Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2019 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 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, Bruce Lemke, and Dennis Libby. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, 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 APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19,2018 Landgraver moved,Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 19,2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA18-000062 SVEN GUSTAFSON,387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:33 P.M.—6:37 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a revised preliminary and final plat approved in 2018. This application only involves 387 Orono Orchard Road, which is the property with the existing home. The developer recently sold the northern lot and completed an administrative boundary line adjustment between the two properties. The boundary line adjustment created a more substantial building area on the north lot and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property. The existing driveway access point will continue to serve the separate northern lot,which is not part of this subdivision. A new private driveway access is proposed to serve both of the properties as shown on the grading plan. A maximum of two lots can be served by a private driveway. The previous plat was approved for five lots. The revised preliminary plat is less dense and conforms to the RR-1B zoning. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and individual septic sites have been submitted for each lot. The home on Parcel A is proposed to remain at this time. All of the RR-1B setbacks will be met. The revised subdivision plan reflects the applicant's desire to protect significant tree stands along with removal of invasive and diseased trees on an as-needed basis. The applicant is continuing to follow the guidance in the Conservation Plan as far as tree protection. The goal of the design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Engineering comments will be forthcoming once the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received, reviewed, and approved the stormwater plan. If the Watershed District requires changes to the plan, it is recommended the applicant respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. If the comments result in significant changes to the plat layout, it may be brought back before the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The property is proposed to be served via a private driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of Parcel A and meeting up with the existing drive. The driveway will be expanded to serve Parcel B and an access easement should be established for each of the proposed lots. A maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the forthcoming recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. Lemke asked what the gradient is for the driveway. Curtis indicated she does not have that information available tonight but that the City Engineer is looking at that. Curtis noted the City does not have driveway standards. Thiesse asked if the septic is allowed within the setbacks. Curtis stated the septic sites will be required to be conforming and that the applicant has plenty of options for relocating them. Landgraver asked if it is conceivable that the larger lot could ever be subdivided in the future. Curtis indicated it is precluded by this application. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,noted they had approval for a private lot and five lots previously, but after reviewing the number of trees that would be lost, it was determined it would be better to have three larger lots. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Landgraver stated the application is pretty straight forward and that he is okay with it subject to the comments of the Watershed District. Lemke commented in his view it is an improvement. Libby stated he had a chance to review the application earlier and that it is pretty comprehensive. Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000062, Sven Gustafson,387 Orono Orchard Road,preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. LA18-000087 ROBERT BROOK, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE,6:38 P.M.—6:47 P.M. Robert Brook,Applicant,was present. Page 2 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 6-foot tall privacy fence to be constructed in the side street yard between the two driveway entrances. Ferndale Road is a local street, and per City Code, a maximum of a 42-inch tall fence is allowed. Staff finds the request to be reasonable. While not a county road or state highway, Ferndale Road is a busy street that connects Orono to Wayzata's downtown area. City Code would allow for a 6-foot fence in this location if the home was located on a major thoroughfare. The applicant has stated the high volume of traffic and use of the road has created a burden on the property. The shape of the lot is also unique compared to its neighbors in the shape and location of the principal structure sitting close to the right-of-way where separation could improve safety conditions for the property. The questions the Planning Commission should discuss the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance and they should consider the impact of the proposed fence upon the neighborhood as well as existing and anticipated traffic conditions. Barnhart stated it does seem reasonable that a 6-foot high fence be allowed given the level of traffic on Ferndale Road. Lemke asked whether the fence on the western side of the property is existing and is also a 6-foot fence. Barnhart stated that fence can be six feet high and that the variance is only being requested for the proposed fence in the front yard setback. Thiesse asked whether Staff has any traffic numbers. Barnhart indicated he is not aware of any numbers and that he can check with Wayzata to see whether there have any traffic counts for the road. Thiesse stated if the high amount of traffic is the reason for the variance, he would like to see some documentation of that. Todd Irvine,Landscape Architect, stated the property owner is unable to be here tonight. The proposal is pretty straight forward. The house is very close to the intersection of County Road 15 in addition to being located on a busy road. There is also a large gravel leftover area that people use to park when they go for walks or bike on the trail. Part of the reason for the fence is to attenuate the noise from Ferndale and also provide some privacy from the cars parking in that gravel area. Irvine noted the right-of-way on Ferndale is a little wider than a normal right-of-way and that it is 22 feet from the edge of the road back to the proposed fence location. Irvine stated in his view it will not impact cars visually as they drive down Ferndale. There are also fences and hedges much closer to the street further down the street than what is being proposed here and it is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Landgraver asked what the finished product will look like from the street side. Irvine indicated it will be horizontal cedar 1 x 6's and the posts will be kind of hidden to create a contemporary feel to it. The fence will either be natural stained or black to match the trim on the house. Page 3 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke noted the plans state the fence will be painted black. Irvine stated he was not aware of that but it appears it will be painted black. Thiesse asked if there is a row of arborvitae in the front. Irvine indicated there is not. There is a row of arborvitae over to the east and the other fence is located on the neighbor's property. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Lemke stated in his view a 6-foot fence is not intrusive in that location but that he would prefer a more natural color than black. Landgraver commented he normally is not a fan of fences,but given the location and the traffic, he would be in favor of it. In addition,the fact that it is not being extended along the whole property line lessens the harshness of the fence. Libby asked whether the applicant could incorporate more greenery or a berm to help mitigate some of the privacy issues. Irvine noted the area is pretty-well treed already and that they have a concern that any additional trees would be shaded out. An arborvitae hedge was planted further down. Libby asked whether the fence is more for private or noise abatement. Irvine indicated it is more for privacy and that the house is one level. Erickson stated he has a high level of comfort for this variance given the number of unique factors for the variance. The shape of the lot is unusual,the house is close to the road,there is the nearby parking area, and it is very close to a county road. Erickson noted that county road is the most highly traveled road in the city and that he would approve the application. Landgraver moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000087, Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road West,fence variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. LA18-000091 AJ HELGERSON,2870 GOLDENROD WAY,VARIANCE,6:50 P.M.— 7:20 P.M. AJ Helgerson, Applicant,was present. Barnhart stated the applicant recently purchased the home and is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioning unit within five feet of a property line and within the drainage and utility easement,which is not permitted by City Code. This is a new home, constructed in 2018. When the home survey was first Page 4 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. submitted,the proposed plan showed the A/C unit on the west side yard where it was noted as not permitted for being placed in a drainage and utility easement and within the side yard setback. The air- conditioning unit was relocated to the north side and is currently located within two feet of the property line and completely within the drainage and utility easement. Due to noise concerns,the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting air-conditioning units from being located within setbacks. Barnhart noted this property has an opportunity to move the A/C unit to the rear yard of the property to meet City Code. Granting this variance would serve as a convenience and the submitted request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. The options are for it to be located in the front or rear yard. The applicant has provided some information with some concern about having it in the back yard since that is where his children will play. In reviewing the standards, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the existing A/C unit to remain in the side yard since it appears to be more of a convenience for the applicant. If the Planning Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves the request, it will be contingent on an executed encroachment agreement and moving the A/C unit to the west side of the property. If it is necessary at some point to perform work within the side yard setback,the applicant will assume responsibility for the cost of the relocation. Thiesse asked whether four other properties within this development have had to physically relocate their air-conditioning units. Barnhart indicated four other properties within this development, in addition to this property, all had A/C units installed in nonconforming locations. The four other properties were able to move the A/C unit to meet City Code. Landgraver asked if those other homes were occupied. Barnhart stated to his knowledge one was occupied and the other ones were in various stages of completion. Thiesse stated in his view this situation is a little bit different since the houses are much closer together than in other developments. AJ Helgerson, Applicant, stated he is here asking for forgiveness versus permission. The air-conditioning units for some of the other houses have already been changed. Helgerson displayed a picture of the property when it was first staked taken on October 14,2017. The certificate of survey from David Weekly Homes is dated October 12,2017. By that date the building design had been denied by the City of Orono due to the air conditioner being located on the side of the house it was on,which was never told to them prior to purchase. The builder then moved the air- conditioner to the south side of the building. In talking with a couple of people in the neighborhood and the next-door neighbor to the south,they were told they had to move the air-conditioners. Helgerson indicated he asked the builder to explain to him what was going on and the builder's response was very vague but that they have to move some of the air-conditioners. Page 5 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Helgerson indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued from the City to David Weekly. The temporary certificate of occupancy stated all exterior improvements had to be completed, driveway completed as shown on the survey, final grade completed as shown on the survey, and erosion control needs to remain in place until the sod is down. Orono issued that certificate of occupancy to David Weekly 48 hours prior to when they closed on the property and there was no mention by the City of any air-conditioning unit or any variance being required. That was dated March 28 and the closing was to occur on March 30, which was Good Friday. Because there was an issue with the fireplace,the closing took place on April 2. In an email dated October 5 from Jason Thomas of David