Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2014 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 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, Chad Olson, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Andrew Mack, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili McMillan was present. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20,2014 Thiesse moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of October 20,2014,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0,Landgraver Abstained. NEW BUSINESS 2. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78: AMEND SECTION 78-1379 REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (SWECS), 6:35 P.M.—7:17 P.M. Gaffron stated the City Council requested Staff look at the elements of the City Code that talk about wind energy conversion systems. Zoning Code Chapter 78 was adopted approximately one year ago and discusses in specific terms the use of a number of alternative energy conversion systems and specifically bans or prohibits any wind energy conversion systems anywhere in the City. The Code also contains definitions for those uses. Gaffron indicated a lawsuit was subsequently filed by some property owners and interested parties suggesting that state law preempts the City's ordinance that disallows the use of wind energy conversion systems anywhere within the City. Ultimately the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and enjoined the City from enforcing Section 78-1379(f)beginning on November 24,2014. At its October 27 regular meeting,the City Council adopted an interim ordinance enacting an immediate one-year moratorium on small wind energy conversion systems or SWECS. The basis for the moratorium is that there are substantial concerns that without the ability to enforce City Code Section 78-1379(f),the current zoning ordinance provisions do not adequately address issues relating to SWECS, such as the appropriate locations and conditions under which they may be allowed within the City. The moratorium requires a study be done and this is the beginning process of that study. Staff has been directed to immediately begin the process even though the moratorium can last up to a year. Gaffron stated the intent of the study is to refine the existing definitions related to WECS and SWECS; establish standards and procedures by which the location, design, installation and operation of SWECS shall be regulated within the City; and determine whether SWECS should be allowed in commercial/industrial districts as well as residential districts. Page 1 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Elements of the study process will include the following: A review of the various types of SWECS and their capabilities and limitations, as well as potential impacts to surrounding properties and uses; a review of various model ordinances and existing ordinances enacted by other local municipalities with regard to SWECS; and consideration of where and under what conditions SWECS should be allowed in Orono. Gaffron stated the 2013 draft also included the following list of potential measures to mitigate the impacts various alternative energy systems could have on neighborhoods: 1. Establishment of the defined types of systems that are allowed or prohibited; 2. Establishment of appropriate locations for each type of alternative energy system to ensure proper location of the systems. Those would include the minimum size of the property required and minimum setbacks from property boundaries and/or from offsite residences; 3. Establishment of standard procedures for construction process to minimize impacts of access, materials storage, erosion or other land disturbances,etc.; 4. Establishment of system design or performance standards that would eliminate the potential for the impacts noted above, such as standards for height, system size or capacity,physical location in relation to attachment to the ground or to structures, location of associated mechanical equipment,use of screening, visual aesthetics, safety,etc.; 5. Establishment of standards for system abandonment; and 6. Establishment of permit requirements. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission reviewed alternative energy systems in 2013. During that review,the Planning Commission reviewed sample WECS codes from a number of cities. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has also generated a model ordinance similar to many others,which suggests the following punch list of items should be included in a WECS ordinance in establishing wind generators located in a residential neighborhood: A. Distinguish between types of wind energy applications B. Define necessary permits C. Identify wind resource standards d. Establish setbacks E. Establish Safety Standards F. Establish Design Standards G. Establish other applicable standards H. Minimize infrastructure impacts The ordinance draft reviewed by the Planning Commission in November of 2013 addressed many of the above elements and avoided or purposely did not address others. The 2013 draft established three types of wind turbines based on the nameplate generating capacity. The draft did not acknowledge that WECS of 5,000 kW capacity or larger are state-regulated. Page 2 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. The 2013 draft also indicated that residential wind turbines require a building permit and are allowed as an accessory use in the RR-1A and RR-1B Districts. The draft prohibited them in all other zoning districts and also prohibited them within the designated Shoreland Overlay District and within floodplains and wetlands. Because WECS were not allowed in commercial/industrial districts,no specific permit requirements were established for that use. Because the use was limited to residential wind turbines and did not include larger WECS, and because of the limitations established on them regarding location, design, etc.,the Planning Commission was comfortable allowing them as an accessory use rather than as a conditional use. The 2013 draft established a variety of setbacks and system location requirements specifically designed for the large-lot areas in which WECS were proposed to be allowed, including the following: 1. Because the minimum lot size was proposed at ten acres, a setback from all property lines of 300 feet was suggested. It is more common in many model ordinances to have a lot line setback of 1.1 to 1.5 times the peak height of the WECS,presumably to have no impact on neighboring properties if the WECS falls over. Such a minimal setback does not take into account other WECS impacts on neighboring properties. 2. The 2013 draft ordinance required that WECS not be installed in a defined front or side street yard. This appears to be common within other cities' ordinances. It did not set a standard for lakeshore yards because WECS were prohibited in shoreland areas. 3. The draft ordinance required that WECS be located no further than 150 feet from the principal structure to which they are accessory in order to ensure that such facilities are not placed far away from the owner's residence. The draft included a number of safety, design, and operational standards related specifically to Residential Wind Turbines and did not attempt to address standards for Small Wind Turbines,Utility Wind Turbines, nor for any commercial/industrial uses. The design standards listed in the draft were intended to minimize impacts to the natural environment as well as to neighboring property owners. The 2013 draft ordinance did not allow for commercial/industrial WECS and therefore did not include standards for them. Model ordinances suggest differing capacities for residential versus commercial WECS. For instance,the MPCA model defines commercial WECS as equal to or greater than 100 kW and non-commercial as less than 100 kW. Issues for consideration include the following: 1. The intent of this study is to establish standards for Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS)as defined by state statute; i.e.,those WECS less than 5,000 kW capacity. 