Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2020 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler(arrived at 6:06 p.m.)Vice-Chair Bob Erickson, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Matt Gettman,Dennis Libby,and Mark Doepke,Alternate.Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart,City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden. Vice-Chair Erickson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gettman moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda for the March 16,2020 Planning Commission meeting.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2020 Libby moved,Gettman seconded,to approve the February 18,2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. LA20-000012 SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT,610,735,750& 780 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY; 4625 AND 4685 ST.ANDREWS STREET; AND 455 NORTH ARM DRIVE, LAKEVIEW OF ORONO CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION AND REDEDICATION- 6:02 P.M-6:29 P.M. Pat Hiller, Source Land Development,was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Doepke asked what purpose will be served by the proposed elimination of the conservation area within Lots 17 and 20 of Block 3. Curtis stated they are removing area from Lot 17 and replacing it on North Arm Drive in addition to a portion of Lot 20. She noted the developer could describe that,but believed it was a buildability issue. Doepke said he was curious about the discontinuity between the buildable portions within that lot. Curtis stated, if approved,they will move the lot line between 17 and 20 to accommodate the vacated area for a building site. It is an administrative area and not part of the application in front of the Commission. Ressler(arrived at 6:06 p.m.) Mr.Pat Hiller, Source Land Development, said as they gained some experience in the project,there were a certain number of lots not as favorable for building due to where the conservation lines were drawn initially. With some adjustments to the conservation lines as proposed,the lots are much more buildable. They wanted to do it on a balanced basis so the net conservation area of the project is at least the same,if Page 1 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. not more.The conversion of Lot 9 in Block 3 is making it possible.The owners of Lot 8 and the owners of Lot 9 are willing to combine the two lots and convert the entire buildable lot to conservation.He said that,in addition,they are proposing to change other conservation areas.Pointing to a dark green shaded area in Lot 17 of Block 3 of the plan,he stated the septic sites are towards the front of the lot and there is basically no way to grade the lot.He said it should never have been designed that way and is not very workable.He is proposing to flip-flop the building pads,and noted the green area would be put into conservation and the building pad moved off of North Arm Drive.It still leaves a continuous conservation area.He pointed out the areas of conservation and land that will be removed in the conservation area to make the lots more workable and gradable.There will be a net of 16,000 square feet of conservation area added to the project. He stated this will help the builders get through the project quicker and make the lots more saleable,buildable,and usable.They started with 46 lots and have 14-15 left, so the project has performed about as expected. Doepke asked whether the intent is to change the property line for Lot 17, go diagonally to the northeast, and the remaining portion of Lot 17 will be buildable. Mr.Hiller stated he was correct, indicating the hash mark area on the plan will be the buildable area.He said the existing line for Lot 17 does not meet the 200-foot front minimum. The only way to do so was to carve a triangle into Lot 20,into its conservation area,to create the appropriately-sized buildable pad. Both lots remain the required 2 acres,so all zoning standards are being met. Doepke stated there is a stream slightly within the conservation district going from north to eventually southeast on Lot 13 and the withdrawal of the triangle of the conservation area would make the buildable part of Lot 13 closer to the stream,which is closer than Lot 14's distance from the same stream.He asked how that situation came about. Mr.Hiller explained there is a 20-25-foot drop-off from the street to the stream and a conservation area around the stream for its protection.The area was so close to the building pad that it did not allow for the site to be graded. The change allows the lot to be graded properly. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Ressler stated the main consideration is whether this would have been approved had it been in the initial application. If so,the Commission would not have a reason not to accept it. Gettman said he is familiar with the area, and 16,000 square feet is actually'A of an acre,which is minimal.He is not comfortable with any changes, adding that it was a pushed-together agreement that has already upset a lot of people and wondered why the Commission would continue to upset more people. He anticipates the vacated area on Lot 17 being taken over by Lots 16 and 18.He already sees people doing activities like snowmobiling in the area, so he does not see it as being"conserved land." Bollis echoed Gettman's thoughts.He is fine with minor changes that make the lots more buildable,but said flipping Lot 17 takes a lot of buffer from North Arm Drive and changes the dynamics. He does not know if it would have been approved originally since he was not present when it was presented earlier. He is fine with the rest of the changes. Page 2 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson stated he recognizes Staff approval,noting the Commission is allowed to recommend approval for all, some, or none of the changes.He said he is in receipt of 3 letters: Mr.Eader suggests he has come to an agreement.Bryce Johnson,who is representing the Citizens for Lakeview Preservation, said