HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutesk'
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VII D I i �n� UTES O IVA I&vt iv
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
Ypresent• Chair Ste rihen Peterson Can4lra Smith Dale T inµln�.:.ct F'l;Za�`eth ua:vp and
Y , L , u y
William Stoddard. Charles Schroeder and Janice Berg were absent. The following
represented the City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and
Recorder Sherry Frost. Councilmember Goetten and Mayor Callahan were present. Chair
Peterson called the. meeting to nnder at 7:00 p.m.
Peterson welcomed Bill Stoddard to the Planning Commission. Stoddard was recently
annninted to the Commission by the Council.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGSlPUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW
( #1) #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST -
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:02 -7:40 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Jim Pfennig and Laurie Lundeen were present along with surveyor, Mark Gronberg.
• Mabusth reported that the property consists of 17 acres and was reviewed in a sketch plan
at the March, 1996, meeting The key issue as access, and the di; #iculty of r,rovidi"S " nR 'n
Y
internal road to serve all six lots based on topography, location of wetlands, narrowness of
17 acre parcel and desire to preserve building sites. The road as nronosed serving lots 1;
3, and 4 would preserve the views to the south and east. The existing access at lot 6 to
the south of the prntnarty nPPrIC to he eliminated as it is uncafP and Pnr.rnaches tnrnpPrty to
south. A new access would be provided along the shared lot lines of lots 5 and 6. A new
uvves$ ivr ivt 2 vvvu.d be iva. "Lt 375 wuth of the - interseCtion of Cc Rds 8v4 and 10 The
County, Mabusth reported, has approved the locations for the two new curb cuts.
Mabusth continued by reporting on the wetland areas within the property. There are
designated ;ilet1wids and type 1 and 2 wetlands, ;x,hich nre not r„lecirrnaterrl ;x7etlandg and r
b..
the City code but are protected under State and National laws. The applicants will be
asked to file the usual protective covenants on the chain of title of each of the lots that
contain these type 1 or 2 wetlands.
In reviewing the hardships for not providing an internal road to serve all lots, topography
and location of wetlands ..'ere noted. The need for the septic to meet the 604 slope
requirement is also a concern. The internal road has been designed to provide a road
outlot extension to serve property to the east when developed.
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO- PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
(91 - 92136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued)
Mabusth reported that all 12 septic sites tested will require mound systems. The existing
residential Septic system is failing on lot 6a.nd nrima.ry and alternate sites were tested.
Eleven of the sites meet the 6% slope requirement, The alternate site for lot 6 is at an 8%
Onne xxThirh wnQ ntnrnrn%n -d h�r W,-A -man ThP nrnnnearl nrimary Site drips not mPPt the
r. r ... r- ....w -�
75' separation from the well, but would meet the State setback. The applicant could be
i d to 1. c"atte the n
as11�.0 LV rt,1V t+LLLL✓ Lily YY X11,
Mabusth described the variances required with the proposal. Three of the lots served at
the cul -de -sac do not meet the width requirement. Applicant's surveyor noted lot 1 is
surrounded by County road at the north and west, and lot 4 by the future road on that
airing the east. Lot width variances, have hPen granters by the Citv in the. pact fnr the into
adjacent to the. cul -de -sac. Mabusth noted that lots 2, 3, and 4 are long and narrow.
1;/Iabi:Sth asked thA (vmmicein» hn,v thin: xx,n„1r1 nh,.ciroll� d`nfine tl;° rear int lines nFtlta
V UUiVii 1V YY .7 Vl,iiLi �/ ,'Ui VLL11,' V {Ai L U - V
3 parcels and protected septic sites from uses of future property owners.
Peterson asked how that could be accomplished and still protect the septic sites? Mabusth
Said ciune nr nlantinvc ara nnecihilitiec Nit cnnw fenr.ina was not arr.Pntahle ac it nnidd he
easily removed. Mabusth said it shall be the responsibility of all three owners to know the
boun},..,, »rl ,r;en Lindquist rim,'n4 Lori `{-`4i�;n »r,tat;r.» lri FYe »lam eri » ti,e rleerin L,,,+ A fol.,,nti,
LLL11VJ. Lindquist asked 11 his 11V Latin 1 could VLF il1CLVt�d on. the deedd J, but A4l 1,U +11.
• said property owners are not always aware of what is recorded on the chain of title.
Mahnsth informed Peterson that there atP_. no plans for se_.wP_.ring the area in the near
future.
Mark Gronberg noted if lot 1 was built on, a mound system would be used, and would
define the system.
