Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 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 Kevin Landgraver, Christopher McGrann,Jon Schwingler,and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili Tod McMillan was present Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2013 Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of October 21,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #13-3636 LIXIAO WANG,3059 FARVIEW LANE,VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M.—6:49 P.M. Lixiao Wang,Applicant, was present. Curtis noted this application was tabled at the October Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to submit a revised plan reducing the size of the proposed addition from 12 to 9 feet. Variances from side yard setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover are still required. The applicants have provided a revised survey and a revised,more detailed garage plan which better illustrates the interior of the existing garage and its dimensional challenges. The applicant's property is 2.7 acres and, including the proposal, will remain at 11.8 percent. A small portion of the proposed hardcover includes 23 feet of non-structural driveway hardcover to structural hardcover within the 75-foot zone. The proposed garage addition as revised will encroach 7.5 feet into the required 30-foot side yard setback. The garage portion of the home currently meets the 30-oot side'setback. According to the revised plans, the proposed garage addition is to be constructed by extending the lake- side wall of the home to the east. Due to the angle of the home and the lakeshore,the addition will be 72.5 feet from the lake where a 75-foot setback is required. Approximately 23 square feet of additional structure within the 75-foot setback is proposed. The applicant's home is located entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Any expansion or structural additions to the home require approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. Page 1 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff has received updated comments today regarding the applicant's revised plan from the adjacent property owner who provided initial comments. The revised survey and detailed garage plans better clarify the existing usable space within the applicant's garage. Staff continues to find that creating a more nonconforming structure is not in character with the neighborhood. The revised addition adds mass within the eastern side setback area and also within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has not demonstrated a reasonable practical difficulty supporting additional structure within the average lakeshore setback or within the 75-foot setback area. Further,the applicant has failed to demonstrate that enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive them of the reasonable use of the property. Planning Staff continues to recommend denial of the variances. Lixiao Wang, Applicant, stated they have downsized their proposal. Wang indicated they currently have three cars, with two of those vehicles being a truck and an SUV which do not fit into the garage. Wang stated if they do not do this project,they will have to continue to park the cars outside. Wang noted the neighbor's house is up higher than his and that the trees currently block the view from the neighbors. Wang pointed out the location of the trees on the overhead. Wang indicated their new proposal has been reduced by three feet,which does not provide any additional space for boats or other equipment and that they are basically asking for a basic three-car garage. Wang stated if they reduce the proposed garage any further,their cars will not fit in the garage. Wang stated this is the best option they have. Thiesse asked if there are three garage doors now. Wang indicated there are two. Thiesse stated he did visit the property and that he recalled a two-door garage and something else without a garage door. Wang indicated there are not three doors. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Leskinen indicated her position has not changed from the last meeting and that in her view there is still a considerable amount of massing near the shoreline. Landgraver stated the other point is if fairly common vehicles do not fit in the garage that obstructs the neighbor's view already and the cars will remain parked outside,that is worth some consideration. As proposed,the vehicles will be put away inside a symmetrical building rather than sitting outside, which seems to make sense. Page 2 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated that could be accomplished with six feet, which is what the Planning Commission had directed at the last meeting. The applicant last time proposed 12 feet and is now proposing nine feet. Thiesse stated in his view a standard sedan would fit in the 16.2 feet. Landgraver asked if the City has a minimum garage depth. Curtis indicated it does not. Thiesse stated 20 feet would be tight and 24 feet is reasonable. Schwingler commented he also owns a Suburban that does not fit into his garage. Schwinger stated he is struggling with moving the garage closer to the lake with the setback variance and that it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Schwingler stated he understands it is a difficult property to work with and that there are trees nearby. Schwingler stated the property owner could still park cars in the driveway even with a full-size garage and that parking cars outside is not a hardship. Leskinen noted the original proposal has only been reduced by three feet and does not alleviate the potential turnaround problems,which was also raised at the last meeting. McGrann asked if six feet would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Leskinen noted six feet is what the Commission discussed last time. Thiesse noted the applicant needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty and that an 18-foot garage is a practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated a 24-foot garage is not a practical difficulty. Leskinen noted the garage is currently 18 feet. Wang stated even if they do not do the addition,they are already encroaching towards the lake. Wang stated if they are forced to reduce the garage down by another three feet,they might as well tear down the garage and rebuild a new one,but that he does not have the money to do that. Wang stated the current proposal will not make the situation any worse. Wang stated due to the tight constraints with the land,their proposal will not make it any worse. Leskinen asked why the applicant is proposing nine feet versus six feet after the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting. Wang stated their contractor indicated six feet would not be sufficient, which is the reason why they stayed with the nine feet. Landgraver asked if there is a time constraint on this application. Curtis indicated the 60-day review period will expire on December 3 and that she is planning to take the additional 60 days the City is allowed. The applicants have indicated they would like to take some time before they go before the City Council. Page 3 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated it sounds like the Planning Commission would support a small addition but not the nine feet being proposed by the applicant. Landgraver noted if the application is denied,the applicant can still go before the City Council. Leskinen stated in her view tabling is not an option and that the Planning Commission should entertain a motion. Leskinen stated it does not appear the Planning Commission is willing to approve anything over six feet. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is generally favorable of the 6-foot addition,that direction could again be given to the applicant. Thiesse stated he would like the applicant to have a useable garage and that a 24-foot garage is useable in his view. Thiesse stated he is not convinced that 16 feet is not enough for a sedan and that in his view the third stall for that type of vehicle may be sufficient. Thiesse stated if the applicant can prove differently, he would be willing to reconsider the application. Leskinen reiterated her position has not changed from last time and that she agrees a reasonable garage is 24 feet. Thiesse noted the neighbors are also opposed to the proposal,which does not help. Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend denial of Application 3059 Farview Lane, with the stipulation that the specific request for nine feet is denied and that the Planning Commission would recommend six feet. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 3. #13-3637 WILLIAM ABBOTT,2350 WATERTOWN ROAD, SUBDIVISION,6:49 P.M.— 8:17 P.M. William Abbott, Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a seven lot single-family residential subdivision to be known as Oliver Hill as well as rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development. The property is zoned RR-1B, one family rural residential district,with a two acre minimum. The property consists of two parcels. One is a flag lot and the other is a vacant parcel. When combined, those two parcels equal 4.9 acres. Roughly 3.7 acres is dry buildable and 1.24 acres of wetland. The aerial photograph shows a wetland in the northwest corner and a small creek located in the trees that flows to the southeast. As you look towards the west,there is quite a bit of open and a line of trees along the driveway. The easterly portion of the property also contains quite a bit of trees. The land use plan for this area in 2000 was re-guided from two-acre single-family to two to three units per acre single family. The property directly north and adjacent to this site was developed as an RPUD known as Glendale Cove. Out of the nine lots that were approved, five or six of the lots have been built on. Gaffron stated essentially this will mirror that development. Page 4 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicants are proposing a plat of seven lots. The existing topography of the vacant lot consists of a vacant field gently sloping downhill to the north. The other lot is wooded and has a creek. There is an easement for the creek. Due to the density with this development, it would be looked at as a public road rather than private. City sewer would serve this development and the applicant has spoken with Long Lake about obtaining water. The zoning of the area surrounding this site consists of the Hackberry neighborhood to the west,which is comprised of half-acre single-family lots. Lots in that neighborhood are roughly 15,000 to 20,000 square feet as is the neighborhood in Long Lake directly to the east. The east boundary of the east parcel is the boundary with Long Lake. Gaffron stated what is being proposed here are lots that average approximately a third of an acre and a few that are slightly smaller. In general the lots average out to 0.45 acres of contiguous dry buildable per lot. In general the lots are fairly buildable from the perspective of flexibility. Some of these lots have less flexibility than others. As it relates to a Planned Residential Unit Development,the Code requires that it consist of five acres in order to do a RPUD. This site has 4.92 acres. