Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2019 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby,Mark McCutcheon, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15,2019 Thiesse moved,Gettman seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 15,2019,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA19-000017 STEVE AND JENNIFER PAIDOSH,4300 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION,6:32 P.M.—7:18 P.M. Steve Paidosh,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting to vacate the unimproved right-of-way of Bluff Street and a portion of the undeveloped right-of-way of Forest Boulevard directly abutting their property to the east. The rights-of-way were originally dedicated with the plat of Saga Hill Revised. There is an existing City storm water catch basin and pipe in the right-of-way. Part of the applicant's proposal includes providing an easement over these structures. The challenge with vacating rights-of-way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the City desire access to the lake or have utility needs in the future,the cost to taxpayers to reacquire lake frontage will be at a premium. Vacation reduces options for the City in the future. While the City will consider requests for vacations,these particular rights-of-way have improvements and vacation is not supported by state statute. The importance of access to the lake is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the vacation request and provided comments. The DNR opposes the vacation. Their analysis indicated that the proposed vacation does not provide a public benefit,nor does it protect future public use of the land to access the lake as the statute dictates. Written comments from the other abutting neighbor have been received and have been included in the Planning Commission packet. The Planning Staff should review whether the requested vacation follows the Comprehensive Plan, whether the request meets the statutory requirements for approval, and whether approving this action would set a precedent for future lake access vacations. Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the two rights-of-way because the vacation does not meet the criteria for approving a vacation as outlined in the state statute. Page 1 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson stated he noticed in Staff's report that it references the draft guideline in Sections 4A and 4E, but for the quotation of Section 4A,the second half was left out. Erickson asked why that was omitted. That section reads as follows: "In addition to Orono's relatively small lake access corridors, other governmental agencies own and operate significant larger lake access properties in Orono. These include the DNR Maxwell Bay access, Hennepin County's North Arm access, and Hennepin County's Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park. These three large facilities benefit from metro transit bus service on County Road 51 frontage and are used regularly by visitors from the greater metropolitan/Hennepin County area and beyond." Erickson noted that the Hennepin County boat ramp at 3700 North Shore Drive is a two-minute drive from the site that is being considered now and the state DNR boat ramp at 3366 North Shore Drive is a three-minute drive. Ressler asked whether there are any questions for Staff regarding the application. Erickson asked why that was not included in Staff report. Barnhart indicated Staff did not feel that was relevant to this lake access. Barnhart noted there is a utility within the right-of-way, and according to the Comprehensive Plan,while it does open the door for vacation of certain rights-of-way, it does not say that all will be kept or vacated. Gettman asked whether there was any historical or planned use for that access. Curtis indicated it does serve for storm water runoff but does not provide access to the lake at this time. Thiesse noted historically they served a purpose,which was for access to the lake. Bollis asked approximately how many of these accesses exist in Orono. Curtis stated she does not have an exact number. Barnhart stated to his knowledge there are between 27 to 35. Ressler asked if this right-of-way is earmarked for utility improvement in the future. Curtis indicated there is an existing catch basin and storm water pipe. Libby asked how big the culvert is. Thiesse indicated it is 15-inch. Steve Paidosh,Applicant, stated their original purpose here was to tear down the existing family home and build a new home on the property. Another purpose was to relocate the public street access to the property from County Road 19 or North Shore Drive to Park Drive, which is a small residential street. Relocation of that street access requires the new structure to be positioned differently than the current home. The existing house is a walkout rambler and the new design is for an L-shaped home. When the garage is built out like that, it has to be pushed further back, and that is when issues with the setback to the neighbor came up. Page 2 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Paidosh indicated he spoke with Christine Mattson originally trying to understand what the rules are and the required setbacks. A meeting was then held with the architect to discuss the home design and an updated survey was required to determine the building envelope. The architect then notified them that the structure would exceed the setbacks due to the change in access. The architect suggested a meeting be held with the City of Orono to discuss the possibility of a lakeside variance. Paidosh indicated he met in early January with Jeremy Barnhart,who then proposed the option of vacating the rights-of-way and stated in his view he felt Staff would be open-minded to that versus pursuing a variance. The vacation application was then submitted along with all the other proper documents. Staff informed us at that time that Planning Staff was now not supportive of the request and that a variance might be better. Paidosh stated after discussing the matter, he and his wife decided not to pull the application. Paidosh noted building plans