2. The City can establish a wide variety of standards for SWECS that provide for appropriate siting, design, construction, operation, safety, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The 2013 draft was purposely quite limiting in many respects and should be reviewed to consider whether those standards should be revised. Page 3 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. The 2013 draft ordinance may be a useful starting point for review. However,the Planning Commission should be open to taking into consideration viewpoints from the industry,property owners,and other regulatory agencies in crafting an ordinance that meets the City's goals. 4. The Planning Commission should consider whether SWECS should be an allowed use in commercial/industrial districts, and if so,whether they should be subject to different standards than residential SWECS. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should review the informational materials to ensure all issues and concerns are addressed and then suggest any changes to the 2013 draft ordinance they feel are appropriate. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission may choose to table this item to allow for additional consideration. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Peter Lanpher, 1380 Rest Point Road, stated they have 100 feet of lakeshore. Lanpher displayed a picture of their property from the shoreline. Lanpher indicated they are the direct neighbors of an individual who has installed four wind turbines on their property,with the three smaller ones currently being in operation. Lanpher stated he is here tonight because he would like to show the Planning Commission the impact this situation has had on their property and their lives. Lanpher indicated he has a series of short videos which he will show. Lanpher noted he has given presentations at other planning commissions in other cities so they could have some insight for their policies. Lanpher stated the first video shows the large turbine not spinning but the roof-mounted turbine spinning. Landgraver asked if the sound on the video is the wind or the turbine. Lanpher stated that is probably the wind and not the turbine. Lanpher pointed out the wind turbine that is located 18 inches from their property line down at the shoreline. Lanpher stated there is already an ordinance in place prohibiting structures within the 0-75 foot zone and that the larger turbine is within the 0-75 foot zone as well as one of the smaller generators. Lanpher stated the next video shows the shadows that the wind turbines cause in their house as well as the glare off of the wind turbine. Lanpher stated they have been dealing with that for over four years. Lanpher stated the next video shows the 30-foot turbine and the shadow it creates. The shadow extends across his property over to the opposite neighbor's fence. Our concern is the impact that these have over a longer distance. While the City is looking at a 300-foot setback,that may need to be examined,that depending on location and how the sun sets the shadow may extend more than 300 feet. Even if the blades are painted black,there will be a shadow. The next video shows the same 30-foot turbine and the impact it has on the inside of the home. Lanpher noted the shadows and glare does not happen all year long but happens at specific times during the year. Page 4 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Lanpner stated their view from the kitchen and deck is also impacted by the glare coming off of the wind turbine. Lanpher stated the last video was taken less than two weeks ago and shows the small roof-mounted turbine. Lanpher pointed out the flicker going through their sunroom into the great room area. Lanpher stated while there are trees in the area,the neighboring house is 30 feet tall and the wind turbine is on top of the roof. Lanpher stated in his view a 300-foot setback is not enough and that the position of the sun at different times during the day needs to be taken into consideration to try to minimize the shadows and glare caused by the wind turbine. Lanpher noted the neighbor three doors up can see the large turbine when it is spinning and he is more than 300 feet away. Lanpher stated the small turbine is also lit up 24/7 with blue lights. Lanpher indicated the wind generator has stopped he and his wife from going down to their boathouse for safety reasons due to the wavering of the wind turbine. Lanpner noted the wind turbine is located too close to the property line. Lanpher stated a new turbine pole was installed earlier this year and that the pole that was lit up with green lights has been taken down. Lanpher noted the next video shows the wind turbine at night all lit up. Lanpher stated the next slide shows the damage that the trees have sustained from the neighbor's trimming in order to accommodate the turbine. Lanpher stated there is also noise associated with the turbines,which is tough to regulate. Lanpher indicated he and his wife have had sleepless nights when the large turbine is in operation and that when the wind gusts,the blades go up or down, and there is noise generated from that as well. Lanpher indicated it is not as noticeable on the smaller turbines but that it is definitely noticeable on the larger one. Lanpher stated the issues that need more scrutiny is the distance from the property line and that the impacts to each property will be different depending on where the sun sets or rises and how it impacts people from a further distance. Lanpher stated in his view the 300-foot setback is not far enough away. Lanpher indicated they have had to endure this situation since September of 2010 and that the situation has escalated even further. Lanpher stated they have had four lawsuits against the adjoining neighbor as a result of trespassing and damage to their property. One of the lawsuits went to the appellate court level and one to the Supreme Court level and that they have not lost a single one. Lanpher stated he and his wife are citizens of Orono and that there are ordinances that need to be enforced. Lanpher stated he understands the City has been dealing with it as best as possible. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Leskinen stated this is not something that will be resolved tonight but that the Planning Commission has a starting point. Leskinen noted considerable effort was spent in 2013 examining this issue. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission refine the work done in 2013. Staff's recommendation would be to discuss this at the January work session. Gaffron stated in his view the Planning Commission should be able to make a recommendation to the City Council sometime in the spring. Page 5 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked whether the Commissioners feel it would be worthwhile to discuss any of the issues tonight or whether they would be better suited to table it to the January work session to allow a closer review of the materials. Landgraver noted the Planning Commission made a previous recommendation to the City Council which was not adopted. Landgraver asked why the City Council chose not to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated the City Council at that time was not comfortable allowing wind energy systems at all in the City. Gaffron noted the ordinance also addressed other alternative energy systems, such as wood boilers,but did not focus on commercial and industrial uses. Gaffron stated in his view the City will need to discuss some of the other bigger issues associated with wind turbines. Leskinen asked if the parts of the ordinance dealing with wood boilers and other alternative energy systems would remain intact. Gaffron indicated they would unless the Planning Commission or City Council felt changes are needed. Schoenzeit stated the public comments received tonight negate the industry's comments regarding flickering, shadows,and glare. Schoenzeit asked if the neighbor has a different location on the neighboring property that he would find acceptable. Lanpher stated he was asked that same question in the early lawsuits and that in his view it is not his area to judge where it should be located. Lanpher noted in 2002,when the neighbors were requesting a variance to add on to their home,the neighbor agreed to no more structure on the property. Lanpher