Smith noted the difficulty in defining the septic sites for lots 2, 3, and 4, especially with the
need to go through a septic site area to get to the lots. She suggested the establishment of
a corridor to notate inhere the septic sites would go. Mabusth asked if this would be a
natural harrier? Cmith caul it nnidd he rhAineatPrs anrnc5 the two nrnnerty lines
Peterson commented on the question of balance in developing the property and possible
nPPrl to PliminatP a 1nt whit -h wac nntPr) during the elretnh nlan rPViPw NP nntPrl that if a
lot was eliminated, it would solve the width and septic problems. Peterson said the
C» »l,. -n »t i,e�,--A ti,in 'rim, I— en» rie.i „ 11 4; »n +L,e ;nm,en .i,er 4, »,Ye »4 n» ♦i,o
il. p"VLLll L, VL�'V11U L1LJ iJJI{e, 11uJ rL'Jilo11L1VV VY Vll, 11V L1115 L11V 1JJUVJ VYe a co11L,.nge .+, V11 L11V
14 recommendations made by Staff.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
•
( #1 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued)
Jim Pfennig of Greenfield Corporation asked to respond. He noted that the property to
the east, which is proposed to have road access from Outlot B, has an outlot access
located more to the east. Regarding the septic site discussion, Pfennig said the subdivision
would have an architectural review committee and covenants. He thought the first owners
would have knowledge of the septic sites but did not know if that would continue with
subsequent owners.
Pfennig remarked concerning lot 1 and the 200' frontage on the County roads. He noted if
Outlot A was extended to the west, there could be more frontage, but he did not believe it
would make sense to blacktop in order to gain the 200' width. He also noted that the type
1 and 2 wetlands go up to Win elevation, which is unusual. Gronberg added that alot of
the area will not be landscaped. He envisioned lawn for the areas adjacent to building sites
and road but then leaving the remainder natural. Pfennig said the initial plans were to
plant in alfalfa.
Gronberg commented that there is a loss of 70' with Outlot B and the 50' road setback
rather than a 30' side setback at east lot line. Outlot B will not benefit this development.
Gronberg said he saw the development as similar to a PUD with clustering to the north,
but saw no problem with the septic sites being close together as it does not interfere with
• the wells.
Peterson asked about easements. Mabusth said the City will asking for a bike easement
along North Shore Drive and Bayside Road. The County has recently shown a
comprehensive bike trail plan along North Shore Drive on the east side. The Park
Commission asked for a bike trail within the drainage and utility easement. Mabusth said
there is an issue with lots 5 and 6 regarding additional right -of -way. There will be a 10'
easement. Mabusth said Weckman informed her the bike trail easement of 10' will not
impact lots 5 and 6. The County's comprehensive plan calls for 46' of additional right -of-
way and trail easement. The City will ask for only 10' of bike trail easement and no
additional right -of -way adjacent to lots 5 and 6.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist asked what different would occur regarding width if outlot B was eliminated.
Gronberg said lot 3 and 4's lot widths would be expanded. Lot lines would be moved with
lot 4 to the east and lot 3 would be alittle larger.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
•
( #1 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued)
Mabusth reported that the developer is being asked to grade the road bed in outlot B for
future use for the property to the east. It is Staffs understanding that the owner of
property to east does not plan to develop at this time but plans only to construct his own
residence and driveway. The road bed will be seeded and grassed. Pfennig said he met
with the owner and discussed the plans. He added that care would be needed in dealing
with the wetlands.
Gronberg informed Mabusth that he has submitted an application to the MCWD but no
action has been taken. Mabusth said the sediment detention pond may have an impact on
lot 4. Gronberg said this would come into play when the road was paved. Mabusth noted
the occurrence of runoff from proposed drainageway along west side of Outlot B. Pfennig
said he was willing to dig the pond at this time. The pond would be partially located in lot
4.
Mabusth clarified that there would be a drainage pond in the northeast corner. A
drainageway easement would extend from Outlot A to the pond at northwest corner.
Gronberg said there are two drainage divides with drainage running to a culvert under Co
Rd 19, north under Co Rd 19, and northwest through ditches to the lake. The southern
drainage runs toward Lakeview Golf Course. Gronberg noted most houses will be to the
• north, which is the reason the pond leads to CoRd 19 so as not to increase the runoff. He
added that when the blacktop is done, there will be some additional runoff to the south.
Peterson asked if the Engineer agreed with the grading plan? He suggested the sediment
pond be established right away.
Smith asked if there were other developments with similar situations regarding the house,
septic, and wetlands, especially noting lot 4. Mabusth noted similarities with the lots in
the Farm at Long Lake approved in 1978. Lindquist said that property has worked out
well.
Gaffron noted the lack of flexibility for the buyer of lot 4. Smith said the potential
problem should be made aware to any buyers. Mabusth said the covenants will expose the
problems, especially with the drainage easement over detention ponds, and protective
covenants dealing with wetlands and septic.
