Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1998 Planning Commission Minutes ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 16, 1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Alternate Jeanne Mabusth. Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Assistant Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application#2325 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2)#2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - • PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 6:30-7:49 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the application once as a sketch plan and in February as a formal plat request. The 1-1/2 acre parcel is divided into four tax parcels in the LR-1 C 1 zoning district. The single family backlot configuration requires 150% of the standard or 0.75 acre. The front lot is proposed for a duplex based on its proximity within 200' of the commercial district. The application was tabled in February to allow the applicant to provide a stormwater plan and recalculate the lot areas. Outlot C will be dedicated for right of way. The applicant has changed the boundary between lots 1 and 2 by moving the lot line to the south. An access outlot will be provided for the lakeshore lot at a reduced width of 20' instead of the required 30'. A private road corridor is proposed at 40' instead of the required 50', with a 24' paved road. The lot line typically thought to be the front lot line is less than the required width. Gaffron indicated the applicant is also planning to add berming with plantings along the property line abutting Lakeside Marina. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3. He noted that no additional sewer charges are needed. The property will be served by private wells. He concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restrictions will be placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. Gaffron said the intent of the code is to provide additional buffering, and he believes this is being accomplished and supported the credit. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion, #1-9 on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. He recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows for two properties to be served by a driveway instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill within 5' of the lot line. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500' zone. Waade had no additional comments at this time. Russell Norum, 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property. He said he has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being flexible regarding • variances and conditional use permits. He asked if the private road would be located over existing land to access the homes from CoRd 51. He is concerned with the road being cut in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road will be next to it. Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. He questioned what effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been an access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under his lot and three other lots; their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction will aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting. Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Norum, namely, 1) access to the property, 2) additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access will not be utilized. Norum said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion. He felt the new road would be satisfactory if improvement was made to ponding. Gaffron remarked that the impact from the driveway location so near Norum's property is significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved. The City Engineer has not reviewed this issue. Gaffron said retaining walls may be required. Gaffron indicated the westerly access driveway never had any formal status. Its location is poor due to sight lines along the hill. The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in terms of • sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down. 2 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Norum's garage is located less than 10' from the proposed paving of the road. Norum indicated that the easement road was never meant to be used for the subject property. Waade suggested building up the property to eliminate retaining walls. Gaffron agreed that changes are necessary and suggested the City Engineer review the plan. Gaffron responded to the flooding issue. He reported that it appears all drainage from applicant's site will go to the pond. It, however, will not solve the neighbor's problem. Staff felt a comprehensive review of the area's drainage should be conducted from the marina eastward. Gaffron noted that there are no plans affecting the water supply off the property and does not know if there are any water lines on the subject property. Gaffron asked that a condition of Planning Commission approval include the City Engineer's review of grading. Dave Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, said he has spoken with neighbors and presented a petition opposing the duplex and variances for the property. Smith read the petition and the undersigned names. She noted there were unsolved issues surrounding the application, which has been reviewed twice by the Commission. • Mabusth asked if the code section regarding the issue relating to the front lot line was g g g available. Stoddard indicated he also did not understand the front lot line issue. In discussion issue #2, Mabusth noted that wetlands and stormwater are all defined as drainage easements and the referenced example is for a rural property. She supported allowing the credit for stormwater ponding. Commissioners agreed with Mabusth. Stoddard felt the road should be private. Commissioners agreed. Gaffron explained that the code standard for a private road width serving 3-7 units is 24'wide. If the road is public, it would need to be wider. Mabusth asked if a road name would be required. Gaffron said this would normally occur but with the existing access, the homeowners can retain the North Shore Drive addresses but may desire a sign board to direct people to their properties. Stoddard said he supported a 24' private road but would like the City Engineer to review the preliminary grading plans prior to review by Council. Gaffron clarified the reasoning for the width and length variances necessary for Outlots A and B. He indicated that two outlots are necessary for access and for the road. The City will require easements over the outlots for underlying utilities and to grant easements to • the other property owners to allow them to continue using the access. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 #2 - # ( #2340 Robert Waade Continued) Mabusth asked if the applicant would meet the area requirement if given credit for the ponding. Gaffron indicated there would only be a very minor underage. Mabusth asked if the duplex would be served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated it would and noted that the standard calls for no more than two units being accessed off the 30' corridor. The reason behind the standard is to limit the units as three units would require a road. There may be a hardcover issue if the access was changed. Stoddard felt the variances for the widths of Outlots A and B made sense as it would allow for smaller roadway and lessen the hardcover. He noted that the property is allowed a duplex under the code and felt the road issue was not substantial enough to show any opposition. Mabusth asked what the absent Commissioners felt about the issues. Smith indicated that Lindquist was concerned with the number of variances and did not want to encourage their need. Gaffron said the duplex requires a 135'minimum width. The lot width as defined by CoRd 51 does not meet the requirement. It is only met if the width is defined along the private