Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2022 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon,Commissioners Scott Kirchner,Bob Erickson,and alternates Dave Peterson and Gary Kraemer(arrived at 7:03 p.m.). Commissioners Chris Bollis,Jon Ressler,Dennis Libby, and Matt Gettman were absent.Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair McCutcheon received word before the meeting that Mr.Nygard would like two minutes to make public comments and asked if there is a motion to add it. Kirchner is not in favor. McCutcheon noted it is not common for the Planning Commission to hold public comments. Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda as submitted.VOTE:Ayes 4,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 12,2022 Kirchner moved,Erickson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of July 12,2022.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000032 PETIT DESIGN,3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,REQUESTS SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR A HOUSE AND DECK ADDITION ON THE LAKESIDE OF THE HOME. (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Barry Petit,on behalf of the Applicant,was present. Community Development Director Oakden gave a presentation on the item, stating the Applicant proposes a remodel project with the inclusion of a second floor cantilever addition at roughly 34 square feet to the front of the home. They are also requesting 20 square feet of a deck addition to the front of the home which is located within the 75 foot setback. The project maintains the current hardcover at 43%but they are changing the nature from at-grade to structural. The lot is substandard with respect to lot area and lot width and currently has building and hardcover encroachments within the setback. Staff recommends reducing the overall hardcover of the property as part of the request.The property owner received a variance in 2015 for the second floor cantilever and bathroom addition but they did not pull a building permit for the project and it has since expire d. Tonight the Applicant is looking to request the same variance for the same 2015 plans. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are practical difficulties in the lot's size,width,and the configuration of the existing home and access to Crystal Bay Road being completely within the 75' lake yard to support Applicants' request for the proposed variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of variances as requested as they are supported by practical difficulties. Page 1 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Chair McCutcheon noted this area of Orono comes up a lot with narrow lots and second story additions are pretty typical. Kirchner agreed with the no net increase or decrease in hardcover and thinks practical difficulties are established by the 13 foot deep building path on the lot based on setbacks and the 75 foot lakeyard setback. Kraemer agrees with Kirchner. Kirchner moved,Kraemer seconded,to approve LA22-000032, 3349 Crystal Bay Road,Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 5,Nays 0. 2. LA22-000037 612 SIGNS,1444 SHORELINE DRIVE,REQUESTS A SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MONUMENT SIGN.(STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) William Salvador,on behalf of the Applicant,was present. Ms. Oakden gave a presentation on the item,noting the Applicant is requesting a zero foot street setback for a monument sign.The Applicant is requesting approval of a setback variance to permit construction of a 9' x 1.4'monument sign that will be 7.3 feet tall. The property currently has an eight foot wide sign installed on two 4"x 4"posts, located between the building and the pavement of County Road 15.The existing sign encroaches into the right-of-way.The existing sign is located over a utility easement and the new monument sign is also proposed to remain within the utility easement.The Applicant is proposing a zero foot setback from the right-of-way.A monument sign is required to have a 5 foot setback from all property lines.The proposed plan would remove the current sign encroaching into the right of way but the new sign would not meet the required 5 foot setback. Staff recommends any new improvements placed within the City utility easement be addressed with an encroachment agreement and an equal amount of hardcover reduced from the property to maintain existing levels.The Applicant has identified the substandard street yard due to the existing location of the business. The Applicant states the monument sign is necessary to increase visibility of the business to aid in reducing traffic hazards.The Applicants have provided supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Staff finds that there are some practical difficulties in the lot configuration,with the location of the existing building challenging traffic sightlines. Staff also acknowledges that the proposal will resolve the existing right-of-way encroachment.However, the property has conforming locations for alternative placement of a monument sign. The proposed monument sign an accessory use of the property and the business is considered the primary use.The proposed zero foot setback for the sign is a convenience to the property owner and not a necessity for the primary use of the property.Ms. Oakden noted the engineer provided comments in the packet and no public comment was received. Staff finds there are conforming building locations that would meet the 5 foot setback requirement and finds that the proposed