Smith said her main concern was that no future problems be created for the City and noted
that the land being developed was marginal.
0
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
0 ( #1 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued)
Stoddard asked Mabusth about the City's positionreview regarding the lot width variance.
Mabusth said the width was tight with the location of the road and the more restrictive
road setback at east lot line of lot 4. She commented that this occurs often adjacent to
cul -de -sacs. It was noted that lot 1 is surrounded by County roads. Lot 4 is adjacent to a
future road_ Mabusth advised lot width is measured from access road. Mabusth said Staff
is concerned with lot 4. Pfennig interjected that lot 4 is the best lot. Mabusth agreed that
the development has kept the vistas open.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2136 with Staff
recommendations as listed and the inclusion in the grading plan of a pond area within lot 4
and the extension of outlot A to the east. Lot width variances are recommended for
approval. The covenants will delineate the septic sites along with the wetland delineation.
The site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence on lot 6 must meet the 26'
separation from the designated wetlands and be 20' from any septic sites. The 17' of
additional right -of -way along the west boundaries of lots 1 and 2 will be for North Shore
Drive only, not Bayside. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ACTION ITEMS
• ( #2) #2112 RICHARD PUTNAM, 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER THE
FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 -7:48 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Gaffron reported that the application was for an after- the -fact variance for hardcover in
the replacement of an existing deck in -kind, which was built before treated wood was
available. The proposal replaces hardcover when the property is already over the 25%
allowable; thus, the need for the variance.
Gaffron noted a resolution for a remodel from five years ago, which included an addition
as well as a garage addition. It was approved as an attached garage. In reviewing the
hardcover for this application, it was found that the hardcover changed from 40.2% to
44.45 %. The new survey results in an additional 400 s.f of hardcover_ The lot area on
this new survey is less resulting in an increase in the hardcover calculations. Gaffron said
the hardcover differences are likely due to the differing surveys and interpretations of rock
walls. He noted that the patio blocks and walkway areas are necessary to this property
and are as intended in the 1987 application. Gaffron; therefore_, recommends approval of
the application noting the applicant has paid the after- the -fact fee and the necessity of the
deck replacement.
5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
•
( #2 - #2112 Richard Putnam - Continued)
Putnam added that the deck was falling down, and he could not wait for variance approval
to receive the permit before reconstructing the deck.
There were no public comments.
Smith commented that if the deck had not already been replaced, the Planning
Commission would look for additional areas for reduction of hardcover Gaffron said it
might be argued that the deck replacement is a continuation of work that was authorized
in 1987. He noted the pavers and rock walls were appropriate, and the width of the
driveway was necessary. Smith asked if the replacement was part of the past resolution.
Gaffron said it was not, but it could be argued that it possibly was based on the wording.
Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2112 per the
StatTs recommendation. Vote- Ayes 5, Nays 0_
Putnam asked to comment on the Casco Point area bringing the Commissioners attention
to the plat map in Exhibit B. He noted that although the area was zoned for 1/2 acre lots,
100' minimum width, and related setbacks, only 5 or 6 of the lots on the plat meet the 100'
width. Putnam said most of the lots do not meet the existing zoning codes, and he sees no
• merit to the codes as they exist. He does not understand the need for applicants to request
variances when the ordinances do not work for the properties on Casco Point. Putnam
noted that the homes in the area are not tear downs. He said Casco Point was a diverse
area, unique, and he is irritated by the social engineering caused by the bureaucracy, and
the waste of time and money spent in gaining approval for such projects as his deck
replacement. Putnam said others were not coming in to the City for review of projects but
doing work without permits, adding that the process was not working.
Smith commented about requesting reductions in hardcover and justification of existing
L
ardcover.
Putnam said the taxes were outrageous for the area and felt people were treated poorly.
He saw the issue as being a double standard between lakeshore and non - lakeshore
properties. Putnam asked that the Staff be allowed more flexibility in situations such as
what exists on Casco Point.
Peterson said he understood the frustration. He noted the problem with property owners
building more than what is allowed for the lot sizes.
Putnam asked that the City tell the County to put a "throttle" on taxes. He acknowledged
the job well -done by Staff in his dealings with the City in his remodeling, and asked the
• Commission to address these issues as soon as possible.
6
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
•
( #3) #2133 JOHN AND KARLA SPOONER, 1385 ORONO LANE - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HEARING 7:59 -8 :04 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant, Karla Spooner, was present_
Mabusth reported that the application is for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for
improvements to a lakeside deck. The existing deck consisting of 650 s.f of hardcover
would be removed, along with 37 s.f. of connecting brick walkway, and replaced with a
grade level granite patio. 1'x7' step will extend from both sides, and l'x24' step will
extend at the lakeside. The existing hardcover of 4,140 s.f is proposed at 3,851 s.f., for a
reduction of 298 s.f in the 0 -75' setback. Mabusth noted that the property is 1.2 acres of
which half is located in the 0 -75' setback. A 4'x6' cement pad is proposed being located
50' from the lake at the base of the stairs for use of outdoor cooking. The deck is 26' from
the lake. The proposed patio would be 40' from the lake. The proposal would result in an
overall improvement in reduction of hardcover.
