Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/2014 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 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 Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Cynthia Bremer was present. Commissioner Christopher McGrann arrived at 6:36 p.m. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #14-3648 BEN GOODWIN, 565 LEAF STREET AND 550 OXFORD ROAD, VARIANCE, 6:35 P.M.—6:55 P.M. Ben Goodwin, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant's property at 565 Leaf Street and the neighboring property at 550 Oxford Road abuts the Woods Chapel property located at 525 Leaf Street. The Woods Chapel is a church and also operates as a wedding facility. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow an 8-foot tall fence to be constructed along his north side property line connecting to the rear yard area of the McCarthy property on Oxford. Within the rear and side yard setback areas, a maximum fence height of six feet is allowed. The proposed fence would replace an existing fence on the property line of 565 Leaf Street and would be a new fence on the 550 Oxford Road property. Accessory structures are subject to setbacks and other performance standards as defined in the City's Zoning Code. Accessory structures are defined as a use or a structure subordinate to or serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. Fences are an allowed accessory structure and are generally considered to be a non-encroachment to setback requirements. Fences are permitted up to six feet in height beyond the front yard principal structure setback line and within the side and rear yards of non-lakeshore lots. Fences which exceed the non-encroachment height limitation must meet an accessory structure setback of at least ten feet and are subject to a building permit. Staff has visited the sites and observed the elevation differences between the subject properties and the proposed fence locations. It appears as though the requested fence height in the proposed location will not offer a considerable amount of visual screening of the Woods Chapel property from the 565 Leaf Street property. On the McCarthy property, it appears there are existing improvements attributable to the Woods Chapel which extend across the property line and the fence may offer some visual screening from those features and the elevation of the McCarthy property is a little more level. Page 1 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. As shown in the survey, the proposed new fence does meet a 10-foot structural setback for the most part from the property line. The variance for the fence at this height in this location may not be necessary. Staff conducted a file review of past fence height variance requests and found that fence variances have rarely been granted. The Planning Commission should consider the visual and other impacts of the proposed 8-foot fence from the point of view of the church property and from off-site, such as from the public roads, and weigh that against the applicants' desire to provide a barrier between their property and the church's seasonal wedding activities. If the Planning Commission concludes that the applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty and that there are no suitable alternatives to an 8-foot fence, such as vegetative screening, and that the visual impacts and other impacts of the fence will not be negative for the surrounding properties or as viewed from roads or other public areas, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Schoenzeit asked how the area is zoned. Curtis indicated it is LR-1A, lakeshore residential two-acre zoning. Curtis indicated the church is an allowed conditional use in a residential zone. Churches and schools are institutional uses that are permitted in residential districts by conditional use permit. Schoenzeit asked if it is allowed even with commercial activity. Curtis stated it is operating under a conditional use permit as a church and churches typically hold weddings. McGrann asked if receptions versus weddings are separated. Curtis indicated they are not separated. Thiesse asked if it is encroaching on the other properties. Curtis indicated the improvements of the church do encroach on the McCarthy property. As it relates to the timing of the lot line arrangement and encroachments, Staff did not research when those patios were constructed and when the properties were subdivided. Schoenzeit asked if all the improvements on the church property were done with building permits. Curtis indicated Staff did not look into that. In talking to the building official about exterior stairs, he has indicated technically the code requirement is for ingress and egress within a home. Curtis stated it is always Staff's recommendation that a railing be put on a stairway but if it is not an ingress or egress staircase, it is not a building code requirement. Schoenzeit asked if there are weekly church services on the property. Curtis indicated the sign on their property indicates that they do. Page 2 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ben Goodwin, Applicant, indicated he would be happy to answer any questions. Goodwin stated this is somewhat of a hardship request and that the pictures do not necessarily do justice to the situation. The communal area is where the kids play soccer and is part of the problem. Even though