Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2018 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Kevin Landgraver, Dennis Libby, Chad Olson, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15,2018 Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of October 15,2018,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. LA18-000086 PAUL VOGSTROM,2710 PENCE LANE,VARIANCE,6:32 P.M.—7:30 P.M. Paul Vogstrom,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated this application is regarding a lot to be created pending a final plat. This lot has an approximate 100-foot wide building envelope without encroaching into the average lakeshore variance. The proposed house encroaches approximately 18 to 19 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Staff reviewed the practical difficulty analysis submitted by the applicant and found it lacking. Average lakeshore setback variances may be granted when the request is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning chapter. The burden for demonstrating a practical difficulty is on the applicant. Based on the justification provided, Staff finds there are no valid practical difficulties supporting granting of the variance. It appears that the uniqueness of the lot is created by the pending plat and the requested encroachment is largely a convenience factor. Approving a variance without justification establishes a precarious precedent where variances are concerned. Public comments have been included in the Planning Commission's packet. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Paul Vogstrom,Applicant, stated at the last meeting they had a different line of sight arrangement that was depicted on the plat map. Vogstrom indicated he has spoken with the neighbors regarding their proposal, re-examined the plat, and then moved around the proposed house on the lot because in looking at it, he redesigned it to what makes sense. Vogstrom stated in his view the proposal meets the spirit of the rules. Page 1 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated he came into the project about halfway through and that there was some information from a previous surveyor that had the average sightline depicted in green,which has since been pushed further back based on comments from Staff. The original house that was on the lot is depicted in red and was 76 feet back from the lake. The original proposal is depicted in blue, which is located behind that. Further on into the process Staff said that the setback should be measured from the closest point to the lake on the two adjoining lots. Gronberg indicated he was a little surprised by that since in his 44 years of working in the City he has never seen it measured that way. In other cities it is usually the sightline distance between the closest corners. Gronberg noted in March,when he was working on the Judd Dayton application,the average lakeshore setback was prepared by City Staff showing the line going from the closest point to the lake from the adjoining corners. Gronberg stated he knows there has been some discrepancy in the past as to how the ordinance has been interpreted, and when this average lakeshore setback line kept getting pushed back,they Vogstroms felt they needed to request a variance. Curtis noted this is a Staff approximation of the average lakeshore setback since it was not depicted on a formal survey. Curtis stated if they drew the line from the closest point to the lake,the line would likely vary by 20 to 30 feet. Gronberg stated the ordinances are great when there is a straight shoreline, but when the shoreline is not straight,that causes some problems. Gronberg noted the sightline for the proposed house is behind the two existing houses and does not appear to meet the intent of the ordinance. The Dunkley house is approximately 25 feet from the lake and the other house is approximately 80 feet from the lake,which is quite a difference. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Kelly Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated she is not sure what the comments were relative to talking to the neighbors since they were not spoken to about this drawing even though they live next door. Hueler stated it was their understanding that the lot that was permitted or approved was to be a conforming subdivision and that there were to be no requests for variances. The Dunkley home was granted three variances and there were clearly some legitimate reasons for practical difficulties. However, relative to where the original house was positioned previously,that house was completely torn down and the foundation removed. If the applicants had wanted to keep the previous foundation and work from that,that was an option available to any potential developer or prospective buyer. The applicants chose not to do that and the foundation has been removed. Hueler stated it is their understanding that the lines that were drawn is the way the setbacks have been measured and that the lot was to be conforming, which means there would be no reason to grant a variance. Greg Hueler stated the lot someone purchases is the buyer's choice, and if the desired house does not fit on the lot,they should look at buying a different lot. Kelly Hueler noted they did not object to the Dunkleys' variance requests primarily because it was an existing residence and they had practical difficulties that were legitimate. There is absolutely no reason for this lot to be granted any variances since it should be a conforming lot and there is a sufficient building envelope available behind the average lakeshore setback line. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Greg Hueler noted they also did not oppose the subdivision because it was conforming. Kelly Hueler commented the rules should apply equally to everyone and that they should be able to rely on that Hueler noted they also have concerns about the proposal as it relates to the potential for runoff and that there is a drainage system between the two houses. Hueler stated she is not exactly sure who is in control of what but that there is a tremendous amount of water that needs to be dealt with and addressed when the lot is finalized or when a building permit is applied for. Paul Vogstrom stated he did work with the Huelers in the past and that they all met on the property prior to designing the lot. Vogstrom noted they have the right to be able to subdivide the property and have a cul-de-sac,which is something the Huelers opposed. That request was respected and the proposal does not include a cul-de-sac. Vogstrom indicated he walked the site with the Huelers and identified where they should locate the new house at the time when the original house existed on the property. Vogstrom stated he suggested moving the house back slightly to improve the Huelers' line of sight and that he lined it up with their property so it would work for everybody. Following that meeting,they then went through the process of a sketch plan and a formal application. The Huelers were worried about the driveway and so changes were made to that. Vogstrom indicated they went through a lot more work in an attempt to satisfy the Huelers and that they could have done it a different way which would have made it a lot easier. Vogstrom stated they tore the house down because they felt they were doing the right thing by helping to save the Huelers' view. In addition, a willow tree was removed and the house was pushed back. If the house is placed further back on the lot, it will block the Huelers' view from their front yard, and by pushing the house forward,that helps protect some of the sightlines. Vogstrom stated he tried to reach an agreement on the outlot and that he created a lot of different designs for the Huelers. Vogstrom commented he is upset because the Huelers are not telling the full story and that they have tried to work with everybody in the City. Vogstrom stated the variance makes sense and works for the neighbors. Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence, stated when they appeared here previously,the average lakeshore setback line was in a different location. Curtis stated the previous surveyor did not have it correct. Curtis pointed out where the line of sight was depicted originally and noted that the additional piece or bump-out was added to the house. Eric Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission recommended that they soften the impact and show some flexibility. Mr. Hueler wanted to keep his side view and they also had a willow tree that they took down. Vogstrom stated they listened to the feedback,which is why it was designed this way and that the window that is blocked is the view from the master bedroom closest. Curtis stated she did not move the setback line but clarified it at the City Council meeting because it was located incorrectly by a previous surveyor. Eric Vogstrom stated at the last two meetings the setback was shown in a different location and the only time it moved to the present spot was when they went to the City Council. Vogstrom stated they Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. attempted to work with the City and listen to the Huelers. At the sketch plan meeting Mr. Thiesse pointed out that this is a peninsula and there is not much they can do about the average line of sight. Thiesse stated to his knowledge he was corrected on that later in the meeting. Eric Vogstrom stated the spirit of the rule is for everyone to basically be the same. Vogstrom noted he is now 120 feet at the closest part and 130 feet at the two furthest points, which is not the spirit of the rule. Because the lot meanders,Vogstrom stated in his view there is a practical difficulty. Vogstrom stated at the sketch plan meeting, everyone was on board, but then after that everything changed because the Dunkleys could not reach an agreement with the Huelers to purchase the property. Vogstrom stated they did not realize the repercussions of combining the lot or they would not have done that. Vogstrom stated in his view they have honored what Mr. Hueler requested by maintaining his side view,which he did not originally have, and that they have shown a lot of flexibility and have followed the direction of the City. Greg Hueler pointed out he last talked to Paul Vogstrom a year and a half ago and that they have not had any discussion about this proposal. Kelly Hueler noted they are not opposing the conforming lot as it was approved by the City Council and that they all want to be treated fairly. Hueler stated their home is an existing home, and if they decide to renovate,they may also have some practical difficulties similar to the Dunkleys. But because this is a brand new lot, it is required to be conforming and that there is a buildable pad. Hueler stated anything they do or say that is outside the code has anything to do with anything. Hueler noted the window that was mentioned is not the master closet but is their master bedroom. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Ressler stated it is his understanding that the proposed structure has not changed but what has changed is what was understood to be the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis noted the house has a different orientation and footprint and the bump-out is new. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback line was depicted on the plat but the house was not discussed and was not in the location it is now. At that time the Vogstroms were proposing a conforming plat,which is what the Planning Commission approved. Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission recommendation was based on an incorrect plat. Curtis stated at the last meeting where this plan was reviewed, the proposed house was not in the location that is now being proposed and that the Planning Commission only recommended approval of the lot. Eric Vogstrom noted the average lakeshore setback line was in a different spot and that they relocated the house to help protect the Huelers' view. Paul Vogstrom commented they have been through a lot with this application and that they have always wanted to make it right. Vogstrom indicated he worked with the neighbors and talked with them many, many times and that he fought very hard for them not to have that cul-de-sac. Vogstrom stated they could Page 4 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. have kept this very simple, but they were trying to accommodate the Huelers. As a result, they combined the lot and moved the house back. Vogstrom stated their proposal does not obstruct the Huelers' view from their front yard or from their master bedroom and that he is hoping to do what is right. Vogstrom asked what the spirit is of an average lakeshore setback variance and why is it in place. Thiesse stated it is in place to protect the neighbors' view shed and that the proposed house is ahead of the line that has been described as the view shed. Vogstrom asked which view is being protected. Thiesse stated the City has decided on a line and the proposed house is in front of it. Libby noted there is an envelope to build a house. Libby asked whether there is some type of architectural or design deficiency of building within the envelope. Vogstrom stated it is the odd shape of the lot and that it bottlenecks up between the two properties. Vogstrom indicated they are trying to avoid doing a detached garage so they do not have another structure in the hopes that would make the Huelers happy. Vogstrom stated the line of sight should be looked at from all sides of the home and that the average setback line has been depicted wrong and interpreted differently. Vogstrom stated in his view this average lakeshore setback is protecting all sides and that he respected their view with this design. Eric Vogstrom stated when they came back on June 18,that is when they thought the line of sight was established. When they came back again on September 17,the setback line was still there. On October 8 at the City Council meeting,that is the first time they found out the line got screwed up. Vogstrom stated the old line was there from June until October, and then right before the Council meeting, it got moved back an extra seven feet. Vogstrom stated in their view the curved lot creates a practical difficulty. Libby asked if Mr. Gronberg was referring to the meander of the lakeshore and how it is not always a consistent straight line. Gronberg stated it is not a straight line and that it juts out on this lot and goes way back on the Dunkley lot. Landgraver asked whether the shape of the shoreline has anything to do with the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis stated it does not and that the Dunkley home that the western point is measured from is nonconforming. The code reads: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residents' buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots, which is what the code reads today and has read in the past. Thiesse asked if that is what the line indicates. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated it does. Curtis indicated she spoke with Mr. Gronberg about Staff's reading of the average lakeshore setback determination. Staff interprets it to be the most lakeward protrusion of each of the adjacent homes. Mr. Gronberg has correctly depicted it at the 23-foot mark. Libby asked whether there have been instances in the past or whether there could be instances where the meandering lakeshore could cause a practical difficulty. Curtis stated it does and the Council and Planning Commissions in the past have weighed all of the factors in each particular situation. In situations where a variance was granted to the average lakeshore setback, in almost all of those situations the neighbors were supportive of the encroachment. Landgraver stated he knows this has been a long process and that he does not want to get into what the prior stuff was since the Planning Commission needs to make the decision upon the right measurements. Landgraver noted the plan does show a variance to what was sketched before but that he is not seeing a lot of practical difficulty for this design and that he is not in favor of granting the variance. Ressler stated he struggles with it because he initially thought the line was where it was depicted previously and that everyone seemed to be comfortable with it. Adding the bump-out makes it more difficult because it was not part of the original plan and going back to what was understood as the average lakeshore setback is becoming a little bit irrelevant. Ressler indicated he was prepared to be in support of the application if the structure was in compliance with the previous line but that the bump-out changes that. Ressler noted Orono has a lot of lakeshore and that maybe the City should take a harder look at how it recognizes the average lakeshore setback. Ressler stated he would like to see that bump-out eliminated or improved in some way and that he does not support it as is. Libby asked what the nature is of the modified bump-out and what purpose it serves. Paul Vogstrom indicated it is a one-story bump-out and serves as a sunroom area to maximize the views, maximizes the property, and still respects the views of the neighboring property. Libby asked if physical movement of the entire structure would deprive them of this panoramic view. Vogstrom indicated he would not be able to have an attached garage up front and that they would need to do an L-shaped garage. Libby commented it appears there is plenty of room at the rear. Vogstrom stated all it is doing is creating a bottleneck and gives the appearance of an alley. It would also block the Huelers' front view from the north side of the house and they will be looking at a garage,which is something they have been opposed to seeing before. Vogstrom stated in his view it needs to be looked at from what is right and what fits with the lot and that they are protecting the line of sight. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is responsible for enforcing the average lakeshore setback line. Vogstrom stated that is the reason behind a variance and that this is a perfect spot for a variance. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby indicated he would be in favor of a variance. Olson stated he struggles with it if it is approved because of what kind of precedent will be set. The Planning Commission is supposed to uphold the setback lines, and as it stands right now, the house encroaches more than what he can be comfortable with. Erickson stated given the shape of the shoreline and the way it meanders and turns,that could be the basis for a practical difficulty. Orono has a lot of shoreline that is straighter than this and not too many that are curved like this. Erickson stated the parts that concern him have more to do with the procedure and the City's previous history with this property. The first proposal had multiple cul-de-sacs and multiple gates and multiple issues. The applicants then came back with a revised plan and the proposal was enormously improved, which the applicants deserve credit for. All the objections were removed, including any need for variances. Erickson stated he asked at that time specifically about whether this shape creates a situation where they are going to come back and ask for more variances and he was assured that wouldn't happen. The Planning Commission was further assured by the drawing at that time that showed the house right up against the line and not crossing it. Erickson noted that plan has yet to be finally approved by the City Council but the applicants are now asking for a variance. Erickson commented he has seen this type of hearing happen in many cities and the thing that consistently drives cities crazy is somebody gets approved for a certain plan and then one day it gets built and it is different. Erickson stated maybe the fact that the applicants are bringing in this change before the other part is approved prevents the City from getting surprised. Erickson stated he also has a little concern about the previous drawing showing the setback line in a somewhat different place and that in his view it is reasonable for the applicants to go by that line and not another line that is further back. Erickson stated it looks like there is not only that change but the applicants have also decided to redesign the house to intrude even more, which is somewhat problematic. Landgraver asked if the preliminary plat was approved by the City Council. Curtis indicated it has been and the final plat is on the November 26 agenda. Landgraver noted they did not discuss the average lakeshore setback previously because the Planning Commission was attempting to get a lot without the need for any variances. At that time the average lakeshore setback line did not seem to be the main consideration and the applicants did the right thing by bringing in Mark Gronberg. Landgraver stated regardless of that,he does not feel the Planning Commission is bound to stick with the previous average lakeshore setback. Thiesse stated there was a house footprint that was shown on the plan previously that was compliant with the old line. Eric Vogstrom stated if the line had not been moved,they would not have come back requesting a variance. Vogstrom stated they did not know it was incorrect and that they assumed it was correct. Vogstrom commented they are not trying to pull a fast one and that he hopes the City can compromise and say that this plan makes more sense. Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated if that was the true logic for this design,then the house would look like the original plan without the 15-foot bump-out. Eric Vogstrom stated they created the bump-out because they hit the reset button. When they had the original setback line, he was fine with it, but then if he is going to go in for a variance,they want to get something that would make a little more sense. Vogstrom indicated they have been up here compromising and compromising but they have not seen anyone else compromise. Vogstrom stated in his view it is absolutely a practical difficulty given the curvature of the line. Libby asked if they returned to the original setback whether they would have the same discussion regarding encroachment of the structure. Curtis stated the only time the applicants have shown a conforming house location has been on the preliminary plat drawing but that unfortunately the average lakeshore setback line was not correct. Staff caught it when the plans were moving forward to the City Council. Thiesse noted the average lakeshore setback and the shoreline on the property are pretty much parallel and that the applicants are gaining the extra view to the west because the line goes up. Thiesse stated in his view he does not feel the applicants are losing anything. Thiesse noted this lot is a blank piece of paper and that a conforming house can be built on the lot. Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. LA18-000086,Paul Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane,granting of a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Erickson stated he would feel better about supporting the motion if the line presented at a previous meeting was still the line and that he would support a variance given the methodology that was used. Erickson stated he can see how the applicant was led to believe that that would be a workable solution and that he has a problem voting for denial at this point because he also recognizes that the applicants have put in a lot of effort into the application. Erickson stated what they are showing now is not hugely different from what was previously proposed. Thiesse stated moving the house further back is not that different either. Ressler noted the bump-out is a 15-foot difference. Thiesse stated it is his understanding Mr. Erickson was saying that he would not allow the bump-out but that he would allow the house at the previous line. Ressler stated he would also entertain approving the previous setback line since he feels there was agreement on the previous placement. Thiesse noted the setback line is incorrect and that he cannot support the variance. Landgraver stated the line is what it is as opposed to whatever the prior survey said. Landgraver stated he disagrees with the analysis and giving the applicants a pass. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Ressler and Erickson Opposed. Page 8 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. LA18-000087 ROBERT BROOK, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE This item was removed at the request of the Applicant. 4. LA18-000044 CITY OF ORONO,2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,7:30 P.M.