HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Christopher McGrann, Loren Schoenzeit,and
John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior
Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili
McMillan was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Chair Leskinen opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19,
2015
McGrann moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of October 19,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M.
Chris Lappen and Kallyn Bialowas, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for average lakeshore setbacks, lake setback, side
yard setback, and hardcover in order to construct a detached garage. The Planning Commission tabled
this application at its October meeting in order for the applicants to consider revising their plans. Revised
plans have been submitted for consideration.
The revisions include:
1. A reduced roof pitch from 6:12 to 4:12 to reduce peak height;
2. A revision to a hip roof rather than a gabled roof;
3. A reduced proposed footprint to 20' x 20', eliminating lot coverage variance and allowing for a
side setback of six feet rather than five feet.
The detached garage as revised will result in 48.9 percent hardcover where 61 percent exists and 25
percent is permitted. There will be 1,485 feet of structure where 1,500 square feet is permitted and 1,085
square feet currently exists. The proposed garage will be constructed six feet from the side lot line where
a 10-foot setback is normally required and 19.5' from the ordinary high water level where a 75-foot
setback is required. The garage is also proposed to be located ahead of the average lakeshore setback.
Gaffron noted the property has an excessive amount of hardcover. The majority of the hardcover on the
site is or will be within 75 feet of the lake. The hardcover proposed to be removed includes paver bricks,
concrete borders, the old concrete garage slab, and portions of the driveway.
Page 1 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued)
The proposed hardcover to remain or be reconstructed includes the house, deck, steps, the new garage, a
narrowed driveway, and some selected areas of landscaping materials.
Gaffron stated it would appear there are very few ways to further reduce hardcover on the site without
removing the rear deck or attempting to relocate the garage as an attached structure,which would likely
be only one stall at best if moved forward, and would require remodeling the east side of the house and
might still need a side setback variance.
The applicant has also provided estimates showing the cost difference between the proposed detached
garage and an attached garage. Gaffron noted one of the discussion points at the last meeting was
whether or not a garage could be attached to the house. If the applicants were to have an attached garage,
they would lose a bump-out window on that side of the house and side setback variances would still be
required. The cost of an attached garage is approximately twice as much as a detached garage.
As it relates to the lake setback, the proposed garage will be approximately 19 feet from the creek. The
new garage will be located with its floor at 933.5' and is not expected to flood. Photos in City files
document an event when the creek had flooded the rear of the prior garage at an elevation around 932'.
Gaffron noted the prior garage was within a few inches of the side lot line and the applicants are now
proposing six feet from the property line. The average lakeshore setback variance is necessary because
each of the adjacent properties abut the 929.4' OHWL contour for Lake Minnetonka at the creek bank.
The average setback line runs approximately east-west about five feet north of the north wall of the
proposed garage, which results in the entire garage being an encroachment. The property to the
immediate east at 3407 Eastlake Street will have its lower views of Stubbs Bay encroached upon by the
proposed garage. While the new garage will encroach lakeward approximately nine feet less than the
garage that was originally on the property,the new garage will have a peak height of approximately 13.5,
which will reduce the impact to the neighboring house.
Staff would offer the following in relation to the practical difficulties analysis:
1. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner very similar to how it
is current and has historically been used.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to having a small lot in a developed neighborhood of
similarly small lots and which is physically constrained as to expansion due to required setbacks,
conditions not created by the property owner.
3. Construction as proposed will not appreciably alter the character of the neighborhood since the
new garage replaces a garage in approximately the same location that existed until 2011.
4. Economic considerations are not a factor in this request.
Page 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued)
5. The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared to many
other lots, due to its size and the 2-acre zoning standards,this lot functionally has no buildable
area as compared to other lots which are wider, deeper, and have more flexibility.
6. The property is unique in that very few lots in Orono of this size abut a creek that is considered as
lakeshore, but this condition does affect other nearby lots along Eastlake Street which are subject
to the same regulations.
7. The ability to have a garage would appear to be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
any substantial property right.
8. Granting of the variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and appears to be
generally in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code.
9. Granting the variances in order to have a minimum sized garage is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrated practical difficulty.
Gaffron noted a comment was received on November 9 from a neighbor in support of the project. In
addition,the neighbor across the street called into City Hall and expressed his support of the project.
The Planning Commission should consider the following:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variances?
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants should remove all hardcover items as proposed, including reconstruction of the
driveway to meet the proposed hardcover percentage of 48.9 percent.
2. Grading and drainage plan to be carefully implemented to avoid impact to neighboring properties.
Thiesse asked whether the ten feet between structures is due to a fire code or a state code.
Gaffron stated the two primary reasons are fire safety between buildings and to maintain the visual
character of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission had no further questions for Staff.
Page 3 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued)
Chris Lappen, Applicant, reviewed some photographs depicting the property and house. Lappen pointed
out the stake depicted in the photograph is approximately one foot off the property line. As it relates to
the health of the maple tree,the hardcover will be approximately six feet from the tree and will result in a
better situation than what currently exists.
Lappen stated the next photograph depicts a view of their property from the neighbor's property. The
neighbor has a tuck-under garage and this photograph depicts a view from that neighbor's patio looking
over the lake. Lappen stated the neighbor does have clear views of the lake, with the biggest obstacle
being a tree on her property. Lappen stated from a first floor level,the neighbor's view should not be
obstructed at all by the garage.
The next photograph shows the side of the neighbor's house. Lappen pointed out all the windows are on
the second level and to his understanding they are 13 feet high, which would allow her to look over the
garage and see the lake. On the south side of the residence,the windows are also 13 feet high. Lappen
indicated they have lowered the pitch of the roof to mitigate the neighbor's concern regarding her view.
Lappen stated they are looking for a simple two-car garage to fit their vehicles in there along with some
equipment. Lappen indicated he did obtain an estimate to construct a detached garage. The attached
garage does not include definitive costs for the foundation since it is unknown whether pilings will be
required. If it was attached, it would need to be a single-car garage, which is not feasible to do both
economically and functionally. It would also hinder the value of their house because the east-facing
windows would need to be removed. Lappen stated they are not asking for an extravagant garage and that
they simply want a two-car garage, with steps being taken to mitigate the concerns of the neighbor.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission can consider the fact that pilings would be required,which
is not typical.
Gaffron stated he is not sure whether the estimates were intended to show hardship or for information but
the fact that pilings may be required could have some weight but that would be up to the Planning
Commission. Gaffron stated the slab on grade garage as proposed is more flexible when it comes to
location and that when it is attached to the house, questions arise as to whether the foundation of the
house is adequate.
Schoenzeit asked if there is any precedent for pilings.
Gaffron stated it is more of a cost issue than anything.
Page 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued)
Thiesse asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit would consider it a practical difficulty that the house is not on
pilings and the garage would be. Thiesse stated they are two different foundation types, with one being
more flexible than the other.
Schoenzeit stated the two foundations will not move together. Schoenzeit asked if the City has any
regulations concerning the size of the garage. Schoenzeit stated it is not clear whether the garage will
accommodate a pickup truck.
Thiesse stated 20 feet will hold a Durango vehicle.