he is generally okay with it but hoped any individual issues affecting neighboring houses can be solved to the satisfaction of those involved. Mr. Crandall, a homeowner next to Lot 15, is concerned about the loss of the conservation easement area on Lot 15.He said,keeping those documents in mind,he would lean towards improving the plan with the exception of the Lot 15 loss of conservation area. Libby said he tends to agree with Staffs evaluation since the proposal has met their expectations. Overall, he looks at this from a highest/best use perspective.He is conscious of conservation, preservation,and restoration,yet the original development evolved into some unforeseen consequences.Land development is complicated and not perfect;moving dirt is very expensive. He felt the proposal was fairly well thought out,but as the process has gone through subdividing land and lots,things happen. He does not see a deprivation;he sees a gain. Doepke stated the trading of land for other land benefits the community overall.His concern is Lot 15, wherein the owner of Lot 10 was expressing an issue about having some of the conservation easement taken away.The letter indicates the issue was satisfactorily resolved.He did not get an understanding from the letter that Mr.Crandall was referring to the Lot 15 issue, so he had no comment.He has a slight concern with the addition of a driveway right on the curve of North Arm Drive. Ressler noted he tries to look at things with an unbiased lens. Generally,people are opposed to developments.This is one of the largest developments that has been done in recent history in Orono, and change is naturally going to be opposed. In these types of situations,he tends to follow Staff recommendations.Although he sees the opposition,he feels like the applicant has done their best to try to appease some of the opposition and made efforts to improve that. Doepke asked Staff what the specific consideration was in regard to the driveway that would be added along North Arm Drive,as far as if the County would need to be involved,etc. Barnhart said Staff has not done any analysis on the driveway location or where the house would be located.That would be a discussion for later. Erickson asked Staff to point out what lot Mr. Crandall was referring to. Curtis stated she assumed he meant Lot 17,but she doesn't know because he did not say. Erickson noted Mr. Crandall's letter indicates that when he bought his house there would only be one new house next to him. With the loss of conservation area,another house would be allowed,presumably on the other side. Doepke said if Mr. Crandall is on Lot 21,Lots 20 and 22 are already buildable,which is very clear.His letter is not very clear. Erickson stated that Mr. Crandall is clear that he is getting another house that he was not planning on. Page 3 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Hiller said he thought Mr. Crandall's letter was regarding the new building pad on Lot 17 and that was his concern,not Lot 15.He lives on Lot 21 and there will be a house between his lot and Lot 17,so it does not affect him directly. He pointed out the location of the garage, and then the location of the driveway and where it would meet North Arm Drive.He estimated the sight distance around the bend at roughly 270 feet.He felt that was an adequate sight distance.The rationale for flip-flopping the site is because it currently is not usable from a practical standpoint. Gettman said part of the issue is that Lot 20 is currently undeveloped and the Lot 21 owner looks at the area as open and will get upset with Lot 20 being built on.Another lot in between is going to add to the traffic,congestion,and the view they are trying to preserve. He appreciates that Staff has not steered the Commission awry,but the Commission's purpose is not to reiterate what Staff has done,it's to give feedback on what the impression is for the community,which is purely negative. Libby moved to approve LA20-000012 Source Land Development,610,735,750& 780 Lakeview Parkway; 4625 and 4685 St.Andrews Street; and 455 North Arm Drive,Lakeview of Orono Conservation Easement Vacation and Rededication. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Gettman moved,Erickson seconded,to deny LA20-000012 Source Land Development,610,735,750 & 780 Lakeview Parkway; 4625 and 4685 St.Andrews Street; and 455 North Arm Drive,Lakeview of Orono Conservation Easement Vacation and Rededication. Doepke asked if the Commission needed to discuss whether to deny something in full or in part. Ressler said that has happened in other meetings and often time is wasted trying to find a way to make it work. The feedback provides the option for the applicant to take it further,regardless of the findings,to go in front of the City Council for their final ruling.Unless Staff has another opinion,he believes that is the direction the Commission has been given. Barnhart agreed with Ressler,noting there is a motion and second on the floor to deny the proposal as presented.He did not hear from anyone a desire to make a motion to approve in part or deny in part.He stated it was appropriate to vote on the motion as presented. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2(Ressler,Libby). Barnhart said the City Council will receive the minutes with the discussion and recommendation of denial,likely on April 13,and vote based on that. 3. LA20-000007 PAUL VOGSTROM,2709 WALTERS PORT LANE,VARIANCES- 6:29 P.M.