. Constructing a house on the property would change the area since the house would be so much smaller than anything else in the neighborhood as well as in the zoning district. Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of the application based on what she has seen and heard. Schoenzeit stated,based on the precedence, it is an unbuildable lot. The fact that it does have a sewer stub makes it interesting but it may be beyond the scope of the Planning Commission to exploit that fact. Schoenzeit stated he cannot,based on what he has seen,use that as justification to approve all the variances being requested. Schoenzeit stated even with the sewer stub,the house is in the wrong spot and not in character with the neighborhood. McGrann stated he has looked at the aerial views and the setbacks of the other properties, and when you look at how much the entire structure will be ahead of the average lakeshore setback, it would set a much different precedent than the City has historically approved. Landgraver stated he found it helpful to look at the history of the property. Landgraver commented that what struck him is if a house had remained on the property,they would not be having this meeting since someone could construct an in-kind replacement. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated wherever people have had an existing house,the City has granted variances allowing them to rebuild. By granting variances in certain situations,the City was able to gain some additional setback from the lake or some other improvement on the property. Landgraver noted from the records it appears the various planning staffs and councils have been fairly consistent about denying variances when there is no existing structure. Landgraver stated he brought that fact up because it would not be inconsistent now to say it is an unbuildable lot. Lemke stated the fact that it has not been approved in the past,the fact that there has not been a house on it for the past 65 years, and the lot area is well below the minimum required,makes it a very unbuildable lot. Lemke indicated he also walked the property yesterday and it was very wet. Lemke stated it does not make a lot of sense to approve the variances. Thiesse stated he cannot argue with anything that has been said so far by the other Commissioners. Thiesse indicated he cannot understand why the City would allow someone else to build in front of the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted this lot appears to be the receiver of everyone else's water and that it is difficult to tell them they cannot build on the lot because of that. Thiesse questioned whether the City should just continue to tell the property owners that they cannot build on the property and still require taxes to be paid on it or whether there is another option that has not yet been explored. Page 18 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated if you look at the history of how the property has been valued over the years,there are times when the value has been bumped up and that it is his belief that was probably the function of a different assessor looking at it for the first time. Gaffron stated the property does have some value but the other neighboring properties have a much higher assessed land value as compared to this property. Thiesse questioned what the value of the property would be if the owner cannot have a dock and the trees cannot be cut down. Thiesse stated in his view the property value is minimal. Gaffron concurred the value is minimal and that the owner would need to talk to the assessor to determine how they view it. Obviously the property owner can also talk with the city assessor about changing or lowering the value or they could attempt to sell the property to the adjacent property owner whose property surrounds it. Gaffron noted the City twice in the past chose, for whatever reasons,not to purchase it when they had the potential opportunity to purchase it. Gaffron stated from a drainage perspective,this property is a perfect place to put a stormwater pond, which is something that is worth looking into. The property has not gone into tax forfeiture. Gaffron stated to answer Commissioner Thiesse's question,there are some options available to the owner,but that in terms of how the property is used,they are not allowed to have a dock. Gaffron indicated the property could be used for picnicking and is open space but that he is hard pressed to come up with other specific uses for the property. Landgraver stated the options for the property are not particularly attractive. Whether the property floods or not is probably not a Planning Commission issue but it is a concern for the neighbors. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend denial of Application#13-3614,Fred Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place,based on Findings 1 through 10 outlined in Staffs report dated July 11, 2013,and based on the finding that in general the proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #13-3616 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78,ADD SECTION 78-1379,ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS,8:11 P.M.—8:38 P.M. Gaffron stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a proposal to add Section 78-1379,Alternative Energy Systems. Included in the Planning Commission's packet is a draft alternative energy systems ordinance as well as a volume of information that includes other cities' ordinances and various documents from state and other regulatory agencies. The City Council adopted the Accessory Uses and Structures Amendment approximately one month ago. The earlier drafts of that included solar electric, solar thermal systems, and geothermal systems in the list of allowed accessory uses within each zoning district. The final adopted ordinance did not include solar or geothermal systems but the Council directed Staff to proceed with establishment of a new separate code section regarding Alternative Energy Systems. Included in the draft amendment are some definitions for four specific alternative energy systems, and they include solar energy systems, geothermal energy systems, wind turbine systems, and outdoor wood boilers. These are typically the topics that other cities have included in their alternative energy systems ordinances. Gaffron noted he is not aware of any wood boilers in the City at the present time. There is Page 19 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. one wind turbine system that is not functional at the moment and the City has been attempting to have it removed for the last two years. The draft ordinance text is formatted to include a purpose statement, definitions, and then examples of standards for the various types of alternative energy systems to be allowed. The definitions section includes terminology for systems that likely will be allowed as well as those that perhaps will ultimately not be allowed as a result of Planning Commission and Council review. Identifying by definition the entire range of existing alternative energy systems is necessary to ensure clarify. Gaffron state solar and geothermal systems are of primary concern in the attached draft ordinance because these systems are common in Orono. The draft text draws from a number of different cities' codes, some of which are nearly identical. Attached for reference are various other cities' ordinances as well as model ordinances from a variety of sources. Lemke asked if there is any industrial use of wood boilers. Gaffron indicated he is not aware of any. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should review and consider whether the listed goals for alternative energy systems are appropriate and suggest any changes. The Planning Commission should then review the draft ordinance text and consider whether it addresses all issues and concerns and whether the methods or standards suggested are appropriate. Gaffron noted the draft text presented here should be considered as a working document in progress rather than as being in final form. This amendment has been published for a public hearing in the local newspaper. The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and, if possible,provide comments and recommendations regarding the ordinance draft. The Planning Commission may choose to table for additional consideration or forward to Council with recommendations. Gaffron stated given the limited notice that has been given to the general public,he would recommend tabling the amendment and reviewing it at a work session. McGrann asked if there are any existing applications pending regarding any of these systems. Gaffron indicated he is not aware of any. Gaffron stated even though the City's Code does not address it, the City has allowed geothermal and solar panels on the structure. The City has not in the past,but probably will start requiring in the future,permits for structure-mounted solar panels. Schoenzeit noted the state has a permitting process for vertical wells. Thiesse asked why the City would ever allow an open loop system. Gaffron stated he doubts the City ever would but that he would rather define them and then say they are not allowed. Thiesse asked whether a generator would be considered an alternative energy system. Gaffron indicated he has not seen generators listed in other cities' codes as an alternative energy system. Thiesse asked if the City allows them. Page 20 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated there are a number of them in the City and that they would be considered more a mechanical piece of equipment than an alternative energy system. Gaffron stated in his view it would not be appropriate to address them in this section. Leskinen stated it is her recollection that generators were included in the accessory uses ordinance and are required to meet a setback. Landgraver commented he would like to take the time to review it more thoroughly and discuss it at a work session. Landgraver stated he would also like the public to be given additional notice. Leskinen asked if any of the alternative energy systems with the exception of the wind turbine have generated any complaints or static to the City. Gaffron stated he does not recall anyone complaining about solar panels or geothermal but that the City has received some complaints regarding a wood kiln. Gaffron indicated it would be difficult to stop all wood burning appliances since people might have outdoor fire pits and/or chimneys. Landgraver stated his recollection is that kilns were included as an approved accessory structure. Landgraver stated he would also like to think about the process utilized in the geothermal system. Schoenzeit noted there are strict standards for the piping and other components of the geothermal system. McGrann asked if the state monitors those systems or if it is just a one-time permit review. Schoenzeit stated that is a great question. Schoenzeit stated based on his review of the solar section,he would suggest some consideration perhaps be given on whether to sort it by the size of the system or based on kilowatts and how it is installed. Schoenzeit stated one of the questions he had relating to rooftop solar panels was whether that would be something where a person would be allowed to exceed the City's height restrictions. Schoenzeit stated there could be a situation where a person had a previously compliant roof but then wanted to add a city- approved mounting method which increased the height from 30 to 33 feet. Gaffron stated that is something that will need to be addressed. Landgraver commented the lakeshore lots would likely be the lots that would have the most consistent wind and that he would prefer to thoroughly review the draft amendment before making any decisions. Gaffron indicated the mayor had suggested looking at the section of the City's ordinance dealing with antennas as it relates to wind turbines since there may be some language contained in there that deals with screening of towering structures. Leskinen stated issues with abandonment of alternative energy systems should also be addressed since there could be issues with that at some point in the future. Gaffron stated the draft amendment does contain language relating to abandonment of solar panels. Page 8 says, "If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one Page 21 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. year,the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment." Gaffron stated in his view similar language should apply to other alternative energy systems. Schoenzeit commented it becomes a matter of how much energy is being produced when determining if a system is functional. Gaffron stated it becomes a question of whether or not the City wants to regulate whether their energy production is efficient. Gaffron indicated some of the other cities' codes have talked about that if it does not meet certain standards, it will not be allowed. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Thiesse moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application#13-3616,City of Orono,Amendment of Zoning Code Chapter 78,Add Section 78-1379,Alternative Energy Systems,to the August 7,2013, Planning Commission work session.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON UNE 24,2013,AND JULY 8,2013 Leskinen reported at the June 24 City Council meeting the majority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda except for the Bayview Farms application. One of the Council Members was not comfortable with the boulevard look and there was some discussion regarding that. The plan that was submitted by the applicant followed the City's code but the Council expressed a desire for something different. The Council agreed to waive the fee if the applicant would like to come back with a new landscape plan. Curtis stated the Council preferred a more natural look. The Council approved the plat and offered the applicant waiver of the fee if they would like to submit a different plan. Curtis stated it may be prudent to look at that section of the code at some point in the future. Leskinen stated as it relates to the Henning application,the City Council directed that the shed be removed but allowed the new deck. Leskinen reported at the July 8 City Council meeting,the Devlin application was approved and the 2975 Casco Point application was approved. One council member was happy to see the Planning Commission recommended a hardcover reduction and that the applicant revised his plans based on that recommendation. The code section amendment for lots of record was also approved. Page 22 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated he has difficulty requiring a landscape plan since he is not familiar with the species of the plants and the height of the various plants. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission will be doing a view of the area by boat. Curtis indicated she will be scheduling that. Gaffron stated the City Council also discussed the possibility of doing an on land bus tour of different areas of the City. ADJOURNMENT Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6 Nays 0. ATTEST: /I • Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 23 of 23