and setbacks are not required for land vacation and that they cannot create structure drawings until after the vacation application. Paidosh stated they would like to treat Bluff Street as an unimproved right-of-way, with the rationale that 50 percent goes to one side and 50 percent to the other. If a line is drawn from that point up to the neighbor on the west,that would allow the house to shift down without pursuing a vacation, and what Jeremy had proposed solved the setback problem. Paidosh stated this is not an attempt at a land grab for either himself or his neighbor and that he would be accepting additional tax liability without receiving much use of the land due to the proposed easement to maintain the catch basin and storm water pipe. The easement would prevent him from building on the vacated land. The house could probably be slid up slightly from the current setback and they are not constructing a McMansion. Paidosh stated the only benefit he would get is the ability to build a new structure beyond the current setback. Until the first meeting with Jeremy,they were not aware of a land vacation and their intent in meeting with Staff was to gain guidance and understand what a reasonable lakeside setback for the structure would be and to help keep the costs down. Paidosh commented the process has been a bit frustrating due to the lack of continuity within the Planning Department in supporting the vacation application. Paidosh suggested this option not be discussed if there is no appetite for supporting it and that he is open to other suggestions. Erickson asked whether a new driveway would be created. Paidosh indicated there would be and that they have had to go to all-wheel drive vehicles due to issues with their current driveway. The other side has a more gradual slope and that they look at this as an opportunity to relocate it. Erickson stated any time someone can have their entrance on a lower traffic road,that has very positive implications for traffic safety. Paidosh stated his triplets will be driving soon and it is a safety factor. In fairness to Planning Staff,they have been supportive of the driveway relocation. Thiesse asked whether they could access from the other side if the garage is placed on that side of the house. Page 3 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Paidosh indicated it is pretty steep topography and would likely create other issues. Erickson asked whether the applicant has given any thought to planting any native grasses along the shoreline to help improve water quality. Paidosh stated people have approached them on that in the past and that it might be something he would consider in the future. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Thiesse noted he did not hear any benefit to the City for vacating the rights-of-way and that the DNR and City Staff is against it. Thiesse stated he does not recall the City ever vacating any property that provides access to the lake, and for that reason, he would have to say no to the request. Gettman stated he has a neighbor who has a narrow lot like this and that they have been told numerous times they cannot build that far down because of the two neighboring homes as well as issues with getting the house to fit outside the easement. Gettman indicated he is struggling to find a justification for the vacation and that he has not heard what other kind of easement adjustment there could be or whether this is the last resort. Bollis stated he does not see a public benefit to the vacation and that he would like to see a variance application. Bollis asked if there any type of setback issue with relocating the driveway onto Park Lane. Curtis stated the City Engineer had also suggested the relocation of the driveway access. Erickson stated to some extent the vacation benefits the other neighbor more than the applicant because that property is smaller and narrower to begin with,which currently is a nonconforming use at four-tenths of an acre in a one-acre zone. By taking advantage of this vacation,that neighbor would pick up more land,which would allow that property owner to be more in compliance. Erickson stated the City should always try and get people going in the positive direction towards the ordinances whenever they can. In addition,both neighbors would have the benefit of the vacated property, which would go on the tax rolls, especially with the applicant constructing a new house. Erickson indicated he likes the shifting of the driveway to Park, and if the applicant would be willing to plant some native grasses,that would have some environmental benefits. After serving on the Watershed District for five years,Erickson stated if they think about invasive species on the lake, such as zebra mussels and how they got from Duluth to Lake Minnetonka,the only answer is from boat accesses. The eggs of the zebra mussel are microscopic, go undetected on a boat,and then go into the lake when that boat is launched. Similar things could be said about other invasive species. Theoretically, if there were no boat accesses on Lake Minnetonka,there would be no zebra mussels or milfoil. The City already has a goodly number of accesses,and as was mentioned earlier,the Hennepin County boat ramp is two minutes way and the state has a huge facility that is three minutes away. Page 4 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson stated it would be a lot more of a problem if they were to try to develop this right-of-way into a lake access. Curtis noted that is not what is being proposed and lake access is not the only purpose for having it. Erickson stated Park Drive is 966 feet above sea level and the high-water mark of Lake Minnetonka is 929 feet,which means there is a drop of 37 feet from front to back and creates about a 12 percent average grade. The City has other accesses that are relatively flat and much more developable and practical and safe. Erickson stated his reading of the state statute does not preclude an easement for drainage and that it says the governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned easement or any portion thereof which is not being