-7:21 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, 1151 North Arm Drive, o/b/o the Property Owner,and Sue Dunkley,Property Owner, were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Mr.Paul Vogstrom stated the owner had a geothermal system in place that no longer works because of a house fire.They are not upgrading the system;they are trying to put a system back in that will be functional.They have spent a lot of time trying to get the heating system to work.Although this is a large home,it does not allow for taking out a 3-story stairway in order to put the furnace room in.He said the Page 4 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. whole house is basically in the 0-75. One of the variances he is looking for is 3 square feet,and he pointed out that area on the plan.He understands impacting the shoreline is sensitive not only to him,but also to Staff and everyone that lives in the community. He discussed the location of the stormwater management system and noted the retention area on the plan,which will minimize any runoff impact on the shoreline.He noted another variance is the average shoreline setback--on a man-made channel -- which brings the average shoreline setback to 150 feet from the shore.He said,with the shape of the land, the equipment in the first room has been challenging, and they did the best they could and minimized it to 3 square feet.They are taking the water and directing it away from the lake. They believe it is a hardship arising from the fire.The owners loved their geothermal heating system,but the fire got so hot that it compromised all of the in-floor radiant heat. They had to jackhammer all the tile up on the floors except the basement. On the main level and second floor,it is demoed to the studs. The heating system needs to be in the basement,and he did not feel it made sense to tear more things apart,remove stairways,or do something internally to put a system in,because the homeowners had no control over this issue. Mr.Ashraf Wahba,AS&W Mechanical Corporation,said the fire was over 1200°F in the garage. He had photos of where the fire started and also the staircase in the basement.He discussed the support load beam and indicated nothing could be moved interior-wise. The only 2 things that survived the fire were the elevator and staircase,and he said he could not justify demoing the stairs.He displayed several pictures of the structure's interior and talked about the challenges given the sizing,configuration,and concrete.According to State Code,there cannot be obstructions 3 feet in front of a breaker panel and anything related to line voltage or low voltage.He also pointed out the steel welded into the structure on the second level.He said the fire was in the kitchen and went up.He indicated the geothermal heat pump company went out of business in 2012.He noted there were initially 3 mechanical rooms. The new mechanical room will contain a boiler,domestic hot water, and ventilation system,which is the same as before the fire. The fourth mechanical room will be in the master bedroom.He discussed the code requirements that need to be followed in relation to the house.He stated it is not an equipment upgrade; it is more of a downgrade. Ms. Sue Dunldey,2709 Walters Port Lane,said the codes changed 3 times since 2008 but they were in compliance when the house was built.Because of the location of the furnace room and electric,they need to use that area for what it was intended. She is hopeful that since the issue is being 3 feet closer to a man- made channel as opposed to a lakeshore,that this is something they can go with. She knows the Commission does not want anyone in the 75-foot setback. She said the house was built in the 1950s,there was no Council at that time,and that is the foundation they have.They did not intend to be on the lakeshore. She understands the drainage area has been a huge problem from the beginning, and they are spending a large amount of money to readjust all of the drainage that comes throughout the neighborhood. She is hopeful the Planning Commission can help them out; it will be 1'V2 years before the project is done. Mr. Vogstrom said there is an Affidavit from a neighbor that supports this and doesn't have an issue with the addition.There have been meetings in the neighborhood, and as far as he knows,no one has voiced opposition. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Page 5 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler asked Staff if there was a place that would have made it conducive without creating a need for a variance or if it was required because of the lot. Curtis said that is what the applicant requested and proposed. Mr.Vogstrom asked the Commission to look at the orange line on the plan and indicated there is nowhere to add on and said this location is the best spot to minimize hardcover in the 0-75. Looking at the floor plan of the basement,given the location of the electrical and geothermal rooms,they would have to move a 3-story stairway in order to expand those rooms. He did not know if that was a good option and did not know where else to put the furnace without doing a major tearout and rebuild. He noted they do not have to demo the basement,just the area around the existing utility room. Gettman asked if the companies that made the geothermal equipment in the existing footprint no longer exist. Mr. Vogstrom indicated he was correct. Gettman asked if there were similar companies that provide similar equipment that could go in the same footprint. Mr.Wahba indicated that the equipment would be larger. Gettman asked if that would be in comparison to this proposal,which is to change the entire HVAC. Mr.Wahba said they are replacing what was damaged in the fire. If they replaced the geothermal,every heat pump that is water-to-water or water-to-refrigerant is larger. With the furnaces,his plan will downsize/downgrade. Gettman noted that would be true except the sliver of area indicated on the plans. Mr.Vogstrom stated the geothermal would be a larger footprint with the new equipment. Gettman asked if the geothermal replacement would require them to go outside of the current footprint. Mr. Vogstrom and Mr.Wahba said that it would because the heat pumps are larger than the old ones. Gettman asked whether that would take space inside the house or outside the house. Mr.Vogstrom said the loops would have to be heated outside.Outside you would have loops that store water; inside the house you have to have a source to heat it.The heating source is a larger system now. Mr. Wahba said it would have to be heated with a boiler and with heat pumps outside. Doepke,referencing