stated the neighboring property is small and that he cannot recommend any location since it would likely be violating hardcover and other setback requirements. Lanpher stated he would refer it back to the City since he does not feel it is his place to dictate the location of it and that this is a City issue and not a personal issue. Schoenzeit stated if it is moved, it could become someone else's issue. Lanpher stated if someone wants a wind turbine on their property, consideration should be based on each property individually. Lanpher stated in his view you cannot have them on properties that are two acres or less given the impacts it will have on the neighbors. Lanpher stated even if it is restricted to properties ten acres or greater,there still could be potential issues with visual impacts and setbacks given the different times the sun rises and sets. Lanpher noted the commercial wind farm operations are buying out the neighboring properties. Lanpher stated the question still remains as to how far is far enough and that all of the impacts are not all known at this point. Mack noted the work session in January is intended to be the next discussion point on the various code amendment topics that were discussed at the joint work session. Mack indicated this is one of the ongoing topics that the City will be looking at over the coming year and should be made a priority. Leskinen stated this topic is definitely at the top of the priority list for the work session. Page 6 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application No. 14-3700,City of Orono, Amendment of Zoning Code Chapter 78: Amend Section 78-1379 Regarding Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems to the January Planning Commission work session. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 3. #14-3697 GARY AND JOAN MARQUARDT, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:18 P.M. -8:07 P.M. Gary and Joan Marquardt,Applicants, were present. Curtis stated in 2001, variances were granted to allow additions to the home on this property which allowed for the construction of the attached garage and the second story resulting in the existing setbacks on the property. The current setbacks are 29.9 feet from the rear, six feet from the side for the garage addition,and the 2.7 foot setback for the house was previously existing. The property is located in the LR-1C,which requires 10-foot side and 30-foot rear setbacks. The applicants are requesting side and rear setback variances in order to allow a second story addition over a portion of the garage and an addition on the lake side of the home for a master suite on the second floor. The request also includes structural and hardcover variances to allow 19.5 percent structural coverage and 28.8 percent hardcover to accommodate a new lakeside deck over a patio that is existing under a portion of the proposed deck. As a result of the 2001 variances,the additions were constructed. According to the survey,the garage was constructed 29.9 feet from the rear. The applicants are proposing to construct additions for the new second story master suite on the lake side and a second story addition over the attached garage for storage. The proposal requires approval of a portion of the new second story to encroach into the 10-foot side yard setback for approximately 10 feet of length for the master bedroom,which narrows as it gets toward the lake. The encroachments are depicted in yellow on the overhead. With 27 percent hardcover currently,the property exceeds the 25 percent hardcover limit permitted on a Tier 1 property. The current hardcover level is 494 square feet over the 2001 variance approved level. The applicants are requesting 374 additional square feet of hardcover for the deck and stair for a total of 700 feet over the 2001 approval. Additionally, in 2001 a structural coverage variance was granted allowing 2,961 square feet of structural coverage or 16.9 percent at that time. The lot area was calculated in 2001 as 17,467 square feet. Today's survey shows the lot area is 16,994 square feet,putting the 2001 approved structural coverage percent at 17.4 based on the current survey. The property exceeds the 2001 approved level by 72 square feet currently. The applicants are asking for an additional 288 square feet above that level. Staff finds that the proposed additions and changes on the second floor may be reasonable considering the limited impact to the adjacent properties as well as the difficulty resulting in the location of the existing home and the lot line. However, Staff finds the applicants' request to increase both structure and hardcover above the allowed and previous variance approved levels is not reasonable. The proposed structural addition to the home for a deck increases the existing nonconforming structure and hardcover levels on the property and is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and may alter the essential character of the Page 7 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. neighborhood. Staff has not identified a practical difficulty inherent to the property which supports granting hardcover or structural coverage variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance allowing for the construction of the second story improvements to the home conditioned upon screening from neighboring properties as the Planning Commission deems appropriate and feasible. The additions must conform to the standard height and massing requirements of the zoning code. Staff finds no practical difficulties exist which support the hardcover or structural coverage variances. As a result,those requested variances should be denied. Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission can account for the difference in the calculation between the 2001 approval and the current survey. Curtis stated the Planning Commission should focus on the square footages and that it is not uncommon for surveys done years apart to have discrepancies in square footage based on where the lake was measured. Curtis stated the square footages are matched up easily enough but exceed the approved level. Leskinen asked approximately where the deck would be located. Curtis stated the dotted line shows the location of the deck and that there is a portion of the patio that currently sticks out. Curtis indicated the deck is angled somewhat. Leskinen asked whether the deck would go completely over the existing stone patio. Curtis indicated the deck would be larger than the existing stone patio. Leskinen asked if the stone patio will remain. Curtis stated the stone patio can remain but that the applicants can clarify whether it will be removed. Gary Marquardt, Applicant, stated they have resided in the house for 29 years, and when they remodeled in 2001, they had two kids in college, and that they now have eight grandchildren,with six of them being under the age of ten. Marquardt stated the functionality of the house has changed,and that when they visit, which is frequently,they would like all of the kids and parents to be on the same floor when sleeping,which is the reason for moving the bedroom. Marquardt stated it is important to note that the structural changes,not including the deck,do not change the external footprint of the house. There also is a need for additional storage in the house. Marquardt indicated the house was constructed long ago and is located in the apex of Spring Cove. Marquardt stated when he and the neighbor put their docks in,they have to be careful because they can touch at the end. Marquardt stated as it relates to the deck,the essential character of this neighborhood is that every house except this one has a deck. Marquardt stated in his view the deck will make the house more functional during their retirement years. The setback for the corner of the house is 2.7 feet from the lot line. Marquardt indicated when they constructed the garage,there was double sheet rock placed on the walls for fire protection. Marquardt stated as it relates to the deck, they have a grandchild who has some physical ailments, and that when he heads for the lake, without a deck,they can only see him for a short distance but then have to go out the house to continue to follow