Weekly Homes it stated that the City of Orono is requiring a new certificate of temporary occupancy and that they have to get the air-conditioner worked out. Helgerson noted this is the first actual document he has in his possession that they are not supposed to be living in the house until the air-conditioner issue is worked out, six months after they purchased the property. Helgerson noted they did not place the air-conditioner there knowing that it was in violation and that it was six months after they moved in that they were told about the problem. Four other houses in the development had the air-conditioner on the side versus the back but only one was actually occupied at the time. One of them was the very first house in the development,which has a gigantic bump-out that they placed the air-conditioner behind. Helgerson indicated since they did not know about the problem initially,they did not have a choice not to purchase the property. The other people who purchased homes in the development had the choice to walk away or get it changed with the builder. Helgerson stated in his view there is a hardship. According to the legal definition of a hardship,there is a case to be made. In addition to there being a monetary hardship to relocate it, some local realtors have indicated that there is between a$17,000 to $40,000 decrease in value because of noise and safety. The neighbors prefer the air-conditioner where it sits currently, which is against the neighbor's garage. Helgerson indicated they have already made improvements to the house,such as a deck and concrete pad for a play area. The proposed location where David Weekly would like to move it is directly below a window where they are planning to build another builder. Helgerson stated in his view this is a very different situation from the other homes that had to relocate theirs. Helgerson stated relocating it to their back yard would impede their ability to use that area. Helgerson stated they were also supposed to have a berm for privacy and to block the noise from Highway 12 but that the builder decided not to do that. Helgerson stated there is lots of noise from the highway versus an air-conditioner. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Jason Bergman, Goldenrod Way,noted they are proposing to move it over to his side and that he fully supports that along with everything else Mr. Helgerson said. There is noise from trains that pass by the front yard and noise from cars on the road. Bergman commented this is not a typical development and that the houses are extremely close together. The area where the air-conditioner is proposed to be relocated is very wide and someone could drive a jeep through there. Bergman indicated his wife also supports it. Page 6 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jeremy Phillips, 2860 Goldenrod Way, stated he would agree with everything his other two neighbors said and that they did pay a significant premium to be on that side of the road with the idea that they would be next to the swamp. Helgerson stated if the Planning Commission looks at what happened,the need for a variance was a shock to them. Helgerson noted he is on the fire department and that he realizes they need to get equipment in and out of there and have access to the area. When the final grade was being done, large bulldozers went through that area so it is more than wide enough for an air-conditioner. Helgerson stated if he could ask for an encroachment agreement,he would prefer to go that route. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Erickson stated after reading the staff report, he had developed a high level of comfort in denying the variance, primarily because of the other four homes that had moved theirs already. Erickson stated he understands this one does involve an unusual set of circumstances which led to this situation,but uniqueness as it relates to a practical difficulty relates directly to the property, such as the shape or topography of the property. Erickson commented he has sympathy for Mr. Helgerson over the way that this developed, but when he looks at just the property, it is hard to see how it is different from the other properties in the neighborhood. Erickson indicated he is inclined to follow Staff's recommendation. Lemke stated he understands Staffs recommendation,but given the situation and the neighbors' comments, in his view it is the best location for it. Lemke stated this might be an okay solution and that he is leaning more towards approving the variance. Libby stated without playing the blaming game, it appears there was not a lot of transparency in this situation. Libby noted air-conditioners built nowadays are high efficiency and quieter and that he is sensitive to children playing. Libby stated as far as some of the compunctions here about the electrical hazards and children playing,that can be alleviated with the unit being located above the ground, but when you start talking about the issues with the planned improvements,that could be a practical difficulty if the air-conditioning unit is actually moved. Libby asked if the builder is willing to actually relocate the air-conditioner at no cost to the homeowner. Helgerson indicated they are going to move it to whatever location the City decides. As to the point of it being off the ground and elevated, it is currently elevated, and if it is relocated to that one corner, it cannot be elevated since it will be under a window. Libby stated due to the circumstances,moving the air-conditioning unit would be preferable,but if there is no place to relocate it,that is another situation. Helgerson noted it could be relocated to the other side,which is a lot wider, and then it will be off the ground in that location. Landgraver stated he tends not to approve after-the-fact variances but that the argument has been rather compelling. The builder was relatively new to the area and overlooked the notation on the plan. Landgraver stated he is kind of against approving the variance but that there are extenuating circumstances, and if the City Council approves it,there should be an encroachment agreement. Page 7 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances and practical difficulties. In addition,the City allowed them to build so close to the property line, which did not allow the air-conditioner where it typically goes,which is on the side of the house, and that this was an unintended consequence of the smaller side yard setback. If it is relocated to the back, it would be impeding their use of the back yard and it would be under a window, which is not ideal. Thiesse stated in his view it is more of a builder education than anything else and also a safety issue. If there is an encroachment agreement,he would be in favor of the variance,but that he would like the City to have a discussion about the 5-foot side setback. Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000091,AJ Helgerson,2870 Goldenrod Way,variance,subject to an encroachment agreement. Erickson asked what steps the City can take to not set a precedent and prevent it from happening again. Thiesse stated in his view they can't,but in his mind the air-conditioner is in the right spot and that the City currently does not allow it. Libby noted the variance carries forward along with the encroachment agreement and hopefully any future homeowner will know about it. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Landgraver opposed. 4. LA18-000098 JEN AND TONY ISHAUG,4245 CHIPPEWA LANE,VARIANCES,7:21 P.M.—7:29 P.M. The applicant was not present. Barnhart stated the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance for a detached garage. The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1,000 square feet or smaller to be forward of the principal building, subject to conditions,which includes the requirement that the building should be consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and designed the garage to fit these requirements. The new accessory building ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot setback instead of the 100-foot required setback due to the topography of the property. The improvement will be consistent in character with the principal structure. This house is located at the end of a dead-end street so the impact to the neighborhood is relatively minimal. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site. Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property,the request for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable. There are no issues with the proposed grading. When the building permit is submitted,the associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall. Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. Page 8 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if Staff has confirmed that Chippewa is a dead-end road and there is no right-of-way that continues past the property line. Barnhart pointed out the cul-de-sac and the proposed building. Thiesse stated to his knowledge the right-of-way also ends there so there will not be a through road constructed there at some point. Landgraver asked if the adjacent property to the east is landlocked. Curtis indicated they front on Watertown Road. The applicant was not present. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Lemke asked if there are any trees that will be removed as part of this project. Barnhart indicated he has not spoken to the applicant,but that it is his understanding some trees will be removed. A picture of the site shows the trees in that area to be around two inches in girth. Landgraver asked whether any screening was proposed between the accessory structure and the street. Barnhart stated it does not appear so and nor is any required. Libby commented it appears the applicant has made a concerted effort to match it to the principal structure and that there does not appear to be a lot of soil disruption or change in grade. Libby stated it is a nice design. Landgraver noted they already have a four-stall garage. Erickson commented he likes the sketch. Landgraver moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000098,Jen and Tony Ishaug,4245 Chippewa Lane,front yard setback variance.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. LA18-000099 JOHN ORTIZ,835 FOREST ARMS LANE,VARIANCES,7:29 P.M. - 7:38 P.M. John Ortiz,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the construction of an addition to the home on the lakeside of the home with a pergola covered deck completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also proposed is a new 30-inch raised patio. Based on the Page 9 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. neighboring home locations,the existing home is approximately 19 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant would like to construct a small addition to the home over the deck on the lakeside but not further toward the lake than the existing home. An open pergola-roofed area is proposed to be constructed lakeward of the new addition on a new elevated patio. The patio will be elevated 30 inches from grade, which is permitted in the average lakeshore setback. The existing lake side grade-level deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio and then elevated 30 inches from existing grade. Construction of an addition to fill in a notched-in area to the home and an open pergola-roofed area on the new patio is also proposed. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home and approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The patio is less than 42 inches from grade and therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants' home encroaches into the average lakeshore setback line and there is no conforming location on the lake side of the home to construct structural improvements. The neighboring properties likely have no lake views over the applicant's property as both of the adjacent homes are oriented away from this property. A variance to allow the structural improvements to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. The applicant's property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the subject home. It has no lake view of the applicant's property and their home is oriented to the south. The neighbor to the north faces more directly west toward the channel rather than over the applicant's property. The properties along the lake side of Forest Arms Lane have deep lake yards and the homes are situated nearer to the street side of the properties. The depth of the lake yards,combined with the curvature of the channel shoreline,result in difficulty for the property owner in identifying a conforming location for improvements to their property. In addition, there are mature trees separating the applicant's property from both of their neighbors which will likely screen most of the views of the improvements. Staff finds practical difficulties supporting the variances given the location of the existing home,the orientation and location of the neighboring homes,the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Planning Commission's packet. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the home addition and pergola as shown on the proposed plans. Approval should be subject to the applicant providing an updated survey accurately depicting the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements prior to issuance of any permits for the project. Landgraver asked what the constraint would be for a second story to be placed on the pergola in the future. Page 10 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated they would require a variance for an expansion. Jim Sweeney, Mom's Design Build,stated he can answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Landgraver commented this appears to be an example where the views are not being impacted by the proposed variance. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is the view and that the City has received letters from both neighbors stating that it will have no impact on their view. Thiesse stated the applicants have very little area to develop and that he takes that as a practical difficulty. Landgraver stated to his recollection there was a similar application from one of the other houses on the street. Curtis indicated the City reviewed variances for this lot and possibly another lot in 2014. Landgraver stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances that support the variance. Erickson stated one aspect of this goes back to the uniqueness factor,which is oftentimes looked for in variance applications, and that relates to the fact that it is a channel lot. Erickson noted there are also five other channel lots and there could be more lots that are located on the channel. The City looked at another lakeshore lot where the shoreline jutted out and created a peninsula,which none of these have, and as a result it would be difficult to refer to this as unique to this property. Lemke stated in this situation the proposal works perfectly and that he is fine with it. Libby noted variances are taken on a case-by-case basis and that he does not see any detrimental outcome from this so he would be in favor of approving it. Lemke moved,Erickson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000099,John Ortiz,835 Forest Arms Lane,variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. LA18-000102 MARIA LARENAS AND CHARLIE AND CO DESIGN,2455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES/INTERIM USE PERMIT,7:39 P.M.—7:50 P.M. Maria Larenas,Applicant,and Corbin Benson, Builder, were present. Curtis stated the owners of the property have retained an architect to design a new home on the property. Their goal is to reduce the number of nonconformities to setback and hardcover while designing a functional home for the property. Due to the existing lot size and width,the project requires variances to lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback,hardcover, and an interim use permit for grading activity Page 11 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. within 75 feet of the lake. Previously this interim use permit would have been reviewed as a conditional use permit. The applicants are proposing to construct the home to conform to all setbacks, including the 84.7-foot average lakeshore setback as determined by the home to the west at 2465 North Shore Drive. The home to the east is currently vacant and does not contain a principal structure. The plan reflects a raised terrace/patio area which is situated partially within the previous/existing home footprint. The portion within the existing home footprint qualifies as an in-kind improvement. However,there is a narrow portion which does not qualify. This elevated terrace encroaches,at most, approximately 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Further,the terrace is an encroachment due to the applicants' grading plan for the lake yard which proposes to balance out the side-sloped yard. The proposed home will have a first-floor elevation of 950.5',which is 4.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. Curtis noted the red line on the sketch illustrates the first-floor elevation of the home to the west. The proposed terrace,including the curved wall, sits at about 951.5 feet,which is 42 inches from the new grade and 3.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. The interim use permit is requested to allow approximately 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback and for the establishment of new engineered grade elevation. The applicants do not wish to modify the grade to result in a taller home than what is allowed but,rather,they wish to balance the slopes on the lake side from an aesthetic and drainage standpoint. The terrace exceeds 42 inches from existing grades within the average lakeshore setback as a result. The current property has a 29.6 percent hardcover level, including 772 square feet of hardcover in the 75- foot setback. The applicant is proposing 29.3 percent hardcover,which is a 176 square foot reduction, including removal of all of the existing non-conforming hardcover in the lake yard. A total of 2,320 square feet of driveway is proposed,not including the car court area. The applicants have attempted to reduce the impact of the home and the proposed structural/building coverage is 1,547 square feet less than the maximum footprint allowed. This is being done to reduce the total hardcover on the site. The driveway accounts for approximately 16 percent of the proposed hardcover and 4.74 percent of the site. Public comments were received and have been included in the Planning Commissioners' packets. Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the property's shape, size and orientation which support the requested variances for lot area, lot width,average lakeshore setback, and possibly hardcover based on the length of the driveway and the shape of the lot. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setback variances. As it relates to the hardcover variance, should the Planning Commission determine that practical difficulties exist supporting the proposed level,a recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance would also be appropriate. Regarding the interim use permit,the proposed plan conforms to the standards of IUP review. The grading will be tied to the building permit review and reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of the IUP. Landgraver asked which lot is currently vacant. Page 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the home to the east has been demoed and there is an accessory structure on the property which does not factor into the average lakeshore calculation. Because there is no home on the property, the calculation is made from a distance rather than a line. Corbin Benson,Charlie&Company Design, stated there are two main variance requests,and those are the hardcover variance for the driveway and the average lakeshore setback for the terrace. Benson stated his understanding of the intent of the setback is to keep that terrace as low as possible. One thing that is interesting about the property is that it transitions from the higher elevation to the west down towards marsh land,and so a lot of the existing slope gradually runs down the width of the lot. The property owners would like to flatten out that area,keep the terrace within 42 inches,and maintain the character of the shoreline. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Erickson stated he would like to congratulate the applicants in their effort to fit the project into the City's existing ordinances in spite of the handicap that it is a one-acre lot in a two-acre zone. The applicants have done a terrific job in complying with that and still have a viable project. Libby stated the dirt movement appears to be very complementary and the efforts to reduce the hard surface on the property are commendable. Landgraver stated he agrees with what has already been said. As it relates to the hardcover,whenever the Planning Commission is approving a blank sheet,they do try to have the hardcover comply, but given the need for the long driveway,that should not be held against them. Thiesse indicated he is agreeable with that. Lemke commented he is a little upset about the amount of hardcover. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Erickson moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Maria Larenas and Charlie and Co.Design,2455 North Shore Drive,lot area,lot width,average lakeshore setback,and hardcover variances as well as an interim use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. LA18-000103 ALL ENERGY SOLAR ON BEHALF OF ELEANOR FERRIL,240 WAKEFIELD ROAD,VARIANCE,7:51 P.M.—8:21 P.M. Eleanor Ferri!,Applicant, and Isaac Lindstrom,All Energy Solar,were present. Barnhart stated the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is proposing to install a solar array on a rack to be installed in their rear yard. Solar arrays are a permitted use in all districts and the requirements that they be screened from view as much as practice presents challenges as it is virtually impossible to screen the roof of a building. The intent is, however,to minimize the visual impact of the improvements on the neighbors and protect against glare and reflection. Because the solar array is located on a rack, a variance is required to allow a ground mounted solar array where only those mounted to a roof are Page 13 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. permitted. At the rear of the property there is a large berm so it will likely be screened from the Luce Line. However,the solar array would be visible to the house to the south. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The applicant has provided some additional information regarding the glare of these arrays. The proposed location within trees at the southwest corner of the property is intended to offer a visual buffer from the neighboring properties. Some of the impacts include glare,tree removal. The Applicant and the property owner are here tonight and would be happy to address the glare issue. Barnhart noted glare might be a misnomer to a point since what they are proposing is photovoltaic that absorbs the sunlight. The property owner will also provide some information on tree cutting. There is currently quite a bit of buckthorn and other invasive species in that area and their plans are to remove that and replant with native vegetation. Barnhart commented this is a difficult one regarding a recommendation from Staff since solar arrays are allowed but not on a rack. Thiesse asked if the property owners would be allowed to put an accessory structure there. Barnhart indicated they are. Thiesse noted the applicants would be allowed to place solar panels on top of the accessory structure and not be required to go before the City for approval in that situation. Thiesse stated he did sit in the parking lot across from the trail and that the house was visible so he is not so sure the rack will be hidden. Barnhart noted he was on the trail and not the parking lot and that he could not see beyond the berm. Lemke asked if this would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart indicated it would not be since it would not be a building or a structure. Thiesse asked what the City's intent was for requiring solar panels to be placed on a roof rather than a rack. Barnhart noted he was not with the City at that time but that it likely related to a massing concern and an impact to the neighborhood. Landgraver stated to his belief the discussion revolved around solar panels being less intrusive on the roof versus their back yard and that the Council felt people could go through the variance process if they wanted something different. Thiesse noted the applicants are pushing the rack as far away from the house as possible, which is probably against the intent of the ordinance. Isaac Lindstrom,All Energy Solar, stated this location was chosen because it has the best access to sunlight, which is the primary goal, and that they have designed the best system available for her needs. Page 14 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pictures of the house and property were displayed. Lindstrom noted even in the fall the roof is shaded pretty considerably by a tree,which is the primary reason it was not proposed for the roof. There is an approximate 15 percent shade loss in the proposed location. Landgraver asked how the Planning Commission can be assured that these will not create a lot of glare. Lindstrom indicated the purpose of the panels is to absorb sunlight and that it would not make sense if the panels are reflecting a lot of that sunlight. The panels manufactured nowadays are covered with an antireflective coating to make sure there is minimal glare, and, in fact,vertical windows generate more glare. Lemke asked if they have a steel or glass surface. Lindstrom indicated they have a glass surface with an antireflective coating but that he does not have the exact specifications. Libby commented he would like to have solar panels on his home but in the winter time they would not gather enough energy to make it feasible. Libby stated this is a technology that has changed and rapidly accelerated in proficiency within the past three years. If someone looks at solar gardens and farms, both private and public, in order for them to use this as a technology, many of them have to be ground mounted, and that this might be something for the City to discuss in the future. Libby stated in his view solar panels themselves are effective and produce more energy than they did two years ago but that there are other methods of gathering solar energy. For example, in Europe they are using a solar array that tracks the sun and those are relatively unobtrusive. The panels also close up and fold down to protect itself from the elements. Libby indicated he would tend to be open-minded about the placement of the array as long as it is not intrusive to the neighbors. Lemke asked if these are fixed panels. Lindstrom indicated they are fixed panels with a 35 percent tilt. Ferril stated they moved