the 8-foot fence will only provide limited visual help, it is mostly for the sound. Goodwin stated when there are prevailing winds from the north to the south,they are able to hear almost every word that is spoken. Goodwin stated the hope with the 8-foot fence is to partially block the sound during the summer. Goodwin stated closer to the communal area,the fence would help provide visual relief. Goodwin indicated the bridge is where the church takes photos two to three times a day during the peak wedding season. Goodwin stated on a weekend they cannot enjoy their back yard because the weddings are constant and on a daily basis. Goodwin stated as a taller person, the 8-foot fence would allow him to enjoy his property. Goodwin indicated he has also planted white pines along the property and that ultimately, when those mature, they will provide additional screening but the fence is an interim solution. Leskinen asked if trees have been planted all along the property line or just in the communal area. Goodwin indicated they are and that they removed a number of dead trees, which opened up the area even further. Goodwin stated he did not plant trees in all areas because it would greatly restrict the use of their property. McGrann asked if there is also a chain link fence that will be replaced with the solid wood fence. Goodwin indicated the area of the chain link fence and aluminum fence on the overhead. Curtis stated the aluminum fence appears to be a decorative wrought iron fence. Goodwin indicated the new fence would be solid. Goodwin stated the bridge is a regular photo location, and if the height of the fence is doubled, approximately half of their bodies would be obscured during the photo shoots. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. McGrann asked whether Staff has heard anything from the church. Curtis indicated they have not. McGrann noted the sidewalks were not shoveled or plowed today when he visited the property and asked whether anyone maintains an office there on a daily basis. Curtis stated she does not have that information. Page 3 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked whether the applicant has spoken with any church officials about them doing landscaping on their side of the property. Goodwin stated they started the discussion last fall with the church and the husband of the property owner indicated he would be agreeable to the fence and was even willing to build the fence himself,which might still happen. Goodwin indicated he did not discuss the height of the fence with him at all. Leskinen indicated she visited the property on Sunday and that she walked in the parking lot but did not go into the amphitheater due to the snow. Leskinen stated due to the elevation of the Leaf Street property, it would be possible to see over any size fence and that she is attempting to figure out how any size fence would make any difference in terms of screening. Lemke noted the applicant did indicate the fence would also act as a sound barrier. Leskinen stated she is not sure whether an 8-foot fence would make that much difference in terms of a sound barrier versus a 6-foot fence. Thiesse stated he understands the need to keep a fence at the allowable 6-foot height but that he is not sure whether anyone would know it is an 8-foot fence given the topography. Schoenzeit commented an 8-foot fence would not harm anyone. Schoenzeit stated if the weddings are happening on a regular basis, in his view it would be a pretty severe hardship. Thiesse stated this would be a location where he could see a separation of the properties. McGrann noted three of the property owners are supportive of the fence and that no representative from the church has expressed any opposition to the fence. Thiesse commented he would not want to have to deal with it every weekend and that noise is a hardship in his view. Leskinen commented the appearance of the fence would not change based on whether it is a 6-foot high fence or an 8-foot high fence. Schoenzeit noted the variance is very specific to this property and what it is attempting to do. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission would be at risk of setting a precedent. Thiesse noted there are not too many churches located in residential neighborhoods. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it would not set a precedent. Schoenzeit asked how long the church has been engaged in performing commercial wedding activities. Gaffron indicated there was a church in the approximate location of the McCarthy residence until the mid 1970s when it burned down. There have been weddings performed at the church since at least 1978 when that church burned down. Gaffron stated the subdivision of the property that created Oxford Road initially had the McCarthy,the Goodwin, and one other property platted as an outlot. Gaffron indicated Page 4 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. he is not sure how the encroachment happened but that there was probably still some church ownership of the property that surrounded the main church property. Gaffron stated he is assuming that was not considered to be an issue at the time if it existed. Gaffron indicated this wedding activity has been going on for a number of years and that approximately five or ten years ago Staff had a discussion with the City Attorney and again recently about whether it would be considered a