Gaffron noted the City does not have a minimum standard for garages.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is the average lakeshore setback and that the Planning Commission is
now considering letting somebody build a whole garage within that setback. Thiesse asked whether the
garage can be pulled back five feet closer to the street,which would bring it closer to the stoop. Thiesse
stated the garage could have sheetrock installed to address the fire code.
Gaffron stated given the angle of the driveway, if it is moved five feet closer, it would be very difficult for
a car to maneuver into that space. Gaffron stated that would essentially force the garage over to the side
lot line and would not meet the City's standard of a 20-foot apron that tapers.
Schoenzeit noted there was a neighbor present last meeting who was opposed to the project. Schoenzeit
asked if there were any other comments that were received.
Gaffron stated the packet includes a comment from the neighbor to the west and a phone call was
received from the neighbor across the street that is in favor of the proposal. Gaffron indicated he has not
heard anything further from the neighbor to the east.
Schwingler noted that neighbor did submit a letter previously.
Landgraver stated the neighbor came and spoke and that he is assuming she is still objecting to it.
Schoenzeit stated it is unclear whether the neighbor has seen the revised plans.
Leskinen stated having read the discussion notes from last meeting,the changes are reasonable and the
applicants seem to have made every effort to try to create a win/win situation. Leskinen stated there are
some concerns with the lot and what the applicants are proposing under the revised plan is reasonable.
Leskinen noted there was a garage there previously that was removed approximately five years and that
the owner would have been able to construct an in-kind garage within one year of that removal.
McGrann stated he agrees with the comments made thus far, and given the fact that the applicants are
now lowering the roof and the other neighbors are in support of the project, he would be inclined to
support the application.
Page 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET,
VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued)
Schwingler stated he also is in agreement with the comments and that it will not change the character of
the neighborhood. Schwingler stated as it relates to Commissioner Thiesse's comment, every piece of
land is different and that the Planning Commission reviews the applications on a case-by-case basis.
Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3769,Chris
Lappen and Kallyn Bialowasa,3409 East Lake Street,granting of variances to the average
lakeshore setback,lake setback,side yard setback,and hardcover,subject to conditions of Staff.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #15-3791 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER,480 RUSSELL AVENUE,COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT,6:56 P.M.—7:05 P.M.
Josephine Carpenter, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an amendment to the 2008-2030 Orono Comprehensive Plan so
the property can be added to the defined Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA) in order to make the
property eligible for installation of sanitary sewer.
The property at 480 Russell Avenue contains an existing residence with a septic system that is
noncompliant and is in the process of being sold by the current owner who has lived there for a number of
decades. The owner is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the property
into the MUSA to allow it to be connected to the municipal sewer. An amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan requires City approval as well as Metropolitan Council approval. This amendment is anticipated to
meet the criteria for a minor amendment that will shorten the Metropolitan Council review process.
The public hearing is a required first step in the process for completing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Once the Planning Commission has completed the public hearing and recommended
approval, a resolution will be presented to the City Council for conditional adoption of the amendment
subject to Metropolitan Council approval. Once the Metropolitan Council has approved the amendment,
the City can formally adopt it by resolution.
The primary intent of this amendment is to make it possible for the property at 480 Russell Avenue to be
allowed to connect to municipal sewer. The existing house was built in 1939 and the property does not
have sites available for construction of a replacement septic system.
Gaffron displayed a map depicting the MUSA. The property was initially anticipated to be included
within the 1980 Minnetonka Bluffs municipal sewer project area. At the time the project was being
designed, properties on the fringe of the project area were given the choice of opting out of the project
based on their potential ability to use septic systems on a permanent basis. The owners of the subject
property requested to not be included in the project based on the 1.8 acre size of the property unless they
were granted two sewer units. Due to the 2-acre zoning,the City Council elected to not provide sewer to
the property and it was not assessed for sewer.
Page 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. #15-3791 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER,480 RUSSELL AVENUE, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT,6:56 P.M.—7:05 P.M.
In 1999, the property owner requested that the property be allowed to connect to the municipal sewer. It
was determined by the City inspector at that time to have a noncompliant system and there were no
options for replacement due to topography issues. At that time the City had an agreement with the
Metropolitan Council that would allow up to 50 sewer connections for properties adjacent to City sewer
lines but not in the MUSA. The City Council eventually granted approval in October of 1999, subject to
the City Engineer approving the design for the connection and all costs to be paid by the property owner.
The owner did not proceed with the connection at that time. The system was again inspected in 2002,
2004, and 2006. Each inspection noted that the system must be brought into compliance or connected to
sewer no later than December 31, 2010. On May 10, 2010,the City Inspector sent a letter advising the
owner that the option for connecting to sewer was no longer available due to current Metropolitan
Council policies,which had changed since the 1999 approval. The owner was advised to have a septic
system designed for the property.
The owner proceeded to hire a site evaluator who determined that the property has only limited space for
a replacement septic system due to fill soils, steep slopes, and compacted and excavated soils. The only
system that could be installed would be limited to a 2-bedroom design and would be a Type IV system,
which is an experimental system not allowed by Orono Code. The site evaluator recommended that
connection to sewer would be the best solution for the property, confirming the conclusions City Staff had
reached in 1999.
The existing municipal sewer system extends to within a few feet of the southwesterly corner of the
property. The owner will be required to hire a contractor to make the connection to the sewer. A sewer
connection charge of$14,510 would be required to be paid to the City at the time of connection.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MUSA amendment to allow this property to be incorporated
into the MUSA and connect to municipal sewer.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
The Applicant stated she had nothing to add to Staff's report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is very straight forward and that it has already been approved twice.
Leskinen stated she would have no problem recommending approval.
Schwingler moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3791,
Josephine Carpenter,480 Russell Avenue,granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add
the property to the defined Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
Page 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. #15-3791 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER,480 RUSSELL AVENUE,COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT,6:56 P.M.—7:05 P.M. (continued)
Landgraver stated he is in favor of it but that it is an unpleasant approval since the property owner was
given two previous opportunities to correct the problem.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M.
John and Ben Kieffer, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for side yard setback, hardcover, and structural lot
coverage in order to replace the existing detached garage with an attached garage and living space above
it.
The applicants have recently purchased the property and are now proposing to remove the detached 1.5
stall garage and construct an attached 2-stall garage with additional living space and storage above. The
proposed garage addition is centered on the property and existing house to minimize the degree of side
setback variance required. Due to the narrow width of the lot and configuration of the existing house, a
side entry with overhang approximately four feet from the north lot line is proposed, plus an egress
window well on the south side also being 4.4 feet from the side lot line. The proposal results in an
increase in structural coverage from 1,713 square feet to 1,811 square feet where 1,500 square feet is
allowed. Hardcover will increase from 31.9 percent to 35.2 percent where only 25 percent is allowed.
This property was the subject of variances to allow a tear down/rebuild in 1987. The approval at that time
limited the property to 2,138 square feet of hardcover, including the 0-75 foot zone and the 75-250 foot
zone. The majority of the hardcover is outside the 0-75 foot zone. The difference in what was approved
in 1987 and what exists today is primarily in the bituminous parking area north of the garage, which
apparently was added at some point since 1987.