The applicant said they were willing to give back in hardcover to replace with what is
suitable for the property.
• Peterson said he saw the proposal as an improvement to the existing conditions and to the
Lakeshore itself.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist voiced his approval of the proposal.
Mabusth informed Smith that the shoreland regulations allow for stairs and pad. Spooner
said the steps are not an access to lake but to replaceloose stone steps adjacent to the
house.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2133 as recommended. Vote:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
( #4) #2134 ROBERT CHARLES ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:04 -8:26 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
L
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
( #4 - #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht - Continued)
Gaffron reported that the after -the -fact request for hardcover variance was due to the
construction of a 207 s.f deck to the lakeside of the residence. Gaffron said the property
was originally in ownership with an adjacent lot, which was subsequently sold. Each lot
now has a house with amenities. A resolution in 1984 allowed for 2775 s.f of hardcover,
or 25% of the 75' -250' zone. A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence
subject to the use of grass pavers for the driveway resulting in a hardcover proposal of
19 %. It was found in 1991 that the driveway had been paved with asphalt and had
constructed decks without approval resulting in 5080 s.f of hardcover. The 19' driveway
with backup apron was approved in 1991 to eliminate the need to back up onto Co Rd 19.
Work in progress was recently stopped when it was found that another deck was being
constructed. Also seen was a hot tub, which is to be placed on the deck. This deck, along
with different interpretations of calculations, result iii 5352 s.f of hardcover; 270 s.f iliure
than what was approved in 1991. Including the area outside of the 75', there is a net
increase in hardcover of 165 s.f. Landscaping proposal by Otten Bros. of landscape patio
blocks result in a net increase of 54 s.f. of hardcover. The proposal is to reduce the
driveway to a narrower width and leave the backup apron, resulting in a net reduction of
35 s.f in the 75 -250' zone.
The lakeshore stairway, shown on the landscape plan, was rebuilt since 1991. This
• additional hardcover was addressed in 1991, and the owner was informed that a permit
would be required. The City also made an effort at that time to ensure that a new owner
would be aware of these restrictions. The stairway is 3'x19' long with a 6'x13' landing,
where 4'x4' is allowed. Gaffron said the square footage of the structure is not much more
than code would allow, but since ii is after -the -fact, it is necessary to review the structure.
Gaffron noted that the present owner has owned the property since 1991.
The applicant, Albrecht, disputed the calculations of the hardcover. It was noted that the
hardcover calculation in 1996 included the entire property, while only die 75` -250' wile
was included in the calculation in 1991. Gaffron explained it was a matter of differing
interpretations.
Smith said the existing driveway was necessary for safety reasons. No further
encroachments or hardcover were said to be allowed in the future by the Planning
Commission in 1991. Smith said this was an opportunity to honor what a past Planning
Commission had recommended.
Lindquist commented that this application was a good example of why covenants are
necessary for properties.
Hawn agreed with Lindquist and Smith that no additional hardcover should be allowed.
• They, along with Peterson, agreed that the backup apron was necessary for safety.
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996
•
(#4 - #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht - Continued)
Albrecht responded that, although he has owned the property since 1991, he was not
aware of hardcover variances. He also noted that the proposal results in a net decrease in
hardcover of 78 s.f.
Peterson commented that the applicant knew that a building permit would be required to
construct the deck. Lindquist said he would not have agreed to a new deck. Peterson
noted that the deck is not in the 0 -75' setback.
Albrecht informed the Planning Commissioners that the 1991 approval of hardcover in the
75 -250' zone of 34% was comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. Lindquist
responded that there was a discrepancy in the hardcover calculation. Gaffron said the
current calculation by Staff should be considered as accurate.
Smith said there were no opportunities for exchanges in order to further reduce hardcover.
Gaffron agreed that the stairway to the lake was necessary.
Peterson reiterated that the 1991 resolution implied no more hardcover would be allowed
and reconstruction of a deck would have to meet City codes.
• Albrecht responded that he was informed that if he replaced the stairway and deck, board
by board, he would not need a variance.
Stoddard commented that a neighbor had complained that the lakeshore stair encroached
on their dock. Peterson said he personally had no problem with the stairs.
Hawn said approval of the deck would render the process meaningless. She did comment
on the attractiveness of the deck.