commercial use. The City Attorney indicated that weddings are part of a church use and that it is unlikely the City would be able to make the church discontinue them. Gaffron stated weddings are technically something that is part of the church use that is under an existing Conditional Use Permit and therefore is allowed to continue. Gaffron stated Staff was informed by the City Attorney that weddings are an allowed use regardless of who is operating the church or how the church is being operated. Schoenzeit asked whether the number of parishioners or the amount of money charged for the weddings would have any impact on it. Gaffron indicated those factors would not. Staff had that concern initially when it started to appear to be more of a commercial activity than simply a church, and noted if the City wanted to pursue it further,the City Attorney would need to get involved. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3648,Ben Goodwin,565 Leaf Street and 550 Oxford Road,granting of a variance to allow an 8-foot fence where a 6-foot fence is the maximum. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. #14-3649 DEREK AND KELLY PRCHAL,4705 WATERTOWN ROAD,VARIANCE, 6:55 P.M.—7:03 P.M. Derek and Kelly Prchal, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated in 1999, a variance was granted allowing an oversized 1,120 square foot barn to be constructed streetward of the existing home. The home is situated at the rear of the property. The applicants are new owners of the property and would like to remove the barn and construct a new 2,200 square foot garage approximately in its place. A 2,200 square foot accessory structure is defined as an oversized accessory structure. A setback variance is required as the proposal is not an in-kind rebuild. The applicants' property has over 700 feet in depth from Watertown Road. The house is located 60 feet from the rear property line making it difficult to construct a conforming accessory structure. According to City Code, an oversized accessory structure must meet principal structure setbacks for the appropriate zoning district. In addition, City Code states that no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. The property is located within Tier I of the Stormwater Quality Overlay District based on its proximity to Painter's Creek on the western boundary. Hardcover calculations were not submitted as part of the application. Due to the size of the property and the location of the proposed new hardcover, Staff does not feel the 25 percent limitation would be reached with this proposal. Page 5 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff finds due to the location of the existing house there is practical difficulty to justify allowing the new garage to be constructed in the proposed location. The past history of variance approval for the existing barn in the general location makes the proposed garage location seem like a logical solution. Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variance to allow a new garage to be constructed in the proposed location. The applicants should be required to submit hardcover calculations with the building permit to assure hardcover will be in compliance. Additionally, if the City Attorney determines it is necessary, an updated oversized accessory structure covenant may be required. Lemke asked if the height of the proposed structure would be higher than the existing barn. Curtis indicated she is not aware of the height of the barn but it is not a two-story structure. Mr. Prchal indicated the new garage has a 12-foot interior rafter height where the existing barn is nine feet Prchal indicated it would be slightly taller due to the overhead door. Thiesse noted it has a 4:12 pitch on the roof. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Leskinen commented the property is very large and that the proposed structure is only slightly larger than what currently is there. Schoenzeit stated it seems like a reasonable request. Lemke asked what the color of the new structure would be. Prchal stated they are planning to keep it the same colors and look as the house. Thiesse moved to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3649,Derek and Kelly Prchal,4705 Watertown Road,granting of a setback variance to allow a new oversized accessory structure to be constructed,subject to the applicant submitting hardcover calculations as part of the building application. Curtis noted the City Attorney is in the process of reviewing the OAS covenant. Thiesse amended his motion, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14- 3649,Derek and Kelly Prchal, 4705 Watertown Road,granting of a setback variance to allow a new oversized accessory structure to be constructed,subject to the applicant submitting hardcover calculations as part of the building application, and subject to a review of the OAS covenant by the City Attorney prior to the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 6 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. #14-3650 JEFFREY DAVIDSON ON BEHALF OF DONALD AND JOANNE DAVIDSON, 568 KEENE AVENUE,VARIANCE, 7:03 P.M.