the diagram,asked if any consideration was given to moving the utility room up to the diagonal wall,which is to the right of the front door,because that way nothing would be within the setback and may also create a bigger space in the basement. Page 6 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Vogstrom stated that would not be a large enough area. In addition,there are support beams in the area which makes it not feasible,because that area would be torn apart. He noted there are many things that could be done,but the fire created the hardship. Ressler said a fire is a reason for a hardship to replace like-kind.Adding structure is the deliberation of whether that fire is feasible for like-kind replacement. In his opinion,a fire is not necessarily grounds for a hardship. It sounds like the applicant is not able to replace like-kind with the equipment that is currently in the building. Mr.Vogstrom said he understands it is a complicated situation but the hardship is as a result of the fire. He understands they are adding a setback, but it is an unusual lot and it is 3 square feet.He noted they are also completely redoing the grade and fixing a major problem in the neighborhood. He thinks that should be taken into consideration when talking about 3 square feet and putting in a new furnace system to accommodate their hardship. Libby noted that this is a unique and unusual home. In the past he has seen people avoid expansion of the footprint by using a portion of the basement footprint and install equipment subterranean to whatever the base floor is of the basement.He suggested the possibility of having mechanical and electrical rooms that are below the level and below the basement grade which may avert the variance process. Ressler asked Libby whether, since it is a small amount being talked about,he is saying that hopefully the applicant can do the project within the dimensions that are available. Libby said he cannot give a plan or engineering design but suggested the designers take a look at it.From past experience,he knows it is doable and feasible architecturally and mechanically.He noted that if the water table was high,there would need to be some abatement of water flow with neighbors. Mr.Vogstrom said they could do anything but felt this design was the least impactful. It would be costly to do an underground heating system within the existing footprint and it would have more of an impact on the look, shoreline,etc.He has suggested what makes the most sense and the least impact. Libby asked how many square feet is below grade. Curtis said the footprint of the entire house is 10,700 square feet. Mr.Vogstrom said it was a couple thousand. Curtis asked the applicant if the accommodation for the utility room could be done in the basement and without the first-floor addition. Mr.Vogstrom stated it could potentially be done,but the impact is already there and they would still need to put a roof on it. Curtis asked if the square footage would be below grade and then a main floor room addition. Mr.Vogstrom stated she was correct and that there would be hardcover.They could put a flat roof so it would not block the windows in the front,but he is not excited about that as far as long-term warranties. Curtis asked how far out of the ground the basement addition would have to be. Page 7 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Vogstrom said it would have to be a couple of feet with the existing grade.He noted the garage is lower than the main floor and that is where there is a transition in grade.He stated it is a triangular-shaped 3-square foot piece. The other area could be added without any variance. Curtis clarified that it requires an average lakeshore setback variance and is 73 square feet;that 3 feet is in the 75-foot setback. Ressler asked if he was reading the diagram correctly:the orange line indicates the 75-foot setback and the yellow boxed area is the proposed addition. Curtis stated he was correct. Ressler asked if that was encroaching on the setback. Curtis noted the yellow line indicates the average lakeshore setback,the orange line is the 75-foot,and the red triangle is the 3 square feet within the 75. Bollis said the applicant is allowed to build like-kind,and they are not able to build the mechanicals for this house for like-kind to what they had.He does not think it is fair to say they have to take up additional square footage in their home for the like-kind,because now they have lost square footage due to replacing a like-kind.He would be in favor of it if he voted right now. Doepke stated he agreed with Bollis. Erickson said the Staff recommendation is well-taken.Although it is a small variance, it is a large house and it leads one to believe there are other places within the house it could go.He noted there have been other cases where the Commission has strictly adhered to the 75-foot setback.He is a firm believer of the principle of applying ordinances,standards,and policies as equally as possible.He noted he leans towards a denial on that basis. It is only 3 feet,but it starts a precedent that leads down a slippery slope. Ressler indicated that the Commission's job is to make things as compliant as possible and allow for variances as a last resort.He believes the design is reasonable,but their job is to determine whether it is viable for a variance due to demonstrating enough practical difficulty.He has heard some good arguments regarding the like-kind concept.He would like to make the small area basically go away but is not sure whether that is possible.He is not sure the application,as pieced together,demonstrates enough of a practical difficulty to grant a variance exception as applied. Ms.Dunkley said that someone could have a house this size and give up a bedroom,but she feels it is a hardship to take space designated for something else. She thinks everyone would have a hard time doing that. She said they have taken a long time to come before the Commission to ask for this;the fire was October 11. It is not their fault 3 separate codes have