Albrecht asked, if he would reduce the size of the driveway, if the Commission would
approve the deck. He was informed that the issue was the approval in 1991. Albrecht
said owners should be made aware of variances. Lindquist informed him that this would
have been done if Albrecht had followed the procedure of seeking a building permit.
Smith followed this comment with noting that building permits are a trigger mechanism for
discovery of necessary information.
Gaffron asked the Planning Commissioners to read the notation on the inspection notice
from 1991 on the building permit that the "resolution provided to new owner ". It was
further noted that there is no policy requiring the City to relay this information to new
buyers.
•
•
MiNT ITES OF THE ORONO PL! -NNING COMM SSiON
MEETUNG HELD) ON MAY 20- '1996
(44 - tr2134 Robert Ciiaries Al�i'eiiii - k_1 Inueu)
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny approval of the after -the -fact deck. The stair
landing was a.nnroved with the condition that the applicant work with Staff to meet the
90 -100 , f compliance for stair landing size Vote- Ave, 5; Na.vs 0
The annlirant xx,as inform -d that the nnrliratinn uun -idrl an to the ced-nnri ("nnril meRtina
in June, it Vraa �lVte'd 1Vr the record that the Plaillling, CV1 mission was not concerned
with the stairway to the lake but would like to see the Citv work with the applicant in
meeting ci7e rPnnirementc
O- - -- 1-'-- - - - - - - .
( #51 #2135 PAUL AND SUE HEDLUND, 1575 LONG LAKE BLVD. -
VARIANCEC _ PiiRi:iC HEARING 8;28_9;12 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Annlirantc xx%ac nre.ce.nt
Gaffron reported that the property in question was a 3/4 acre lot, the bulk of which is
located in the 0-75' setback, with 17,600 s,f in the 0 -75' setback and 11,000 s f in the 7.5-
250's etha.ck. The house on the property is ,m311 and mostly located within the 0 -75'
• SPthanl -. The SinalP rnr aaraaP en�rnn�heS intn thPr riaht_nf_xx7av GgfFrnn cnirl thPr
nrn nncal to nnrrhacP the nrnnPrty is rnntinaan4 r nnrnval of the arlrlitinnS An addition
Y "'Y"� ». Y »_.... ».,., Y• "Y....J b....,, .....^..YY..,
is Prvpvaed to the rear, non-lakeside of the hvua�., but still Partially u1 the v -75' setback. cAi
second story is also planned. The garage will be removed and replaced by a 2 -car
attached garage_
Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the variances required for this proposal
are. for hardrnver, tide cetharll to the Pact, tnrnnncPd at 1 R' where 30' is req�iired, and
ctrPPt &PtharL- The attanh_d garage rnnziireq a 50' gtrPet Sethark anti is prnpngnd at
Gaffron said etas recon'unends a 0' setbac t the elot line The norma setbac for 1 k o l k
a detached garage, when doors are to the side, is 10', which Gaffron said should be strived
for.
Gaffron reported that the average depth of the lot is such that there is no buildable
envelope The exiting house does not meet setbacks Any upward changes results in
visual impacts Gaffron said it should he noted that the height of the stn_icture he limited
to ? StnrieS ifthic limit xx7aS not nlarPrl in the racnil"tinn the etnµrtiµre rnii;lrl he hiiiilt to 2_
r• ___ , to
! 12 ctnriec Ami more then 2 ctnrieS x =%^uld not fit the nPiahhnrhnnrl and xx;ni"lrl he
1' ,+; ,., , +o A letter F the ht,o - +o +1.
111sprVPV1 ,ion 1, x1Vli1 Ll-V aL1L,L,1 V1\s VVY. ! 1eLLV1 —V111 L11L,� ne1g11V V1 LV Lll%w %1rLaL 3L,"L%,U ilia
opposition to allowing a side setback less than the 30' requirement. Gaffron said there
rould he. mmifi- rations to changing the garage. to the nther end of the, house.
io
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO_M_MISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
l45 - #21 3 5 rain aitu Sue nedluttd - C orit I itued j
The hardcover in the 0 -75' setback exists at 1200 s.f. and 900 s.f in the 75 -250' zone.
The nronosa.l would increase these calculations by 85 s,f in the 0 -75' "and to 1783 cf in
the 75 -250' zone The overall allowed hardcover of 25% is 2724 s.f and is proposed at
306-1 s.f an inrrPacP of an»rnximatPly �2[ "►Q c f nxrPr the ailnxx�ahlP
r,Y..,........... i, .
Gaffron continued that this is alm a_ hh-ff F,;t-tation" The addition to the hulk of the
structure would have an impact Grariiyncr Aurmlydl Alen he n- ni;ireri xxritlhin the hl,N4 im»art
r b Y
zone for the driveway. Gaffron said the bluff impact is minor, however, when compared
to other issues involved.