him. Marquardt stated that is the primary hardship for them but Page 8 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. that is not inherent to the land. Marquardt stated it is a safety issue and that the deck will also give them the opportunity to more enjoy the property. Marquardt stated when you look at the surveys,they show that the lot has somehow shrunk. Marquardt stated the garage was 30 feet from the road when it was constructed but it is now 29.9 feet from the road. Marquardt stated the garage did not move,but somehow these differences happen,and that they are talking about a relatively small number of additional square feet. Marquardt stated Melanie Curtis has been extremely helpful with their application. Marquardt indicated they have a door that exits in this location and then a porch that has railings that are above the structural level. Marquardt indicated they could remove that if absolutely necessary as well as the stone patio. Marquardt stated they would also be willing to remove other hardcover if necessary. Marquardt stated the proposed deck is not huge and that they would like to have a table and chairs out there to make it functional. Marquardt stated in attendance tonight are Rick Lundeen,their architect,and the two adjacent neighbors. Also in attendance are the Greenes,who are three houses over. Marquardt stated they have not received any objections from any of the neighbors. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Tom Kubalak, 2623 Casco Point Road, stated he and his wife fully and wholeheartedly support the addition to the house. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the house as built is larger than what was approved in 2001. Curtis stated to her understanding it is not but that she is not sure if the side entry deck was included in the 2001 approval. The deck is 60 square feet and the overage is approximately 70 square feet. Curtis stated the survey is pretty accurate in displaying what is on the property. Schoenzeit asked if it is over with the most favorable set of numbers. Curtis stated she is basing it on square footages and not percentages since that would be the most equitable way to compare it. Landgraver stated he had a similar thought and that he noticed there is a walkway from the driveway to the front door and that there is now more paving being shown, which may be a reason for the hardcover increase. Marquardt indicated that was there in 2001. Curtis stated she is not sure how the previous survey accounted for the cantilever on the north side of the house. Page 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the upper addition since it should not have any additional impact because it is over the existing footprint. Leskinen stated she is struggling with the deck given the increase in structural and hardcover coverage and that there is not a practical difficulty with the house itself. Thiesse stated the intent of the code is to prevent someone from building something way out of line that does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Thiesse stated the house, even with a deck, fits in there and needs to be there, and that he agrees the essential character of a lakeshore house would have a deck. Schoenzeit asked how the Planning Commission can justify an increase in structural coverage for this property and not on other properties. Thiesse stated there is room for the deck, and if it looks like it fits in the neighborhood,why is 15 percent a solid number. Thiesse questioned why 75 feet is a solid number and structural coverage is a hard number but hardcover is not. In this case the neighbors are not opposed to it,which makes a difference, and that the essential character of this neighborhood is a deck on the back of the house given the fact that they are located on the lake. Schoenzeit noted they are proposing 3,300 square feet and 2,500 square feet is allowed. Schoenzeit stated everybody could have that much if they have the room. Thiesse stated he is not a proponent of using the neighbor's property to someone's benefit. Schoenzeit stated the deck is likely not on there because they did not meet the limit the first time around but that they are now asking for it ten years later. Thiesse stated that is a very fair question but that the reason for the deck is access and visual. Thiesse stated they could reduce the size of the deck and eliminate the stone patio. Thiesse noted the brick patio down by the lake is not structural hardcover, and that if they are allowed anything for a deck,they would be in violation. Schoenzeit noted the house is already over on structural coverage. Leskinen stated the applicants' practical difficulty in this case is being able to access the rear yard. Curtis stated the structural coverage currently is 15.42 percent. Leskinen stated if the deck is simply for access,conceivably it could be reduced. Schoenzeit stated they could also construct a 4 x 4 landing with a staircase,which would allow access to the rear yard. Schoenzeit stated other people will want the same thing if the Planning Commission approves this request. Landgraver stated the upper addition is fine and that the Planning Commission could be opening up the door by making an exception in this case. Landgraver asked which patio consists of the 75 square feet. Curtis indicated she is not sure which patio that is. Landgraver asked if the stone patio adjacent to the house is incorporated into the hardcover calculations. Page 10 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated it is. Landgraver stated he is attempting to see if there are some things that can be done without redesigning everything. Landgraver stated he understands the need to keep a firm number, especially since it is already over,unless there is a compelling reason. Gaffron stated the patio at the lake is approximately 75 square feet and that the stone patio is probably double or triple that. Gaffron stated it appears the stone patio is approximately 15' x 13'. Mack asked if Staff could explain the difference between pervious and impervious and whether there would be some potential credit given for the stone patio. Curtis stated if the applicants were to remove the stone patio, Staff would allow for a 100 square foot credit. Schoenzeit stated as long as it is under six feet in height. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is more struggling with the structural coverage than hardcover. Schoenzeit stated he would agree the upper addition is in character and that it would be difficult to construct it less than the wall from a construction technique standpoint. Leskinen stated she does not want to get into redesigning the deck,but that an area of compromise could be reducing the size of the deck. Leskinen stated she is still struggling with the structural coverage. Curtis noted the applicants have offered to remove the wood landing and stairs on the south side of the house,which is approximately 61 square feet,and that they could also reduce the size of the deck to help reduce the overage. Leskinen indicated she would be open to that. Leskinen stated she understands the applicants' position and that there are some good points for having a deck on the lakeside of the house,but that she does not want to create something that opens the door for increasing structural coverage on other lots. Thiesse stated there is no sense in giving them a deck that is not useable and that the wood stairs and landing is pretty much the only thing that can be removed. Leskinen stated it should be a functioning deck but that the proposed 15' x 16' deck is substantial. Schoenzeit asked if the deck is approved as shown, whether the next property owner would be allowed to put a second story over it. Curtis stated there is no lake setback or average lakeshore setback issue with the deck and that they could certainly screen it in. Curtis stated the Planning Commission would have the ability to place some limitations on it as well to lessen the impact of the structure. Marquardt pointed out the hex-shaped area is currently a screened-in porch which serves as a sunroom. Marquardt stated it is unlikely any subsequent property owner would screen this deck in since it is adjacent to the