—7:07 P.M. Jeffrey Davidson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the subject property is approximately a half acre lot within the two acre RR-1B District. The house is set back 30 feet from the rear property line where a 50-foot setback is required. Variances were granted at the time of the house construction allowing its location as built. The applicant is requesting rear yard and side street yard setback variances to construct an 8' x 14' addition over an existing second level deck. In October of 2013,the applicant requested a permit from the City in order to construct a second story addition over an existing deck. The deck's construction created a water issue in the home and the applicant hopes the addition with a roof will alleviate the water issue. A permit could not be issued without variances due to the nonconforming setback. Curtis displayed photographs of the house and second level deck. Curtis pointed out the deck that would be replaced with the addition. The applicant's 112 square foot addition does not propose to increase the existing nonconforming setbacks. The increased mass of the addition will be completely screened by the house from the Keene Avenue and will be relatively hidden from views off the property from the east and south due to existing vegetation. Staff finds the existing location of the home and the water damage situation to be a practical difficulty. It appears the applicant's proposal will correct the water leakage issues. A second option for the applicant is to remove the egress doors from the second floor room and construct a sloped roof over the first floor room in place of the deck to correct the leaking. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances allowing the 8' x 14' addition 41 feet from the rear lot line and 47.9 feet from the south lot line where 50-foot setbacks are required. Davidson indicated he had nothing to add to Staffs report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Leskinen noted there are no additional encroachments and the addition is designed to correct the water problem. Leskinen stated in her view it would not create any visual impacts for the neighbors. Thiesse stated in his view practical difficulty has been shown given the water issues. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3650,Jeffrey Davidson on behalf of Donald and Joanne Davidson,568 Keene Avenue,granting of rear yard and side street yard setback variances in order to construct an 8' x 14' addition over an existing second level deck,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 7 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #14-3652 ROGER AND NAN HAWKINSON, 570 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT, 7:07 P.M.—7: 15 P.M. Roger and Nan Hawkinson,Applicants, were present. Curtis stated in 2006, the City approved the vacation of the 12-foot wide alley which extended south from Dickenson Street to Fox Street. At the time of the vacation,the City retained utility easements over the alley. The applicant now wishes to combine the three parcels with the vacated alley into one buildable property. In order to create a larger, more central building location,the utility easements must be vacated. The City sewer lines run in Orono Orchard Road, Dickenson Street, and Barrett Avenue. There is an existing sewer easement running east to west on the south side of the applicants' property from Barrett Avenue which contains the sewer line serving their property. This existing easement is on the adjacent property and is not proposed to be vacated. The public utilities serving this area have been contacted regarding their use of the easement area. With the exception of Mediacom, each of the utilities have responded. The only utility noting they have facilities within the vacated alley/easement area was Xcel Energy. The others have noted they have no objections to its vacation. Xcel indicates that there is an existing power pole on the northern part of the vacated alley on the applicants' property for which an easement is needed. The applicants' survey does not identify this power pole and Xcel has indicated they may need to conduct a survey to define the area. Retention of a small easement in this area will not affect the intended building site. Planning Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation with the provision that a utility easement is retained in the location of the existing Xcel facilities. Hawkinson indicated he had nothing to add to Staff's report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Schoenzeit asked what is being vacated if a portion of the utility easement is to remain and what its purpose is. Gaffron indicated the other utilities would include electric, cable, gas, and phone. Gaffron stated the City might someday provide water to the property but not in the foreseeable future. Schoenzeit asked if the easement would allow for underground and overhead. Gaffron indicated it is both. Schoenzeit asked what could not be done if the easement remained. Page 8 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the property consists of three separate tax parcels. The home on the property is located to the west on the 570 property. The vacation of the easement affords the property owner a larger building envelope. Curtis noted this is a two-acre zoning district with 50-foot front and rear setbacks and 30-foot side yard setbacks. Curtis stated it is likely that a variance to construct within those setbacks may be needed and the vacation would allow more space to construct a reasonable size home. McGrann asked if the Planning Commission has previously reviewed an application for a new house on this property. Curtis