S road outlot. The upper lot has about 121'width and the lower lot has 122'. If the "exception" segment in the front of the lot is considered there would be about 140'. Mabusth noted there would be a hardcover problem if additional driveway was necessary for three dwellings on one driveway outlot. The driveway would be minimized with two dwellings on one access. Berg asked if the proposed units would be rental units. Waade said he would live in the single family home and rent out the duplex. Gaff-on indicated the duplex would have to be rental units as the ownership of the duplex cannot be split into individual units under the City ordinances. Smith noted that all of the Commissioners at the last meeting were opposed to providing riparian rights for the duplex. Mabusth asked if the sewer locations have been reviewed. The issue of easements needs to be resolved as well. Mabusth noted the need for a hold harmless agreement for the City. Gaffron said the manholes would have to be raised as well. Waade said the bermed area would be built up about 5', and he would like to plant a row of pine trees for screening. Commissioners voiced their support. Smith asked what type of landscaping would be planted. Waade said he would like to add about 8-10 arborvitae trees on top of the berm to make a hedge. • 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked for clarification of the hardcover variance requested. Gaffron said the northern lot would not require variances in the 0-75' or 75-250'. The problem lies in the 250-500' zone from Maxwell and Crystal Bays. The amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' setback will not be totally utilized, and the applicant would like to take the excess and add it to the 250-500' allowable. Staff supports that request as it meets the intent of the code and the massing would be pulled further back from the lake. Smith, Mabusth, and Stoddard agreed that this scenario meets the intent of the code. Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, in noting the nice area along North Shore Drive, felt the use of rental or multi-housing would not be appropriate to the neighborhood. He asked that Lindquist's previous comments about not granting variances be carried through. Jack Swenson, 3020 North Shore Drive, said he felt the same as Marfield. He sees no reason to grant any variances and feels the character of North Shore Drive is one of single family residential. David Dalvey felt the application would result in cramming houses on a property and add to the busyness and crowding of the area. He did not believe the application was a good project. • Mr. Henson, 3216 North Shore Drive, said his property was next to the subject property. He noted the problem corner with the pump house location. He felt the proposal was a good use for the property in keeping the majority of the area single family. He noted more of the properties could be twinhomes. Henson supported the application and felt it would maintain the neighborhood's character. Gaffron noted that the issue of structural coverage has not been dealt with regarding the duplex. The proposed structural coverage is 4800 s.f. or 22% of the lot area where only 15% is allowed. Gaffron noted that if the applicant chose to withdraw the request for duplex and submitted a proposal for a single family residence, the lot width requirement would change to 100' and would likely have a smaller footprint. Jim DePetrow said he did not support the duplex proposal and felt the sentiment is for single family dwellings. Waade commented that if a single family residence was built, it would still be rental property. He felt the duplex would be better in quality than most of the area's homes. His targeted renter would be upper bracket. Waade said he plans on living in the single family residence and believes the project would clean up the area. He noted that a larger unit • building could be built on the property. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NIEL111`11 J ■J14 l6_ lJ_�+� • FF7 ) Confirmed) ±#_340 Robert WaariP - (`'�ntm Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would be best served by a multi-family unit from a development standpoint. Smith asked if the road outlot was taken into consideration for the 22% structural coverage. Gaffron said the road outlot would not be considered part of the lot area. Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he could reduce the size. Berg asked what style of building was being proposed. Waade said the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to be limited to 32'x40' to meet the standard. Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlots would be required unless the front lot line was changed. There would be no change to the credit for ponding. 410 Smith asked for Waade's comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family residence to mitigate some variances. Waade said he would need to know what he would be allowed on the property. Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit towards the extra 50% lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage was reduced. Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f. footprint. Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the front lot/back lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. • A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade Continued) Mabusth asked what other variances would be required. Gaff-on reported that lot width would be required unless the lot line along the road outlot was defined as the front lot line instead of CoRd 51. There would be no need for a hardcover variance if credit was given for the ponding. The variances necessary would be for the length and width of the outlot. Berg said it was important to note that the driveways would still be located there whether one unit or two. Jody Dalvey said she would like to see the area cleaned up. She believes people would be less apt to buy property in the area if a duplex was allowed. She acknowledged that her primary concern is with the duplex. Berg felt the main issues have been addressed. Smith suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Waade asked if the Commission would support the duplex proposal if the footprint was reduced. Smith felt the main issue was with reducing the structural coverage. She noted support was voiced for the variance for the driveway. Smith informed Waade of the need to submit a drainage plan for review. She emphasized that lake access would only be • allowed to the single family residence. Stoddard said he supported the Staff recommendations noted on page 6 of the memo noting the property is zoned for duplex. He supported the driveway and lot width variance and structural coverage of 15%. He suggested the applicant work with staff Smith noted the applicant also needs to protect the adjacent property in regards to drainage as part of the grading plan. Marfield reminded the Commission of Lindquist's comments. Smith informed Marfield that Lindquist was speaking for himself She noted that the plan as proposed would most likely be denied if a recommendation was made at this time. Smith informed the applicant that the Commission needs to see the revised plan before review by Council. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application##2340. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 follows item #5.) • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) KEVIN AND LISA OLSEN/JIM AND JUNE TOUVE, 4196 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT- 7:49- 8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gafl'i on reported that the request is for a metes and bounds simple subdivision to separate a platted lot that was legally combined in the past. Lots 55, 56, and 57 were legally combined. Mr. Touve sold lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without lot 57. They were advised that this constituted an illegal subdivision and would require a formal subdivision with the City, but the City staff would not recommend approval due to the sub-standard lot situation and given history of ownership of the property. Gaffron noted there are wetlands located on lots 57-61. Gaffron said he did not recommend separating lot 57 from lots 55 and 56 due to the lot sizes and "lot of record" status. The zoning is one acre. Lots 55-57 have a total acreage of.81 and meet the 80% requirement for buildability. Any reduction would make the size • more substandard and give Touve increased potential for building within the remaining lots. Gaffron noted that Touve has not made any application to date regarding future building and that would be a separate application. Gaffron reviewed the issues for consideration as noted on page 2 of the memo. Lots 58- 61 when combined would be under the one acre requirement, and contain only .48 acre of dry buildable, which would not meet the standard. A driveway would also have to cross over the wetlands. Gaffron indicated that the request to add Lot 57 to 58-61 would result in making a substandard group of three lots into a smaller group requiring variances. He feels consideration also has to be given to lots 58-61 if combined on their own merit. The deeds were created over 10 years ago, and the Olsen's have paid taxes on the 3 lots without having a deed to all three lots. Olsen's now have the property up for sale, and Gaffron believes the intent is only to sell the two lots. This needs to be resolved. If the lots are not separated, lot 57 would have to be sold with the other two lots. Gaffron said neither City or County records document the history behind the combination, and he recommends denial of the application. • 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • Touve- Continued) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June ou e ) Lisa Olsen asked for an explanation of the process by which properties become legally combined. Gaffron said people make the request directly to the County or request the City to submit a letter to the County on their behalf. Olsen asked what format is followed to make this legal. Gaffron said the format requires the signature of the property owners and acceptance on the County's part. Olsen asked if there is any record showing the legal combination. Gaffron said there is not noting it likely occurred during the 1950-1960's. Olsen disagreed with the way the lots were noted in the recommendation of legal combination. Gaffron said the terminology for legal combination refers to the tax document, and since the County shows it as such, he needs to rely on that information. Olsen felt the legal records of the property indicate something new was created between 1963 and 1975. The first two lots are shown taxed together and later include all three. Olsen referenced her letter sent to Staff regarding the property's history. Her parents originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lots 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and 56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot 56, and owner's duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56. Olsen said she has never owned lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaffron asked if 410 this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaffron said that was a key point because lots 55 and 56 were on one title. Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. Olsen said she was informed that the most expedient way to handle this issue is through subdivision. She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that created the illegal subdivision. She asked that the combination be reversed and reflected in the tax records. Gaffron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the lots were legally combined. Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. Gaffron said in 1977 and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. Gaffron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel. • 9 t i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • C#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Olsen asked that the lots not be referred to as a legal combination, since there are no documents to substantiate that it occurred. Mabusth informed her that it was a phrase used for combination of lots for tax purposes. Mabusth asked when the error was made. Gaffron referenced a County letter indicated it occurred prior to the 1960's. Mabusth said she would find it hard to imagine that this occurred at the City at that time and probably occurred at the County. Berg asked if the property has always been Torrens property. Olsen said yes. Olsen added that the Hennepin County letter said it occurred prior to 1960's but the revised plat of 1963 did not show the combination, and the next revision to the plat map occurred in 1976. Olsen indicated that a set of maps from the 1960's showing the lots separately, and the combination likely occurred in the 1960's. Gaffron informed her that regardless of this information, it is the City's position that a subdivision is required to separate lots and asked the Planning Commission if they would allow this to occur. He asked that the Commission consider what impacts the subdivision would have with building on the property. Mr. Touve referenced the plat map where lots 55 and 56 are combined and where the • three lots are shown combined. The deed shows lot 55 being a separate lot since 1953. Touve said his property show 4 lots taxed individually but two were combined at one time and then a third added. Gaffron referenced map H-6 showing two lots combined, lots 56 and 57. He concluded that this map was prepared by the County in 1987 without City approval, and the property owner was informed that a subdivision was required. The current County maps show all 3 lots combined. Touve felt Gaffron was being highly speculative. There were no public comments. Smith noted that Staff recommended denial. Stoddard asked if the property owner had any desire to purchase lot 57, understanding that there was no access and the property included DNR protected wetlands. Touve said he had no desire to change the lots. He said the substandard lot is similar to others in the neighborhood. He said this was not brought forward as an issue when he sold the lots to his daughter. Touve asked that the record show that he did not try to deceive the City when he applied for a variance in the 1970's. He had no idea that this was an issue. All seven lots were indicated as they were all under one ownership. There was no question regarding lot combination at that time. • 10 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#5)#2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Stoddard said it was his opinion that it would be best if lot 57 was combined with lots 55 and 56 with a driveway easement granted to the other lots. Mabusth asked whether he was requesting this of the applicant of if the buildability of the other lots were a consideration. Olsen informed the Commission that they are a large family, and it is not an option for her to purchase the additional lot. She asked that the lots be addressed by those that she owns, Lots 55 and 56. She would like to move forward. She asked if any other information is necessary or questions regarding legal ownership. She asked if the issue was due to the substandard size of the property. Mabusth clarified that Olsen would like the Commission to act on lots 55 and 56 only. Smith agreed that the substandard size was an issue. Olsen said she did address this with Gaffron, and had told her he would not give his opinion on this, and Olsen thought the lot size was satisfactory. Gaffron was asked if additional information was needed to assist in changing his opinion. Gaffron said he has read through the historic file and reviewed the 1987 file, and Staff will not support the subdivision request made by the applicant. Olsen said she made a rough calculation