A main concern is with the septic system for the property. The current septic system is
non - conforming and requires replacement; for which a site exists. There is; however; no
available alternate site on the property for the proposed 3- bedroom house. The
naighhnrhnnrl is rnrnpncPCi fnr QP�uPring but this is an unrecnlvPd kgiiP. tvTaffrnn
que- gtinnPri , h_thPr the hnimp chnidd hp exnanrlPrl to 'i hacirnnmc ., i_thn „t an alternate cite
�t- - --- --- r- _» .�
nr .:itlrtrnlrl unni o »rrn..ol
Vi YY 1i1111V it{ µi µt/f./i V Y µi Uniialiii l 4..Lr.y n -cn YzY n .n.rm....i.r.rnyrUi
.
Applicant, Paul Hedlund, said the property was very unusual. It is their intent to keep the
home iiitavt and build vnty it a$ vppvsed tv tearuag it dery ii 'und u+ --pig v`e'er vr'ith ne`v`v'
• construction.
•
Peterson commented on the large number of variances for the application. He noted that,
although the nrnnertir desen'es to I, e n linm,- on it the nnnl;i -not m -pr„lg to vu rl: xxrith
b”
Staff to make it a viable proposal. Hedlund said he sees the plan as the best for the
property and reiterated the purchase was contingent on City approval.
Stoddard acknowledged the good design and elevations, but asked the applicant if he
would consider moving the garage to the west. Sue Hedlund said the west side of the lot
was steep and questioned the encroachment of the bluff area. Paul Hedlund also noted
that the well was located on the west side of the property
During public comments, Charles Truman, who lives across the street from this property,
vniPPrl hic annrnval ofthP mmnncal NP ,aid it jxrn,ild r•.a,ice nn hardchin to the
neighborhood.
I1
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
( #� - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued)
Peterson noted the concern from a neighbor regarding the side setback. He agreed that
the concept was good in general but was concerned with the major issue of se
wering
Peterson said the application should be tabled until a solution is determined. Peterson saw
the need to provide a cPntir evetPm for a 2 hPdrnnm hni"eP nr wait ir;ntiI thP- eP�x�Pr iggZ P ie
r- r..,
resolved. Hedlund said he would prefer sewering and would not want to invest in a new
+:. system Ll ,,.. ;S+ ,a ' +h +ha A F AAT TC A
JepL1V JyJL Vlll if aV rr Vl t[l� YYas iii the dear iui'ure. Lllldq uljt fait{ VY; h 1,e need ltJr lY1V Vl1.
amendment approval, planning, and review, it could be at least an year until any
decisions wnlllci he. Marie_ Hedlund said he, could wait a year hilt w-ulci need to receive.
approval of the improvements for a future time.
Lindquist informed Hedlund that he saw the property as it now is, a 2 bedroom, 800 s.f.
home. Lindquist said it was his opinion that this was all the land could handle. Lindquist
said he would not want the applicant to wait for septic approval and then find that the
imnrn�rementg could not he made
-r
Jeff Martineau, a Realtor with Burnet Realty, said he was representing the Albee family
estate. He acknoivi d1glerl the nrl�h1PmC with centic hnt nnti-d that thie was not the nniv
site in the area with no alternate site. He asked the Planning Commission to consider
AQo r+: r�o.»> +n.� +fin uniqueness f 4i.o r+rrir.orh�. nr.rl.7 ., Qnn 4
altt.i111LL Lti JVld t1V11J. 1r a tineLtd noted tilt' dniqueness of tutu property t'' stud said a 800 s.f
• home was not consistent with homes of the '90's. He felt the design, location, and size of
the. nronerty was consistent with the, neighborhood
•
Peterson informed Martineau that the Commission was in the planning process of what
wnlllri be allnweci for the nrnne_.rtV. HP_. agreed with Lindquist nn what milld he. cinne. with
the property as a fact of reality, rather than one of marketability. Peterson said the main
lss'.:e ::'as the Se.:'er HP said the application co'L:ld not :hove — ..a.d ......— an alternate
YY
site, which is a recent regulation, and a system which meets zoning requirements.
Peterson noted that other afiencies are involved.
Martineau said he was in attendance not as an agent but to represent what was good for
the homeowner. He said he sees the proposal as a reasonable use of the property.
Hawn said she saw the proposal and issues as very troubling. Hawn noted that the
nronerty wa.s in the 2 acre zoning and was only 1 i4 size of the ren uirement She noted the
fragility of the area with the bluff and the one septic site. Hawn felt it would be
irreonnneihiP to tA-P this ei„hgtandarri int anti inrrPacP the hir;ildina 67. Che nnted thie
property was an example of why there were building codes.