into the house 36 years ago and it was solid buckthorn that she thought was pretty until she took a course at the technical college. The lot is just short of three acres and is very beautiful. There are a number of beautiful trees and the buckthorn has been removed. Along the Luce Line is a ridge. Ferril indicated she has tried to get solar for a long time but was told in the past that the roof is too shaded. One day she went up to the top of the hill and saw that the area was eroding. Ferril stated she asked if there is a possibility of putting it by the Luce Line and hiding it with native vegetation that will grow up to the bottom of the rack. Ferril indicated she met with Keith Parker with the DNR about the Luce Line, and he was fine with her clearing it out as long as she paid for it. Ferril indicated she keeps planting more trees and flowers on her property. In addition, Prairie Restoration will work with her on a landscaping plan and that she will probably plant low mow fescue or Page 15 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pennsylvania sedge underneath the rack and then prairie grass around it. Ferri! indicated her idea is to have a mosaic garden out by the Luce Line. Libby asked if there will be acid batteries and an inverter. Lindstrom indicated there will be micro-converters that attach to each individual panel that convert the energy into AC/DC current. Libby asked where the acid batteries will be stored. Lindstrom stated there will be no batteries being installed as part of this design. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Kris stated she lives behind the subject property and that their topography is higher than this lot so they will look down on it. Kris stated she is in full support of alternative energy, but their concerns relate to what it will look like and that they also had a concern about reflection during the winter. The prairie grasses will not do them any good since their house is above this property. When the Planning Commission considers these individual situations,they also need to take into the topography of the lot and the surrounding area. Kris noted they were told the array will be nine to ten feet tall. Kris stated in spite of all that,they are in support of the proposal. Ferril pointed out there are some trees along the top of the hill where their roots are being eroded. In addition,the limbs are dying and dropping off down onto the hill. The hill itself is quite steep and currently it is kind of a jungle. Prairie Restoration would like to clean that up and carry the debris away and do erosion control. As far as the landscaping is concerned, even if someone is looking down on it, there will be enough variety of trees and plants to help shield it. Ferril indicated she has a lot of faith in Prairie Restoration and that they will certainly work with Kris and her husband to see that it works. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Landgraver stated the variance process allows for some guardrails and the neighbor has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal. The applicants would be able to put up a shed instead of a rack and put the panels on the roof and the City would not be discussing this. Landgraver stated in his view this is an interesting proposal and that there is good faith among the neighbors. Landgraver stated in his opinion it will set a good precedent and give people an opportunity to see how it looks. Libby commented he is proud to be part of a community that has some guardrails against certain things, but that he is also glad to be part of a community that is progressive. The applicant desires to obtain electricity from the sun and that he tends to be in favor of the applicant being able to do this without an accessory structure. Erickson stated he does not have solar at his house,but he was among the first to adopt a significant amount of prairie grass around his house, and after a few years it has turned into an asset. Erickson stated he appreciates the effort the applicant is doing in that regard. Lemke stated he is in agreement with the comments by Commissioner Landgraver and that solar panels on the house or an accessory structure would be more obtrusive. Page 16 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement. Part of the intent of the ordinance was to keep it close to the house but the applicants have done the opposite of that and moved it as far away from the house as possible. If the area is turned into prairie, it will be more visible, and it will be difficult to screen since the panels need to be exposed to the sunlight. Thiesse stated the use of solar energy outweighs those concerns and he would be in favor of it. Landgraver asked if he is suggesting that the City review their code that it be X feet from the house. Thiesse stated in his view it should be closer to the house and that he is not really in favor of making that area prairie. Libby moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000103,All Energy Solar on behalf of Eleanor Ferril,240 Wakefield Road,variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. LA18-000095 CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON,690 BROWN ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN,8:22 P.M.—8:42 P.M. Chuck Alcon,Applicant,and Michael Stedman,Developer,were present. Barnhart stated the applicants are proposing a sketch plan for a 7-lot single-family residential development on the 24.37-acre parcel. Each of the lots meets the required 2-acre dry buildable requirement for the zoning district. Rezoning is not being proposed. Plat improvements would include extension of the road to serve the seven lots. The property is located in the MUSA and the ordinance requires it to be served by sanitary sewer. The main question for the Planning commission is two of the lots do not meet the lot width requirement. As noted in the staff report,the width of Lot 3 is based on the distance at the building setback line adjacent to the right-of-way. In this situation it is an arc 50 feet back, which is approximately 143 feet of width by definition. That would be within a 75-foot creek setback. The house,however, will actually be built back further into the property and will be approximately 200 feet back. The strict reading of the rule requires it to be measured at the building setback line. While the lot is large, it does not meet the strict requirements for width. Lot 6 is a lake lot. In this case width is measured at two locations. One is where the lines intersect at the ordinary high water mark and then the other is 75 feet back from there. That distance for Lot 6 is 185 feet. The actual main footage is 209 feet but it does not meet the strict reading of the lot width requirement. The width at the 75-foot line is conforming. Barnhart