of other lots in the neighborhood with exception • of the lakeshore property. Of 18 lots, only 5 met the standard or were .88 acre or larger. The remainder were substandard and similar in size to her property at .58 acres (Lots 55 and 56). The hardcover of the property is at 11%. Touve responded to Mabusth questions regarding the development of the 7 lots. He said he would be willing to negotiate with the City, County and DNR regarding the building size and wetlands. He informed Stoddard that the wetlands have been delineated. He noted the wetland area has changed over the years due to manmade efforts on the east end with the building of a dam. A hill was pushed in by the road that changed the wetlands resulting in it becoming larger than it had been originally. Touve felt he had an adequate footprint with 25'to build without any variance with room for the 26'buffer from the wetlands. The problem has arisen because the wetlands were enlarged. Touve said he would accept having a driveway to the east. He said it was his understanding that the City was using the pond in the past, and the City implied that he would get this land back when the sewer was installed. Touve said he was concerned that the substandardness of the lot is a result of someone else's doing. The 7' drop from the culvert to his home has been blocked off. He plans on adding cattails and dredging out the pond for ducks. If his plans were approved, he then would be willing to give a portion of lot 57 to lots 55 and 56. 11 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • l#sl #11 so Kevin and T tca (llePn/T±?ii and Tiir2e Tn}}[rP - Cnntmiiedl Mr. Touve's other daughter noted that lots 55 and 56 are similar to others in the neighborhood and asked for approval as presented. Smith informed her that the Commission can only act on what is included in the application. She indicated that the application can be tabled to allow the choices to be evaluated. Commissioners agreed that the application would likely be denied as proposed. Ms. Touve noted that the neighborhood was not perfect. Berg informed Ms. Touve that this is the time for the Commission to make improvements. Olsen said it was also time to correct an error made by the City in the past. She would like to have the ability to sell her property if she so chose. She disagreed that the property was ever legally combined as there is no documentation to substantiate it. Smith indicated that the Commission does not always accept Staffs recommendation but based on the information before her, she suggested the applicant work with staff to explore options. Olsen said she has worked with staff for 10 years to no avail and does not believe any additional time will help. Stoddard noted that many properties are substandard. The Commission's role is to make 110 property conform to the zoning. He indicated that further discussion should be held regarding the wetland and driveway, and the applicant should include the Corp of Engineers, MCWD, and DNR in the process as they are the approving agencies for areas that include wetlands. He would like to see this issue resolved before any further recommendations are made. Mabusth concurred. Touve said the Corp of Engineers informed him he could fill areas less than 1/2 acre. Stoddard said the other two entities must also be involved. Olsen noted that the home on Lot 55 was built in the 1920's and became substandard when the zoning was changed to one acre. Olsen said the non-conformity was not created by her. Stoddard was of the opinion that the application as presented would be denied and suggested further discussion include the wetlands and driveway issue. Olsen asked if the problem was with the buildability of the property or substandard size of lots 55 and 56. Berg said these were all issues of concern. Smith informed Olsen that tabling the application would allow her to keep options open. Denial would result in that recommendation made to Council for their action. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve- Continued) Touve asked if the Commission could mandate Staff to work with them. He indicated it is difficult to work with the other agencies prior to City approval. Berg informed Touve that the process called for the other agencies review before City action can be taken. Smith said the City would help him work through the process. Gaffron said an application would be required for building on lots 58-61 and advised that this be a separate application. Stoddard reiterated that the DNR protected wetlands required approval from the entities noted prior to review by City. He suggested this be done now or an easement would be required and the lot could not be sold. Stoddard moved to table Application#2350. Olsen asked that the Commission act on the application at this time. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application#2350. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:49-8:56 P.M. • The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The applicant proposes to rebuild and expand an upper level deck located on the lakeside of the property requiring variances for structural coverage, hardcover within the 0-75' lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission was previously concerned with the hardcover in the 0-75' setback and asked to submit revised plans limiting the increase to 1-2%, which would still enable the applicant to have a more functional deck. A new plan was submitted. The original plan showed the deck extending 6'7" beyond the overhang. The extension is the same in the new plan but in a smaller area. The remainder extends 2-1/2' beyond the overhang. Gravel was reported to be located under the deck and by the lakeshore, which Staff had been previously unaware of and hardcover calculations were redone to reflect this. Bressler reviewed the issues 1-6 as noted in the memo and reviewed the recommendation for approval. Molsather and Sallee were in agreement with Staffs recommendation. Mabusth asked if the hardcover calculations included the stairway and 25 s.f. of pavers. • Bressler said the calculations include all hardcover after removal of plastic. 13 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#3)#2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee- Continued) There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4)#2292 TOM OKERSTROM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:56- 9:40 P.M. The Applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application had previously been tabled due to problems with the survey, which did not accurately reflect the hardcover. The proposal is for a detached garage with dormers requiring variances for hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, structural coverage, and street setback. Bressler indicated that staff feels the garage location at 8' from the right of way is problematic. The residence was built in 1996 without a garage. The residence consumed the allowed hardcover and structural coverage. A driveway is still needed. The lot area and width do not meet zoning requirements. The structural coverage is proposed at 19%. • Bressler reported that the drainage pattern was altered when the residence was built. The drainage problem has not been corrected which was a condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Final certificate of occupancy was not obtained. Bressler indicated that the 35' street setback could be met but would further increase the amount of hardcover. The shed will be removed as part of the application but was to have been removed when the house was built. Bressler recommended approval per the amendments and conditions noted in the memo. Okerstrom informed the Commission that he had been unaware of the hardcover issue when he built the house. He feels this should be disclosed to the public. He would have made changes to his plans at that time if he had known. Okerstrom indicated that the building pad is the same as the