The existing 16' x 24' attached garage is served by a short driveway, forcing the owner to back out into
traffic on Shadywood Road. The additional paved area existing along the north side of the garage
provides for additional parking. Attached a garage as proposed and removing the detached garage will
result in an overall increase in hardcover on the property of 308 square feet. However,the proposed
driveway shown on the survey is being minimized to the greatest extent possible while providing for an
80 square foot backup apron which is entirely appropriate given the poor sight distance and undesirability
of backing out onto Shadywood. The proposed site plan will allow for greater safety for the property
owners.
Structural coverage is proposed to increase by 98 square feet from approximately 1, 713 square feet to
1,811 square feet or from 18.5 percent to 19.5 percent. The property, at less than 10,000 square feet in
area, is allowed 1,500 square feet of structural coverage. The increase is primarily in the expansion from
a 16' x 24' detached 1-plus stall garage to an attached 2-stall garage. The proposed garage at 21' x 22' is
relatively small and would not appear to be excessive.
Page 8 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M. (continued)
The narrow width of the lot is a practical difficulty for the addition of a garage meeting the 10-foot side
setbacks. The applicants have limited the proposed garage width to 21 feet and centered it on the lot,
requiring setbacks of 9.2 feet on the north side and 9.6 feet on the south side. The applicants are also
proposing a sidewalk along the abutting the north lot line,with a slight slope toward the south and
draining to the street. Care will need to be exercised in constructing this sidewalk to ensure it does not
drain to the neighboring property.
A new entry door on the north side with a concrete stoop and a 10' x 3.3' overhang is proposed. The
overhang would be considered an encroachment on the side yard requirement but desirable for the entry
door. On the south side, a window well needed for basement egress will extend to within 4.2 feet of the
lot line, also requiring a variance.
The increase in hardcover as a result of attaching the garage is a direct result of the additional length of
driveway needed to serve it. The alternative would be to construct a new 2-stall detached front-loading
garage at least 30 feet from the street lot line, which could reduce or eliminate the need for an increase in
hardcover. A minimal backup apron could be constructed under such a configuration. The need for
additional hardcover must be weighed against the increased livability and desirability of an attached
garage.
The increase in structural coverage is relatively minimal. This is a small house as compared to many
others in the neighborhood, and whether an attached or detached garage is added,the character of the
neighborhood would not change. The additional living space above the garage will make the house more
livable, which would not be the case if a detached garage is constructed.
In addition,the side setback variances for the garage are minimal and, with such a narrow lot,
unavoidable unless a very narrow and less functional garage is constructed. The side setback variances
for the entry overhang and the window well are also a function of the extremely narrow lot and only
become an issue if roof runoff and drainage are not properly dealt with.
The following items are applicable in the practical difficulties analysis:
1. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the magnitude of
the request is not permitted by the Zoning Code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to having purchased a house with an extremely small and
narrow lot. While the landowner did not create the small lot situation, information on the
limitations on the lot imposed by the Code is readily available.
3. Expansion of the house by attaching a garage with living space above and removal of the
detached garage is not anticipated to alter the character of the neighborhood.
4. Economic considerations are not a factor in this request.
5. The condition of having a detached garage on a lakeshore property is becoming less common as
the lakeshore redevelops, but many such situations still exist in Orono on similarly situated lots.
Page 9 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M. (continued)
6. The Code regarding hardcover and structural coverage and the condition of being a small lot are
not uncommon on Shadywood Road and therefore the conditions are applicable to many other
lots in the area.
7. Having an attached garage, while desirable, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of any substantial property right.
8. Granting of the variances would not necessarily impair health, safety, comfort or morals and
might improve safety for the homeowner while not being in line with the intent of the Zoning
Code in limiting structural massing and hardcover on small lakeshore properties.
9. Whether having an attached garage is merely a convenience as opposed to solving a practical
difficulty is left to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider.
Staff recommends approval of the side setback variances. If the Planning Commission determines that
the practical difficulties test is met and the requested variances for hardcover and structural coverage
increases are justified based on safety and the livability of the property,then a recommendation for
approval would be in order.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Ben Kieffer, Applicant, stated they purchased the property recently knowing that the garage would need
to be refurbished. Kieffer indicated they are looking at centering the garage more in the middle of the lot
as well as attaching it. Since the plans have been submitted,they have rethought the sidewalk abutting
the next lot and will instead have it come right next to the garage. That will result in the sidewalk being
next to the house rather than jetting around.
Gaffron requested they also leave some room for drainage.
Leskinen asked if the applicant was aware of a prohibition against any further hardcover on the property
at the time they purchased the property.
Kieffer indicated they were not and that they could have researched it, but the real estate agent informed
them that they would be able to apply for a variance.
Schoenzeit noted there appears to be a picture of a balcony over the sidewalk. Schoenzeit asked if that is
the case.
Kieffer stated to his knowledge it is an overhang.
Thiesse stated there is a rendering that shows it as a balcony.
Curtis noted that is the covered entry.
Schoenzeit asked if that is on the house currently.
Page 10 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M. (continued)
Gaffron stated it will become a new side entry.
Schoenzeit asked whether that will be within the 9-foot setback area.
Gaffron indicated it is and that the proposed side setback is roughly four feet to the edge of the overhang.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road, stated the owners have been excellent neighbors since they
moved in, but that he does have some concerns with the application. Kozicky noted this property was
allowed a variance in 1987 for a 7-foot side setback instead of a 10-foot setback. With the proposed
addition,the applicants will be moving the garage further away from the road,which is an excellent idea
given because of the speed of the traffic.
Kozicky stated he is totally opposed to reducing the side setback from seven feet down to four or three
feet. Kozicky noted the other side of the property,the south side, already has a fence totally between the
two homes, which does not exist on his side of the property. The existing fence would allow the
applicants to make any kind of an entry without having to worry about it as compared to the north side.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Leskinen stated she is not in favor of the attached garage primarily because of the existing variance that
states in no uncertain terms that the applicant is advised no additional future hardcover will be approved
on the property.
Thiesse noted the property is already 1,000 square feet over that number.
Leskinen stated she does not find a sufficient practical difficulty to warrant attaching the garage.
Leskinen stated she does understand the existing garage is very close to the road and that she would
entertain the possibility of creating additional backup area to make that situation safer.
Thiesse stated he would like the applicants to consider a detached garage, which should allow them to
reduce the hardcover quite a bit. Thiesse stated the extra bituminous for the driveway could be reduced.
Gaffron asked if Commissioner Thiesse would support a new 2-stall garage on the property. Gaffron
noted the code would require a 30-foot setback from the street.
Thiesse stated he would like the applicants to consider that option,which would keep the hardcover close
to the existing amount.
Gaffron stated when you look at the variance that was granted and the survey, it shows the garage with a
long driveway. There was originally a house that was 2.3 feet from the lot line, which was removed, and
a new house was centered on the property. The required hardcover limitations that were placed on the
property did not anticipate having excess bituminous on the side and was never approved.
Page 11 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M. (continued)
Gaffron stated the applicants probably would be able to construct a backup area within the 30 feet to
avoid backing out onto Shadywood.
Thiesse stated he likes the idea but an earlier Council said no.
Gaffron stated the codes have not changed significantly since 1987 and that the City has actually allowed
more hardcover on a lot by considering the entire lot rather than just the 75-250 foot zone. In general all
the setback requirements have not changed since then.