12
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
( #5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued)
Susan Albee said she saw the Hedlund's plan as being quite conservative. She noted that
there were no homes on the north side of the lake with alternate sites Albee said the
proposed septic system for the property has a 25 year guarantee. She did not believe the
annlirant xxiaq aslring fnr an�rthinor i"nreacnnahle xziith the addition of one more herirnnm
and an attached 2 -car garage. Albee said there was only a 10'/'0 building envelope on the
property, and lies parents have hued there AM 60 years.
Smith said she had no problem with the house increasing in height but with covering more
of the lot with structure. The main issue with Smith was the sewering.
Stoddard noted the sewer issue along with the height of the addition and encroachment
into the 0 -75' setback He said there was still the issue of being 300 s.f over the
hardcover limit. He asked if there could be design changes to include movement of the
garage to derrease the fontprint PepPrially in light of a r.mm�laint from a neighhnr, Tt wac
also noted that there was no guarantee when sewering would come to the neighborhood.
Gaffron was asked about the status of the MUSA application. Gaffron said the City is
working with i,ong Lake to determine capacity a.va.ilahility and make changes downstream
as necessary. Once that is worked out, the Met Council will probably approve the
annliratinn (iaffrnn Sair„1 cewerina was a matter of timing and riteri evamnlPC ofxI.-
rr1-irntinn a -a » r._.
might occur. He said he was concerned with the proposed improvements if the septic
+o.,., rn11.s
sy��.,�.� emu..,.
Stoddard said he saw the footprint as a problem.
Peterson said he had a problem with the garage. He did not wish to set any precedent by
allowing a garage that near to the lot line,
Sue Hedlund asked the Commission if the bluff was a major concern. Peterson said it was
the leaCt rnnrP.rn of all the iCC17P.0 invnlvPd,
Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2135 for redesign of location
of aaravP anti arrhitPntnral rPr1PCian fnr fit nn the nrnnPrty alnna xvith a cnhitinn nn hmAl
a »- »a _ » » »- - » »- - a - - - -- r - -- r -- -> > - --a
to handle possible future failure of the septic system. Peterson noted the possibility of
hv1%.11 taiik� ii ii�.ve�$'ui y. He brvugiii the uppA. A.L UULeIIiivii Lv Lll� clean up being
conducted of Long Lake
Callahan said he was in favor of the tabling. He said the issue was similar to that of the ice
arena tnroposal with awaiting resol,lit;nn of the aexzier:ng .slue. Callahan said he saxx7 the
issue as political and was not clear whether it would be resolved favorably or in the near
. future. Callahan also noted the need for an agreement to be reached with both Long Lake
and Medina on sewering issues.
13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
i
( #5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued)
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
( #6) #2137 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE
K4RTANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P—M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith.
Gaffron reviewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property. An addition
to the house, revamning of a garage wall re.niarPmPnt of retaining walls, and a n w P.nt_rV
way was approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover with removal of retaining walls that
:.TPVr °v r °v »laced with »lantinge The vlLirr °vnt »ry ^v3a1 i.°i tv ''ha" ^P a deck Pn +kA grN„th c;riu
Y Y b y Y vllullsv v ull ,lu.
of the residence and replace it with a room with a pool spa. This addition would meet the
10' side setback but is located within the 0 -75' setback Changing the deck to the
proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 sT but would increase
the lot rtoverag- by ztn,i, ,rP from 1 5 60l to 16 .7. 0/ The adrlitinnal ctnu- imp Alen
»,,- -1
encroaches the average setback line. Gaffron noted that the homes to the north and
r.,,L.. lOL t 4lr u v �t,o .,, ,,,o,+;o� Tt,o „�1 ' + „r+J,o il,,,,vlo., property,
s- u',ea,+ are set 1011 back on he properties. 11.e visual .mpaCL Vl Llle Lulllile propert ,
with its bulk in the 0 -75' setback, would not affect the views of the other properties.
Gaffron saki there may he opportunities for hard cnver reduction hilt the intensive review
of the hardcover was done with the earlier application. Gaffi-on added that the driveway is
A/ercr laraa nrl n�lrl hP an »tnn fnr hnMrNx r er;rtnn J b" n � Y i o eriy
•
Peterson commented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the
retaining Aifalic and re4lnina the lalnrir�i »a YJA nnteul their rnm »fiance ::';tl: the re ^L:eSts
Y �y. y `1
of the City. Letters have also been received from the neighbors approving what has
already been done on the property.
Peterson noted the limitations to the property but agreed that the deck needs to be
removed or replaced_ He asked if the deck could be moved forward? Gaffron agreed that
this could be an option and asked how it would affect the side setback variance?