stated there really is no opportunity to adjust the side property lines to achieve the 200 feet and the applicant is requesting some flexibility to the lot widths. The applicant is proposing vegetation and buffering along the north and south property lines as well as along the road. The land use and proposed density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property. The property currently contains one house located on the south side. This house will be retained on what will be Lot 6. The existing driveway off of Brown Road serving this house will be removed. Access to the subdivision will be a new private road off of Brown Road. This private road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The new road appears to line up with the exit drive out of the Sugarwood development to the west. The 50-foot Page 17 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. right-of-way is consistent with Orono Code. The paved width is not defined but is required to be 28 feet for this number of lots. The length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 927 feet, which is less than the 1,000-foot maximum. There is an existing trail on the west side of Brown Road North. The plans do not suggest any interior sidewalks or trails through the development. The plans also do not show any proposed park land dedication. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need for additional park land. At this stage the applicant is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission prior to submitting a formal application. Thiesse asked if everything else is compliant except for those two lots. Barnhart indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the lot line could be adjusted between Lots 3 and 4. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated Lot 4 does not meet it either. Gronberg stated he is aware of at least 15 other applications that do not meet the width requirement. Some of the lot lines can be adjusted to meet the 200 feet but then you would get ugly lot lines,which is why it has not been an issue at the end of a cul-de-sac in the past. On the lakeshore lot,there is 619 feet of lakeshore. When you measure point to point, one lot is 15 feet short. At the 75-foot setback, all the lots are compliant. At the average lakeshore setback, Gronberg stated they are proposing a straight line between the two adjoining houses. The house to the north is located way across the ravine and the other house further to the north is a lot closer to the lake because the lake curves. Gronberg noted they are 275 feet back from the lake with two of the houses that are being proposed and that they would like to go on that sightline to line the homes up straight. Barnhart noted the average lakeshore line has no impact on this property. In the past the City has artificially created a setback, but when it comes to the building permit, issues come up. If Lot 4 is developed first,the average lakeshore setback is at one distance. If Lot 5 is developed first,the average lakeshore setback is almost in the road. As a result,the City might want to create an artificial setback line in this situation. Barnhart indicated he is not looking for solutions at this stage. Barnhart noted Lot 4 does not meet the width requirement. Staff does not measure Lot 4 at the cul-de-sac since Lot 4 is a lake lot and it would be measured at the lake. The average lakeshore setback is something that will need to be looked at. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback line is to protect lake views. Barnhart stated that is correct. Thiesse noted those homes are not impacting any lake views. Barnhart stated it might become an issue at some point in the future. Page 18 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson stated he is comfortable with it as proposed,but as it relates to the lot line between Lots 5 and 6, if that was bumped five feet,they would have 201 feet on one side and 190 feet on the other side,which is closer to the requirement. Gronberg pointed out the 206 feet is along the lakeshore and the other two northerly lots are at the minimum. Gronberg stated it is 200, 200, 185 point to point, and along the actual lakeshore they are all over 200 feet. Barnhart noted back in 2015 for 800 North Arm,the Planning Commission supported a width variance. Mike Stedman, Developer,commented this is a very special property and probably one of the last large properties in Orono that offers City sewer and water. The key aspect to the development is the low density and great effort has been made not to impact the wetlands. Landgraver asked if he has met with the neighbors. Stedman indicated a neighborhood meeting was held on January 10,which in his view was positive. A number of the neighbors were surprised that it was only seven lots but overall appeared pleased with the development. Thiesse asked if there is anyone who would like to comment on the sketch plan. There were no public comments. Landgraver stated as it relates to lot width, in his view there has been a good faith effort to accommodate irregular shaped property and that the applicants are attempting to comply with the spirit of the law. Because the house is so far back on Lot 3, it does not appear the lot width rules are meaningful for that lot. Erickson commented the plan appears to be well done. Libby asked what the lakeshore lots will be priced at. Stedman indicated they do not have any final pricing yet,but they are probably looking at$1.5 million plus for the lot and house. Libby commented it is an interesting project and he would be in favor of it. Thiesse stated he is in agreement and that there could be some flexibility to the lot width for those two lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. UPDATE ON JANUARY 14,2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported at the January 14 meeting,the City Council approved an average lakeshore setback variance for 2710 Pence Lane. At that meeting the Council directed Staff to look at changes to the average lakeshore setback language. Page 19 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Barnhart noted Kevin Landgraver's third term ends at the end of March. Bruce Lemke's second term also ends at the end of March but he is able to serve another three years. Commissioner Chad Olson is nearing the end of his first three-year term. Barnhart stated the City has had two people apply and the City Council will be reviewing those in the next couple of months. The Planning Commission will need to appoint a new chair as well in March. Landgraver stated it might be helpful to have the Planning Commission chair be part of the interviews. ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Erickson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse,Chair Page 20 of 20