Schoenzeit asked if the numbers being presented today are based on today's code.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit noted under current code the applicants would be allowed a 2-foot overhang.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a roof over a 3' x 10' entryway that would drain to either
side. Gaffron noted the overhang is extending closer to the neighbor's lot line than the existing
overhangs. Gaffron stated anything that is less than eight feet from the lot line would require a variance.
McGrann asked if the applicants would be subject to the same hardcover regulations as the neighboring
properties.
Gaffron stated both of the lots on either side are of different size but that he does not know how much
hardcover those lots are allowed or currently have.
Schoenzeit noted the applicant recently purchased the house in this condition and that it is not a hardship.
McGrann stated it looks like this property might have the smallest hardcover percentage in the
neighborhood.
Leskinen stated the property has already been granted variances and that the request is to further encroach
on the side setback. Leskinen stated she does see the possibility of rebuilding a detached garage in order
to meet the side setbacks.
Schwingler stated from a safety issue, moving the garage further back makes sense, but that he struggles
with adding hardcover. Schwingler stated it would be an increase in hardcover on a property that already
has a lot of hardcover and that he does not see the hardship for having an attached garage.
Leskinen requested Staff display the survey.
Gaffron pointed out the location of the neighbor's garage and the proposed location of the applicants'
garage. Gaffron stated the other neighbor has an attached garage that sits quite a ways back from
Shadywood Road.
Page 12 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES, 7:06
P.M.—7:37 P.M. (continued)
Leskinen stated a detached garage would also be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Schoenzeit stated it appears the Planning Commission would be interested in entertaining a full-size
two-car detached garage.
McGrann asked if the Planning Commission would be in favor of the living space above as well.
Gaffron stated that area could be living space or storage but that the applicants would not be able to
convert it into an apartment. Gaffron stated the applicants do not have the amount of acreage they need to
qualify for a conditional use permit.
Schoenzeit stated the additional hardcover would be a stretch.
Leskinen asked if the applicant would be interested in tabling his application for further design or have it
denied. Leskinen noted the application would then proceed to the City Council.
Kieffer stated if it was a standard two-car garage detached with a 30-foot setback,they would still be over
on structural coverage by the same amount. Kieffer stated there are probably ways to reduce hardcover
further, such as reducing the awning over the front door or making the front door a bump into the house
so the wall would be flush with the side of the house. Kieffer indicated that would reduce hardcover by
approximately30 feet.
Leskinen asked if the applicant understands what the Planning Commission was discussing about
reducing the hardcover.
Kieffer stated they could perhaps make the driveway narrower and eliminate the turnaround but they
would still need a variance for the structural coverage.
Schoenzeit stated rather than redesign the plan this evening,the Planning Commission would encourage
the applicant to consider tabling the application versus the Planning Commission denying it.
Kieffer stated he does not see them not attaching the garage but that he would like to table it.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 15-3792,John and Ben Kieffer,2024
Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #15-3794 TIM AND MARY DOUBEK,4565 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:37
P.M.—7:46 P.M.
Tim and Mary Doubek, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are the new owners of the property and are in the process of constructing the
residence. This home is situated toward the rear of the"L" shaped property to take advantage of the lake
view to the south.
Page 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
5. #15-3794 TIM AND MARY DOUBEK,4565 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:37
P.M.—7:46 P.M. (continued)
The applicants propose construction of a new 2,400 square foot pole building in a clearing of the streets
streetward of the house. The pole shed will be screened from the road by existing vegetation as well as
vegetation on the adjacent properties.
Curtis noted a 2,400 square foot accessory structure is defined as an oversized accessory structure and
2,600 square feet is the maximum individual footprint for the applicant's property size, which is seven
acres. The applicant is not proposing the maximum size building. A setback variance is required in order
to construct the pole barn between the principal structure and the front, street lot line.
Staff has done an analysis of the practical difficulty and would be able to answer any questions relating to
that. Staff finds due to the lot size and shape,the existing mature trees, septic treatment locations,
topography, and the location of the home toward the rear of the property,there is practical difficulty to
support allowing the new pole building to be constructed in the proposed location.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variance to allow a new pole building to be
constructed in the proposed location. The applicants should be required to record an oversize accessory
structure covenant against the property. No future subdivision would be approved that places the pole
shed on a lot without a principal structure.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
David Bieker, Contractor, stated when someone stands in the proposed location, given the tree cover,
even in the wintertime, it screens the property and the pole shed will not be visible from the road. The
front part of the property towards the road is actually an apple orchard and there are also existing pine
trees,which further screens it.
Curtis displayed an aerial of the property.
Bieker stated if the Planning Commission looks at the topography on the survey,they will see that this is
really the only spot to locate the pole barn. The owners will not have horses on the property but the pole
shed is to store the trailer so it is not sitting outside. Bieker noted there are also several other properties
along the road that have the same situation since the homes were built towards the back of the lot and is
common for the area, especially on the south side of the road. The property owners are reconstructing in
the same spot as the existing house.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the pole shed could not be located east of the house.
Bieker indicated there is an apple orchard in that area and that the applicants would like to maintain it if
they can.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Page 14 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
5. #15-3794 TIM AND MARY DOUBEK,4565 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES, 7:37
P.M.—7:46 P.M. (continued)
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has seen this type of request on other similar properties and that
she does not really have a problem with the proposal.
Thiesse stated he is in favor of it but noted that the last similar proposal before the City Council ended up
with the applicants having to dress up the pole barn quite a bit.
Schoenzeit asked if the Code requires the same type of siding as the house.
Curtis stated there is an exterior finish requirement in the code which states: "Except for accessory
buildings that are less than 120 square feet in area or are located on lots two acres in area or larger, an
accessory building and the principal building shall be similar in design and color." This proposal exceeds
that threshold.
McGrann stated it is consistent with the neighborhood and that he does not have an issue with it.
Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3794,Tim
and Mary Doubeck,4565 Bayside Road,granting of a setback variance to allow construction of a
new pole building between the front,street lot line and the principal structure,subject to Staff
recommendations.VOTE: Ayes 6 Nays 0.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES, 7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M.
Tim Johnson with Southview Design and Beth Schnell, Applicant,were present.
Curtis stated the subject property is located on the western shore of the south basin of French Lake,which
is classified by the MN Department of Natural Resources as a natural environment lake. This lake is
subject to a 150-foot setback from the ordinary high water level at 930'. The home was built in
approximately 1989, prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Rules.
The current owners purchased the property in 2014 and have now applied for variances in order to allow
construction of decks, a pergola, and an in-ground pool with deck on the lake side of the home requiring
the following variances: an average lakeshore setback variance, a wetland setback variance, a lake
setback variance from French Lake of 59 feet for the proposed deck and pergola,and a hardcover
variance for hardcover within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level consisting of approximately 170
feet of deck on the east side of the home and 350-foot portion of the pool and decking.
The average lakeshore setback line is based on the distance between the home to the north and the lake,
which is approximately 150 feet. This setback measurement results in the entire home being situated
lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The deck additions are proposed to be situated as close as
53 feet to the OHWL and therefore also lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and 150-oot
structural setback. The pool and pool decking/surround is proposed to be 34 feet from the wetland and 60
feet from the OHWL and therefore lakeward of both the 150-foot and average lakeshore setbacks.