previous residence on the property. Bressler said Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, had discussed these issues with the builder when the residence was built. Okerstrom said the information was not passed on to him. He said he only heard of the shed removal and drainage issue recently. Bressler said the drainage correction was part of the condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy but was not done. • 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Smith asked what hardship the applicant had for the proposed garage. Okerstrom asked Smith to explain hardship. Okerstrom indicated that the lot is only 50'wide. The garage plans had been reduced from the original proposed size. He did not believe a one-car garage would be aesthetically pleasing. Smith in noting the significant increase in hardcover, questioned how the property got to this point. A member of the audience noted that everyone needs a two-car garage. Okerstrom informed Stoddard that he was informed by Bressler of the problem with the 8' street setback. He is willing to place the garage further back but it would further increase hardcover. Stoddard said he would support more hardcover to place the garage further back on the property. Mabusth indicated that the necessary parking spaces would also be provided if the garage was moved back. Mabusth asked what guidelines were given to the applicant in September and the dimensions of the proposed garage. Okerstrom said the original proposal was for a 30'x24' garage. It is currently proposed at 24'x28'. Mabusth asked if other garages in the area have gables or dormers. Mrs. Okerstrom said other garages are similar. She indicated the garage would be 1-1/2 stories for storage purposes, and other garages in the 410 area are two-story and closer to the street. Stoddard asked what the neighbors reaction was to the proposal. Okerstrom said both neighbors were supportive. Mrs. Okerstrom noted that the prior review did not include any discussion of the proposal due to the improper survey. They had been made aware of the need to decrease the garage size and place the garage further back on the property. Stoddard said he would support the proposal if the garage were moved further back. He noted the Commission typically would like to see the whole picture of what will occur on a property. Mabusth voiced concern with lack of information provided to property owner at time the house was built. She supported a reduction in the garage size. Bressler noted that with the shed removal, the structural coverage would be 18.4%. Mabusth asked what the structural coverage was for the property with the previous home. Okerstrom said the previous house was closer to the lake and there had been a detached garage. The residence was moved back 8' because of the deck. Mabusth said she would prefer that the absent Commissioners were present for the discussion. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Stoddard noted the problem with applicants coming back after building a home and asking for variances to build a garage. He suggested the property owner sign that they have been informed of such an issue when a residence is built. Mabusth noted that sometimes the owner and builder are the same. Bressler clarified that the shed removal was not a condition of the certificate of occupancy but the drainage correction was. Smith suggested direction be given to the applicant. It was clarified that hardcover and structure size were issues of concern. Smith felt safety would be improved if the garage was moved further back. She suggested considering a smaller garage since the structural coverage would increase and due to the house only being two years old. Okerstrom voiced frustration with resubmitting a plan that was a result of Staff recommendations and hearing that further reductions are now needed. Smith informed him that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity previously to discuss the issues. She would not support the structural coverage as proposed. While she understands the need for a garage, she was concerned that variances are being requested only two years after the home was built. • Mabusth noted that the intensity of the structure is also an issue as the setback is o y substandard. Mabusth explained for Mrs. Okerstrom what is meant by being substandard. Mabusth commented that the original house would have been smaller if the garage was built at the same time and considered with that application. Okerstrom said they were unable to afford to build the garage at that time. He also indicated that the house is the same size as the previous house. Berg reiterated that the Commission tries to improve properties and decrease the amount of structure on a lot when new construction takes place. Bressler reviewed the direction given. The Commissioners agreed to a 20' setback and hardcover. Mabusth asked about intensity of mass in relation to the lot line. Stoddard indicated the house is new but a reduction from what existed. He informed the applicant that if the motion is denied, the Council will review the application with that recommendation or the application can be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff on further reductions. Okerstrom asked for direction on garage location. Smith informed him that the Commission cannot redesign the garage but a structural coverage reduction is necessary. 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 • (##4) #22.92 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) The size of the garage was discussed. A two-car garage was satisfactory, but Berg questioned the need for the second story. Stoddard indicated that a reduction in footprint would also reduce the mass of the garage. Bressler indicated a 22'x24' garage would reduce the coverage by 120 s.f. to 18%. The proposal was at 18.4%. With the shed removal, the structural coverage would be at 17.5%. Stoddard moved to approve Application#2292 per Staff recommendations subject to a footprint limited to 22x24' or 528 s.f The dormer would be allowed as well as heating but no plumbing. Motion failed for lack of a second. Stoddard begun to make a motion to delete the second floor but Okerstrom questioned it. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application#2292 for a 22'x24'garage with an 8' first story and a 10:12 pitch, without dormer, per Staff recommendations. A space heater will be allowed. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#6)#2343 TIMOTHY AND BONNIE JOHNSON, 627 I ERNDALE ROAD • NORTH- VARIANCES - 9:41-9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were represented by contractor, Pat Hanley. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is for construction of a detached garage with dormer located near the front lot line. Variances are required for locating the structure in front of the principal structure and for side yard setback. Bressler explained that it would be difficult to locate the accessory structure to meet the side setback if it is to follow the line of the house and tie in with the loop driveway. The concern is with the location encroaching into the 10'utility easement. He noted that the garage doors will not be visible from the street and will present the look of a small cottage. The dormer will not be used for living space and no heating or plumbing is included. Bressler recommended approval for the accessory structure located 227' from the front lot line with principal structure located 329' from the front lot line, but recommended denial of the 5' side setback variance. Hanley indicated that they attempted to place the structure to the side of the house but were unable to obtain the proper turn into the garage. The other side of the property is a walk-out. There is an attached two-car garage on the property and the proposed structure would be used for storage purposes. • 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 n (#6)#2343 Timothy and