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to find that one of four situations exist in order to allow this to be developed as an RPUD. The first condition is whether there are unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. The second condition is whether the property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. The third condition is whether the property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The fourth condition is whether the property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. The Planning Commission should consider whether one or more of these four conditions exist. The applicant was advised that he would need to complete a Conservation Design Report and Master Plan to determine what natural values of the site should be preserved or enhanced. The Conservation Design Report and Master Plan have been completed and the recommendations are included in the Planning Commission's packet. The Conservation Design Report finds that there are two basic views into the property from off site and include a view of a forested area and several trees across the creek. As you look from Glendale Cove south,there are views of the forested area and several trees. Page 5 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Conservation Design Master Plan contains a recommendation for invasive species removal and management. Common buckthorn is to be removed from the west and east tree stands. The reed canary grass is allowed to remain in the wetland areas. In addition, diseased trees will be cut down and removed from the site. Replacement trees are to be replanted. The northeast tree stand will be protected and any lost trees are to be replanted with Big Woods types. The ecological connections will be maintained via preservation of wetlands and the northeast tree stand. Gaffron noted the proposed lot layout does not appear to conflict with the Conservation Design Master Plan since the protected areas are not proposed to be developed. The wetlands would likely require a 16-foot buffer per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The final wetland management class needs to be conformed to meet the Watershed District's requirements prior to final plat approval. The plat layout indicates a 35-foot wetland setback for structures,which meets the Orono wetland setback requirements. As recommended by the City Engineer, drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat and final street,utility and grading plans. Gaffron indicated the developer is providing stormwater management facilities on the site consisting of a number of rain garden basins rather than a single stormwater pond. It is likely the Watershed District will approve this and a final stormwater management plan will have to be submitted with the final construction plans. There is an existing drainage easement within the easterly portion of the property approximately following the creek bed. This easement does not exactly match the current flow line of the creek. This easement is proposed to be vacated and a corrected easement dedicated to replace it. Gaffron indicated the developer is providing stormwater management facilities on the site consisting of a number of rain garden basins rather than a single stormwater pond. It is likely the Watershed District will approve this and a final stormwater management plan will have to be submitted with the final construction plans. Minimum pertinent lot standards for the RPUD District are as follows: 1. A minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. 2. Minimum lot width of 90 feet. 3. Minimum lot depth of 125 feet. 4. Front yard setbacks of 25 feet; side local street setback of 25 feet; side collector street of 50 feet; side interior to RPUD of ten feet; side abutting non-RPUD land of 15 feet; and a rear setback of 40 feet or 20 percent of lot depth. In addition,there is a 35 foot setback from the wetland. Lot 1,Block 1 will have 0.32 acres of dry buildable land for the building site,which is slightly under the RPUD standard. This lot will be a corner lot,with the front lot line being the frontage along the new road. Proposed lot width is 91 feet, meeting the RPUD standard. The proposed buildable envelope is shown meeting RPUD setbacks front, interior side and wetland. However, since Willow Drive is defined as a collector road,the side street setback to Willow should be 50 feet rather than 25 feet as shown on the plan. Page 6 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Proposed Lot 2,Block 1, consists of 0.35 acre with frontage along the road and cul-de-sac. The functional lot width measured perpendicular to the side lot lines is 90 feet. The suggested home site is set back the required 25 feet from the front and 35 feet from the wetland,but the shape of the buildable envelope is very restricting due to the lot configuration. A 15-foot drainage and utility easement along the east boundary will accommodate tree preservation and drainage. This extra-wide easement extends from the cul-de-sac to the wetland and will need to be explained why it is wider than normal. There is a rain garden proposed between Lots 1 and 2 that is partially in the proposed road right-of-way and partially within each lot. Maintenance covenants for this rain garden will have to be established. Lot 3,Block 1, consists of 0.32 acres of contiguous dry buildable, with an added 0.12 acres of dry buildable located north of the creek. Lot 4,Block 1, is proposed to have 0.32 acres of contiguous dry buildable,with an added 0.34 dry acres northeast of the creek. Lot 5, Block 1, will have 0.42 acres of dry buildable,with an additional 0.06 acres of dry land northeast of the creek. As it relates to the two lots south of the road,the only question that needs to be addressed is whether the side street setback to Willow should be 50 feet instead of the 25 feet depicted on the layout. One of the RPUD standards relates to the 15 percent lot coverage limit. The RPUD district does not specifically establish a lot coverage by structures limit. Instead,the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50 percent hardcover and an individual floor area ratio of 0.5. This means that a 14,000 square foot lot is allowed 7,000 square feet of floor space. The seven proposed home footprints range from 1,750 square feet to 2,200 square feet,yielding lot coverages ranging from 7 percent to 12 percent. Although the applicant does not propose to build large homes, Staff believes it would be appropriate to limit home sizes based on the 15 percent lot coverage limit since this will avoid the creation of extremely large homes if just based on the floor area ratio. Gaffron noted the proposed landscaping plan has not been thoroughly reviewed by Staff. The RPUD standards require that each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project. The applicant has been advised that 0.5 acre of the development site must be devoted to recreation area. This could be accomplished by establishing access easements to a walking trail to the proposed tree preservation area at the rear of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 2. Creation of that walking trail raises the question of whether the wetland and tree preservation areas should be incorporated into a separate outlot rather than as parts of individual lots. The developer will pay all costs of utility construction and installation. It is expected that Long Lake will charge unit connection fees for new connections to their system per the sewer and water agreement. In similar subdivisions involving developer-installed utilities, Orono has generally not collected a separate sewer or water connection charge. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide corridor to create a new public road with a 100-foot cul-de-sac, which conforms to the requirements within the subdivision ordinance for a local public road. This is proposed as a public road rather than private primarily because of the density, which was the basis for Glendale Cove being public. The proposed paved width of the public road is shown as 25 feet where the Code requires 28 feet for three to ten homes. The preliminary plat has not yet been forwarded to the Long Lake Fire Chief/Fire Marshall for review. Page 7 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicant has platted,at the City's request, a road connection to the property to the immediate southeast for potential future road connection to serve that property. This would allow for a future through road from Willow to Watertown and would provide more options for future development of the property to the southeast and ultimately make for more efficient road maintenance. The 2008-2030 Comprehensive Trail System map indicates that a future trail is planned to extend down Willow Drive from Highway 12 to Hackberry Park.The plan terminates this trail at Hackberry Park and ends just short of the subject property. The trail picks up again further south at the Luce Line with a future connecting segment to Brown road and the Dakota trail. A 10-foot trail easement was dedicated along the west boundary of Glendale Cover to allow for future extension of the City's public trail system along Willow Drive. While the developer is not required to construct this trail extension, Staff recommends that a 10-foot trail easement be required along the west side of Oliver Hill for a possible future trail. The Park Fee is determined as 8 percent of the fair market value of the land being subdivided, with a minimum of$3,250 per welling unit or a maximum of$5,550 per residential dwelling unit. Gaffron noted the property is located with the MUSA and sewer service is available to these properties via the Hackberry system which discharges to the Long Lake system. At this time the applicant is proposing the use of private wells to serve each home. The developer will be responsible for installation of sewer and possibly water laterals to serve the development. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. The Planning Commission should consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable available option for development of this parcel in the manner for which it is guided in the CMP. 2. Based on the overall grading plan, development of this site will result in removal of a majority of the existing tree backdrop that separates the easterly and westerly portions of the property. The areas remaining undisturbed will mostly be limited to wetlands and the treed areas along and past the creek on Lots 3, 4, and 5. A beefed-up landscaping plan may help to soften the visual impacts that will be created. 3. The proposed road corridor is directly across from existing homes which front on Willow and the headlights from cars leaving the subdivision could become an annoyance. There may not be a solution to this potential problem. 4. The applicants should identify their intent for the remnant corridor extending to Watertown Road from the easterly parcel. 5. Via the RPUD process, certain defined development standards that are not strictly met can be allowable through granting flexibility rather than via a strict variance proceeding. This Staff report identifies a number of areas where the RPUD requirements are not being adhered to. The Planning Commission should discuss each of those items and determine whether they should be allowed. 6. Since the developer is planning to build modestly priced and sized homes, the Planning Page 8 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Commission may want to discuss any concerns it has about imposing the 15 percent lot coverage standard on this development. The RPUD standard 50 percent FAR would likely allow for much larger homes to be constructed if no 15 percent limit is in place. 7. The developer should define how he plans to meet the 10 percent recreation area requirement. 8. Similar to the discussion with the recent preliminary plat on Northern Avenue,the Planning Commission should consider whether there is value in placing the wetland and tree preservation areas within an outlot rather than within individual properties. 9. The developer should advise as to whether he still intends to pursue municipal water from Long Lake and advise Staff and Planning Commission as to any recent discussions he has had with Long Lake in regards to this plat proposal. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the issues raised for consideration and provide direction to the applicant. Landgraver asked how Glendale Cove was handled with the 50 percent versus the 15 percent lot coverage standard. Gaffron indicated Glendale Cove ended up with smaller lots and the floor area ratio was not subject to the 15 percent. Gaffron stated in his view that arrangement worked fine for that development. Schwingler asked if Glendale Cove has a homeowners association. Gaffron indicated to his knowledge there is not a homeowners association but there is a public road and outlots. Leskinen asked if Glendale Cove has city water. Gaffron indicated the water was provided by Long Lake and that they also have city sewer that was tied into the Hackberry system. Thiesse asked if the trail easement would be located within the setback. Gaffron indicated it would be over the 10-foot drainage and utility easement. Thiesse asked if the City owns the road,whether the City would dictate where the road would be located and whether there is a concern that it is below the crest of the vertical curve that is between two blocks. Gaffron stated the City Engineer has made a number of recommendations but did not recommend whether the road should be moved to the left or right. Gaffron stated one of the questions that could be asked is whether it can be moved directly across,but given the location of the wetland,that is not possible. McGrann asked if the houses would be smaller than the homes in Glendale Cove. Gaffron indicated the applicant has plans for a style of house and size of house. The Glendale Cove allowed homes that are bigger than what the developer intended but not necessarily out of proportion to Page 9 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. the rest of that neighborhood. Gaffron indicated there is a neighborhood to the west consists typically of homes with a basement and one story. The neighborhood to the east is somewhat screened from this development. From a style perspective, Glendale Cove is somewhat set by itself. Landgraver noted it will no longer be set by itself with this development. Gaffron stated the developer will need to define his plan as it relates to the size of homes and that the Planning Commission has the option to place limits on the development. Landgraver asked if there is a potential daisy change effect of another RPUD being developed that would be adjacent to this one. Gaffron indicated the only property that is left to be developed is to the southeast,which would be outside of this zoning district. Landgraver asked if this is not approved as an RPUD,whether the other three factors would apply to the development. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the property to the southeast could be developed as an RPUD. William Abbott,Applicant, stated he is here tonight on behalf of the property owners and the Broadway Group. Abbott stated when they came across the property,they felt it was a great fit for what the City was guiding this area for and that after meeting with Staff, it seemed that Staff had the same mindset. Abbott stated many of the development spots left in Orono are the bigger lots and bigger homes which, in their view,results in Orono becoming less affordable. In seeing this opportunity,Abbott stated they set out to create a more affordable and reachable opportunity for people to move back into Orono. Abbott stated they saw a similar opportunity in rebuilding a lot in Long Lake on Grand Avenue where they experienced a great desire for new construction at a lower cost and smaller footprint. Constructing homes with a 2,500 to 3,000 footprint with a three-car garage is their goal for this neighborhood. Abbott stated one thing that was not included in the earlier packet was the recreation area concept. What is being proposed is not to create a paved or woodchip type path but an opportunity for people to connect. Abbott stated they originally thought of a path that connected Hackberry Park to this development for safety reasons. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was not receptive to that and Staff suggested the trail easement. Abbott stated it would be a more passive area. All together the square footage of that 10-foot wide walking easement is approximately 20,000 square feet. Abbott stated in his view that is a good idea and adds to the value of the homes that are there without adding a lot of cost to the homes. Abbott noted it will be quite expensive to bring water into the development so the intent is to drill wells but the homes will be connected to city sewer, which will be provided by Long Lake. Leskinen asked if this is the same road configuration that was originally proposed. Abbott indicated it is not and that it is approximately double from what was originally proposed. Abbott noted the proposal went from six lots to seven lots because it made more sense to remove the existing house and create another lot to help keep the costs down. Page 10 0135 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked how the 50-foot setback relates to the two lots adjacent to Willow. Abbott stated they would probably lose two lots if they had to reduce the setback and it would be very difficult to do the development under those circumstances. The front yard setbacks across the street are 50 feet. A lot of the houses in the sketch plan originally had a 35-foot setback,which was later reduced to a 25-foot setback,which is the City requirement under the RPUD. Abbott stated if they have the ability to stagger the homes a little more, it will add more character to the neighborhood and that they are asking the City to be flexible on the 25 feet. Abbott noted the landscape plan also calls for quite a bit of buffering along Willow as well. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Justin Noznesky,2320 Glendale Cove, stated his property borders the northeast corner of this development. Noznesky stated he is not clear on the recreational area and whether that is actually being proposed in the northeast corner. Gaffron indicated the treed area is conservation area and is depicted as the triangle area,which would abut Mr.Noznesky's property. Gaffron indicated it is not defmite whether that area would become part of the 10 percent recreation area. Gaffron stated it is his belief the applicant is proposing a lineal trail system and that he is showing a potential trail along the boundary between Glendale Cove and this site. Noznesky asked if that would be a trail. Gaffron stated the applicant can address what exactly that will be but that it appears to be a trail of some sort. Noznesky stated from living in Glendale Cove,parking is an issue and that there are only four finished homes in Glendale Cove. In addition,the lots in Glendale Cove have not all been sold and the three remaining lots have been purchased by a developer. Glendale Cove was originally developed in 2007 and it has taken six years to construct five homes. Noznesky stated he is not sure what the normal time frame is for completing a development,but it is a little concerning to see a bunch of empty lots sitting around for a number of years. Noznesky stated there was also a question about whether or not Glendale Cove is an association. Noznesky stated it is his understanding that would commence once all the homes are constructed. Gaffron asked what the obligations of the association will be. Noznesky stated to his knowledge it would cover accessory structures, fences, and general homeowner association obligations. Steve Kelly, 2340 Watertown Road, asked if the proposed trail is the existing driveway. Abbott indicated it would be. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Page 11 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Abbott stated the walking easement will not be a paved trail or otherwise and that they are really looking at it as an easement that is there for the inhabitants of the development. Abbott stated in reading the language of the recreation area, it is set out for the inhabitants of the development. Abbott stated he does not believe there will be a large number of people walking in the area of Justin or Steve's property and that the trail will help alleviate concerns with safety. Landgraver indicated he is not clear exactly what is being proposed for that area. Abbott indicated it would be a walking easement and not a defined path. Landgraver asked what would happen with the existing driveway. Abbott stated that would be dug up and the portion of the land that is designated as Outlot A would be given to the Martins. Another portion of the driveway would be dug up and put into lawn. Abbott indicated it is their intention to remove all the scrub bushes and trees. Landgraver asked if that trail terminates at some point. Abbott stated it does terminate near Justin's property but it will provide access to the conservation area. Landgraver stated in Staff's comments it was noted that in another situation the City had those recreation areas or trees converted into an outlot versus being part of the individual parcels. Landgraver asked if the developer has any thoughts about that. Abbott stated when that issue was raised by Staff, his initial reaction was that if he was one of the owners of Lots 3, 4,or 5 and there is an outlot giving access over the entire triangle, in his view traffic would be a lot greater than if it were simply a walking path and that it would bring the value of those lots down if that becomes a recreation area. Abbott reiterated it would simply be a walking easement and not a defined path. Abbott stated the parking in this area is an important issue. Abbott stated with the homes being set back further from the road,that will allow for a little more property either on their own lot or elsewhere. Abbott indicated he would like to push those homes back and that more than likely they will be built further back than 25 feet, which should help to alleviate the parking. Leskinen asked whether the tree preservation area would be a no build zone. Abbott stated he is not completely familiar with that and that it is sort of a set-aside area. Gaffron stated it is Staff's expectation that there will be a conservation easement over that area which would likely not allow any outbuildings or fences. Gaffron indicated that is up for discussion at this point but that his idea of a tree preservation area and a conservation easement is that they are basically the same thing. Abbott asked if someone could walk back there. Gaffron indicated they could. Page 12 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if simply having a walking easement rather than a defined path would satisfy the City's recreation requirement. Gaffron stated in his view the language of that requirement does not provide enough direction in that regard. The language reads that 10 percent of the gross area shall be provided for active or passive use suited to the needs of the residents of the project. This recreation area could include swimming pools, trails,nature areas,picnic areas,tot lots and saunas. Gaffron stated in his view it is doubtful the recreation area in Glendale Cove Doubt gets any use by the neighborhood but it was accepted, along with the trail connection to the south side of the church parking lot, as meeting the recreation requirements. Part of the thought process in that development was whether the City needs to provide a recreation area for that neighborhood since it is right across from Hackberry Park. McGrann asked what the setback would be for a walking easement. Gaffron indicated a walking or trail easement that abuts the Willow property line would be ten feet wide and would match the drainage and utility easement. McGrann stated he was thinking of the area to the north. Gaffron stated he is not sure how good of a deal a trail easement would be for the City or the residents to the north. Gaffron stated whether there needs to be physical access to the utility easement is something the Public Works Department should look at and whether they have a need to get back there. Gaffron noted there is a sewer line that comes from the Hackberry neighborhood straight across and that he does not know whether there is an existing easement for that sewer line. Thiesse stated if there is an easement already and they could be used for the same purpose, then this applicant would not need to provide more. Thiesse asked if the conservation easement would count towards the recreation area. Gaffron indicated that would be up to the Planning Commission and City Council. Thiesse commented if that is the case,the applicant would have already met his recreation area requirement. Leskinen stated she would rather see the area be left natural. Gaffron stated in his view there is no need to improve it. Schwingler commented that would make more sense than creating an outlot. Schwingler asked if there are many lots in Glendale Cove that have less than a 90-foot width. Gaffron indicated it is his recollection they all met the 90-foot width with very few lots being located on the cul-de-sac. Gaffron indicated in this development functionally there are four lots on the cul-de-sac and there is a much tighter situation than Glendale Cove. Thiesse asked if there are other lots in the City that are located on a cul-de-sac with less than 90 feet width. Page 13 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated Stone Bay would be one example but they are not single-family homes. Gaffron stated in his view the parking in this development would be helped by having a 28-foot road rather than a 25- foot road. Landgraver asked if private wells will be drilled on each property but then make use of the existing sewer utility. Abbott indicated that is correct and that the expense to bring water in as well as the WAC charges would add more costs to each lot. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the RPUD. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they are in favor of the RPUD. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels the landscape plan should be beefed up. Schwingler noted the trees tend to be more towards the back of the lots rather than in the main part of the development. Gaffron stated based on the grading plan that goes up to the boundary lines,there will be cul-de-sacs, drainage ways, rain gardens, and yard, which is something the Planning Commission can preserve or screen with more trees along Willow. Landgraver commented there is a good intent to separate the development from Willow and being a little more robust in that area with landscaping would help negate the sense of massing. Leskinen stated her thought would be to do what Staff has recommended and then provide screening along Willow Drive. Leskinen commented she is not sure whether there is much they can do about the driveway and the headlight issue. Thiesse stated it will depend on how the approach goes down to the road. Thiesse stated he believes the house across the road is slightly higher than the road but that the grades of the approach to the road should be looked at. Abbott stated if that individual would like some trees,they would be happy to plant some trees on their property. Leskinen stated that could also be part of the beefed up landscaping plan but that it will not be known until the houses are located on the lots. Gaffron stated the road options are limited on this site. Leskinen noted the applicant has already adequately identified their intent for the remnant corridor. Leskinen asked if that is the segment that has been earmarked for the recreation easement. Page 14 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated the outlot is the piece going from Lot 2 down to Watertown Road. There is no outlot continuing further north up to the road itself. Gaffron indicated a trail in that area could be one use of that corridor. Thiesse stated if he can meet the criteria of the City,he would prefer that it is not a formal trail. Thiesse noted it will be a piece of property that you can walk along and is an easy way of meeting the criteria without doing more than that. If the City can obtain a conservation easement with an easement accessing that,then the applicant does not need to do any more. Leskinen asked if there is also a piece that would be given to the Martins. Abbott stated the Martins,who own the non-addressed piece of this development, live adjacent to Outlot A. The agreement is if it is not needed for the development,that land would be given to them. If there is a walking easement, it would go to them with the walking easement. Leskinen and Schwingler indicated they are fine with that arrangement. Gaffron stated one of the questions to be addressed is whether or not the Planning Commission is satisfied with the 25-foot setback or whether the developer should meet a 50-foot setback. Gaffron indicated for a collector road and a side yard,the standard is 50 feet. Thiesse asked what the intent of the setback was. Gaffron indicated it likely was to provide some separation from a collector road and that there is a potential to have a trail in that area at some point. Thiesse stated if the setback is 50 feet,there is a potential for losing two lots, which would likely cause some of the other homes to be constructed larger and not meet the intent of the development. Gaffron stated as it relates to Item B, substandard width for Lots 3,4, and 5,Mr.Abbott has suggested that they have some flexibility for Lots 3 and 4. Gaffron noted snow will need to be piled somewhere and the City will need to deal with that. Leskinen indicated she would like to see the homes pushed back as much as possible or staggered. Leskinen noted the applicant has indicated he would like to incorporate that somewhat to give a little character to the neighborhood. If the homes are pushed back on Lots 4 and 5, it would also help alleviate some of the parking concerns. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission could require a greater front setback for those lots. As it is currently depicted, Lot 3 has a garage approximately 30 feet back and Lot 4 has a garage that appears to be at the 25-foot line. Lot 5 is approximately 100 feet back. Thiesse noted there is also the 75-foot triangle on the southerly side that no one would be using. The three homes are fairly tight together and then there is an empty spot which would provide some snow storage. Page 15 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated in this view, if this developer constructs all the homes, it would be fine. If another contractor ends up building the homes and constructs something different,there is a risk the homes could be constructed right up to the front. Thiesse asked whether any requirements could be placed on the development requiring that the homes be pushed further back. Gaffron indicated it would be difficult to do. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should ask for that. Thiesse stated he does not want to just set a number without some input from the developer. Abbott stated that would happen more so on Lot 3. Due to the buffer to the creek,the back yards are also very tight. Abbott indicated the owners of Lot 5 would like to be pushed further back. If all the homes are pushed back, it would reduce the back of the lots and would lower the value of the lots. Landgraver stated pushing the homes back further from the street would help to reduce massing along the street. Leskinen concurred that pushing the homes back would lessen the massing impact along the street. Thiesse noted there are only three homes being proposed in that area. Thiesse indicated he is happy with where they are given the size of the homes and that in his view there is sufficient room for snow storage. McGrann stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse. Gaffron noted the code technically says that if there is frontage on the road and the cul-de-sac,the driveway should be on the road. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should discuss the fact that three of the lots have less than the required contiguous dry area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that that is not an issue for this development. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of going with the 15 percent structural coverage limit versus the floor area ratio. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would like to see Outlot A become part of the trail system. Currently being proposed is a trail easement in the same area as the utility easement and a conservation easement over the individual lots. Thiesse asked if the wetland is wet. Gaffron indicated there are times when it is dry. Page 16 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated if there is a trail easement across the whole utility easement and people use it to get to the park, whether they would be able to walk through the wetland. Gaffron stated they would be able to walk through the wetland if it is dry but that there are restrictions against building anything in the wetland. Thiesse stated the 20-foot easement plus the conservation easement would meet the City's requirement for the 10 percent recreation area. Abbott asked if the utility easement is the one they have to rewrite Gaffron indicated it is not and that the one that needs to be rewritten is for the creek since it does not follow the actual creek bed. Landgraver stated he is not sure what the conclusion is on the trail easement. Thiesse stated the trail easement would be over the utility easement and would help the developer meet the 10 percent recreation area. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with that. Gaffron stated the next issue to discuss is whether there should be a homeowners association. Thiesse stated he does not favor an outlot. Gaffron stated there does not seem to be the need for one. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not recommend the creation of a homeowners association. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission would like to send this application on to the City Council. Leskinen indicated she would be comfortable doing that. Thiesse stated in his view the development fits the area. Leskinen stated she is in agreement and that it is a nice development that fits in well with the area. McGrann moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3637,William Abbot,2350 Watertown Road,preliminary plat approval and rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development,subject to the granting of a conservation easement,vacation of the existing easement through Lots 3,4, and 5 and a new easement being rededicated in a more correct location, and subject to the dedication of a utility easement over Lots 1 and 2,with the utility easement being counted towards the recreation area,and subject to a more robust landscape plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 17 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. #13-3640 JAMES MURPHY,20/30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 8:17 P.M.—8:21 P.M. James Murphy,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant owns both of the subject properties at 20 Orono Orchard Rd and 30 Orono Orchard Road. 20 Orono Orchard Road has 0.83 dry buildable acres and currently contains a small home and detached garage. This property was recently connected to city sewer. The property at 30 Orono Orchard Road has three dry buildable acres and contains an existing home which is served by private septic and a barn. There is an existing conditional use permit relating to 30 Orono Orchard Road which allows for the keeping of a total of three horses on the property although they do not meet the acreage requirements. The applicant wishes to move the common lot line east approximately 98 feet so that the barn and the land around the barn become part of 20 Orono Orchard Road. This lot line rearrangement will bring 20 Orono Orchard Road closer to a conforming lot area while not making 30 Orono Orchard Rd non- conforming with respect to area. New deeds must be created for both properties reflecting the new legal descriptions. Because this is a lot line rearrangement, which results in no additional lots,no park fee or stormwater trunk fee will be required.The legal description for the property currently benefitting from the conditional use permit for the horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road will be changed as a result of this application. The conditions related to the conditional use permit and the property on which the conditional use permit was granted will be altered and therefore the conditional use permit for the horses should be extinguished as part of this lot line arrangement. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement. The property owner has provided new proposed legal descriptions for each property. As part of this approval the applicant will be required to file new deeds based on the new legal descriptions. Staff will work with the property owner and the City Attorney to ensure that the necessary documents are prepared and filed. The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing relating to the lot line rearrangement and extinguishment of Resolution No. 4836 relating to the conditional use permit for horses and make a recommendation to the City Council. James Murphy indicated he has nothing to add to Staffs report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Leskinen commented the proposal makes sense since it makes the one lot more conforming without jeopardizing the other lot. Leskinen stated the applicant should understand that the conditional use permit will be extinguished. Landgraver noted no neighbors are opposed to the proposal. Page 18 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No 13-3640, James Murphy,20/30 Orono Orchard Road North,lot line rearrangement and extinguishment of Resolution No.4836. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #13-3641 JERILYN LOWE ON BEHALF OF TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH,2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:21 P.M.—8:31 P.M. Jerilyn Lowe,Applicant, was present. Thiesse noted he is a member of the church and helped put the application together. Thiesse stated if any member of the audience would like him to abstain from voting on this application,he will step aside. Curtis stated Trinity Lutheran Church is requesting a conditional use permit in order to construct an above ground columbarium and an approximate 15' x10' open-sided gazebo within a proposed memory garden in the west side yard of the church property. The proposal consists of a sidewalk/path, a four-foot tall columbarium wall,benches and a gazebo in the garden area. The gazebo and columbarium wall meet the setbacks required by City Code. According to Sections 78-418 (4)and(14)of the Code, the columbarium inurnment wall must be set back at least 10 feet from the adjacent property and 50 feet from any principal structures on adjacent lots. The project will meet those setbacks. In addition,the columbarium wall will meet the 10-and 50-foot setback requirements. The applicant's plan also illustrates the gazebo will be placed at the conforming 50-foot setback from the property line. There are existing trees on the property line between the church and the neighbor to the west. However, it may be appropriate to plant additional trees or vegetation to offer more screening of the columbarium from the property to the west and from CSAH 6. The property to the north is Wolsfeld Woods a DNR natural area and is heavily wooded. The church building completely screens the columbarium from the property to the east. Planning Staff recommends approval. The applicant should be required to submit a planting plan related specifically to the screening of the columbarium for City Council review and approval if the Planning Commission deems appropriate. The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing, allow public comments and make a recommendation to the City Council. Jerilyn Lowe, Applicant, stated she would like to point out that the stormwater pond is not on their plan but is depicted on the aerial photograph. Lowe noted the stormwater pond on their property was constructed in 2006 and there has not been any water in the pond since that time. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Leskinen stated the only question she had was related to the east side and the amount of screening that would be provided. Leskinen stated when she visited the property,the proposal felt really close to the house on the west side. Leskinen asked if there would be screening around the gazebo area. Page 19 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lowe indicated there is a grove of trees that are pretty thick in that area and that the intent is to make the area private. The volleyball court would remain. The columbarium goes down to the retaining wall. Lowe indicated their neighbor is the Woodlands,which is a group home, and that they have a good relationship with them. Lowe stated they would be willing to accommodate them as much as possible. Leskinen commented it was not a big issue in her mind but that it was an observation she had made when she visited the site. Lowe stated the church would probably like to do that anyway Landgraver stated in his view the screening could be improved upon by the planting of a few evergreen trees. McGrann asked if the City has received any comments from the Woodland Group Home. Curtis indicated they have not. Thiesse noted one condition of the conditional use permit is that there is an agreement the sanitary sewer would be relocated if there ever was a problem in the future.Thiesse stated the conditional use permit would need to address that. Gaffron asked if it is the same line.where they had difficulty obtaining an easement from the state. Thiesse stated it is a two-inch line and that they would need to reroute it slightly. At the present time there is an easement that goes through it and the easement would need to be moved over. Thiesse asked whether that would be addressed in the conditional use permit. Gaffron stated he does not know the answer to that right now but it is something that can be addressed. Lowe indicated the pumps sit right below the retaining wall that currently exists. Landgraver moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3641, Jerilyn Lowe on behalf of Trinity Lutheran Church,2060 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a conditional use permit subject to an enhanced landscaping plan for the area around the east side of the gazebo. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. #13-3642 MIKE SHARRATT ON BEHALF OF ZIV AND TALI LIBERMAN,2690 CAROLINE AVENUE,VARIANCE, 8:31 P.M.—8:47 P.M. Mike Sharratt,Designer, and Ziv and Tali Liberman, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants have applied for a building permit to construct a new residence on the property. The new home will be conforming with respect to all setbacks, structural coverage and hardcover. It will be constructed right up to the average lakeshore setback line. The existing home on the property is located similarly up to the average lakeshore setback line and has an above grade deck on the north side which encroaches entirely within the average lakeshore setback. Page 20 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. With the new home the applicants would be permitted an in-kind replacement of the above grade deck in the non-conforming location. The applicants wish to improve upon the impact to the adjacent neighbor to the north at 2691 Caroline Avenue and construct an outdoor living area more conducive to the topography of the property. The applicants have proposed to construct an elevated patio by adding fill to a level 7.8 feet above existing grade. The new patio will be screened from view from the property to the south by existing trees. Because the patio will be nearly 8 feet higher than the existing grade and ahead of the average lakeshore setback, a variance is necessary. The new home meets all of the required LR-1C and Shoreland Overlay District setbacks. The proposed patio will be constructed entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed patio extends 22 feet into the average setback including the perimeter wall. The patio will be elevated 7.8 feet above the existing grade in that location. The proposed home will be built right up to the average lakeshore setback line.The applicants propose to grade the lake side of the home up to the 75 foot setback and create a patio off of the first floor of the new home. This patio will be 7.8 feet above the existing patio on the property today. The patio will be two feet lower than the adjacent grade outside the home to the south at 2696 Caroline Avenue. The applicants' property has 28,994 square feet in area; approximately 18,800 square feet of which is unbuildable due to the average lakeshore setback. The applicants' lot has a unique shape and partially functions as though it is a peninsula. Their proposal to remove the above grade deck and move the outdoor living space to the southeast side of their property will improve the potential lake views enjoyed by Pulver,the neighbor to the north. The two adjacent neighbors have provided letters of support for the applicants' variance request. Mr. Pulver did request the existing drainage area be maintained. Staff finds practical difficulty in the shape and orientation of the property. Further the topography and existing trees on the applicants, and neighbor's property, assure that the views of the lake enjoyed by the Millers will not be impacted by the proposed elevated patio;the lake views enjoyed by Pulver will also be improved with the removal of the above grade deck. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant will be required to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations. A separate permit in addition to the building permit for the new home will not be required for the patio and walls. Thiesse asked what the grade will be off the new deck. Curtis stated the City Engineer provided some comments which the applicants are in the process of addressing. The City Engineer had recommended a 3:1 slope and has asked for revisions in that area. Curtis noted the applicants are addressing the City Engineer's comments and will be submitting a revised plan prior to the application going to the City Council. Ziv Liberman, applicant, stated he owns the home and that they have lived on the lake for approximately 30 years. Liberman indicated they would like to take their summer place and put up a new home to accommodate their grown children and grandchildren. Liberman stated he is happy to share with the Planning Commission that both of the adjoining neighbors are in support of the project. Liberman noted the neighbors are actually to the south and north rather than east and west. Page 21 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mike Sharratt,Designer, stated they started on this project in 2011 and have been working through the changes in the zoning ordinance. Sharratt stated it is their opinion that the proposed grades they are now proposing to fill in were originally there at one point in time. The wood retaining walls were the result of the dirt that was removed and that they are proposing to remove those retaining walls and refill in that area. Sharratt stated the other item is that the two side yard nonconformities will be made conforming as part of this project. The existing deck, which is currently almost entirely over the average lakeshore setback,will be made conforming. Sharratt noted the property owners have the right to rebuild the deck but that they have elected to fill in the grade beyond the deck on the northeast corner and then remove the deck structure and railing. Sharratt noted the one corner of the house is also nonconforming and will be cured as part of this project. The current proposed hardcover is 21.1 percent and structural coverage will be 13.5 percent. Sharratt stated once the project is complete,the property owners will end up with a fully landscaped yard where the slope occurs and that their plans are being revised to meet the 3:1 slope. Sharratt indicated they will be forwarding those revised plans to Staff in the next couple of days. Sharratt stated the plan will be fully compliant in every way and that they are simply attempting to recreate what was originally there. Schwingler commented the application is pretty straight forward and will be an improvement. Landgraver stated when you are on the property, you can see that the property to the south has a drainage issue. Landgraver asked what the applicants' plans are relating to the drainage. Sharratt illustrated the drainage swales and the flow of the drainage on the overhead. Sharratt indicated drainage swales will be created to divert the runoff down the property onto the flatter portion of the slope. Sharratt noted there is also a catch basin that was installed by the City. Sharratt stated at some point in time there was a significant amount of erosion that was occurring which resulted in the retaining walls. Landgraver asked if it is the applicants' expectation that they will be able to implement the swales on the upper part of the property without any significant damage to the trees in the area. Sharratt stated the one existing tree is located 15 feet away from the property line and it will not be impacted by the work. Landgraver noted one of the neighbors had expressed a concern about the tree and the drainage. Leskinen asked if a portion of the stone patio will be at the level of the top of the timbers. Sharratt illustrated the location of the patio. Sharratt stated it would be at essentially at the elevation of the first floor of the existing house. Thiesse asked whether all of the timber walls would be removed. Sharratt stated they will be. Sharratt pointed out a portion of the retaining wall that is located on the neighbor's property. Sharratt stated that also will be corrected as part of this project. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Page 22 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Leskinen stated the proposal is an improvement to the property and is pretty straight forward. Thiesse noted the work will not impact the neighbors and that they are in support of the project. Schwingler stated he is in agreement. Schwingler moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3642, Mike Sharratt on behalf of Ziv and Tali Liberman,2690 Caroline Avenue,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance,subject to Staff and City Engineer's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #13-3643 JOHN BRUNELLO,825 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,VARIANCES,8:47 P.M.— 9:30 P.M. John Brunello, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant purchased the subject property at the end of 2012 with the intent of constructing a new single-family home on the property. The applicant proposes to place a new residence generally in the same location as the existing residence due to the existing site topography,the extent of wetlands and constraints caused by the location of the 100-year floodplain on the property. The existing residence is 3.6 feet from the south property line,which is depicted on the right. The applicant is also proposing a 23-foot wetland setback which results in a 12-foot encroachment into the City required 35-foot wetland setback for the southwest corner of the proposed footprint. A lot area variance is also required. Prior to investing additional money into architectural plans for a new home,the applicant is requesting approval of the proposed"building footprint"which includes the variances. The proposed building footprint is shown on the proposed survey and correlates generally to the proposed draft house plans. Curtis stated what the applicant is asking for essentially approval of the red outline on the overhead, which does require setback variances. According to Orono's Code, Section 78-72,the property can be redeveloped without lot area or width variances if it conforms to the specified dimensional minimums outlined within MN Rule 6120 regarding a non-riparian lot on a natural environment lake served by sewer and all of the City's zoning setback standards within the RR-1B zoning district can be met. The topography of the site,the floodplain and the wetlands are driving the building pad location to the south within the 30-foot side yard setback area where the existing home is located. Therefore,because the proposal does not meet the administrative criteria, in addition to side setback and wetland setback variances, a lot area variance is also required. Curtis stated it is likely,because of the wetland and topography,the existing home on the property is situated within 3.6 feet of the side lot line. The home to the south is 130-plus feet away from the common Page 23 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. lot line. The neighbor's detached garage is situated between the lot line and the home and is located 110- plus feet from the applicant's home. A 30-foot side yard setback is required for the principal structure. The property is surrounded essentially on three sides by wetland. It is unknown at this time whether or not the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will require establishment of a 25-foot wetland buffer. A portion of the applicant's proposed footprint encroaches into the City's 35-foot buffer. The applicant is proposing to improve upon an existing encroachment and replace the southwestern corner of the house as close as 23 feet from the wetland where currently there is a 5-foot setback. The applicant is requesting approval of a building footprint as shown on the proposed survey and outlined in red on Exhibit Dl. Staff would suggest the applicant move the proposed home five feet closer to the street and right up to the 50-foot setback in order to reduce the encroachment into the wetland buffer. The property size is similar to lots within the LR-1C half-acre zoning district,which has the City's least restrictive setbacks. As this project is not proposed as an in-kind rebuild, it may be reasonably to require a 10-foot side setback from the property line. The conceptual proposed plans reflect a plan for a home with a second story. Due to the floodplain constraints, it is unknown at this time if a basement can be constructed and a second story is likely to be proposed. Staff would suggest the home be designed such that at a minimum the second story portions of the home be set back further from the side lot line in an effort to maintain the existing feeling of open space that currently exists with the one-story home. The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: 1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable approving a general building footprint area for a new home as opposed to an exact footprint? Discuss the potential risks. 2. The project as proposed is well under the structural coverage and the hardcover limits for the property. If the variances are approved, does the Planning Commission feel it is appropriate to set a limit on the home footprint size? 3. Does the Planning Commission feel that the new footprint should be moved to the 50' front setback line in order to reduce the rear wetland encroachment? 4. Should the new home be required to meet at least a 10 foot setback from the side lot line? 5. Are there specific conditions the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to impose on the project if variances are to be granted? 6. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 7. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 8. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Page 24 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Planning Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Second story to be at least 10 feet from the side lot line; 2. The footprint to be up to the 50 foot front yard setback to minimize the wetland encroachment; 3. Footprint size limited to less than 15% and is currently proposed at 9.7%; 4. Establishment of additional wetland buffer to mitigate the wetland encroachment(s). Landgraver asked if it would be better for the Planning Commission to defer to the Watershed District on the wetland setback. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing a 23-foot setback from a portion of the wetland, and if a buffer is required,there will be a 25-foot buffer. The applicant will likely have to adjust his plans based on that 25-foot distance. While the City does not require a buffer,it would be reasonable,as part of this application,to require buffering on this property. Thiesse asked whether the applicant would be outside the 25-foot buffer if the house is moved forward towards the road. Curtis stated to her knowledge it would be. John Brunello, Applicant, stated the reason he wanted to keep the 3.6 foot side setback is because the topography of the site forces a person to construct on the highest portion of the site, which is where the present home is located. Brunello indicated he does not have room for a three-car garage but that a two-car garage could be constructed with a tandem. Presently the garage is five feet away from the road. Brunello stated he is giving up some on the garage to gain some with the house. Brunello stated he does not want to go too far forward because he does not want to crowd the road and that he would rather have the house as far back to the west as possible. Thiesse asked what the ramifications are if the house is moved six feet over and five feet up. Brunello stated in his view the home would be in a lower spot. Thiesse noted the red floodplain line is two-tenths higher than the house,which is essentially flat. Thiesse stated if the house is moved over,the northerly face of the house will not drop any and will remain at basically the same elevation. Brunello stated one of the main concerns was the possibility of having to do pilings the further the house is moved over. Brunello indicated he does have some experience with foundations and that he knows the more the house is moved to the north,the more costly it will be to do the foundation. Brunello indicated he is also not sure at the present time whether a basement can even be built with this house. Thiesse asked what the applicant's thoughts are on a 10-foot setback for the second story on the right- hand side. Page 25 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Brunello indicated that is not a problem and that the second story will be at least 10 feet away from the side setback. Brunello stated in his view it is very important to maintain the 3.6 foot encroachment. McGrann asked whether the applicant has thought at all about landscaping the area given the second story. Brunello stated due to the second story and pushing it closer to the street,he does not want it to be looming towards the road. Brunello stated even though the footprint being proposed is very accurate in his view,he may only construct a story and half. Brunello stated if a second story is constructed,it would still be outside the 10-foot setback. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Schwingler stated he does not recall the Planning Commission ever previously approving just the footprint. Schwingler asked if one of the potential risks with doing that is that something different will be constructed. Curtis stated essentially what the Planning Commission would be doing is creating a building pad within defined setbacks without variances. Curtis stated she does not believe the City has taken this exact approach before and that it was the applicant's request to approach it this way. Curtis stated in her view it may be a reasonable request but that she wants the Planning Commission to iron out any risks that may present themselves. Brunello stated he is not actually applying for a building permit and that the objective is to design a building envelope so a home can be designed within those parameters. The existing house is five feet away from the wetland and the new house would be located in a slightly better location. Thiesse noted the driveway will also be removed from that area and moving it up to the front of the house, which is a good thing. Thiesse noted the buffer is a non-mowed, non-maintained area that will encompass all the way to the back of the house. Brunello indicates he understands that and that the area would be left natural. Leskinen asked if a mostly conforming building envelope is possible on the lot anywhere. Curtis stated the setback line continues all the way to the 35-foot setback line to the south. There is a 50-foot setback from the street property line and the 35-foot wetland buffer that cuts through the back. The actual zoning district setback continues all the way up to the 35-foot setback from the north. In addition,the applicant is limited by the floodplain and wetland buffer. Curtis indicated she does not know the feasibility as far as constructing a house in the low area. Curtis noted there are also floodplain requirements for a lower floor elevation that would need to be met,which could be accomplished through filling to some extent. Curtis indicated she is unsure how the Watershed District would view that. Page 26 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen commented there are a number of setbacks on this property which makes it difficult to construct a totally conforming house. Curtis stated there is significant side yard encroachment. Brunello indicated he has spoken with the neighbor to the south and that they are not opposed to the project. Brunello stated the neighbors are aware of what is being proposed. Thiesse commented that usually he would require the house be moved over but that there is quite a bit of distance between this house and the neighbor's home. Leskinen asked whether there are limits or anything the Planning Commission would need to build into an approval to mitigate any potential risks of approving a building envelope versus a building footprint. Curtis stated some of the issues for consideration address that as do some of Staff's recommendations. If the Planning Commission feels it is risky to approve a building envelope as opposed to an actual building footprint, Curtis noted the additional structural footprint limit or the structural coverage limit would be a tool that could used and would be a mitigating factor. In addition,the Planning Commission could limit the massing on the property and that they do have the ability to mitigate the impacts of the variances by requiring things such as screening. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with what Staff has recommended in terms of those factors,but that she was not sure whether there was anything else the Planning Commission should consider. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could approve the footprint of the house and then if the applicant varies it,he would be required to come back. Curtis stated that is not what the applicant is requesting but the Planning Commission could do that. Thiesse asked whether the applicant is planning on moving the location of the house around. Thiesse stated the concern is that if the Planning Commission is going to approve a building pad,that would give quite a bit of latitude on the variance. Brunello stated the orange area is what he is asking for. Brunello noted the house will not be very big and that the orange area is basically what he is asking for. Thiesse asked if he intends to meet the 10-foot setback for the second story on the south side. Brunello indicated he would. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the rear encroachment into the wetland. Thiesse stated he is not comfortable with it,but if you look at the amount of wetland and buffer in that area,allowing a 5-foot encroachment would be insignificant. Thiesse noted he is relocating the driveway, which will help with runoff and is an improvement. Brunello noted there is currently a lot of mass that is in the wetland which will be removed. Brunello stated it is necessary for the southwest corner of the house to encroach to keep everything located to the south side of the lot. Page 27 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated in his view the applicant is responsible but that the Planning Commission is not certain what the Watershed District will require for the buffer. Curtis indicated the Watershed District's trigger for administering their buffer ordinance is if the property owner is redeveloping an existing site and it results in more hardcover than is currently on the property. If that is the case,the Watershed District will implement their 25-foot buffer. Curtis indicated she is not sure how the Watershed District would deal with an encroachment and mitigate that. Landgraver stated that is a risk factor for the applicant but that the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them. Leskinen stated she would be comfortable with Commissioner Thiesse's suggestion of the building footprint versus the building envelope. McGrann asked whether the City Council would also only be approving the pad. Curtis stated if that is what the Planning Commission recommends approval on,then that is what the City Council would review. Curtis stated the Planning Commission would be approving the variances and giving the applicant the go ahead to design the house within that building pad and other City requirements. Thiesse moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3643,John Brunello,825 Willow Drive South,granting of lot area, side setback, and wetland setback variances, and to approve the actual footprint of the house and not the building pad, subject to Staff recommendations,with the second story meeting the 10-foot side yard setback and subject to the requirements of the Watershed District. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission should strike the portion of Staff's recommendations that require the footprint be up to the 50-foot front yard setback. Thiesse indicated he is fine with striking that and that he does not care one way or the other. Thiesse amended his motion,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13- 3643,John Brunello,825 Willow Drive South, granting of lot area,side setback, and wetland setback variances, and to approve the actual footprint of the house and not the building pad, subject to Staff recommendations,with the second story meeting the 10-foot side yard setback and subject to the requirements of the Watershed District, and to eliminate the requirement that the footprint be up to the 50-foot front yard setback. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is approving the building footprint, she would like the motion to be very specific. Curtis noted if the home is moved to the north, it would be a conforming change to the plan. Brunello asked whether he is being limited to what is shown today or whether he can make some minor changes to his plan. Brunello stated he might move a wall 10 feet but that he would stay within the orange area. Thiesse stated if the wall can be stretched 10 feet,then the applicant could push the house 10 feet back. Page 28 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Brunello stated his goal is to keep it tucked. Thiesse stated his goal is to push the house away from the setback line. Brunello indicated he understands that and that he is building the house for himself and that he is attempting to work with the site. Thiesse stated one of the concerns that was not raised is if there is a 3.6 foot setback and then there is a 2- foot eave, all of the water off of the house would go over onto the neighbor's property. Thiesse stated he would really like the house moved over to the 10-foot line. Thiesse stated the applicant had convinced him previously that there are questionable enough soils where it may not be possible to do that but that now the applicant is indicating he may want to move it 10 feet to the north. Brunello stated that is not something he wants to do,but that he is questioning whether he would be allowed to do that if that is necessary or whether he is completely limited to what is being proposed tonight. Thiesse stated based on the motion, the applicant would have to come back. Thiesse stated basically the Planning Commission is approving a sketch plan with a variance. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could limit it to under 15 percent structural coverage. Thiesse stated he would like to say this looks good, do it,and then come back and show the Planning Commission the plan. McGrann stated his concern is there will be a pretty big structure close to the road. Brunello stated when he applies for the building permit,the City could say the building needs to be scaled down or whatever and that the objective tonight is to get the building envelope approved so he can design the house. Thiesse noted the City does not do that. Brunello noted he would need to meet the City's height restrictions. Landgraver stated if it is determined a basement cannot be constructed,the applicant may decide to go two and a half stories even though he is indicating tonight that he does not want to do that. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is attempting to tighten the loose ends and determine what the best control process is. Leskinen stated she does not want to put Staff in that position. Brunello stated he is at 9.7 percent structural coverage currently and that the only direction the house would move is to the north since he is attempting to stay away from the wet soils. Brunello stated if he is allowed 12 percent and can only move to the north, 12 percent would only pull it to the north slightly. Brunello asked whether that could be approved. Thiesse stated they are then back to the building pad, and if the building pad is approved, the question then becomes how the Planning Commission will get to look at the application again. Page 29 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated if the approval is tightly defined and the applicant's proposal does not meet the definition of what was approved, Staff would bring it back to either the Planning Commission or City Council. Thiesse stated the 12 percent would give him a little bit of latitude. Brunello stated only being able to move it to the north would increase the building pad by a couple of feet. Leskinen asked if the encroachment would be corrected on the south if the house is moved further north. Thiesse stated that is where he having difficulty. Thiesse stated the applicant is not willing to move his south line to the north but yet he is willing to extend the house further north. Brunello stated it may be a situation where once he is scaling the rooms out, it may be necessary to widen one of the rooms. If that is the case,he would only move to the north. Gaffron noted one percent is 357 square feet or an area of 10' x 35',which would raise the structural coverage to approximately 11 percent. Thiesse commented that should be enough room. Brunello asked whether there should be an 11 percent structural coverage limit. Brunello stated he is about 99 percent sure his proposal will work and that he will only need to modify it slightly. Brunello indicated he is assuming he will not be able to construct a basement and that he needs to make sure the rooms are of a decent size. Leskinen stated if there is going to be any deviation to the north,there should be an equal amount or some correction on the encroachment to the south. Leskinen stated if the house can be moved north a certain number of feet,it can be moved out of the south the same number of feet. Gaffron asked if the house can be pivoted from the southeast corner. Brunello indicated he was attempting to keep it parallel to the road. Curtis asked if expansion to the east within the 50-foot setback would be a concern or whether it is just the expansion to the north that the Planning Commission is concerned about. Leskinen stated a deviation to a conforming location would not be an issue. Brunello asked whether 11 percent structural coverage would be an acceptable limit. Curtis asked whether it could be an 11 percent expansion to the east and not to the north. Curtis asked if there is a limit on where the expansion can be. Thiesse stated he would like it to be practical. Thiesse stated the applicant has laid out a footprint and has indicated he is somewhat comfortable with accepting that as the footprint but that there are always manipulations to the room sizes. Thiesse stated if it is a foot or two along any of the lines,he would be able to live with that. Page 30 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Brunello indicated that is all he is asking for. Leskinen asked whether there should be a maximum 2-foot deviation to the north and that anything else would need to come back before the Planning Commission. Thiesse indicated he is not sure. Curtis stated she can work with either one of those options but that she just needs it to be defined in the motion. Leskinen stated she could live with a 2-foot expansion. Thiesse stated he would prefer to call it an adjustment. Thiesse asked if the applicant would be okay with a 2-foot adjustment from the dimensions that are in the footprint now. Brunello indicated it would be. Thiesse amended his motion,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13- 3643,John Brunello,825 Willow Drive South,granting of lot area,side setback, and wetland setback variances, and to approve the actual footprint of the house and not the building pad, subject to Staff recommendations,with the second story meeting the 10-foot side yard setback and subject to the requirements of the Watershed District,to eliminate the requirement that the footprint be up to the 50-foot front yard setback, and to limit any adjustment to the footprint to two feet. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #13-3616 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78,ADD SECTION 78-1379,ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS,9:30 P.M.—9:46 P.M. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has spent a number of sessions working through the draft ordinance on alternative energy systems. The draft ordinance before the Planning Commission tonight still has some draft options that should be considered. The first option for consideration is whether a WECS prohibited option should be added. Staff has also concluded that integrating the Medina option and the Woodbury WECS versions into a single option is not viable because they are quite different in intent with regard to scope and level of detail. Option 1 is highly detailed and oriented more toward commercial WECS. Option 2 is less detailed,more straight forward, and oriented more toward residential WECS. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to recommend adoption of a WECS prohibited option, Option 2B is the one that makes sense to Staff. It is Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance, hold the public hearing which has been published and noticed, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the ordinance, specifying which option sections are preferred. Gaffron noted there are also options for hydronic furnaces that should be discussed. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Page 31 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Landgraver stated he prefers Option 2B and that in his view the City should not exclude wind technology. Landgraver stated restricting it to a few situations allows it but only in a small area of the City,which is probably the recommendation that should be made to the City Council. Thiesse asked how many properties would be allowed in the City. Gaffron noted the property needs to be a minimum of 10 acres and that he would guess that would apply to less than 100 and perhaps only as many as ten. Landgraver stated what the Planning Commission is doing is setting a framework for alternative energy systems for a few selected properties and that other property owners can come in and request a variance. Schwingler commented technology will also likely be changing. Landgraver stated he has not heard anyone say there is a demand for hydronic furnaces and that he is not sure whether the Planning Commission should allow them. Gaffron stated the City cannot grant a variance for something that is prohibited. Landgraver asked if Staff is aware of anyone who wanted a hydronic furnace. Gaffron indicated he is not and that a number of cities have prohibited hydronic furnaces. Leskinen commented the Planning Commission has discussed hydronic furnaces a number of months ago and that it is her recollection the Planning Commission had concluded they should be banned. Gaffron stated part of the issue is that the industry is not sure how to measure those standards or which standards should apply. Gaffron stated if someone comes in and indicates they would like to have one, they can ask for a code change. Leskinen stated that would be the path of least resistance and that the safest path is to prohibit them. Leskinen stated if something changes down the road, it can be addressed at that time. Landgraver stated he is okay with prohibiting the hydronic furnaces and setting the framework for allowing the wind energy. Leskinen stated as it relates to wind energy, she would prefer Option 2B. Leskinen noted the Woodbury/St. Paul language was more geared towards residential use than commercial use. Thiesse stated he does not like prohibiting something and that he is not aware of anyone with hydronic heating or anyone who is interested in it. Schwingler commented they can come in and ask for a code change. Page 32 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3616, City of Orono,Amendment of Zoning Code Chapter 78,Add Section 78-1379,Alternative Energy Systems, incorporating Option 2B on the WECS system and Option 1 for the hydronic furnaces per Staff recommendations. Landgraver asked whether only Option 2B would be presented to the City Council. Gaffron stated he would bring the two different versions forward to the City Council along with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Gaffron indicated he would bring a version that has a prohibition on WECS since there has been some feedback from the City Council that they are interested in a prohibition. Gaffron stated he does not know where the full Council stands on that and that he would like to bring forward the version the Planning Commission is recommending as well as another version prohibiting it. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Thiesse asked whether the draft ordinance would need to come back before the Planning Commission for a public hearing if the City Council comes up with another option. Gaffron stated in his view it would not need to but that he can ask the City Attorney. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission held the public hearing tonight. Curtis stated the overall topic has been noticed. Gaffron stated if the City Council adds a fifth category that has not been part of the discussions,that would be far afield and require it to come back to the Planning Commission. 9. #13-3644 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CHAPTER 78 REGARDING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DWELLING UNIT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS,9:46 P.M.—9:53 P.M. Gaffron stated as a result of a recent zoning application for a lot with a minimal buildable envelope, as well as questions recently raised with regard to a violation situation involving the premise that a tiny, uninhabitable cabin should have status as a principal dwelling Staff has conferred with the City Attorney and concluded that a minimum dwelling size ordinance should be enacted. Gaffron indicated such an ordinance is relatively common in municipal and county regulations. In Orono, only the RPUD and RS districts are subject to a minimum single-family detached dwelling size. The City's current code requires that in the RPUD districts all dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. The RS district requires that all new or remodeled dwellings or habitable buildings shall meet or exceed the following minimum square footage of enclosed floor area on the main floor. No minimum area is required for tents, screen houses, or other permitted accessory structures. Principal dwellings must be a minimum of 800 square feet and seasonal dwellings or guest cabins must be a minimum of 400 square feet. Thiesse asked if that would include garages. Page 33 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated that in his view many of the City's codes are not clear in that regard. Thiesse stated since it says habitable space, in his view a garage would not be included. Gaffron stated he would tend to agree with that. Gaffron noted all new or remodeled dwellings or habitable buildings shall be at least 20 feet in width at the narrowest dimension. Gaffron stated this is not something that needs to be decided tonight and that perhaps the Planning Commission would like to think about it further. Gaffron stated he does not remember anyone ever asking what the smallest habitable building could be. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission would like to table the ordinance to the January meeting. Curtis noted there not a December work session but there is a January 8 work session scheduled where this could be discussed. Thiesse commented he likes the idea of a minimum dwelling size ordinance. Gaffron stated a minimum housing size appears in other cities' housing code. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:53 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:53 p.m. Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded,to table Application No. 13-3644,City of Orono,Amend Chapter 78 regarding Minimum Standards for Dwelling Unit Size and Dimensions to the January 8 Planning Commission work session. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. 2014 SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AT COUNCIL MEETINGS Curtis stated the schedule for the 2014 City Council meetings has been provided mostly for information purposes. Curtis stated if any of the Planning Commissioners knows of a specific conflict,they should notify Staff. Otherwise the schedule will be placed in the Commission's three-ring binders. Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded,to approve the 2014 Schedule for Planning Commission Representatives at City Council meetings. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, OCTOBER 28,2013,AND NOVEMBER 21,2013 Leskinen stated she attended the October 28,2013, City Council meeting, at which time the Rocky Knoll vacation was approved and the Allness application was denied. Page 34 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated the boat house was not part of the approval but the retaining walls and stairs were approved. Leskinen stated on November 12 there was quite a bit of discussion relating to the Northern Avenue application as well as the application regarding the Lakeview Golf Course. The discussion on the Northern Avenue application centered around the conservation easement and the need for a homeowners association. The application was eventually approved on a 3-2 vote. Leskinen indicated the discussion on the Lakeview application was lengthy and that the Lakeview neighbors have circulated a petition and have formed a group to look at their options. Gaffron noted there is a purchase agreement in effect for the golf course. Leskinen stated the Lakeview application was ultimately tabled for 60 days. Gaffron stated there is a special Council meeting scheduled for Monday,January 6, 2014, and that Staff hopes to have some additional information from the developer as well as the neighborhood for what they would like to see happen with the property. Leskinen noted the City Council was not in favor of the RPUD concept and that they would prefer two- acre lots. Concerns were raised about septic systems on anything less than a two-acre lot. 12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:03 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 6. ,7 Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 35 of 35