indicated the Planning Commission has not and this is just requesting the vacation of the easement. Thiesse asked if there is a reason to keep any portion of the easement. Curtis noted Xcel has requested a portion of the easement remain. The portion of the easement over 550 and 540 has already been vacated. Thiesse noted the property at 550 has a large distribution pole on it and asked if that is going to be removed. Curtis stated that is her assumption Hawkinson stated the main power line comes up from Barrett, which is behind this property and runs up the neighbor's property line. The line splits where the old alley was. Hawkinson indicated there is one leg that goes to his property and two legs that go to the house to the north and also the garage north of that property. Hawkinson stated the pole that is in question near the alley that Xcel would like to retain an easement for just brings electricity to his home only and has been there for over 45 years. Hawkinson stated there is no purpose to bring electricity to any other facility. Gaffron noted the alley was vacated years ago and the only portion of the easement that is being retained would be within the applicant's property. Gaffron indicated there would still be an easement north of this property up to Dickinson. Schoenzeit asked if there is any reason to require the tax parcels be combined. Curtis indicated that would be required at the time the parcels are built on but that they can remain as they are until that time. McGrann moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3652,Roger and Nan Hawkinson, 570 Orono Orchard Road South,vacation of utility easement, per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 6. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON JANUARY 27,2014,AND FEBRUARY 10,2014 Curtis stated the planning items that were discussed at the January 27 Council meeting were Mr. Wang's application and the Willi Abbott subdivision. Mr. Wang's application was revised to a 6-foot expansion. Staff located additional information that indicated his plan for his garage showed an 18-foot existing Page 9 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. footprint. Since the building plans did not exactly match what was constructed,the Council wanted verification of the depth of the garage. Curtis stated the Council was going to move ahead with allowing the expansion if the garage is 18 feet deep. If it exceeded 18 feet, the motion was to deny the addition. Curtis stated Mr. Wang measured the garage and informed her that it was more than 18 feet. As a result, Mr. Wang ultimately withdrew his application. Gaffron stated at the last two Council meetings the proposed subdivision by Mr. Abbott was reviewed. Initially the applicant had requested a 25-foot setback from Willow Drive. The Council felt 40 feet would be more appropriate since the standard is 50 feet. Mr. Abbott requested 30 or 35 at the last meeting. Gaffron indicated the application will be coming back to the City Council on February 24 with a 40-foot setback from Willow Drive. The Council also indicated the road should be private and not public, with a surmountable concrete curb and gutter being allowed. Thiesse asked if he would be capturing the water or simply diverting it. Gaffron indicated Staff has not received a final version of the stormwater management plan. The City Council requested the rain gardens be eliminated and now the applicant is proposing a swale at the bottom of the hill. McGrann asked if the subdivision still consists of seven lots. Gaffron indicated there are still seven lots. Lemke stated he attended the February 10 City Council meeting. The Richardson and Stickney applications were placed on the Consent Agenda. A presentation was given by Senator David Osmek where he discussed the tax on warehousing and the proposed deposit on recyclables. In addition,the Council discussed the Abbott application, which was tabled until February 24, and the zoning code amendment for minimum size structures. Also discussed was the Your Boat Club underground fuel storage tank, which was eventually approved in the proposed location. The applicant had disagreed with the restriction on retail gas and the City Council eventually approved retail sales. Gaffron noted the City Council did approve that application and the approval resolution will be brought back before the City Council at their next meeting. Gaffron stated one issue that has arisen is that the southerly dock on the Tanager side is actually over the property line. One of the potential solutions is rezoning of 1442 and/or 1444 to allow relocation of the dock. The LMCD is requesting the situation be resolved this year. McGrann asked what the issue is with the dock the way it is outside of being noncompliant. Gaffron stated the neighbor to the south is concerned that the dock encroaches into his dock use area established by the LMCD. Gaffron indicated it also has the potential to impact the neighboring marina's docking situation. Lemke indicated the City Council also discussed the Watertown Road feasibility study,the water system study, and the Navarre street light/sidewalk project. 7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Page 10 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 18,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. None ADJOURNMENT Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 11 of 11