sunroom. Marquardt stated the house was there with the existing footprint prior to the ordinances being enacted and that the house has always been over in structural coverage. Page 11 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated the challenge of the Planning Commission is to look into the future and envision what could possibly be done to the property. Marquardt requested the Planning Commission consider a 12-foot deck. Thiesse stated his concern with that is that it would result in a 9-foot deck with a 3-foot stairway, which is fairly small. Olson asked if the Planning Commission needs to make up 288 square feet or 783 square feet. Olson asked what square footage the Planning Commission is looking at for compliance. Curtis stated any increase in structural coverage would be up to the Planning Commission. Thiesse stated he is somewhat conflicted with structural coverage and pointed out that the applicants would actually be intensifying the structural coverage by putting the upper addition on, which the Planning Commission is fine with.Thiesse stated on the other hand,the Planning Commission is worried about adding a deck. Thiesse stated in his view this is a special case and that the deck fits in that area. Thiesse stated they are not taking a deck and spreading it out over an area but that there is a spot for it. Schoenzeit stated the flip side is the code allows the second story,which would add to the massing on the lot. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could also deny the portions that do not meet the setback. Thiesse stated the addition will make the house appear substantially larger looking at it from the side and that the deck will hardly be noticeable. Thiesse stated the stairs are three feet wide and would be nestled into the deck. The landing for the deck is also right next to the house. Thiesse stated the stairs will be there even if the deck is pulled in or pushed out. Schoenzeit stated there is some sense to that but that he is not sure the Planning Commission can use that as the rational for not setting a precedent. Leskinen asked what conditions the Planning Commission could recommend for the deck. Cutis stated the Planning Commission could prohibit enclosing the deck or making it a heated living space. Thiesse indicated he would be agreeable to that. Landgraver stated simply because something fits in an area should not be a basis for approving it. Landgraver stated in his view there should be a practical difficulty inherent to the property. Leskinen stated this is a lakeshore lot and that it would be nice to sit outside and view the lake,which tips the balance ever so slightly in her mind. Leskinen stated she would like the property owners to be able to enjoy their property as they see fit. Page 12 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted the City has talked about calculations and allowing a minimum two-car garage for properties that are over on structural or hardcover limits. Schoenzeit asked whether the City has had a similar discussion relating to decks. Curtis stated a 100-foot deck was deemed acceptable in those situations as it relates to hardcover but not structural coverage. Schoenzeit noted the deck would add 288 square feet and that the numbers apparently did not work the first time around, which is why it was not constructed originally. Leskinen asked if the patio is accessible from the lakeside. Marquardt stated it is and that they did not propose a deck in the original 2001 application. Schoenzeit stated if this is approved,the City's structural coverage limit will be loosened, which is the main sticking point on this application. Thiesse stated he will not argue with that,but that if the Planning Commission is going to stick absolutely with the 15 percent structural coverage limit or other limits, there is no need for the Planning Commission. Olson stated he is in agreement that it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis and that the Planning Commission cannot just worry about what will happen in the future. Olson stated this is a lake lot and that a deck fits the character of the house. Olson stated in his view there needs to be special consideration given to that and that it is not always black and white. Landgraver stated there appears to be unanimous agreement on the second story and that perhaps that portion of the application could be approved. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,Application No. 14-3697, Gary and Joan Marquardt, 2617 Casco Point Road,to recommend approval of the side setback and rear variances to allow the addition of a second story within the existing house footprint subject to Staff conditions. Landgraver noted Staff's report did mention screening, but that he is not sure how there could be any screening given the small area. Schoenzeit noted it is 2.7 feet. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,Application No. 14-3697,Application No. 14-3697, Gary and Joan Marquardt,2617 Casco Point Road to recommend approval of the side setback and rear variances to allow the addition of a second story within the existing house footprint subject to Staff conditions with the exception of screening. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Leskinen stated she would be agreeable with the deck on the condition that the wood steps and landing be removed and with the condition that the new portion of the deck cannot be enclosed or made to be a livable structure now or in the future. Page 13 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked whether that would allow them to maintain the deck if it cannot be improved beyond what it is. Gaffron stated one of the things Staff typically does is to say that what is depicted on the plans is approved and anything beyond that needs to be approved. Gaffron stated that would preclude them from putting a story above it, which is where the greatest impact on structural coverage would be. Curtis asked if that would also preclude them from screening it in. Thiesse stated that would be an improvement the deck. Gaffron stated they would not be able to add above it or enclose it. Leskinen stated in her view the stone patio should also not be allowed to remain. Thiesse noted it would be difficult to grow grass in that area or maintain it. Leskinen stated she concurs with that and that it would likely become muddy without the stone patio. Thiesse moved, Schoenzeit seconded,Application No. 14-3697,Gary and Joan Marquardt,2617 Casco Point Road,to recommend approval of the deck as proposed,with no additions or enclosures above or below the deck,subject to removal of the wood steps and landing on the south side of the house. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1, Landgraver opposed. 4. #14-3698 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF JAY HULBERT,3035 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,8:07 P.M.—8:14 P.M. Jay Hulbert, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated this property is located in the LR-1C zoning district,which requires a structural setback of 10 feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to permit a portion of the proposed addition to be situated as closed as 8.5 feet from the south property line. The home addition is proposed to replace an existing upper level deck. The property line angles away from the home as it nears the lake. Therefore, only approximately 15 feet of the 40-foot addition requires a setback variance to maintain consistency with the southern line of the existing home. The applicant's proposal results in hardcover over what is existing. However, because the property currently exceeds the Tier One 25 percent limitation and because the proposal involves new structural hardcover consisting of a stairway, a variance is required to reduce the hardcover level from 34.26 percent to 33.65 percent. The lakeward portion of the existing deck encroaches up to three feet into the side setback and the applicant is proposing to correct this nonconformity with the addition. Currently at 34.26 percent the property does exceed the hardcover limitation. The applicant's plan provides for a 157 square foot reduction in hardcover. Staff finds that the applicant proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner. The proposed addition to the home located 8.5 feet from the side lot line does not expand the existing nonconforming setback of the existing home and does not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The narrow nature of the subject property creates a practical difficulty for the property owner. Page 14 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Upon review of the survey,the proposed new stair accessing the yard off of the addition appears to encroach up to one foot into the 75-foot lake setback. This stair should be redesigned so that it does not create a new nonconformity. Planning Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance to allow an 8.5 foot setback for an addition to the existing home over an existing structural deck; and a Tier 1 hardcover variance in conjunction with the construction of the addition and a new stair off of the home resulting in a reduction in hardcover from 34.26 percent to 33.6 percent subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed new stair off of the addition should be revised to meet the 75-foot setback; 2. Hardcover shall not exceed 33.6 percent; and 3. Compliance with the City Engineer's requirements. Landgraver asked if the hardcover would remain at 34.26 percent if the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance. Curtis indicated it would. Jay Hulbert,Applicant, stated he would like to first thank Melanie Curtis for her excellent work on his application. Hulbert stated this past winter they experienced a frost heave under the existing footings of the deck, which requires replacement of the deck. Hulbert stated they have an existing structure that is nonconforming and that they would like to relocate that square footage to a conforming area of the property. Hulbert stated they also do not want to increase the hardcover percentages but actually decrease it. Hulbert stated in order to do that, it requires a variance. Landgraver asked if they could shorten the stair wall. Hulbert indicated he does not believe that would be a problem. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Leskinen stated she is not opposed to the application. Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3698, Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Jay Hulbert,3035 Casco Point Road, granting of a side setback variance to allow an 8.5 foot setback for an addition to the existing home over an existing structural deck, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #14-3699 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC,2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN,8:15 P.M.—8:18 P.M. Peter Johnson, on behalf of WJM Properties, was present. Landgraver noted this has been approved several times and requested Staff just touch on the highlights. Page 15 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted there is a small change from the last request. In 2013,the applicants had been making the same renewal request. In 2013,the applicants asked to increase the height of the addition to 25 feet. The renewal has expired and the applicants are now indicating under the new conditional use permit and site plan approval that the height will not be increased due to snow loads and matching issues with the existing structure. The applicants,however,do want to increase the footprint by 20 feet for a 29,136 square foot addition. The addition was previously proposed at 25,000 square feet. The paving would also be completed following construction of the addition. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Johnson indicated he is here to answer questions. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has discussed this application previously and that she has no issues with the minor change. Leskinen noted the addition will not be visible and that the applicants have done a good job in the past complying with past approvals. Landgraver stated in his view paving would be a nice improvement as well. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3699, WJM Properties,LLC,2605 Wayzata Boulevard,approval of the revised site plan with a 20-foot increase in the proposed footprint of the addition subject to Staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. #14-3671 CHARLES CUDD DENOVO ON BEHALF OF ROBERT RODEN,460 ORCHARD PARK ROAD,SKETCH PLAN,8:18 P.M.—9:00 P.M. Robert Roden,Applicant,was present along with Rick Denman,Charles Cudd deNovo. Gaffron stated this property abuts Orchard Park Road in the northwest portion of the City. The parcel contains a wetland that significantly impacts how the property can be developed. It also has some access issues that make it unique. The property is approximately a 23-acre parcel and the applicants are proposing to create three lots,with each lot containing at least 5.0 dry acres, with at least two acres contiguous with the proposed house site. The property is located in the 5-acre zone. Under the sketch plan,the applicants have shown three lots that are served by a new private road that would come in from Orchard Park Road. The original subdivision in this area approximately 100 years ago created five-acre lots up and down Orchard Park Road. Also platted was a 33-foot right-of-way corridor along all four sides of the property. Gaffron stated in those days the developer would only plat half of a road with the understanding that the adjoining property would plat the other half. The applicant has indicated that in order to meet the minimum lot area requirements,vacation of the easterly 33-foot platted roadway may be necessary. This platted roadway has not been developed. Because it partially exists within a wetland,the likelihood of its future use for road purposes is minimal. Page 16 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. In addition,the road does not appear to serve any public purpose and does not provide access to other properties. The proposed private road corridor is 50 feet in width with a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and the Community Management Plan for a local private road. The standard paved width for this road would be 24 feet with an 80-foot diameter paved cul-de-sac. The 30-foot access corridor to the adjacent Whalen property to the immediate north would function as the access to a back lot,and by code can be shared by the owner of proposed Lot 3 as well as the owner of the Whalen property. A small amount of wetland may be disturbed in improving this corridor for driveway use. Gaffron noted the Whalen property is currently landlocked. The Whalen property is barely ten acres but contains wetlands such that it would be a single building site. Attempts to obtain other means of access to the Whalen property have been unsuccessful to date. The Community Management Plan indicates that no future trails are proposed along Orchard Park Road and there is no need for trail easements. As a result,payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for two new building lots would be appropriate. Gaffron stated the City will require a road,drainage, and utilities easement over the private road,which should be platted as an outlot and designed and built to City private road standards. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements will also be required along all property boundaries in the plat as well as Conservation and Flowage Easements over any delineated wetlands and drainageways. The property will be subject to the stormwater and drainage trunk fee. Due to the large size lots, the need for stormwater improvements is likely to be minimal. The property would be served by private onsite systems and private wells and full soil testing and system design will be required for each new lot as well as a review of primary and alternate sites for the existing home. Wetlands on the property will not be impacted except for the 30-foot corridor along the west side of proposed Lot 3. The actual square footage of wetland that would be filled to create the driveway is not known at this time. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of mitigation requirements if needed and would also be establishing appropriate wetland buffers for the development. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands. The developer has been advised that this subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance and will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which have been approved by the City Council. The majority of the property consists of open fields with scattered trees near the homestead and along wetland edges. The Conservation Design Ordinance would require the applicant look at invasive species and views but that in Staffs opinion the review necessary would be minimal. Gaffron stated the purpose of a sketch plan review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they impact the proposed plat. The Planning Commission should provide the developer direction on any issues that they feel require special attention. Gaffron stated this application could potentially provide access to the Whalen property,which should be discussed. Leskinen asked if that 100-foot notch abutting Orchard Park Road is a separate lot. Gaffron indicated it is a separate lot and is not part of the plat. Page 17 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if the plat will provide that small site with additional area for a septic site. Gaffron indicated that is a potential. Gaffron stated one of the issues is the fact that there is an existing house which will have a new road right next to it. Gaffron stated a potential mitigating factor could be the fact that there will be a little bit of a buffer and an area behind it that that property owner could acquire so that in the future that tiny lot will have some septic capabilities. Leskinen asked how the Whalens access their property currently. Gaffron stated the parcel is landlocked and that it is currently a vacant parcel. Mack noted that substandard parcel adjacent to the existing neighboring small lot would likely be platted as a third outlot. Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the City would likely want to place some restrictions on how that outlot could be used in the future. If the development goes forward, the City would have some expectation on the part of the developer and the owner of that small lot that an area is platted for potential septic system use. Gaffron noted the City has done that in a similar situation with a lot located adjacent to Victoria Estates. The lot was not part of the plat but the plat created an outlot for future septic around it. Gaffron stated the proposed outlot adjacent to the Orchard Park Road lot would not,however,make it a conforming lot. Leskinen asked if the odd shape of Lot 2 is to get the required acreage. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated there may be other ways to obtain the necessary acreage but they may not be as functional given the location of the house. Landgraver asked if the Whalen property is five acres. Gaffron stated it is approximately ten acres with at least five acres dry buildable. The Whalen property itself, if it had access,would be buildable for one house given the wetlands. Thiesse asked if the City has an obligation of providing a reasonable access for the Whalens. Gaffron stated the City is not going to vacate any part of the dedicated undeveloped right-of-way unless the Whalens are given access. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd eeNovo, stated this is a beautiful site but that it is difficult to develop due to the access issue. Denman indicated they came up with four or five different concepts and those have been discussed with Staff. Denman stated in his view they have come up with a solution to provide access for the Whalens as well as assist the small lot in the corner. Denman indicated the one thing that would jeopardize this project is the City's stormwater and drainage fees. While it is a 26-acre parcel, only three lots are able to be created. The City's Code requires $3,075 per acre, which is over$70,000 in stormwater and drainage fees and is probably not workable financially. Denman stated he is not sure if the Planning Commission deals with that,but that he is interested in knowing what the options are. Page 18 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted that is something that cannot be addressed by the Planning Commission and would need to be taken up with the City Council. Gaffron stated the City Council will be reviewing that ordinance and that there have been some instances where the City Council has deviated from those fees. Gaffron stated he does not disagree that the fee is huge but that there is a basis for why the fee was put in place and that it is something that should be taken up with the City Council. Denman stated the plan would be to handle all of the drainage on site so there would not be a burden to the City. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Gaffron noted a public hearing is technically not required with a sketch plan but that Staff would like to hear any public comments from interested parties. Jim Whalen stated they have owned their piece of property for approximately 40 years. In approximately 1998,when the Department of Transportation was putting in a new road,access was taken away. The Department of Transportation purchased the land to the north and constructed the CR6/US 12 interchange, which prevented them from accessing their property. Whalen stated they do not plan to build on the land. Whalen indicated they operate a bible camp up in Aitkin County and that they would like to donate the land to the ministry,who would then sell it and have the funds to construct a main building on the property up in Aitkin County. Whalen noted he and his wife have submitted a letter to the City outlining some of their concerns with the proposed development. Jean Whalen stated she is happy to see that there might be a solution for providing access to their property. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Leskinen stated the sketch plan is pretty straight forward and gives some hope to the Whalens and the other small lot. Leskinen indicated she does have a small concern with the shared driveway,but since it would only be for two large lots, it probably will not be an issue and that other options could be explored. Landgraver asked if the developer has had any discussions with the Whalens yet. Denman indicated he did have a phone conversation with them and that they had been exploring access from the Jacobs Mill Road easements. Denman stated he had been working with that homeowners association to see whether access could be gotten from them but that not much progress was being made. Denman stated at that point in time he had not come to the City and discussed other access routes and that in his view this is a good solution for them and the Whalens. Landgraver commented it would be extremely helpful for the Whalens if access could be worked out. Denman stated they would like to recover some of their costs in putting infrastructure to the Whalen site. Page 19 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated as it relates to private roads, from Stubbs Bay Road in,Jacobs Mill Road is a privately owned road. Gaffron stated if the City wanted to force the issue,there are underlying easements that could be utilized but the easement document says there has to be a payment of fair market value to the owner of the property. In addition,there would need to be an agreement on the part of the Jacobs Mill homeowners association that this property would become part of that homeowners association. Gaffron stated if the City was to take Jacobs Mill Road over as a public road,which has happened only once before,the City would need to start maintaining it, and to some extent it opens up a Pandora's Box. Gaffron indicated the City also does not want to incur costs in providing access to new development and that Staff has made it clear to the Whalens that the City is not likely to expend any dollars for access to their property. Gaffron stated in his view the solution to bring access from the south is a good one. Leskinen asked if Hennepin County or Mn/Dot has an obligation to provide access. Gaffron stated it is a long story but that Mn/Dot had initially agreed to make the Whalens whole. Gaffron indicated Staff had a meeting approximately one month ago with Mn/Dot and