changed; and if the fire had not occurred,they would be allowed to live like they were.Because they had the fire,they are required to upgrade to the new code. She did not want to remodel her home; she loves her home.The iron staircase can't move,nor should anything else have to be moved.If it can come from the same area it was,they would not have to redo electrical plans;they would just need to redo where everything came up,and so on. She believes it is definitely a hardship. She said it might not be written up that way in City Code,but if any of them have ever been through a fire,they might be more understanding. She does not understand how anyone on the Page 8 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Commission can say this is not a hardship. She hopes the Commission can look at it as an exception.If any of them had to redo their furnace room and electrical room and they had to be doubled in size,she wondered what room they would give up. Mr. Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, stated he is the contractor.He said the bathrooms and the concrete floor are staying where they are. If you build a utility room,you need a floor drain and other items. If there is a fire,it should be like-kind,and if they have to tear up a floor or move a bathroom,the insurance company will not cover that.They are trying to do like-kind and have exhausted a lot of different options regarding heating systems.He stated they have done the best job they could for the least impact.The house was built in the 1950s,and they built on the original footprint and foundation. Gettman presented a scenario of the code changing which required mechanical areas to be a 12x12 square where it pushed it out to the same utility room,and asked if the Commission would also deny that. Curtis asked for clarification. Gettman reiterated his non-rhetorical question and said--without moving stairs,digging down,or moving in any particular direction--if that is the only way to get like-kind. Curtis stated that it isn't like-kind; it is expanding the envelope of the building. She understands the applicant needs to retrofit the system, and if the Commission feels it is a practical difficulty,then that's how they can move forward. However, it is an expansion of the building within the setback. Ressler asked whether,if the expansion of the building were not within the area of red on the diagram,it would be a different scenario. Curtis said the 75-foot setback is impactful. She stated there are also 2 variances. Ressler asked what Staff's opinion would be if the red area was removed from the application and the proposal was just within the yellow,rather than the yellow and the orange. Curtis indicated Staffs opinion would be different. She noted there is a purpose for each of the setbacks. Ressler said he does not have a problem with the location. He noted that his house was built by his grandfather in the 1950s,they had a similar tragedy happen,and they had the same difficulties trying to replace within the same building envelope.He stated that given the lack of input from neighbors,there is no opposition.He is trying to find a way to make it as compliant as possible.He can see this being approved as applied by the City Council.He tends to lean toward being in favor of the addition as long as the addition does not encroach upon the area. Libby stated he thinks the applicant has made an articulate appeal to the relatively small square footage. Trying to borrow from other ideas and innovation and seeing other problem-solving, including recent changes in efficiencies of HVACs,his opinion would be to retract the 3 feet,keep it within the envelope, and the approval process would not have to be gone through for the variance. Ressler stated the recommendation could be approved as applied also. Doepke asked if any specific alternatives were considered. Page 9 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated that while it is important that the applicant develop alternatives,they have presented this proposal and this proposal is what gets voted on. Ressler said it becomes a slippery slope to try and redesign on the fly and it ends up being a pretty long meeting.Regardless of the Commission approving or denying,it will be brought to the City Council.The Commission needs to entertain what is in front of them and make a decision. Erickson commented that in the Application Summary it indicates the applicant is requesting the lake and average lakeshore setback variances. The City has held pretty firm regarding lake setback variances;the average lakeshore setback variances tend to happen more often. Ressler clarified that Erickson would be in support of the average lakeshore setback variance but would like to see a proposal that does not include the 75-foot setback. Erickson confirmed Ressler's statement. After discussion regarding options of approval,Barnhart indicated the Commissioners have provided feedback for the applicant in terms of what goes forward to City Council.Alternatively,the Commission could table the action and suggest the applicant change the application.He recommended voting on the application as presented. Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA20-00007 Paul Vogstrom,2709 Walters Port Lane, Variances.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Bollis). Barnhart noted the recommendation would go to the City Council at the first meeting in April. 4. LA20-000016 PAUL VOGSTROM,2710 PENCE LANE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 7:22 P.M.-7:39 P.M. Paul Vogstrom,o/b/o the Property Owner, and Eric Vogstrom,Property Owner,were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. She noted Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the property owners' agreement to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property addressing the plumbing and the status as an oversized accessory building,providing that the accessory building will not be: 1.Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house Conditional Use Permit is obtained. 