used. While there is a portion that is being used,the City has the authority to vacate all of it except for that portion which is being used as a storm sewer. One way to accomplish that would be to vacate the whole thing subject to an easement, and the applicant has expressed a willingness to provide an easement for the storm sewer,which is essentially the same thing as what the state statute is saying. As far as the DNR goes, in the second half of their letter,they acknowledge that if the City should choose to vacate the entire parcel,that easements are okay for utilities. The DNR also recommended that the City encourage the applicant to relocate his driveway on Park Drive, which is all of the things that the applicant is volunteering to do. Libby asked if there is any intention to construct on the portion of the vacated right-of-way. Paidosh indicated there is not. Libby noted the easement would still leave the responsibility to the City for maintaining the storm sewer. With the City actually having a 15-inch culvert there,which seems like it is working very well even with the 100-year rain events,that storm sewer likely will have to stay there, and the City will still have to have access. Even if no structure is built there,the City will still need access,and even with the easement there could still be a hindrance of some type. Libby indicated his tendency is not to be in favor of vacating the right-of-way. McCutcheon stated Orono is a lakeshore city and that there are various ordinances in place to help protect the lake. McCutcheon indicated he probably is not in favor of this request,but given the setbacks and in looking at other variances that have been granted in the past,there might be some wiggle room and he would recommend that approach. Ressler asked whether having that drainage easement means something has been created and needs to be maintained. Curtis indicated that is true. Ressler noted there was a previous application for a variance where the structure was coming right up against the property of the Railroad Authority and that the City is even more sensitive to lakeshore. Ressler stated he does not know if the City has ever considered granting something less permanent, such as a land lease where it can be revoked after a certain period of time. Ressler stated he knows these Page 5 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. accesses and easements have also partially been put in place for emergency vehicles, and asked whether there are other accesses on Forest Lake Bay. Paidosh indicated there are but they likely would not be used for emergency vehicle access due to the grade. This access is tree covered and has a steep grade, which would probably require a lot of grading changes if there is to be vehicle access to the lake. There is a place across the lake where the street comes close to the lake. Paidosh indicated he is not sure if it is public property but the homeowners' association owns it, and that is where he would go to save someone's life on the lake rather than this spot. Paidosh stated the reason behind the storm sewer being located in this right-of-way is that there was a house built two doors down and they regraded the property. The proposed grading was missed on the Watershed plan and it pushed the water down to his lot and the neighbor's property. That property owner got permission from the DNR to run a direct line down, which is why that 15-inch line was put there. Gettman asked why he has chosen to follow this path rather than pursue a variance. Paidosh stated he is following the process that was initially recommended. Erickson stated as it relates to the comments about emergency use,he does have some personal experience with that. A few years ago somebody with a boat came up to a neighbor's house and the person went in the house. The police were called, and when they arrived,the police did not ask where the fire lane was and they did not ask who owns what. Erickson indicated the police went across his lawn and out on his dock, and that he got the impression that had he objected, it really would not have mattered. The police also went on the neighboring property. Eventually the water patrol came up. Erickson stated if someone is drowning on the lakeshore,they would access in as straight of a line as possible and that the whole thing about these fire lanes being needed for emergency use is overblown. Orono has approximately 50 of these fire lanes and half of them have never been used. This one just happens to have a storm sewer on it. Ressler stated in his view there is merit for emergency access and that the problem with the Hennepin County access was that they did not have a boat at that spot,which is now allowed. Thiesse noted that was a Hennepin County right-of-way. Ressler stated there are lots of parts of Lake Minnetonka located in Orono that may not serve any future use. If there is another area that could potentially be of future use that emergency vehicles could utilize, that would be easier. Ressler stated perhaps a variance is more suitable here and easier to obtain than a vacation, which is permanent and sets a standard. Ressler stated he does not see enough mitigants here to approve the vacation. Erickson moved to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000017,Steve and Jennifer Paidosh,4300 North Shore Drive,subject to an easement being given. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. LA19-000017, Steve and Jennifer Paidosh,4300 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Erickson opposed. 2. LA19-000027 MIKE JOHNSRUD, 135 LUCE LINE RIDGE,VARIANCE, 7:18 P.M.