Page 15 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M. (continued)
The one neighboring property lakeshore home is over 700 feet away and is separated visually by
vegetation and/or topographic differences. The proposed improvements are designed to have minimal
visual impact from the lake.
The home was constructed prior to adoption of the Shoreland regulations. Staff would note that the
hardcover is not calculated specifically for the hardcover within 75 feet. Staff estimates were provided
based on the hardcover calculation sheets for the overall property. Prior to placement on the City Council
agenda, the applicants should provide clarification on the specified amount of hardcover within 75 feet.
Staff has provided a practical difficulty analysis within the report and finds that the location of the home
in the property results in a difficulty or an inability to make structural or hardcover changes on the
lakeside of the property. In addition,the awkward shape of the lot and lake-based setbacks also add to the
difficulty. It appears special conditions exist relating to the home location on the property which may
support granting the requested lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for some or all of the
deck improvements and pergola. However, the setback and hardcover variances relating to the pool
would appear to serve merely as a convenience to the owners and there are alternative locations on the
property where this amenity could be located.
The granting of variances to permit a pool to be located less than 75 feet from French Creek and the 35-
foot setback would not be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan or in keeping with the
intent of the Zoning Code. Based on the information provided and Staff's analysis, it does not appear that
the applicant provided sufficient practical difficulties to support granting these variances.
There have been no comments from the public received regarding this application.
The Planning Commission should evaluate the practical difficulty criteria against the requested variances
and make a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances
to allow modifications to the construction of the decks and pergola. Staff recommends denial of the
wetland setback and hardcover variances relating to the pool, retaining walls, and pool patio.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Tim Johnson, Southview Design, stated this is a challenging site and that the owners were not aware of
the setbacks when they purchased the property. The owners have already invested quite a bit in the
property and have renovated the existing home. The goals are to work with the City as far as trying to
adapt a new outdoor living space than is much smaller than what was originally envisioned. Johnson
stated they are now proposing to keep the existing catwalks and main deck area,which are over the 75-
foot line, as is, but they would like to improve the existing deck where the pergola is at by 200 square
feet, which would allow a table setting. Current deck conditions do not allow them to use it practically.
Curtis displayed a picture of the catwalk.
Johnson stated they would like to increase the catwalk by 200 square feet but it would still be inside the
75-foot area.
Page 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES, 7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M. (continued)
Johnson indicated they have recently received information from the Watershed District and that has been
updated on the survey. Johnson pointed out the wetland delineation line. Johnson stated once the 35 foot
setback is taken,the current proposal is only into the City's 35-foot setback line by approximately one
foot and amounts to approximately three square feet consisting of the existing retaining wall. Johnson
stated the findings are that there is very limit impact whatsoever on that space.
Johnson stated they do not plan to alter the existing deck that is outside the 75-foot area and that area will
stay as is. The proposal for the new deck is also showing that there are new steps at the front side of the
deck to access the new pool. The current deck does provide the ability to step down into the lower back
yard. In addition,the proposal includes access off of the pool deck or the concrete area down to the lower
walkout area. Currently the outdoor living spaces are not connected and the ground is rather steep and
uneven. Johnson stated in their view the proposal for adding those steps is very similar to adding access
to a lower yard area or a lake and that the steps would allow functionality to the lower patio areas.
The pergola that is being proposed is a renovated version that already exists and covers part of the
existing catwalk. The catwalk connects to the garage service door and existing screen porch.
Johnson indicated they have downsized the pool to be a 14' x 35' pool,which is small in comparison to
most pools. The proposal complies with the 10-foot setback from a structure. The final grade will
improve the water runoff from the existing conditions on site and all runoff will be managed into an
infiltration system and will not impact the wetland or lake area. The square footage over the offset line
that goes through parts of the pool and parts of the existing home is a total of 400 square feet. The current
plan has no impact on the neighbors whatsoever. The property owners are also planning on implementing
many native plantings below the retaining walls to help camouflage the pool and retaining walls.
Johnson stated back in 1989, when the home was originally constructed,the home was pushed completely
to the back of the property, which is very close to the wetland and lake area. The surveys show a 150-
foot setback that is actually in the front side yard of the home,which is pretty unpractical to be able to
create any type of living space. In addition,the 75-foot setback goes through about three-quarters of the
home, not including the garage, and the property has an awkward shape to it. Johnson noted there is
about a 28 to 30-foot difference to the back of the garage to the 75-foot line, which is very small.
Johnson stated in their view they can make some moderate adjustments to the plan to comply with the
35-foot setback, but that the hardship is that there is a 10-foot setback from the structures of the deck,
which is driving the location of the pool and forces it more lakeward. The existing deck and catwalks
have to stay since they service existing doors.
Johnson stated many lake properties within the general area and other municipalities do not typically have
the restrictions that they are finding in Orono. Johnson stated they appreciate the reason for such codes
and setbacks, but some of the setbacks are located within the house footprint. The property owners want
to be able to have the pool in close proximity to the interior spaces and that in their view placing the pool
in that location is realistic for his clients' use as well as property value.
Johnson noted the property is an odd shape which results in the OHWL line and the 75-foot setback
basically encompassing the whole lakeside of the home.
Page 17 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M. (continued)
Johnson stated in their view the location they are proposing has less impact on the lake than another
location and is typically found in the location they are proposing. Johnson noted the pool is only
impacting approximately 400 square feet beyond the 75-foot line, which is less than the amount of house
that is located in that area.
Johnson stated he understands the Planning Commission has a responsibility and a job to do but that it is
hard for them to propose hardships when they have certain goals they would like to meet. Johnson stated
in his view placing this type of environment on the front side of the home is not practical to the clients
since it will disconnect the indoor space. Having a pool on the front side of the home will also impact the
value of the property and that they would have to increase hardscape and structures by adding walkways
to access it. Johnson stated there would also be issues with privacy if the pool were located in front of the
house.
Beth Schnell, Applicant, stated the south side of the house has a fabulous view and that having the pool
behind the house is the right location in their view. Schnell stated she appreciates the Planning
Commission's consideration of their application.
McGrann asked if there is another structure on the property.
Johnson indicated there is a small barn.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Leskinen noted this is similar to an application on Long Lake Road that the Planning Commission
reviewed a few months ago. Leskinen stated the property is large and it would seem that there would be
other places that a pool could go. Leskinen indicated she is not inclined at this point to be in favor of the
encroachment on the 75-foot setback unless there is a very compelling reason.
McGrann stated it is a beautiful piece of property, but noted where the applicants are proposing to build
the pool it is very visible from County Road 151. In addition, it is also very close to infringing on the
wetland. McGrann stated he has a concern about setting a precedent by having a portion of the pool in
the 75-foot setback.
Thiesse indicated he is in agreement and that the City has not ever allowed a pool in the 75-foot setback
when there are other locations available for it. Thiesse commented sometimes there is just not room for a
pool in the spot where someone wants one. Thiesse stated a nonrectangular pool could fit in there but a
rectangular pool does not fit in there.
Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse.
Page 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M. (continued)
Schwingler stated a pool would be a great addition to the property but not inside the 75-foot setback.