—8:03 P.M. Barnhart stated tonight is the scheduled public hearing for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City has been working on this update since March of 2017. Every city within the 7-county metropolitan area has to update their Comprehensive Plan every ten years and this one is due December 31,2018. Each amendment must include specific topics that are mandated by state statute, and those include housing, land use,transportation, sanitary sewer and water. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update does include those topics. In addition,the Metropolitan Council provides projected numbers relating to Orono's anticipated population, household and employment growth over the next 10 to 20 years so the City can plan for that type of growth. Even though the City has to plan for that type of growth,that does not mean it will occur, nor does the City have to approve every project that comes before them. Barnhart stated this is the first hurdle that needs to be crossed in terms of a development proposal and some proposals have triggered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A committee was established by the City Council in March of 2017 and included 13 members. The committee met monthly and guided and advised Staff on changes to the plan. The Committee operated under three primary goals: 1. Retain rural character and natural resource protection policies established in previous plans. 2. Satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements. 3. Improve the readability of the document. The Plan retains the general development and land and water protection philosophies established by earlier plans. Preservation of rural character and preservation of water quality was very important to the committee. The Comprehensive Plan was published on the City's website and also sent to surrounding cities for their review and comment. A number of the changes were based on formatting changes and updated data from sources, including the state and the Metropolitan Council. The comments received during the public comment period have been incorporated into an exhibit to the document. In addition,two open houses were held for the residents this past year. Barnhart noted the City's housing goals have remained basically the same, and the table included in Staff's report reflects Orono's population,household and employment forecasts from 1970 through 2040. The City is required to provide opportunity for 154 units of affordable housing making the average or below the average median income. Currently there is around 639 units of that type in Orono. The City provides for those opportunities by guiding different sections of the City for higher density. Libby asked whether the Metropolitan Council provides the City with any metrics for growth besides the HUD. Page 9 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated the Metropolitan Council does provide quite a bit of information and tools to help develop the plan. The Metropolitan Council also provides a projected number of new households. The City's Transportation Plan reflects regional transportation plans developed by Hennepin County and comments received from Medina. No new corridors were proposed in the update. One of the comments of the Metropolitan Council was to make the bus system more attractive to users to help alleviate traffic in certain areas. The Comprehensive Plan Update does retain the City's concept of the ring route, which was introduced in 2008. Some of the comments received related to high traffic levels on Shoreline Drive. Barnhart stated due to existing traffic levels, improvements in the Navarre area are somewhat challenging but Hennepin County's Transit Advantage Plan provides some alternatives to no new development. Barnhart noted the following changes are included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan but that it is not an all-inclusive list: 1. Expansion of MUSA. The Plan proposes a single expansion of the MUSA boundary to serve vacant property on the north end of Wildhurst while preserving steep slopes and significant tree stands in the area. This is a change from the draft proposed in April. 2. Land Use. To meet the growth projections of the Metropolitan Council,the Land Use Map was updated. The map reflects a revised listing of land use categories. These ten categories are used throughout the document per Metropolitan Council requirements and include seven residential, two commercial/industrial, and a park/open space land use. Island residential is a new land use and is employed for the residences on Big Island and Deering Island. The plan shows low density residential as the predominant land use south of Fox Street. An earlier version of the land use map showed portions of these area as medium density residential,recognizing the development patterns established. Based on feedback,the Council directed these areas, including Crystal Bay, Casco Point, Fagerness Point, and Navarre, change back to low density residential. In the northern portion of the community, residential land uses were introduced to the Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard areas. The parcels south of Lake Classen were not changed from Rural Residential. In order to prevent larger scale expansion of the MUSA and introduction of density in the rural areas, increased opportunity for density had to be added in the Navarre and northern Orono areas. The Committee applied density in areas where they felt it was most appropriate, given transportation networks, neighboring land uses, and services available. 3. Planned Development Sites. It is a requirement of the planning process that sites be identified for potential growth in the next 20 years. The Committee updated the Planned Development sites map which shows five areas that could be the subject of development proposals. These five areas provide growth in a range of densities,from 0.5 to 2 units per acre to High Density Residential. 