Bonnie Johnson- Continued) Smith asked if the structure could be reduced in size to meet the required side setback. Hanley said this would create a long narrow structure. He was informed that the structure could not be placed over the utility easement. Berg asked what the hardship is for the proposal. Hanley said the applicant is allowed to have more structure and there is no other location for its placement. Mabusth noted that the neighboring property received a variance for a tennis court. There were no public comments. Smith supported staff recommendation with the structure meeting the 10' side setback. Mabusth moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application#2343 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Berg, who indicated the structure was too large. (#7)#2344 DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - 9:50-9:58 P.M. • The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The proposal is to rebuild a main level deck with an enclosed porch underneath with a stairway from the main level deck leading down to a small deck and steps on the lake side of the porch. The proposal requires variances for hardcover in the 0-75'and 75-250'lakeshore setbacks, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage. The existing deck nearest the lakeshore was built without a building permit by a prior owner. Granting the variances would not result in further encroachments from existing structures. Bressler reviewed the issues. The lot does not meet the lot area and width. A lot line rearrangement was approved in January, 1998. The stairs and deck are the only increase in structure to the house beyond what was approved with variances in in 1977. Holcombe indicated that the stairs were part of the original approval. The proposal negligibly increases structural coverage and hardcover as it will be primarily placed over existing hardcover. Bressler recommended approval for replacement of the existing deck and adding stairways, enclosing the area under the deck, a second level deck, and a landing on the lake side of the porch. Staff recommended removal of the lower level deck that was built • illegally. The applicant has agreed to this removal. 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 i1 Holcombe- Continued) #2344 Douglas and Marilyn ) The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Mabusth noted some reductions. Bressler said the reduction would be from the removal of the illegally built deck and increase is only for the staircase and smaller grade level deck. He noted the significant grades require the decking. Mabusth noted there would be no impact to the average lakeshore setback with the curve of the lakeshore. Berg moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application#2344. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8)#2346 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES- 9:58-10:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren congratulated Bressler on his graduation from college and new position • with the City of Northfield. Smith extended appreciation to Bressler on behalf of the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the property located in the LR-1B, one acre zoning district. The lot area is only .387 acres if the vacated portion of Forest Lane is included. Without that vacated portion, the lot is .336 acres. The applicants were encouraged to move forward with the vacation. Documentation shows that other vacations have occurred and this will likely be allowed here. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence. The existing structure encroaches into the west side yard at 3.4'. The chimney encroaches 1.7' and allowed at 18" and encroaches by 1". The residence is located front of the house next door. Van Zomeren felt the improvement will not affect average lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren said she was concerned with elevation as it slopes from the streetside doorway and the west side is completely exposed. The height is in keeping with the height requirement. The proposal includes an additional two bedrooms, storage room, master bath, with walk-in closet and bath. Staff asked that the Planning Commission provide direction due to the close proximity of the side yard variance request. The option was not available to place the improvements to the side of the house. • 19 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#8)#2346 Mark and Pamela Palm - Continued) Acknowledgment letters were signed by adjacent neighbors. Van Zomeren said the request is reasonable but is concerned with the 3.4' side yard setback. She cautioned the property owner to get a maintenance easement from the neighbor for placement of a ladder to access the upper portion of house if application is approved. Mrs. Palm said her neighbor in the neighboring house was unable to attend but supported the proposal. Van Zomeren acknowledged that the homes were staggered and encroachment was not as severe due to this. Smith asked if the neighbor on the hill would be impacted. Palm said there were mature trees and the view would be upward. Smith noted she would like to see the existing excess in structural coverage eliminated. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application#2346. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9)#2347 TIM SWEEZO,4480 WATERTOWN ROAD- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application#2347 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. • (#10)#2348 MARY JANE HAUSER, 1540 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- 10:07-11:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant, Mr. Hauser, was present along with Attorney, Bruce Malkerson. Bressler said staff received a letter from the applicant's engineer regarding stormwater management in response to staffs report. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application requires a hardcover variance in the 75-250' lakeshore setback for a new residence on a vacant lot. Bressler displayed the survey noting the house and loop driveway location. Hardcover was previously proposed at 32%in the 75-250' setback and is currently proposed at 29.4%. A 2-car garage in being proposed in the 250-500' setback, ahead of the principal structure, which is allowed on the lakeshore lot. Stormwater detention ponds are being proposed, which the applicant believes is adequate to mitigate the additional hardcover. Bressler indicated that the applicant would like to continue with the proposed ponds even if the hardcover variance is denied. Bressler said staff believes the pond will reduce runoff through a natural swale and supports the ponding proposal. A grade level deck is proposed that will not encroach the average lakeshore setback; such a deck is considered a non-encroachment. A proposed spa is planned behind the average lakeshore setback. 