Hennepin County about properties they were going to turn back to the City as part of the Highway 12 project. Mn/Dot has said in writing and verbally that because of the configuration of County Road 6,the fact that it is a turn back, and the fact that they did not actually touch the Whalen property,they are not going to change the configuration of the intersection or grant access. Thiesse asked if there is an embankment there. Gaffron indicated there is. Thiesse asked if the City has any criteria for the super-long driveway. Gaffron stated any driveway that is longer than 600 feet would need to be looped at the end as well as a 20-foot clear space to drive in. Gaffron stated the City does have some standards for a long driveway and that the fire department will be reviewing that. Landgraver noted a portion of the driveway will be going over the edge of the wetland. Schoenzeit stated if it needs to hold a fire truck, it would not be a residential standard. Gaffron stated the width standard is 20 feet so they can pass vehicles,but that at some point in the road there could be a bump-out constructed. Schoenzeit stated the weight of the fire trucks is also an issue. Leskinen asked if the cul-de-sac would need to be constructed to a certain size. Gaffron indicated the road would need to be 24 to 28 feet in width and that the cul-de-sac would need to have an 80-foot width in a 100-foot corridor. Leskinen asked if the wetlands have been delineated. Gaffron stated the wetlands have been delineated. Page 20 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Mack stated it sounds like the adjoining landowner has a potential interest to have that land available for sale. Mack stated one of the complexities with this development is arrangements for private land and improvements inside and outside the plat. Mack stated in his view it would be cleaner if that property were to become part of this plat so it can all be contained within the development agreement itself. Gaffron stated the Whalens could sell their property to Cudd. Thiesse asked if they would have to sell the property to become part of the plat. Gaffron stated it is not unheard of for different owners to be part of the same subdivision. Denman stated they may be interested in purchasing it,but having access to that property makes it more valuable to the Whalens. Jim Whalen distributed a letter from the Department of Transportation notifying them that their access would be taken. Landgraver stated he understands Mr. Mack's point but that is probably outside the Planning Commission's involvement. Leskinen noted this does not require any formal action by the Planning Commission and that it will go on to the City Council as a sketch plan. Gaffron stated it likely will be on the December 8 Council agenda. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 7. 2015 SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AT COUNCIL M EETINGS Mack requested the Planning Commissioners notify Staff if they are unable to attend a meeting the day prior to the meeting whenever possible. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 27,2014,AND NOVEMBER 10,2014 Schoenzeit stated he attended the October 27 meeting. The Lakeview development was discussed and the neighbors on the south side of the development expressed concerns about the septic sites and drainage going into their back yard. Schoenzeit stated it is unbelievable that the sewer cannot be extended another 300 feet to connect the adjoining properties. Curtis noted they are not 2-acre parcels. Gaffron stated the close proximity has very little to do with Metropolitan Council's policies and that the Lakeview developer did explore that. Gaffron stated the Metropolitan Council requires three units per acre. Page 21 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated he received a string of e-mails today between the City Engineers and the developer's septic contractor and that there was a discussion that the topography that was provided in that area does not match what is really out there. The engineers are attempting to rectify that but that it brings into question whether or not the topography in that area is accurate. Gaffron noted Lakeview will be coming to the City Council for preliminary plat approval at the next Council meeting and that will be one of the issues for discussion. Schoenzeit stated listening to the residents needs to be a top priority with that development. Leskinen stated she attended the November 10 meeting. The City Council approved the Sarenpa application and the Harris application on Ferndale. The City Council also looked at the preliminary plat for Bayside Road. In that application Mr. Rennebohm stated he would rather not enter into a conservation easement, which would not have been required as part of the development. Leskinen stated the E-cigarette ordinance was also approved. Leskinen stated the City Council found that the scope of the Mark and Kristin Anderson project was significantly larger than what was approved. Curtis stated the area to be graded and the amount of material exceeded the approval. Mack stated they also put 10 feet of fill in the wetland. Leskinen stated the Council requested they file a new application with the changes. The Fred Johnson application on Orchard Beach was tabled. Leskinen indicated there was also a discussion about some road repairs on Casco Point Road and sewer maintenance on Old Crystal Bay Road. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mack noted that new residential home starts in Orono for the first three quarters of this year have exceeded expectations. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission also appreciates the hard work of Staff on the applications. Leskinen noted there is no December Planning Commission meeting. Curtis stated there is no December work session scheduled at this time. Landgraver asked what the Planning Commission should focus on with the wind conversion systems. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission start with the commercial/industrial areas. Gaffron noted wind generators would not be allowed in the shoreland area, which would remove a significant number of properties. Leskinen stated she recalls having some discussion on the commercial piece previously. Leskinen noted the City has a very limited number of commercial/industrial properties. Schoenzeit commented it was helpful to have Mr. Lanpher talk about his experiences with wind generators. Page 22 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 17,2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated part of the study process would be to bring in representatives on all sides of the issue. Leskinen asked if the primary reason the ordinance was not upheld was because they were outright banned. Gaffron stated cities have the right to create standards but that the judge concluded they cannot be totally banned. The City Council has directed Staff to look at areas where wind generators would be acceptable. Schoenzeit stated in his view there should be performance standards and that the wind generators have to generate a certain amount of electricity. Gaffron stated another standard the Planning Commission should consider is the height of the generator. Gaffron noted the City has a 65-foot limit for a ham radio antenna and a 20-foot limit for a regular antenna,which is measured from the ground. Mack stated Staff had a meeting this morning to discuss ways that the amount of paper created as part of the applications could be reduced. Mack asked if the Planning Commission would be okay with receiving some of the material electronically. Mack stated the goal would be to reduce staff time and reduce costs. Leskinen stated she is comfortable with receiving some of the materials electronically. Schoenzeit stated the issue is being able to access it at the meeting. Mack stated Staff is looking at perhaps eliminating the paper copies of some of the earlier reports, studies, and maps that are sometimes included in the packets. Mack stated those items would still be available at the meetings on the overhead. ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: ' / /// Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 23 of 23