3.Rented,leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.4.Regarding future subdivision of the property: a.No future subdivision will be approved that places the oversized accessory building within a lot that has no principal building;b. If the property is subdivided,the oversized accessory building and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the oversized accessory building; c. In subdivision approval,the setback required for the oversized accessory building shall remain. Doepke referenced a letter which indicates,"it would be both irresponsible and naïve to consider issuing this permit based on the repeated violations on record,"and asked what the violations were. Oakden stated she believed the lot owner was still working on some shoreline restoration. Page 10 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler pointed out that the Commission has approved such applications in the past. Oakden agreed and said they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a shower. Ressler noted there is nothing that says the Commission cannot approve the application. Oakden said he was correct, if the Commission sees that the conditions are being met. Ressler clarified that it is not approving or endorsing the space for a rental of any kind. Oakden stated he was correct; it is not allowed to be rented or leased.That is a listed requirement which is recorded when filling out this CUP. Ressler stated the Commission is being asked to approve a shower and that everything else is in order. Oakden indicated the applicant does not have a building permit for the structure,but the actual proposed detached garage does meet City Code requirements. The CUP is only for the shower. Mr.Paul Vogstrom, 1151 North Shore, said if there is a concern about the violations,he would love to have the Commission dig into it and understand because,to his knowledge,there is only some discrepancy on where the riprap has been placed.He stated his brother,Eric,the owner,has talked to the neighbors about screening. They would have preferred to not have the detached garage added on to the structure. They had many meetings discussing the average shoreline setbacks and had to move the house so far away from the lake that it made the side yard setbacks quite a bit smaller.They were hoping to have a few more stalls in the garage; it could have been deeper to accommodate the different storage unit requirements that are needed for the detached garage.What they have proposed is in the code. It will not be used for rental;people will not be living there;it will be used by non-paying people and family members. Ressler asked Staff what the ramifications are if the usage is not in compliance with the CUP. Oakden stated it would be a violation of the CUP,which is something the Council could take action on. Ressler asked if that would be a revocation. Oakden said the Council grants a CUP and it stays with the property. If there are concerns that it is not meeting the CUP standards,the Council can revisit the CUP at any time. Barnhart indicated the City Council would need to have a cause to do so. Ressler clarified it would need to be in violation of the conditions. Barnhart stated the City Council could revoke a CUP in the same way that they grant a CUP,which is through a public hearing,etc.What it would mean is, it would remove the ability for a shower but the structure can remain there. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Page 11 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Bill Griffith, 8300 Norman Center Drive,Bloomington, said he represents neighbors Greg and Kelli Hueler,who were out of the state.He had two comments: first, it has been a difficult building project for the Huelers which has taken a couple of years. Second, if the City is going to recommend additional screening,it is imperative that it become a condition of approval because a condition can remain unresolved unless it is a condition of approval.They share a driveway,which has also been an issue, although he believes that is getting resolved.There were violations during construction,but he believes those have been resolved.His main point is,there are unresolved shoreline issues that are currently part of a contested case. In his experience,cities rarely grant additional intensification of land use when there are existing violations pending. They relate directly to this property and the use of this property.His clients' request is to not intensify the land use by even adding a shower,because that is an intensification of use. It also can be used for purposes other than as constructed.He thinks it is incumbent upon any property owner that makes a request of the City to clean up their act, eliminate their violations,and then move forward with their request.On behalf of his clients,he requested the Commission to deny the application pending the shoreline violations,or if it does go forward,to condition it upon additional screening and buffering. Mr.Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, stated he did not appreciate them saying he had stop-work orders on his property,because he did not.He is not sure where they got that information.They are resolving the lakeshore issue on those properties. He talked to Greg and Kelli Hueler a few months ago,and they had some grading issues,too.He thought they had buried the hatchet. They discussed when they were done grading what would be the thought on trees for a screen edge and agreed to work on it together.They had some low spots on their property,and they agreed to work together on that.He was under the impression they were on good terms and he told them about his garage. They said as long as it was legal they did not care,that he should not do things that are not legal. Obviously,this is something he can do.They are not going to support any variances,etc.,but said they would not oppose something he can do legally.He indicated they would put screening in;it is something they want and something he wants. He does not think it is fair to put the burden on himself,nor is it something the Commission has done in the past.He indicated he can do another 1,000 square feet there also,as long as there is hardcover. He did try to consider their feelings. Mr.Richard Crosby,2705 Walters Port Lane,said he is a neighbor about 3 houses over from the project. The way he looks at it is,if the Commission has not denied a shower in the past and if the owners are going to fulfill the CUP,it should not be denied now.He does not feel a shower inside of a building has anything to do with the outside of a structure or shading trees,etc.He thinks the Commission should stick with precedence.The applicant has tried to be as cooperative as possible.He said he has been there since the original house was built;and the more cooperation,the more neighborly,friendship,and so forth,the quicker you get through the process. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Ressler said that when additional screening is discussed,it does not relate to a CUP for adding an interior shower. It is a nice touch,and if the applicant would like to do so as far as being a good neighbor,that is admirable;but he does not know if he would vote for or against based on screening.As far as the pending litigation and the potential violation that is apparently not adjudicated yet,the City Attorney would probably need to weigh in on that.Unless Staff indicated the Commission does not have the ability to rule on the application based on the pending disagreement,in the essence of time,it would behoove everyone to move this one way or the other on to the next steps. Page 12 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson congratulated Staff on their recommendation,noting at the end of their report they have 4 items relating to potential for subdivision and potential for rental use,etc. He would support a resolution including those recommendations. Erickson moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000016 Paul Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit according to Staff recommendations,including Items 1-4.VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 5. LA20-000011 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS- 7:39 P.M.-7:44 P.M. Barnhart presented a summary of packet information. Bollis asked if there is currently a time limit for an appeal. Barnhart stated there is not a time limit to the Courts. If the applicants disagree with Staff's decision or if they disagree with the Boards decision on an appeal,they have to file an appeal within 10 days.If it is a decision that Staff makes,the Planning Commission reviews that as the appeal Board.After that time,the City Council would review that. Ressler said the change the City is trying to impose is to clarify that the appealing party has 30 days to draft the document. Barnhart clarified that the party would have exhausted the appeals through the Board and the City Council,and if they want to appeal a decision of the City Council,they have to file the appeal within 30 days to the Courts system. Ressler said he is trying to understand the ramifications if they do not file the appeal. Barnhart said the party has then exhausted their opportunity for appeal of the decision and have to accept it. Doepke asked if there were any specific incidents that have come up that made the change advisable. Barnhart stated that the City Attorney monitors court cases throughout the state and country.There was an incident in Duluth that triggered this as an issue.There is not an issue in Orono that he is aware of. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Ressler summarized his understanding as not seeing any harm in approving the amendment nor any ramifications that could possibly be in place. Doepke moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA20-000011 City Of Orono,Text Amendment Related to Appeals.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 13 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 6. LA20-000014 WHITTEN ASSOCIATES,INC., 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,SKETCH PLAN-7:44 P.M.-8:08 P.M. Tim Whitten,the Applicant,was present. Barnhart presented a summary of packet information. Ressler thanked Staff for the comments about how the Commission is not addressing the traffic issue but that it will be addressed eventually.The roads and the outline of the buildable envelope also helps.He asked if the cul-de-sac was good enough for the standards Staff believed are needed. Barnhart said the only aspect that is not met is the maximum length of a cul-de-sac,which is 1,000 feet. The cul-de-sac is a little longer than that.However,the City has quite a few of them,partly due to the nature of Orono's subdivision patterns.He said the critical part is that there are adequate turnaround opportunities at the end. Ressler asked if the alternative to a longer cul-de-sac would be long,private shared driveways. Gettman asked if the applicant looked at removing Lot 5 and pulling back the actual cul-de-sac to that point to fall within the 1,000 feet. Barnhart stated he did not advise them on the length issue. He said if it is a hard and fast rule,the applicant could make some choices on how to develop it.They could lose a lot,have long driveways,it could be any number of patterns,but at this point Staff did not see it as a critical issue. Ressler said he thought it should be the way it is. The other alternatives,such as a really long shared driveway,does not seem like that would make it fit better. Gettman asked if there were 3 houses on the property right now. Barnhart said there is 1 principal structure and a number of accessory buildings. Ressler asked if they were located on Lot 6. Gettman noted that it looked like it was Lots 4,6,and 7. Doepke asked if the existing house would be torn down and replaced. Barnhart stated that he would defer that question to the applicant. Libby noted that from his knowledge regarding the MUSA line for the sewer system,it was evident when it was installed and upgraded at the first phase of Tanager Estates that it was large enough and had enough capacity