20 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • -(#10)#2348 Mary Jane Hauser Continued) Bressler reviewed the issues#1-8 as noted in the memorandum. Bressler noted that the proposed driveway takes advantage of the existing grades. The alternative suggestion would result in extensive grading. Bressler said Staff recommended denial of the variance as the driveway and deck could be reconfigured to meet the requirements. Attorney Bruce Malkerson, representing the Hauser's, provided additional information to the Commission. He felt the hardcover ordinance data does not support the requirement. He said the revised plan is typical of homes found in this area of the lake and Orono. Malkerson referenced the existing asphalt driveway and the sharp rise to the treed area. If the driveway was placed elsewhere to reduce the amount of hardcover, Malkerson said it would result in cutting through the treed area and causing headlights from vehicles shining into the neighboring homes. While acknowledging that the plan is new construction, Malkerson said the existing lot with landscaping and grades reflect where the best location is for the home and driveway. Bressler informed the Commission that Staff is not advocating for the new driveway but believe the existing driveway could be altered to reduce hardcover. Berg informed Malkerson that the proposal is for new construction. Malkerson responded • that the proposed house size is normal for this area. Smith asked Malkerson if it is the applicant's preference to maintain the plan for the residence as proposed and place the driveway in the treed area to reduce the amount of hardcover by 4%. Malkerson said that is the applicant's intent given the size of their family. Malkerson reviewed the hardcover allowance according to State law and felt it was not binding upon the City. Malkerson referenced the lot configuration in speaking about the applicant's hardship in substantiating the plan noting the lot was twice as wide as long. Malkerson also noted that the surface runoff goes into the lake untreated, and while it was the City's responsibility to treat the runoff, his client was willing to treat the runoff on his property via the pond. Malkerson said the intent of the hardcover regulations was to enable the cities to liberally grant variances, and cities have changed that intent. He felt the intent of proving hardship was not that there was no other use for the property but to give cities flexibility in granting variances. Malkerson felt the limited excess of hardcover over the standard is reasonable and meets the requirements of allowing the variance. Mr. Hauser said the plan has been revised many times with keeping in mind the 14' drop in grade. He felt any other location for the driveway would be unsatisfactory. Hauser felt the house has been scaled back as much as possible. Hauser said his neighbors support his plan. • 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#10)#2348 Mary Jane Hauser- Continued) Hauser said his intent is to utilize the lot in the best manner. Hauser said the neighboring homes exceed the allowable hardcover. Hauser felt he was not asking for anything special noting he could meet the hardcover allowance by placing the driveway in the treed area but reiterated the problems it would cause in that location. Hauser said the design has gone through much review. His time line is problematic, and he would like the Commission to make their recommendation at the meeting in order for him to move forward with his financing. Mabusth indicated that hardcover was the only issue and noted that the house was ideally located on the lot. Hauser asked the Commission to consider the additional burdens existing on the property. Berg suggested that an option was to eliminate the circular driveway. Mabusth asked if consideration has been given to removing a portion of the loop. Bressler said eliminating the loop driveway would reduce the hardcover within 1%of meeting the 25%allowed but had been informed by the applicant that this was not an option he would 4111 consider. Bressler said staff then looked at the footprint for possible reductions in hardcover. The plan for a straight driveway through the treed area would result in hardcover of 27%. A driveway alternate was noted on eases 10 and 11 of booklet presented by Malkerson, which eliminates the loop of the driveway reducing the driveway by 1000 s.£ at a 12'width. Hauser indicated this would place the driveway into the higher elevations. It would result in difficulty in backing out and require retaining walls and 2000 cubic yards of fill. Smith inquired about the proposed separate structure on the property. The structure is a proposed 2-car garage in addition to the 3-car attached garage. The original plan was for a 4-car attached garage but was eliminated due to hardcover. In noting the applicant's strong feelings regarding each element of the application and not wanting to redesign the plan any further, Stoddard asked what could be done to reduce the hardcover. Hauser said he has tried to do so and considers the straight driveway as a last resort. He feels the property conditions with the grades and fill constitute hardship to allow the hardcover variance for use of the existing driveway. Bressler proposed a change to the garage structure location and size to meet the hardcover. The separate structure would be increased in size and the attached garage reduced in size. It was noted that this increase would result in the structure becoming an oversized accessory structure. • 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#10)#2348 Mary Jane Hauser- Continued) Hauser said he understood that his plan calls for a hardcover variance. Hauser said the depression pond would give back to the property and treat runoff. He felt this could be a viable option to allow the variance to be granted. Mabusth asked if Hauser has discussed the pond with the neighbors. Hauser said the neighbors were concerned with standing water. The proposed pond will stop the runoff and immediately percolate resulting in no standing water. Bressler noted that Staff supported the nondina as planed but required the 25%hardcover be met as well. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend hardcover at 27%. Hauser felt any further reduction in hardcover would affect the neighborhood. Bressler noted that the hardcover on the property to the north, which has an older residence, is at 26.4% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. The house to the south was given a credit for the swimming pool towards hardcover as pools were not considered hardcover at the time it was built. Hardcover at that property is 27.1% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. Smith,while noting the excellent plan, felt it was incredulous that 4.8%of hardcover could not be eliminated. She felt the proposal was new construction and there were no • hardships to allow the hardcover variance. Mabusth agreed that the site plan was excellent but the hardcover was excessive. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend any leniency to allow him to work with staff. Berg said Planning Commission's directive is to meet the 25% allowable in hardcover. Hauser asked for an explanation of hardship which Berg supplied. Hauser said he has not mentioned the economics of the proposal but felt he needed to indicate that the house size was necessary to justify the expense of the lot. Smith agreed that the house was in keeping with the neighborhood but recommended the 25%hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend a smaller variance. Berg noted that the Commission is given guidelines in which to follow from the Council. Stoddard suggested the possibility of 25% hardcover in the 75-250' setback and 30% hardcover in the 250-500' setback with the applicant working with staff to meet these guidelines prior to the Council review. Bressler said there would be no variance required with this suggestion. • 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10)#2348 Mary Jane Hauser- Continued) Smith and Berg both felt the code should be applied to the application and the 25% hardcover be met. Malkerson reiterated that the driveway would need to cut through the treed area to meet this requirement. Malkerson did not believe the lot should be considered a "clean" lot, such as is found in a cornfield. Berg said the requirement applies to all lots. Malkerson suggested the grading and filling be considered as well. Berg noted that the issue is whether the lot can be built upon within the parameters given. Malkerson disagreed that the test of the lot was as indicated by Berg. Stoddard noted he did not believe there was a hardship based on the lot. Stoddard said he may consider a plan with a small variance but the Commission historically does not send to Council applications that are not substantiated with a proposed plan. Stoddard said he could not support the plan as submitted. Hauser asked to table the application for further review. Smith explained