location is out of convenience.Any encroachment in the utility easement would require an encroachment agreement.Planning staff recommends denial of the proposed variance. Page 2 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner asked which encroachment the proposal eliminates. Oakden replied the current sign encroaches into the right-of-way and the new sign is proposing a zero foot setback but would eliminate the right-of-way encroachment. However both signs would be located in the utility easement. McCutcheon asked about the details of the sign. Oakden replied the sign the monument signage will include the business name,a digital changeable signage area,and a faux stone base. William Salvador of 612 Signs spoke about the visibility which is important for safety and showed a photo on screen noting there have been 3 accidents this year and people cannot see the sign going eastbound. The new sign is a lot more visible and that the current sign does not represent Orono as it is two plastic posts and a panel. They would like to design something really beautiful with architectural stone and down-lighting at the entrance of the town. He does not know that they are married to having the sign at the edge but because there is an existing sign there Mr. Salvador recommended it. He noted they are taking something existing and ugly,bringing it closer to the building, and making it a foot shorter; it is the same size and same place but closer to the building,more visible and thus safer, and much prettier. Kirchner asked what the digital display would scroll. Mr. Salvador thinks it needs to be static; while it can change it needs to be a certain frequency. He cannot speak for the owner but thinks he would say it is not that important. What is important is that they just paid a ton of money to redo the siding and make it more beautiful and want to make the signage more beautiful. If a digital display makes it worse in terms of the Planning Commission's acceptance,Mr. Salvador thinks they would remove it. They are asking for their opinion and can make changes and he reiterated they are trying to make something prettier than the plastic posts there currently. Chair McCutcheon noted it is already known for being an accident area and they do not want to make more distractions which is why they are sensitive on the digital display. Mr. Salvador spoke about driving on the road near the curve and sightlines of the building,noting one does not see the current sign until they are in front of the business. People then hit the brakes to pull in and from the other direction people cannot see those pulling out or coming across until the last minute which is why there have been many accidents.He clarified the relevance of the sign's proportion as previously there was a longer name and all sorts of mumbo-jumbo.Now the sign displays the name "River Valley"in large letters so one can read it further out. McCutcheon asked if the current sign is being hit by snow plows as it is so close to the road. Mr. Salvador replied it has been there 20 years and noted the posts do not have marks on them. The new one will be about 30 inches further in. Oakden clarified it abuts roughly two feet into the right-of-way currently and showed the edge of the right-of-way and the edge of the pavement. She reached out to Public Works for comment and they did Page 3 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. not have any comments regarding the placement.The City Engineer replied regarding the encroachment agreement over the utility easement. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. McCutcheon stated they are improving the sign by getting closer to the building but the fact remains it does not meet the five foot setback. He asked if the Commissioners are okay with it due to the fact that the previous sign was there or whether they want the Applicant to push it back and meet the setback. Erickson is pleased to see the encroachment into the right-of-way will be eliminated.He also noticed that it will be above the utility easement but noted the engineer comment and review that the proposed sign would not interfere with the sewer line and recommends an encroachment agreement.He said any motion should include the condition on acceptance of Exhibit F. With that,Erickson would not see any problem with this. Peterson viewed the site this weekend and noted it is a very hazardous intersection.He missed the number on the way past and had to turn around to come back noting one needs to pay attention. He encourages adequate signage that brings the message to people and if the Commission does not like this sign they should help guide the Applicant to a different sign. McCutcheon stated that is correct,if one is buying a boat and has never been on this unfamiliar road and is trying to find the business,they do not need anyone hitting their breaks in that area.He understands why a more bold and recognizable sign is needed. Kirchner understands the concept but does not like the digital display for the safety reasons cited as it is merely adding to the visual clutter as drivers proceed down the roadway. He also understands drawing more visibility to the business,however given there are opportunities to conform to City Code,he would like to see an application that conforms to the existing Code. He does not think it meets practical difficulties in this case and would not be in support of the variance. McCutcheon asked if there is a con to pushing the sign back. Mr. Salvador noted they thought about that but the problem is coming west going