to serve 3 large-scale residences.A remediation was also done on the subsurface treatment system for the original estate and the estate was connected to that system.He asked Staff if he was correct in his understanding. Barnhart indicated he was correct. Page 14 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said he talked to the City Engineer at the time because the installation of the new pump and system caused him to have a steel plate put over his driveway, so he got an up-close and personal look at it.He asked if that system had the capacity for 7 additional properties. Barnhart said that it could but they do not know yet.That level of analysis is not done at the time of a sketch plan.He is optimistic and pretty confident that the site will be served,although he does not know exactly how. Those answers will be given by the time it gets to the preliminary plat. Libby said Lot 3 already has a sewer system serving the primary estate now.He noted it might be a question for the City Engineer. Barnhart indicated the applicant had a meeting with the neighborhood in the past week to inform them about what is going on. If the project moves forward,the neighbors will also get a notice from the City. Mr.Tim Whitten, Whitten Associates,said he appreciates the opportunity to be in front of the Planning Commission to discuss any concerns in general about the project before they go to the next level.Their intent was to present something to the City that fits the ordinances of the City.He noted they have had a neighborhood meeting and they had a couple of comments from people that could not make the meeting. All the comments they heard were pretty positive. Libby asked, from both a development standpoint and Hennepin County recommendation standpoint,if Whitten favored any of the proposals that Hennepin County brought forward in the narrative they provided the City Engineer. Mr. Whitten stated the only entrance is the one off of 15.Looking at the topography,using Heritage Lane, how long that cul-de-sac already is and how many homes it serves,it does not make a lot of sense. If you look hard at the turn-lane element,they have a lot to look at from an engineering perspective such as traffic and trees.He thinks they have identified most setbacks as far as wetlands and steep slopes,etc.He noted there are a lot of engineering questions that need to be answered as they move forward. Ressler indicated they are trying to give this a 30,000-foot view before they spend more money.His feedback is that it looks right.He appreciates the applicant's desire to be compliant.He hears loud and clear that being connected to the City sewer is a major component. It has not been determined how,but the support would change in the event it was not. Libby noted that,in addition to the estate-style housing sites,there is intrinsic lakeshore and it is marketed as being a little over 700 linear feet,which is what the current property ownership has on Smith Bay.He said there are intentions for only 3 residents to have docks, and asked for clarification on how many docks per resident there would be in a proposal or a plan. Ressler asked Mr. Whitten if they are at that point yet,to which Mr. Whitten indicated they are not. Libby clarified that his question was not for the applicant but,rather,the marketer of the development, because there has been large and prominent signage for a long time that people are able to see. Barnhart pointed out that there are 4 lake lots; 3 lots on Smith Bay to the south, and 1 lot on Tanager. Page 15 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,March 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said it is not within the Commission's purview to be talking about that or making decisions but is more of a perspective of the development and how it will come together because these are lakeshore lots, which makes them distinctively different from other lots that do not have access to the lake. Barnhart said he expects all 4 lake lots to have docks, although he does not know that. He would anticipate all the docks would meet LMCD requirements. Other than that,plans have not been developed. Libby noted that if it is a new dock,the City would require a license. Barnhart stated Libby might be referring to joint-use docks,which the City requires a permit for.The applicant has not suggested that is the case for this project nor made mention of it at this point. Ressler noted the feedback he is hearing is that this is going in the right direction.He does not see anything offensive with the proposed layout,it looks thoughtfully placed,and it would be in character with the neighborhood. Erickson referenced the letter from the Hennepin County Transportation Planner,stating they talk about Heritage Lane,and added that if it is not considered reasonable,they would accept the retention of the existing driveway as proposed.He said he would not consider it reasonable to shift all the traffic to Heritage Lane and it would be more reasonable to use the existing driveway on County Road 15.If that is the route taken,they recommend turn lanes on 15,which he would endorse due to the high traffic and high speed.Two full turn lanes for in and out would maximize the safety aspect. Libby said when the first phase of Tanager Estates was developed,there was substantial precedence set by a lot of evidentiary and the Orono Bluff Preservation Ordinance and that the bluff is very recognizable, it is delineated,and any construction or work would have to be within the guise and auspices of Orono's Bluff Conservation Ordinance. Barnhart noted this item would be before the City Council on April 13. 7. UPDATE ON MARCH 9,2020 COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart stated many items the Commission reviewed in February went to the March 9 City Council meeting and provided an update on their decisions. ADJOURNMENT Gettman moved,Doepke seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:11 p.m.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: elReeS4e-, Chair 54--O 4- kirai er Page 16 of 16