From a hardship standpoint,the applicants have not demonstrated a practical difficulty for the pool to be
located there.
Schoenzeit stated if it was the only location on the property for it to go,that would be a different story,
but that the 75-foot setback is critical in Orono.
Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with the other design aspects contained in Staff's
recommendation.
Leskinen stated there is no compelling reason to grant the variance since it does not meet the practical
difficulty criteria. Leskinen asked if the applicant would like to reconsider other options or have the
Planning Commission vote on it.
Johnson noted the MCWD does not have any objections to the plan and that they have met the MCWD
setback.
Curtis stated the 35-foot setback is a City regulation and that this request does not trigger Watershed
permitting.
Johnson noted the 75-foot line goes through the house and that there is no flexibility. There would be 400
feet located inside the 75-foot setback and the pool would have little to no impact on the wetland, let
alone the lake. Johnson stated he is not familiar with the other property that the Planning Commission
was talking about. Johnson noted the pool is only 14 feet wide.
Schnell stated she would just ask for the Planning Commission's consideration. Schnell stated this is
their dream home and that they would like to have a pool. Schnell indicated they are not planning to
build anything that would be an eyesore from CR151 and that in their view they are placing the pool in
the right location. Schnell stated she does not believe anyone would put a pool in their front yard and that
this is the only location for the pool.
Leskinen stated she understands what the applicant is saying and that she would like to be able to say yes
to what they are requesting but that the Planning Commission has to abide by certain standards. Leskinen
stated granting a variance from those standards would require a practical difficulty and that she cannot
find a compelling reason to be able to grant the variances, especially when there are other places a pool
could go.
Leskinen stated it is unfortunate the house sits where it sits but that the Planning Commission has to deal
with what is in front of them. Leskinen stated the applicants can either proceed forward to the City
Council or table the application. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission will not have a meeting in
December and that their application will not be heard until January if they wish to table it. Leskinen
stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the City Council could approve it if
they thought it appropriate.
Johnson requested their application be tabled.
Page 19 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,7:46 P.M.—8:22 P.M. (continued)
Landgraver asked if there is a 10-foot setback requirement from the house.
Curtis stated there is.
Landgraver asked if the City has granted variances to that.
Curtis stated the City typically has not due to safety reasons.
Thiesse stated the 75-foot lakeshore setback line is pretty sacred to the City and that he would encourage
the applicants to do whatever they can to stay out of that area.
McGrann asked if the applicants would still need to come back for other variances even if they stayed out
of the 75-foot area.
Curtis indicated they would due to the location of the average lakeshore setback.
Landgraver moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application No. 15-3795,Southview Design on
behalf of Robert and Beth Schnell, 1130 Old Crystal Bay Road South. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS,8:22 P.M.—8:45 P.M.
Barnhart stated the City has received some complaints regarding the use of properties for short-term
rentals. This use appears to have been growing over the past several years, in part due to the proliferation
of different websites where travelers can search for homes based on local amenities, including Lake
Minnetonka. Concerns identified with the rental of rooms or houses in residential areas include absentee
owners, loud parties,traffic, parking, overcrowding and safety of renters.
The City currently does not have a rental ordinance,which would be a mechanism to inspect property
annually to verify life safety requirements of the building code are met. Therefore, the safety of
vacationers in private homes is not verifiable.
Barnhart stated the first draft is intended to initiate discussion of the issues and possible solutions. Staff
suggests regulating this issue through a business licensing process, where a license is required annually.
The Planning Commission is asked to review the ordinance and identify other concerns not addressed.
The draft ordinance does not regulate rental of a home for a year but anything under 30 days. The City
can either allow it as a business license or regulate it so that it is not permissible if the rental is less than
30 days.
Barnhart stated based on Planning Commission direction, Staff will prepare appropriate changes to be
reviewed in either January or February.
Schoenzeit asked if the tenants could be prosecuted through the nuisance ordinance.
Page 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS,8:22 P.M.—8:45 P.M. (continued)
Barnhart stated they can be treated as a nuisance or the noise ordinance but the challenge is that the City
does not know whose homes are being rented.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has received a high volume of complaints.
Barnhart stated it is not a high volume but that the City has received more than two complaints regarding
this issue. Barnhart stated the City either do nothing, handle it through their nuisance ordinance, or adopt
an ordinance addressing this situation. Earlier this year the City did send out a letter to the property
owners that were advertising on these various websites and did not receive any complaints after that.
McGrann stated he is questioning the legality of it. McGrann asked whether the City can legally tell the
residents that they cannot rent their house out.
Barnhart stated this is early in the process and that other counties have a similar ordinance to what is
being proposed. Barnhart stated he does not want to regulate the normal rental of homes but that there
seems to be a growing need to at least discuss it in terms of regulating this type of industry.
McGrann asked if people can switch residences for a week,which is considered more bartering.
McGrann stated the City might want to consider addressing that as well as well as the situation where
someone rents their house out for a photo shoot or a birthday party. McGrann stated the City might want
to clarify what occupancy means.
Barnhart stated wedding parties and such would not be permitted under the ordinance. Barnhart stated
one side is to simply prohibit any renting for less than 30 days and the other side would be to issue a
business rental license,which would talk specifically about prohibiting weddings and things of that
nature.
Barnhart stated the City should be very cautious whenever they enact a new ordinance since not all the
ramifications are understood. The ordinance would add another layer of staff or government involvement
in someone's property, which is something the Planning Commission needs to understand as they move
forward.
Landgraver noted the IRS identifies a rental property as anything more than 14 days during the calendar
year. Landgraver stated the City may want to consider restricting it to 14 days rather than the 30 days.
McGrann stated to his understanding the IRS says someone can rent their house tax free for fewer than 15
days and that they do not say they have to be rented for 14 straight days. McGrann stated they could be
rented one day at a time.
Barnhart stated to his belief the majority of the ordinances were centered on the IRS rules.
Leskinen stated the City needs to explore any and all unintended consequences. Leskinen stated given
how this industry seems to be growing with the sharing of residences,the business license might be a
valid approach, but that is going to involve more Staff time and more layers of government oversight.
Page 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS,8:22 P.M.—8:45 P.M. (continued)
Landgraver stated the first approach should be to identify these types of properties and then an
enforcement took is needed if there are complaints. Landgraver stated when something is considered a
nuisance,the City has some type of procedure to handle it, which is getting to the spirit of this ordinance.
Schoenzeit stated the first complaint could be one strike against the property owner and that they could be
given three strikes. Schoenzeit stated he has a problem with the government telling people what they can
do with their property, especially if the City has no complaints about the tenants.
McGrann stated someone could complain every single time regardless of the tenant and it would be
difficult for the City to determine whether it is a legitimate complaint. McGrann stated the City should be
trying to stop those that are causing nuisances rather than the whole trend.
Schwingler stated if the City has received only two complaints, it might not be necessary to do anything.
Barnhart noted the City received two complaints on a specific property and neither involved vacation
rentals.
Schoenzeit stated perhaps there needs to be a threshold for complaints in the City. Schoenzeit stated
affecting property rights for well-behaved properties is a big no-no.
McGrann stated he can imagine a situation where there is someone new every night or every weekend.