east, one does not see the sign until they are in front of the building and are at the point to pull in.He noted they could devise a pylon going vertically up with the name"River Valley"but the problem is that would be about 20 feet tall to write"River Valley"vertically. He stated finding an alternative if this does not work is the point. He thinks there might be a Code saying they cannot put a 20 foot vertical sign.He noted the issue is finding a place to put a sign that can be seen after one turns because the west side is not visible until one is in front of the walkway. Kraemer supports this and thinks it is a big improvement as the current sign is temporary-looking and the proposed sign is permanent looking. If the Applicant has the ability to do another temporary-looking sign he would rather see them do the more permanent-looking sign with the added improvement of getting out of the encroachment.He does not know enough about alternative locations but noted this is an improvement so he would be for this with the digital display removed. Page 4 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon noted the issue is coming from the freeway and trying to find the business and agreed it is an improvement.He appreciates the monument as it looks less temporary and more professional and bold. This is an opportunity to sharpen it up and get it out of the encroachment. Kirchner thinks it is worth noting it is still within the utility easement and he would argue the two plastic posts provide clearance underneath that is easier to worth through if maintenance needs to be done.They may end up destroying the sign in the event that utility work needs to be done within that easement. McCutcheon asked what the encroachment agreement would entail. Oakden replied standard encroachment agreements say something to the effect of one acknowledges they are putting an improvement in an easement space and it is at their own risk and liability should any utilities,maintenance, or damage occur through maintenance of that easement. Essentially it would be at the Applicants' risk. Erickson asked if they had discussion of a Code amendment regarding digital signs. Oakden replied they re-wrote the sign Code over the last five years,it was flushed out,amended, and the City does allow digital displays with a limit to size,brightness, and how fast the signs are. Mr. Salvador noted the base of the sign is urethane manufactured to look like stone which is super light and he said rather than putting two posts they could put one post at 6x6 on the left side and one post closer to the building so it is very removable, lightweight, and closer to the building to create an easier way for utilities to be serviced. Kirchner noted they must go with the application in front of them but Mr. Salvador has heard the feedback and can take that into account when they move the application to the City Council. McCutcheon summarized the Commissioners are not big fans of the digital display and the Applicant could consider the maintainability of the sign.Regarding the new situation and bettering the situation the Commissioners are in favor of that. Kirchner moved,Peterson seconded,to deny LA22-000037,1444 Shoreline Drive setback variance. VOTE: Ayes: 3,Nays 2(Erickson,Kraemer). Erickson commented on his vote,noting he tends to favor positive votes when possible and if it had been vote to approve subject to conditions he would have been in favor of voting for that. McCutcheon thinks the Applicant received the Commission's feedback and there are some minor adjustments to be made. 3. LA22-000039 BILL PETERS, 1950 CONCORDIA STREET,REQUESTS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT A DECK WITH AN EXPANDED FOOTPRINT. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) William Peters,Applicant,was present. Page 5 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item,noting the Applicants currently have an existing elevated deck on the south side of their home facing the lake(shown in yellow). The deck is a screened in half circle,with a patio below and a pergola above.Due to the location of the home to the east,the deck,a portion of the Applicants' home, is lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. They wish to construct a new,rectangular deck with a reduced setback from the lake(shown in red).The new deck will be approximately 100 square feet larger than the existing.The existing circular deck is situated approximately 101 feet from the ordinary high water level(OHWL);the proposed deck will be 103 feet from the OHWL. Currently the deck encroaches into the required street setback from Fagerness Point Road;the new deck will resolve this encroachment.The existing deck is located approximately 27 feet lakeward of the Average Lakeshore Setback(ALS)and the new proposed deck will improve that setback by 2 feet. The affected property owner at 1945 Fagerness Point Road has provided comments on the Applicants' request and does not oppose the variance. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff concurs that the triangular shape adds to the challenge of development.The property is a corner lot, and the home on the property to the east determines the average lakeshore setback. The eastern neighboring home is situated closer to the lake than the Applicants' home resulting in challenges for lake side improvements of the home.Planning Staff recommends approval. William Peters 1950 Concordia Street, said when they bought the house they received a similar variance due to the triangular location and setback. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Kraemer moved,Erickson seconded,to LA22-000039, 1950 Concordia Street,Variance.VOTE: Ayes: 5,Nays 0. 4. LA22-000040 KRIS MURPHY, 1971 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,REQUESTS A 75' LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT LAKESIDE RETAINING WALLS AND STAIRS.(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Kris Murphy,on behalf of the Applicants,was present. Curtis gave a presentation on the item stating the subject property has an existing,failing timber wall and stair system.They plan to reconstruct all of the walls and stairs in the same location and setback from the lake. However, due to the change in wall materials from timber to boulders,the walls will have a larger footprint than existing.Additionally,the existing stair is narrow(ranging between 18"and 2.5 feet in width)and not very functional.They plan to install a 4 foot wide granite stair with a 12 square foot pea rock landing at the turn in its place.A setback variance is required for the new walls. The Applicant has identified the failing retaining wall,protection of the hillside and the need to provide reasonable access to the dock as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance.Additionally,they have provided supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The existing timber retaining walls are made with narrow timbers which are tiered and support the hillside of the property.The existing landscape timbers are not well-suited to support the slope.The existing and proposed stair and wall configuration allow for the existing lake access.The new walls are proposed to utilize the existing footprint and will be constructed at the same setback from the lake.Retaining walls are not permitted within the 75 foot lakeshore setback and in order to replace the system, a setback variance has been requested.A building permit is required Page 6 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. and the City Engineer and Building Official will review the plans at the time of permit to determine if an engineering plan is required. Staff finds existing conditions of the failing retaining wall, substandard stairs,and vulnerable hillside are practical difficulties supporting this request. Staff recommends approval of the lake setback variance for the improvements as proposed. Staff further recommends additional screening of the walls be implemented to preserve the natural vegetated view from the lake where feasible. Curtis noted one slight change to the plans submitted earlier in the day and note the Applicant can answer questions regarding that. Kris Murphy,project manager from Backyard Reflections, stated no substantial trees will be removed. He spoke about the boulders and steps taking up more space than the timber wall and addition of vegetation to with deep root structure to help secure the hillside. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. McCutcheon thinks this is pretty minimal and the Applicant is just trying to get to the lake which is their right. Kirchner and Kraemer agreed. Kraemer moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA22-000040, 1971 Fagerness Point Road, Variance.VOTE: Ayes: 5,Nays 0. 5. LA22-000041 ESKUCHE DESIGN,3005 CASCO POINT ROAD,REQUESTS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW HOME.(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) The Applicants were present. The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a new single family home.As part of the project the property owner plans to combine the subject property with a portion of the property to the north addressed 2987 Casco Point Road.Further they plan to combine the remaining half of 2987 Casco Point Road with the"tennis court lot." The existing homes are planned to be removed. The Applicant has designed a new home for the newly enlarged property reflected in Exhibit D.For the purpose of this application the Planning Commission should treat the newly enlarged property as existing. If there are any approvals granted,they will be contingent upon completion of all the requirements to administratively move the lot lines.Due to the orientation of the property in relation to the neighboring homes and the curvature of the shoreline,the Applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for the new home. The Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The neighboring home is pushed back from the lake 210 feet due to a relatively narrow 50 foot lakeshore strip. The result is a large average lakeshore setback over the subject property. The proposed home has been designed to reduce the impact to the adjacent property owners' views of the lake from the existing condition. The Applicant is proposing to reduce the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback by 15 feet, and reorient the home to pull back from the lake and away from the neighboring lots in the average setback area. Comments have been received and are included in the packet.An additional comment was submitted today. Staff finds that the Applicant's choice to build a replacement home in the Page 7 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. proposed location is not supported by practical difficulty, although it slightly improves the lake views from the adjacent home from the existing condition.There is a conforming building envelope on the property to support the Applicant's proposed home footprint. Finding inadequate practical difficulties to support the request,Planning Staff recommends denial. Bob Heim,3005 Casco Point Road,stated this was a three lot parcel and they decided to split it to two parcels based on feedback from the City and neighbors.Now they are trying to build homes that conform with the other homes so they are essentially in a line.Moving the house forward cuts down on the sightline of the neighbor's pool, although they could plant shrubs on the side to hide the pool.Neighbors on both sides agree with the plan. Michael Gorman,2987 Casco Point Road,noted they are trying to balance a consistent setback along what was formerly Lakeshore Avenue.This does require a variance based on where the homes are located but it was designed intentionally and showed the line of homes on screen. Sven Gustafson,general contractor, spoke about preserving the Goodwin's sightline. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Dan Seidel,3015 Casco Point,supports the plan and thinks they put a lot of care and time into it.He stated the reason his house is in its current location is because they took care not to block the Hartswell house or to loom over the house next to them. The setback is improving on the house next to his as it is being moved back,and they have talked about not putting a forest in to preserve Mr. Seidel's lake view which he appreciates. He thinks they have a chance to line up the historic homes for the next 100 years. He asked about drainage across the street and wonders if pushing it back will affect those drainage issues. Mr. Seidel supports this plan and looks forward to having them as neighbors. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. McCutcheon appreciates the Applicant taking the feedback from 3 lots to 2 lots.He noted they put some thought into the plans in looking at drainage points,the neighbor's pool and respecting their privacy, and the uniformity of the look of the proposed house. Kraemer agrees it is a win-win and it is always great to see neighbor support. It improves things for everyone and gives more consistency to the neighborhood and it looks good. Erickson noted he may be biased as he started on a property with three homes on it and he tore down two so now there is one.He spoke about Staffs concerns,especially number 12 of the practical difficulties. He said when one has the option to build in a different location that conforms with Code, it then concludes the request is a convenience to the property owner rather than a practical difficulty. Erickson stated State law dictates standards for practical difficulty and if they cannot make that standard the law forbids the City and Council from approving it. Kirchner echoes Mr. Erickson and finds it difficult to identify practical difficulties with this application. He does not believe practical difficulties are established and would not support the application. Peterson suggested giving it back to the architect and making it conform to the guidelines. Page 8 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,August 15,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gustafson stated a lot of work has gone into the designing the location and form of the homes, especially to the south as they are concerned about the massing of the lake and south side of the home and do not want it to block their view or sunlight. Curtis added that pushing the house 210 feet back from the lake results in a condition that is out of the character on Casco as they do no typically have this great distance and the homes are closer to the lake. Therefore it would be out of character in this particular area but that is the conforming setback. Mr. Gorman noted they are trying to be transparent and stated this is the difference between practical difficulty and a practical result.The practical result that works best for the community and neighbors is consistent with what they have laid out.The question is whether they get there with one step or two steps. Mr. Gustafson thinks the flag lot itself is the practical difficulty and it is further from the lake than most every other home to the north of this property. In addition, in talking to City Staff there has been some head scratching as they have not seen many three lot combos with both homes being torn down and there isn't a lakeside setback established by existing homes. He suspects the uniqueness of the lot is part of the practical difficulty here. McCutcheon does not think this is egregious,the neighbors are in line,it seems like a win-win with less massing.Regarding practical difficulty if they take into consideration the shape of the lake and the flag lot and whether that helps the decision at all. Kirchner hears everything being said,understands it,and respects the foresight that has gone into planning. He hangs his hat on that practical difficulty being established but noted the Applicant has done a phenomenal job in what they're trying to accomplish. Erickson moved,Kirchner seconded,to deny LA22-000041,3005 Casco Point Road.VOTE: Ayes: 3,Nays 2(McCutcheon,Kraemer). OTHER BUSINESS—Update on August 8,2022 City Council Meeting Ms. Oakden shared the retaining walls at Rest Point Road was approved by the City Council and a project at 59 Casco Point Road was also approved. Due to lack of a quorum,the1354 Rest Point Road application was pushed back to August 22. She also shared that she has been appointed to Community Development Director for the City and they hired a new City Planner who hopes to start in October. ADJOURNMENT Kirchner moved,Erickson seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:41 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: r.. Mark McCutcheon, Chair Page 9 of 9