— 7:56 P.M. Page 6 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mike Johnsrud,Applicant,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the allowed square footage for an oversized accessory structure from 1,200 to 1,432 square feet. The property is located in a planned residential development within the RR-1A zoning district,which is a 5-acre zoning district. The property is permitted to have a total of 2,400 accessory building square footage. It is permitted to have one oversized accessory structure, but no single structure may exceed 1,200 square feet. The existing detached building was built in 2017. The property owner is requesting to add a 280 square foot addition to the existing 1,152 square foot building creating a 1,432 square foot building. This would be 232 square feet over the allowed 1,200 square foot footprint. The code allows a secondary accessory structure not to exceed 999 square feet on the property. The proposal meets the setbacks. The application regulations have been included in Staffs memo. Staff finds the submitted application does not meet the practical difficulties standards. The applicant has indicated they need the additional square footage for trailer storage due to theft and vandalism and safety and security for their possessions. The applicant further believes that the addition is financially beneficial, environmentally beneficial, and neighborly. Staff finds the applicant can meet the City Code by building a separate accessory structure. There are not any unique circumstances with the land or the use to support a variance to allow an accessory building larger than the code would permit. The applicant has not demonstrated that the property is unique to support the variance and reasonable use of the property has been achieved via the construction of the house and the 1,152 square foot accessory structure. To date no public comments have been received,but the applicant did submit signatures of the neighbors in support of the project. Gettman asked what the required amount of space between the two buildings is. Oakden stated to her understanding it is ten feet according to state building code. Gettman asked whether there is that room. Oakden indicated they could possibly pivot the building slightly to achieve that ten feet or construct it on the other side of the property. Gettman asked whether other options were discussed with the applicant. Oakden stated a specific location was not discussed and is left up to the applicant. Oakden stated it is her belief the applicant did speak with other staff members about possible options. Mike Johnsrud,Applicant, stated he would like to add on to his current structure since where the gravel area currently is a structure will not fit. The proposed location is the most environmentally friendly spot. The elevation is quite steep behind the existing structure, so getting down there creates a number of problems. To the right of the existing structure is where this structure would sit. Page 7 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Johnsrud indicated he spoke with the neighbor to the right and that a structure could be located 20 feet away from the property line but that would require the removal of at least five trees. No grading or tree removal would be necessary if the addition was constructed in the proposed location. The structure would also not be seen from the road. In addition,the homeowners' association was contacted,who sent out a letter to every member, and none were opposed to it. Johnsrud stated in his view this is the most neighborly thing to do since it would be further away, is less expensive, and more environmentally friendly. Gettman asked what other restrictions are imposed by the homeowners' association. Johnsrud stated he is not sure what those would be. Gettman stated unless there is no other choice, it is difficult to approve the variance. Johnsrud stated there might be restrictions in the HOA documents but he is not aware of them. Gettman asked whether there is a restriction on cutting down trees. Johnsrud stated to his knowledge there is not but he is not completely sure. Libby asked if the homeowners' association has an architectural committee. Johnsrud stated there is a volunteer architectural committee and that all of these materials were approved by the HOA. Libby asked whether the floor surface of the new addition would be concrete. Johnsrud indicated it would be gravel and the exterior would match what is currently there. The front would have brick and the two sides would be LP siding. Ressler noted the homeowners' association would be enforcing their rules separate from this application. Erickson stated the square footage fits within the total amount allowed for the property, and as he reads the regulation, if the applicant separated the addition by a few feet and made a second building,that would be okay, but because it is being combined with the other structure,then it requires a variance. Johnsrud stated his understanding is that as long as there is a 10-foot separation,he can construct another 999 square foot building,but he cannot add on to this structure because it would go over the 1,200 square foot limit. Erickson asked if the applicant would be willing to sign away any other options to construct a second building in the future. Johnsrud indicated he would and that there are very few options on the lot for the second structure. Ressler asked whether that condition could be imposed by the City. Page 8 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated to his knowledge the City cannot take away those rights and that he would have to check with the City Attorney. Erickson indicated he is leaning towards granting the variance but subject to the stipulation that there will not be a second structure on the property. McCutcheon commented he is not a fan of this ordinance since it does not take into account a situation like this. The neighbors approve of the proposal, it is environmentally friendly, no additional driveway is needed, and the structure will be well screened. The only negative is it is against the ordinance, but he is allowed to build another 999 square foot structure. McCutcheon stated it is a good-looking garage and he is all for it. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. McCutcheon stated common sense-wise the proposal makes sense. It does not seem like the applicant is asking for much and that he agrees with every point the applicant made. Libby commented he is a boat and trailer guy but that the City has stipulations and guidelines for good reasons and Staff's recommendation is not to grant it. Erickson indicated he would agree with Commissioner McCutcheon, especially since the applicant would be giving up his rights to construct a second building on the property. Ressler noted the City cannot prohibit him from building another structure. Barnhart stated Staff will verify with the City Attorney on whether such a condition could be imposed but that Staff would like to hear comments from the Planning Commission on the application outside of that condition. Bollis stated what he sees makes a lot of sense, but it does not fit within the code. Bollis indicated he would be in favor of allowing the variance with the condition that there is no secondary building. Gettman asked why there is a 1,200 square foot restriction on an individual accessory building and how that number was picked, especially when another 999 square foot structure can be built on the lot. Oakden stated one of the purposes is the size of the lot. Since this lot is under three acres, it would fall under that threshold. Curtis stated the table is a sliding scale and is based on the size of the lot. The amount of allowable square footage increases as the lot size gets bigger. Curtis indicates she does not know what the rationale was when that limit was created in the 1990s. Barnhart stated Staff did not change that ratio with the latest amendment. Staff encounters that question quite a bit and runs into situations where the next applicant will come forward and want one extra foot. Page 9 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff does not have sheaths of information to back up the number,but that is where it has been set, and the application has to be judged based on the uniqueness of the lot. Gettman asked if there is some practical difficulty in not conforming with the 1,200 square foot limit. Gettman indicated he is not in favor of a variance. Thiesse stated part of the ordinance is to control massing, but in controlling massing,the City will let him build a larger structure than what he is requesting, which is really not controlling massing. Thiesse stated in his view a new building would be wider and have a peaked roof on it,which creates more massing than what the applicant is proposing. Thiesse stated in his mind they are meeting the intent of the code since it is to reduce massing. Ressler commented an argument could be made that a 5-foot setback variance would probably be easier to get a variance for than this. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could look at an oversized structure in lieu of an accessory structure. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can encourage the application of a condition foregoing a second structure. Ressler stated perhaps they could change the language and say that this is the accessory structure and that they are just allowing him to attach the second structure. Ressler indicated he is in support of the application on the condition that some sort of contingency be attached allowing no other structure later. Oakden stated if the City Attorney determines that condition is not deemed feasible, Staff would like some other direction from the Planning Commission. Ressler stated without that contingency in place,he personally would not be in favor of it since it is not allowed by the ordinance. If the stipulation is not in place,he would recommend denial. Thiesse noted this has to do with the fact that the property owner is allowed an additional 999 square feet, and if this is approved,the applicant would only be allowed 300 and some feet of another structure. McCutcheon stated under common sense, if the goal is to reduce massing,the ordinance should be looked at again to see why someone cannot have one large building versus two. Ressler asked whether he would still be in support of the structure if a condition preventing a second structure were not allowed. McCutcheon indicated he would be in favor of it either way. Ressler stated if they want to change the ordinance,that is something that could be considered in the future, but that the Planning Commission has to go off the rules as they exist today. Libby stated in his view the idea of trying to limit the applicant from building more structure later by placing a contingency on the approval is not within the scope of the Planning Commission's decision to make. Libby indicated he would not be in favor of recommending a contingency that would deprive this Page 10 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. applicant from having other structures on his property without him obtaining legal counsel,and that the Planning Commission has a guideline to follow regardless if they feel it is flawed at this point. Erickson indicated he would be in favor of a motion to approve the variance and at the same time ask Staff to work on an appropriate condition that might apply to this particular application. Ressler asked if Commissioner Erickson's motion would be based on the condition and recommendation to deny the applicant's right to a future structure at some point. Erickson stated he would approve it subject to language being drafted. Gettman suggested they ask the City Attorney how that language could be attached to the deed since a variance would be allowing a successor property owner to put another accessory structure on the property. Barnhart stated he is hearing some support from the Commission about supporting the variance with a desire to limit the construction of a second structure. The Commission's questions about opening the door to others is why the Commission reviews the practical difficulties,the uniqueness of the lot, and the standards for the variance. If those items do not meet the standards,the application should be denied,and reviewing the ordinance for possible changes is separate from this application. Libby asked where it would leave them if the motion is passed and the attorney declines the proposal. Barnhart stated if the motion is done as recommended,the City Council can choose what they want to follow. The City Council can either remand it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion or they can make a different motion. Ressler stated identify some practical difficulties Erickson moved,Bollis seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000027,Mike Johnsrud, 135 Luce Line Ridge,granting of a variance to exceed the allowable square footage for an oversize accessory structure,with the condition that a second accessory structure not be allowed on the property at any point in the future. Thiesse stated he can vote for the motion in order to get it before the City Council,but that he is not in favor of the stipulation. McCutcheon stated the ultimate goal is to reduce massing and that he would be in favor of the variance without the condition. Ressler noted the Planning Commission will be voting on the motion that includes that condition. If the motion fails, a new motion can be made. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3; Gettman,McCutcheon, and Libby opposed. 3. LA19-000028 STEVEN EGGERT ON BEHALF OF LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, OUTLOT A IVY PLACE,VARIANCE,7:56 P.M.—8:20 P.M. Page 11 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curt Fretham and Steve Eggert, Lake West Development,was present Barnhart stated the applicant is looking to replat the property to provide Lot 1 with lake frontage on the lagoon side of the property and an easement through Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. Currently there is not lake frontage due to the outlot. The purpose behind the requirement of a separate outlot for front/back lot configurations is in part to consolidate driveway accesses, prevent flag lots, and allow for maintenance. The lack of an outlot is not likely to alter the essential character of the community. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The applicant notes that the dock was shown on a concept plan. However, it is not customary to review these types of improvements for final approval because, in most situations,these are conceptual and often change as the footprint and hardcover proposals change. Further,the application did not request dock approval or hardcover approval or building footprint approval. Miscommunication between the developer and the City is not a practical difficulty. Replatting Lot 1 and the outlot will increase the size of Lot 1. When those two parcels are combined into one,the size of Lot 1 would be 9,600 square feet bigger and an additional amount of hardcover would be added to Lot 1,but it does not exceed the allowable limit. Staffs analysis concluded that many of the variance standards are met. The Planning Commission should determine if the standards are adequately satisfied,and if the Planning Commission feels the standards for a practical difficulty are satisfied, a motion recommending approval of the variance should be made. Thiesse asked what has changed about the application from a 30,000-foot view. Barnhart stated from a perception standpoint for the neighborhood,the change between an outlot and an access easement would not be noticed. Thiesse stated he did not notice a dock on the plans the first time this was reviewed and that it was his impression there would be a dock on the lagoon. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not approving or reviewing the docks at this time,and if it is a seasonal dock, a permit through the City would be required. Ressler requested Staff show an overhead view of the area. Barnhart pointed out Outlot A, Lot 1,and Lot 2 on the overhead. One of the unique factors is that Outlot A connects to the end of Ivy Place, which does not continue through to the neighboring lot. That access is via a private easement between private property owners. Barnhart noted the City rarely sees this situation. Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated as they went through this process,they tried to address everything upfront. The dock was clearly an oversight during the process. Fretham noted they did not show the dock on all the plans, such as the utility and tree removal plans,since that is typically not done. Page 12 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The dock was shown, however, on a number of the plans, but was not shown on the final plat because it would not be included on that. Fretham stated the proposal cleans up the lakeshore side and gives the homeowner a nice view of the lake as well as everybody else on the lake. Fretham noted they did not realize there was a separate permit process with the City and that they received the permits for the two docks from the LMCD. They were informed that Orono is the only city that requires a separate permit from the LMCD. Fretham stated if someone drives by,they would not be able to tell if it is an outlot or an easement down to the lake. It is important to us because the lot was sold and plans for that dock were shared with the purchaser. The new property owner was excited to have a dock. Fretham stated he did not stand up to his end of that deal in that transaction and that he is attempting to correct the situation. If a dock is not possible,he is not sure how the situation will turn out,but that he is attempting to get the property owner what was promised. McCutcheon asked if they want permanent dock or a seasonal dock. Fretham stated they made a permanent dock application to the LMCD, who approved it, but they were told they also had to obtain a permit from the City because it attaches to the land. Fretham stated it is not a matter of a dock or not, but it is a matter of where it should be placed. The property still has 129 feet of lakeshore on the lakeside and it is a matter of where the right place to put the dock is. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Rusty Cocoon, Shoreview, stated when they saw the dock on the plan,they were excited about it, and that they are planning on planting native grass down by the lake. The outlot will be plowed and maintained and is basically a private drive. There will be very little traffic down there and the road is basically one and a half lanes. Cocoon stated he does not believe it will disrupt the public by having a dock down there. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Thiesse asked if Lot 2 deeded the lot back to Lot 1,whether that would solve the same problem. Barnhart indicated it would. The ordinance requires the outlot but there are other ways to address the concerns. Ressler asked if Staff has any preference on how to handle this. Barnhart stated what is being proposed is a variance that allows the two lots to be replatted as one. At a minimum,the City will require a variance. From a practical difficulty standpoint and the uniqueness of the situation,the situation is not likely to be replicated elsewhere in the community. Thiesse noted the City has approved what is going on out there and that he can see a practical difficulty since in the past any person who has had an opportunity to put a boat in a sheltered area has been allowed to do so. Thiesse stated in his view it is a reasonable proposal. Gettman stated he would support this as a plausible way of getting it resolved. Page 13 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bollis indicated he is in favor of the dock on that side but that he does not know whether this is the easiest way to do it or not. Barnhart stated Staff did look at a number of solutions and that the City does not see a lot of variances when it comes to this. Staff feels this is the best solution they can think of. Erickson stated he is leaning in favor of the variance and that he agrees with the statement in the report that the end of the peninsula is not of the applicant's making and is unique to this property. Because of that uniqueness,there is not a concern about this setting a precedent. Libby indicated he also would support a variance. McCutcheon stated he agrees with the comments made by the other commissioners and that it appears to be an oversight. Ressler stated he does not see any malicious intent and that this appears to be an oversight. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not approving that other information just because it happens to show up on a plan. A practical difficulty is not that it showed up on a plan previously since a number of things show up on a plan but are later changed. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission did not approve other changes that were made to the plan after they reviewed it. Ressler stated this solution seems reasonable and that he would be in support of this particular application. Libby moved,Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000028, Steven Eggert on behalf of Lake West Development,Outlot A, Ivy Place,granting of a variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,8:20 P.M.—8:27 P.M. Curtis noted in December the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 222 and Summary Ordinance No. 223 regarding changes to the regulations relating to accessory buildings and accessory structures. This was a comprehensive amendment meant to capture all of the language changes/edits Staff determined necessary as well as provide a thoughtful revision to the required setbacks of both accessory buildings and accessory structures. The requirement for the building to be"conforming with respect to location, size,and height"was intended to be removed from each of the conditional use sections of the preceding sections to be replaced with the language outlined in Staffs report. The amendment would affect those changes as originally anticipated as well as remove the current conflict and ambiguity in the Code. To date, no public comments have been received. Page 14 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. McCutcheon indicated he would be in support of the application. Erickson stated he is not sure of the application given the amount of paperwork concerning accessory buildings. Curtis noted Staff is only requesting the one change tonight. Ressler asked if the change would be a simplification of the ordinance. Curtis stated Staff is asking that words be deleted that were intended to be deleted the first time around but were missed. Bollis indicated he is fine with the changes. Gettman indicated he has no issues with the request. Thiesse stated he is fine with the request. Libby stated he is fine with the change. Ressler stated the City is trying to simplify the ordinance and that he is in support of it. Gettman moved,Bollis seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000057, City of Orono,Text Amendment Related to Plumbing in Accessory Buildings. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 5. UPDATE ON MAY 13,2019,CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: - The application for 1095 Ferndale Road West was extended - The variance for 4470 Forest Lake Landing was approved on consent - The Conditional Use permit and IUP at 1400 Brackets Point for the grading was approved - The resolution for 3593 Crystal Bay was approved - The resolution for 4775 North Shore Drive was approved - The application by Nor-Son Builders at 1600 Bohns Point Road was approved - The variance requested by Streeter&Associates was approved - Joint use dock licenses were approved - The Bollis preliminary plat application was tabled - The 7-lot subdivision at 690 Brown Road was approved on consent - The Council provided feedback on an access issue relating to Pence Lane - There was some discussion by the Council to reissue marina licenses Page 15 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 20,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION McCutcheon asked whether anyone from the Planning Commission is on the ordinance review committee. Barnhart stated there is a development process review committee,which identifies items to help make the process simpler,and is separate from a review of the ordinances. The Planning Commission can recommend that certain ordinances be reviewed separately from that process,and often in November there is a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Barnhart noted that joint meeting was not held last year but that they may initiate it again for this year. ADJOURNMENT Erickson moved,Thiesse seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:33 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: _ ill Jon Ressler,Chair Page 16 of 16