Schwingler noted currently it is not an issue.
Barnhart noted the City Council requested the Planning Commission discuss this and that the Planning
Commission can either move forward with the ordinance or they can table it. Barnhart stated he would
like to have a public hearing with the people who have been identified as vacation renters before Staff
supports a recommendation for an actual ordinance. Barnhart stated noise complaints can be addressed
through the noise ordinance.
Landgraver indicated he is in favor of tabling it.
McGrann stated he would not dismiss it totally but that the City needs to determine how to address it.
Leskinen stated this might be an issue that would be worthy of having a work session in order to discuss it
more thoroughly. Leskinen stated in her view it needs to be looked at cautiously because the potential for
unintended consequences is high.
Schoenzeit stated there should be some level of complaints to warrant being on the agenda.
Barnhart stated the Council directed Staff to look at regulating the issue, and if the City adopts an
ordinance that requires a business license, that would be one way of dealing with it.
Schoenzeit stated the City has a long history saying that if it is not an active topic, leave it as is.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.
Page 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS,8:22 P.M.—8:45 P.M. (continued)
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.
Thiesse stated the list of items is fairly comprehensive.
Leskinen commented she would like the opportunity to discuss each of the items and then determine how
to proceed.
Thiesse stated there are probably ways to get around each of them. Thiesse asked if the City would be
able to revoke a license very quickly.
Barnhart stated the City would not be creating a new procedure but simply adding a new license.
Thiesse stated he also wants to protect the neighbor next door who might be finding out that nothing can
be done about it.
Schoenzeit stated if someone is causing a nuisance that should be dealt with that way. Schoenzeit noted a
lot of the discussion has centered on it being a nuisance and that the City may have the code already in
place to deal with something like this.
Leskinen stated the one advantage to a business license is that the City becomes aware of a property that
is being rented out and puts the homeowner on notice that there are certain responsibilities he needs to
uphold. Leskinen stated some other cities have some very comprehensive and far-reaching rental policies
that are far beyond what the City is looking at.
Gaffron noted the City has a recreational/season district that has very limited accessibility. Gaffron stated
the first time he heard about a vacation rental issue was probably five or six years ago with renting
properties on Big Island. Gaffron stated the City has to think about what the impacts are of limited
accessibility and the fact that it is a seasonal use with seasonal facilities. Gaffron stated those are
properties that have a septic system that was intended for family type use on an occasional weekend and
that there are lots of things that go along with Big Island that might not be found elsewhere in the City.
Leskinen stated she would like to get some different feedback on different properties in Orono and then
look at the issues very carefully so the City can avoid as many unintended consequences as possible.
Landgraver commented he would like to get the perspective of some of the people who are renting their
homes out for limited periods of time.
Barnhart indicated he can send letters to the property owners he is aware of to see whether a more robust
public hearing can occur.
Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to table Application No. 15-3759,Text Amendment,
vacation rentals. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
Page 23 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
Barnhart noted at its October meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare two ordinances,
one to address living walls and the second to address lighting issues. The Commission tabled action on
the lighting issue to allow additional time for research and investigation. The living walls portion was
forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration.
The Planning Commission and City Council recently identified the review of dark skies regulations for
possible implementation as its second highest priority.
Barnhart stated the biggest challenge with a regulatory approach is to differentiate between "visible light"
and"nuisance light." Living in a city, neighbors' lights will be visible and may even appear bright. The
proposed regulatory solution establishes measurable 1.0 foot candle lighting at the principal structure as a
nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the Code, including citations.
The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding"glare or heat"to a more specific"lighting"
and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting. The ordinance also requires light
fixtures in the lake yard to be fully shielded, which is a newly defined term. Existing lighting is a
permitted, non-conforming improvement, and would be grandfathered unless it falls within the definition
of a nuisance. New lighting would need to meet the requirements of the city code.
Leskinen stated she could not obtain a 1.0 foot candle unless she stood directly under the light. Leskinen
stated she stood under her security light and it was a 0.4. Leskinen indicated she also stood in her front
yard 200 feet from the intersection of Sixth and Willow where there is a street light and it was 0.4 even
though it lights up half her yard. Leskinen stated in her opinion a 1.0 candle would be very bright.
Barnhart stated the further from the source,the light drops off quickly as it relates to measurement.
Barnhart stated a person can still see the lights and it may annoy them, but the question is whether it is
truly a nuisance. Barnhart stated a streetlight could shine into his bedroom but that it would not be
classified as a nuisance since that implies intentional harm.
Thiesse stated in his view a nuisance is not always intentional harm and can be unintentional as well.
Schoenzeit stated it takes almost nothing to see a very faint light in your room and that the question
becomes whether it is expected or not. Schoenzeit stated the pictures that he brought show some
examples of lights and that the measurement cutoffs were not hitting the numerical threshold at all for a
nuisance but yet they may trigger a response from somebody. Schoenzeit stated people are also much
more sensitive to light at night than they are during the day.
Leskinen commented LED lights appear so much brighter than other lights.
Schoenzeit stated the LED lights are oftentimes more point sourced and do not dispense directionally as
candescent lights do.
Gaffron stated the number of foot candles does not matter as much as the fact that they are visible from
far away and aimed at you.
Page 24 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING (continued)
Gaffron noted some residents who lived on the south of Stubbs Bay could see lights from the north side of
Stubbs Bay and they were a nuisance to the people on the north side of the bay. Gaffron stated if you
tried to meter those lights from the south, it would probably get no reading at all, and that he is not sure
how to deal with that.
Thiesse stated that would be a shielded source.
Leskinen asked if there is any language that could somehow address the direction of the light.
Gaffron stated a person does not see the source of the light but rather what is being lit by it.
Leskinen asked if the City already has something to address that.
Gaffron stated the City has one sentence in their Code.
Barnhart stated that is the type of language that could be incorporated into a more global lighting
ordinance. Barnhart stated currently the City's light ordinance regulates for residential properties the heat
and glare, which does not provide much guidance, especially when you can see the light source half a
mile to two miles away. Barnhart stated the goal is to try to write an ordinance that can be enforced.
Landgraver asked if a 1.0 foot candle would cover the complaints the City has received.
Barnhart stated existing lights would be allowed to continue even if they are annoying. Currently the City
has no regulations on existing lights, and if the rules are changed,they would be allowed to continue. The
ordinance talks about setbacks and maximum intensity at the property line. The first page of the
ordinance talks about a nuisance and a 1.0 foot candle. Those would be allowed to continue,but if it is
above that 1.0 foot candle,then the City can address it as a nuisance issue.
Schoenzeit stated another type of light that is not listed is the public safety light. Schoenzeit noted there
is a house that is past the North Arm boat launch that has a spotlight that temporarily blinds you as you go
by, but in his view that house will not trigger the 1.0 foot candle even though it is annoying at night.
Leskinen asked if that is what Item 2A is intended to address.
Barnhart indicated it is and that public safety lights have a higher level of foot candles.
Leskinen noted Item No. A4 states that outdoor light fixtures, when placed within the lake yard, shall be
fully shielded. Leskinen questioned whether that should be limited just to the lakeshore.