4 Navarre Area Plan. The Navarre Area Plan, conducted by the Planning Consultant,was incorporated in the Land Use Chapter, 3B, and influenced some of the land use in that area. Page 10 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. Editing. The committee worked hard to reduce the length of the document, removing redundant statements, in the hopes of making it more readable while retaining the major policy discussions. The Planning Commission should discuss whether they concur with the following seven guiding principles used in drafting the Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Promote ecologically sensitive storm water management. 2. Establish and maintain native ecological communities. 3. Establish and maintain ecological connections. 4. Preserve and augment corridor enclosure. 5. Preserve views. 6. Preserve and maintain landmarks and unique points of local character. 7. Continue to work to educate property owners and residents on the effects development and land use have on the environment and character of the community The Planning Commission should also consider the following policy questions identified by Staff: 1. Does the Commission concur with the seven guiding principles outlined in Staff's report? 2. Does the Commission concur with the housing implementation plan? 3. Does the Commission concur with the Transportation Implementation Plan? 4. Does the Commission feel changes are necessary to the Land Use Plan? Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Landgraver asked whether a lot of the language relating to green spaces was removed. Barnhart stated two of the comments were removed since they were redundant. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000044,2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. LA18-000084 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT,GRADING AND LAND ALTERATION,8:04 P.M.—8:18 P.M. Oakden noted this is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the October Planning Commission meeting. Page 11 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated the City is considering an ordinance that would revise the regulations for land alterations and would include grading, filling and topographic alterations in all districts. Simplifying the City Code will clarify the process pertaining to land alteration permits and help streamline the permitting process. The following changes are proposed: 1. Allowing some common land alteration permits to be administratively reviewed to expedite projects and still ensure the proposed grading meets city standards. 2. No longer classifying land alterations as a Conditional use Permit but processing them as an interim Use Permit to allow a sunset date for these activities. 3. Edit and clarify the City Code to clarify land alteration standards and conditions. 4. Section 78-1126(3)requires a conditional use permit for the cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to elevate the structure in accordance to flood fringe permitted uses. Per the suggested draft ordinance,the cumulative import/export of material over 500 cubic yards of material trigger an Interim Use Permit. As it relates to land alteration activity, the following changes are proposed: 1. Import/export of more than 500 cubic yards of material is now an Interim Use Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Import/export of less than 500 cubic yards of material requires a building permit or a land alteration permit. 3. Grading more than 50 cubic yards within a shore setback requires a building permit or land alteration permit. Previously a conditional use permit was required. 4. Grading less than 50 cubic yards on a property outside of the shore setback does not require a permit,which was kept the same. 5. Stockpiling more than 500 cubic yards of material will require an Interim Use Permit. 6. Repair of a failed shoreline will now require a building permit or land alteration permit instead of a CUP. 7. Mining will require an Interim Use Permit instead of a conditional use permit. To date no public comments have been received. Landgraver asked if someone could go ahead and construct a mini golf course in their back yard Oakden stated they would be allowed to move up to 50 cubic yards without a permit outside of the 0-75 foot area. Anything over 50 cubic yards would require a land alteration permit. Curtis noted that 50 cubic yard threshold was allowed a couple of years ago as long as drainage is not impacted. Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby asked if that is still the same under the proposed amendment. Oakden stated if the grade is being altered within the shoreline, it will require a land alteration permit. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Landgraver stated he has some minor suggestions regarding grouping of the items that he will provide to Staff. Landgraver noted Section 78-1727, Administrative Permit Required, Paragraph A(3),talks about 50 cubic yards, and then it talks about 50 cubic yards in the shore setback and then 50 cubic yards outside the shore setback. Landgraver stated it sounds like one is talking about volume and the other one is distance. Oakden stated if you are within the shore setback and moving less than 50 cubic yards,you will need a building permit or a land alteration permit, except no permit will be required for land movement less than 50 cubic yards outside the 75-foot zone. Oakden indicated she can clarify it but that it was included because that is a common question Staff receives. Ressler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000084, City of Orono,Text Amendment—Grading and Land Alteration. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. UPDATE ON NOVEMBER 13,2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council took the following actions at their November 13 meeting: • Approved the application for Brian Haas, 4266 Avenue. • Approved an encroachment agreement for a retaining wall within a utility easement. • Tabled action on the text amendment for accessory structures to allow Staff to do one more review. The text amendment will go back before the City Council on December 10. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Olson moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:23 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 13 of 13