Carl Smith responded that the location of the spa room was best suited to the location
+1, the .,"o door �,., the ie4 i
V�'ltll L f./UL1V t1VV1 V L11V 1VIL Jlu V.
Hawn was informed that the spa was a therapeutic need for the applicant. Hawn asked
W'hy Lhe lint LUL, 1 0011, lVCated beneath the area in questmn could not be used 1L1J1 Lhe Spa.
Carl Smith said that hot tub was not in good condition, and the spa was probably too large
fni- that nartirlflar roam. C'Ta_ff_rnn questioned whether there was anv ingl_r, to nlaring the
spa at the other end of the home? This would be a location near the master bedroom.
14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANN_TNG COTMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
(#6 - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued)
When asked about hardships, Exhibit A was noted, which lists the reasons for the spa, but
Gaffron said no hardshin statement was included, Exhibit R cites medical reasons for the
spa.
Peterson said he did not see the average lakeshore setback as a problem with this
proposal, Gaffilron Suggested a possible Li litigation with screening o trees or landscaping.
Carl Smith showed an visual representation of the deck along with a representation of the
Cna rnnm addition_ HP_, noted that the. addition was an improvement to the Vlsllal imna('t.
Hawn inquired what was being placed under the spa room. Carl Smith said this was
undecided.
Lindquist questioned whether this addition was too much for the property. Peterson
nntPrl that the deck does need to ha replaced_ Smith nuP.q innPrl why it was not inchirled
in original proposal. Hawn noted that the Commission denied a screen porch and could
not ann on., A;i�nrnn�n {�n4.vnnn o »nrnL� onr� 4bie o�Ai4inn (ini� -'rnn rnm�r�rn� 4ho4 4f/�n o »�
VL JVV µil�' 4a11Vi ViiVV VVLYY VVii µ f./Vi Vii µlit{ Li1iJ µitUiLLV ii, \J µiii Vii iV111µ11�Vti LLiµ1 LiiV J1lµ
room was brought up at the Council_ meeting at the end of the process with the last
application but was requested to he siinmitted as a. separate pro ect He added that Dale
Gustafson had suggested that more of the walkway pavers could be removed. Gaffron
• noted that the drive -vay is located nl..it nfthe 0 -75' ePthn L- The retaining lx7allp are
necessary due to the slope of the land. Gaffron added that it could be argued that
bar dvv v er LS hardvv`v'er. Siiuth vviiiiiLented, Lf th °v Screened porch VV'aS denied, an bier e
were no other areas where hardcover could be reduced, the limit in lot coverage may
already have been reached.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2137. Vote: Ayes 2,
Lindquist, Peterson' Nays 3, Stoddard, Smitli, Ha::n �^4i ;t n failed.
Gaffron asked for either another motion or reasons for denial. Stoddard noted the view.
(`or) �mi4L� ooirL Lin — o i�nviL��n in 4t1n ri noinn end �hohrrno 1 --JA :�n morin PA +_nn cnirL
t,µ11 Vi111Lii Jµ1U iiV YYµJ ilVfiiViV iii LiiV t1VJi Cvil µlit{ Vliµ11�,VJ VVµiti VV illµ�i V. 1 V-JI/ii
the Commission would need to table the application if a redesign was done.
Carl Smith asked if the height was an issue. Smith said in terms of hardcover, she could
not see where reductinnc rn,j1r1 n��l lr gMith enid Che xx�as be mnrP inclined to 4mnnnrt the
rr�-
spa room if the visual impact was minimized by lowering it or moving it forward. Hawn
Sugge+-A l .r:,, . +1,- ;A , � „�:,, , .t,o l ...,�,r lo�,ol a l;m;» ,.v +t,e 1 �
JLVLl e�lpiVi 1116 LLLV LUVµ VL UJiii� LLL%, LV VV V1 LV V Vi rVVLit al1U eititiitiµLV LLLL, vISUa1 LilipacL
from the lake view.
Carl Smith was informed if tabled, the application could come back before the Planning
Cnmm'ceinn nn Thine 17 xx':th Council revile::' nn Tiwne 2d
15
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
( #6 - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued)
Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2137 to work with landscaper in
minimizing the visna) impact and take the above ideas into consideration Vote: Aves _5.
Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
( #7) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Hawn suggested the possibility of a Consent Agenda for the Planning Commission
Meeti-r-1.
Smith asked that Staff request applicants to post application notices near driveways of the
residences for easier �dentahcat.on.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
( #S) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15,
1.996 MEETING
• Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the April 15, 1996 Meeting
of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ave-, 5 Nav-, 0.
•
( #9) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE �ITTNF 1 Q; 1996 1VIVFTTNG OF THE C OUNC11,
Lindquist will attend the June 10, 1996 meeting of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Stephen Peterson, Chair Person
16