Barnhart stated that is how it is written currently, and that the idea is that Orono has prided itself on dark
skies near the lake. Barnhart stated he is also recognizing that lights can be a desired amenity near the
lake and that he is attempting to allow someone's dock to be lit but not overly so.
Thiesse questioned whether bulbs that are 150 watts or greater should be shielded.
Page 25 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING (continued)
Landgraver stated a person could have an LED light that has very few watts. Landgraver stated he would
prefer not to bundle this with the dark skies ordinance and that he would rather bring this to the City
Council.
Schoenzeit stated if the goal is to have a light cross the nuisance threshold at 1.0 foot candles, it will
probably not stop it. Schoenzeit stated this photograph is depicting a light 22 feet up in the air, but unless
someone was on the 10-foot setback lot with the strobe being pointed at the neighbor's light on the house,
that light will not create enough foot candles to be considered a nuisance. The next photograph is an
example of a neighboring light that shines in the bedroom. Schoenzeit stated if someone does not close
their curtains, even though the distance is 82 feet and barely registers on the light meter,the amount of
illumination inside the room at night is quite bright but would not cross the threshold of one foot candle.
Schoenzeit stated if the City is looking to find some percentage of lights that cross that 1.0 foot candle
threshold, it is unlikely it will happen.
Leskinen asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit would consider the light depicted in the last photograph a
nuisance even if it aimed straight down.
Schoenzeit stated he would. Schoenzeit stated the goal is to allow that person to have lighting on their
property but not spread to the neighbor's property. Schoenzeit stated numerically that light barely
registers at the property line but that it would be a nuisance to the person living next door.
Thiesse stated perhaps the solution is to lower the foot candle.
Landgraver stated in his view the key is to shield the light source.
Schoenzeit stated if the City is looking at being effective, a numerical value is not going to bring relief.
Thiesse stated the light can either be shielded or the number has to be lowered.
Landgraver stated it is important to have a maximum foot candle so there is a quantifiable number when
enforcing it.
Schoenzeit stated even if you are standing underneath a streetlight, it will not be over 1.0 foot candle, and
that he was attempting to show that the 1.0 foot candle is a very high threshold.
Landgraver stated it appears the consensus is that the light should be shielded, but for those who do not
want to shield their lights,there needs to be another mechanism to deal with it.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation for the purposes of what is
before them tonight.
Schoenzeit stated he was trying to show with the photographs that the ordinance is not going to have the
desired effect of having any annoying lights defined as a nuisance because the foot candle number is too
high. Schoenzeit stated the City should either lower it or require shielding.
Page 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING (continued)
Barnhart stated his goal is not to catch nuisances but to differentiate between the normal residential
neighborhood that has lights that someone can see versus the lights that are shining onto the neighboring
property. Barnhart noted the width of lots throughout the City vary, which is another challenge to writing
a lighting ordinance. The earlier drafts had .4 as the bar for nuisance. Barnhart stated he did not want to
create every property owner as a nuisance, which was why it was raised. Barnhart stated somewhere
between .4 and 1.0 is an appropriate number.
Barnhart stated he is going to suggest to the City Council that they use the light meter to understand their
neighborhood and the impacts. Barnhart stated the City does not have the staff to go out and address
nuisances for 25 percent of the homes in the City if the number is too low.
McGrann stated in his view 1.0 foot candle is too high and that he would rather go with the lower end
given the small number of property owners who have complained. McGrann stated the City is not going
to enforce it on 95 percent of the people but that they would then have a mechanism to enforce it if there
are complaints.
Barnhart indicated the City has received a number of complaints but only from a couple of residents.
Leskinen stated the 1.0 is very bright but that she is leery about having that as the sole source of defining
what a nuisance is since the angle or aim of the light is also a component. Leskinen stated if language can
be created to combine the light source and the angle that might be one way of going about it.
Thiesse questioned whether it would even be possible to obtain a 1.0 foot candle reading at the property
line if the light is shielded. Thiesse stated in his view the light should be shielded so light does not go
over the property line.
Schoenzeit stated there are other security lights that are on sensors that come on when someone is near it.
Landgraver suggested this issue be discussed in a work session since there are a number of components to
it.
Leskinen indicated she is inclined to agree with Commissioner Landgraver to see if they can come up
with some firmer recommendations.
McGrann stated there will always be a way to get around the language but that they need to give Staff
some firm mechanism to enforce it when there is a nuisance.
Schwingler noted whatever foot candle they decide upon, it will simply be an arbitrary number, but that
there needs to be some sort of standard if Staff is going to enforce it.
Schoenzeit stated typically the complaints are when the light is coming into their house and that most
people probably do not care about their yard being lit up.
Barnhart recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council on the
lighting ordinance.
Page 27 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING (continued)
Barnhart stated the City Council may elect to table it until the dark skies discussion starts, but that the
general perception of someone will be that a light will appear bright if they are looking at the darkness
and then at the light.
Mayor McMillan noted she dropped off copies of other cities' ordinances and they talk about a lot of the
issues that the Planning Commission has discussed tonight. McMillan indicated she likes the whereas
clause at the beginning where it talks about the reasoning for the ordinance. McMillan stated she would
like the Planning Commission to review this again in January and then make a recommendation after
reviewing the other ordinances.
Leskinen requested the information be e-mailed to the Planning Commissioners prior to January so they
have an opportunity to review it before the work session.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application No. 15-3784,City of Orono Text
Amendment to 78-1 Definitions Regarding Residential Lighting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
9. 2016 SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AT
COUNCIL MEETINGS
Schwingler moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the 2016 Schedule for Planning Commission
Representatives at City Council Meetings. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 26,2015,AND NOVEMBER 9,2015
Schoenzeit stated he attended the October 26 meeting. At that meeting the Yaffe application was denied
and the Council had a significant amount of discussion on the Irwin Jacobs property and the temporary
access road. Schoenzeit indicated he was pretty uncomfortable with the discussion given the fact that it is
a private road, especially given the restrictions the contractor was willing to place on the construction.
Schoenzeit stated the amount of use on Heritage Lane is very minimal versus what it would take to
construct a temporary construction road.
Landgraver stated he is not sure why the City would require a construction road when the developer was
attempting to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Schwingler stated he attended the November 9 meeting and that there was considerable discussion
regarding the conditional use permit for The Woofington. The conditional use permit and text
amendment were eventually approved with the added condition restricting the breeds of dogs to 25
pounds or less.
The Irwin Jacobs application was tabled but a number of public comments were received. The residents
hired their own engineer who said that a temporary road could be constructed with the removal of only
one tree.
Page 28 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 26,2015,AND NOVEMBER 9,2015 (continued)
Schwingler stated the residents' engineer was saying almost the exact opposite of what Mark Gronberg
was telling the City. All the residents are opposed to the road and were saying that Steadman is providing
misleading information on the development.
Gaffron noted that application will be on the City Council agenda next Monday and that he will be
meeting tomorrow afternoon with the applicants to go through the punch list that the Foxhill engineer put
together.
Schwingler noted the City Council voted to table the living walls text amendment due to too many
unresolved issues. The Wipson application was approved.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Thiesse noted he would not be able to attend next Monday's City Council meeting.
Leskinen stated she would be able to cover the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Schwingler moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
9:40 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
All
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 29 of 29