the procedure that is following. Bressler asked for direction for the applicant regarding the amount of hardcover. Hauser asked if the Commission would approve hardcover at 25.9%. Bressler noted that tabling the application would require an extension from the 60-day review period. • G p affron was asked for his opinion. Gaffron indicated that he would not be able to stipulate a percentage. He indicated in most cases the hardcover allowed sets the limit. Circumstances may present some alteration but is difficult with no hardship shown for a bare lot. Gaffron said Council may look at the existing amenities. Bressler noted that 320 s.f would equal 1%of hardcover. Berg asked if the applicant would consider eliminating the loop while still maintaining the entrance and driveway. Hauser said he would consider that noting the hardcover would still be exceeded by about 500 s.f Discussion was held regarding placement of the garage but Hauser said the locations were such to take advantage of the existing grades. Hauser said the driveway could come straight in as an option as previously noted. Berg informed Hauser that the Commission's intent is to create a good situation for both the city and applicant. Smith questioned whether there was adequate support of the 25.9%hardcover requested. This would result in elimination of the loop without moving the driveway. 24 A 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • -(#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser Continued) Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve the hardcover variance in 75-250' setback to allow 25.9% hardcover based on the applicant's proposed redesign of the driveway to utilize the layout of the lot. This recommendation would be subject to the applicant redesigning the plan prior to Council meeting. The recommendation is based on the applicant's stated hardship of having to cut into the treed area, reconfigure the utility poles if the driveway is realigned, and changes to grading. The driveway is to remain in the same location and hardcover removed where it can to meet the 25.9% hardcover. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11)#2351 LAURA ZAUNER,3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE- AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES- 11:14-11:21 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Fred Hendrickson represented the applicant. Bressler distributed photos of the property. The application is a request for an after-the- fact variance for 0-75' hardcover in the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore, and lakeshore setback for a deck replacement with railing. The replacement results in a • reduction in hardcover. Bressler reviewed the issues as noted in the memo as well as the staff recommendation for approval. Hendrickson said there had been a misunderstanding between the applicant and what was previously approved in 1992. Rotted decking was removed and replaced. The end result was a smaller deck. Additional hardcover was removed elsewhere on the property. There were no public comments. Hendrickson indicated the house is for sale. Berg moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application#2351. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. • 25 a • MINU'T'ES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • ZONING AMENDMENTS (#12) CITY OF ORONO CODE AMENDMENT RE: PARK DEDICATION FEE- 11:22-11:31 P.M. Gaffron referenced Moorse's memo indicating the City's intent to change the ordinance to reflect the rough proportionality and nexus requirements that have evolved concerning park dedications. Council had asked for a revision. Moorse suggested and Gaffron concurred that minimum and maximum dollar amounts for park dedication(to be established annually)were needed based on the value of park system. The park dedication ordinance was revised in 1989 to 8%of the value of the land of new subdivided lots. This did not take into account the impact per residence on parks, nor did it address proportionality. Gaffron noted the changes and additions to the code. He indicated the ordinance amendment is not in final form. Stoddard asked how the park dedication has been challenged. Gaffron explained how this has occurred. Gaffron informed Mabusth that Moorse has concluded through his analysis that the park • dedication maximum per lot should be about $4,900. This is justified based on park needs and anticipated needs for parks in the future, taking into account the existing park system value and the number of lots expected to be developed in the future. Berg noted the current ordinance did not reflect the need for park development and focus was on large lot sizes with need for trails not parks. Gaffron said the nexus shows the connection where bringing more people into the area will result in more use of parks and these people paying their fair share. Mabusth asked if the Park Commission reviewed the amendment. Gaffron said they gave some input and are not totally pleased with the result but accept the fact that the current ordinance is inadequate. Commissioners felt the amendment issue did not require further review by the Commission. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment subject to minor revisions and legal review prior to Council review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays . 0. 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#13) CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RE. LAND T'MD A TWIN _ 11./1_11.11 U M Gaffron reported that the land alteration code amendment is to allow staff the discretion regarding avnroval of 10 cubic yards of filling/grading/excavation within the shore setback zone without requiring a conditional use permit. If staff determines a specific application does not appear to meet the intent of City policies or goals, it can be further reviewed by Planning Commission and Council. Gaffron recommended approval as drafted. Smith supported the amendment. It was noted that an idea was presented by Bressler regarding allowing clearing of a path but no more than 25% of beach should be altered. Gaffron said the Comprehensive Plan suggests there be no change to the shoreland. He feels this would result in both good and bad impacts citing a recent example for a beach. Stoddard noted that the area below the OHW mark is controlled by the DNR, who recommended approval of that project. Gaffron felt that project would have been recommended for referral to Council because it created an unnatural environment. He noted that the Watershed District has authority between the OHW and the flood plain. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the zoning code amendment for staff . administration of limited types of land alterations on lakeshore property. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14)REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 AND MARCH 9. 1998 Smith, who attended the March 9, 1998 Council meeting, reported that much discussion was held regarding the Old Crystal Bay Road subdivision in relation to the trail and its location on either the west or east side. Gaffron indicated the Council decided to take an easement on the west side of the road on the subject property in order keep options oven for the future. This results in easements being located on both the east and west sides of Old Crystal Bay Road. No decision was made regarding where the trail will be located. (#15)OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to withdraw Application#2349 at the request of the applicant, Caribou Coffee. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. • 27 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 17 l I, 1//1000 V Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 23, 1998 AND APRIL 13, 1998 March 23 - Stoddard April 13 -Berg ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 11:42 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sandra Smith, Chair Person • • 28