Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Kevin Landgraver, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit, Jon Schwingler and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, City Engineer/Public Warks Director Adam Edwards, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Mayor Lili McMillan was present. Acting Chair Landgraver called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 15,2015 Schwingler moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #15-3761 RIDGE CREEK CUSTOM HOMES OB/O NANCY RADERMECHER,4775 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M.—6:40 P.M. Rob Eldridge, Ridge Creek Custom Homes,was present. Curtis stated is applicant is proposing to construct a 204 square foot,two-level lakeside addition on the west side of the home. An existing 6-foot wide upper level walkway will be removed. Due to the location of the existing home on the property,the following variances are necessary: 1. An average lakeshore setback variance to locate the addition 87.4 feet from the lake where the neighboring home has a setback of 90.1 feet. 2. A bluff setback variance to permit the addition to be 12 feet from the top of the bluff where a 30-foot setback is required 3. A variance to allow an 8-foot encroachment into the 20-foot bluff impact zone. Because there is not an adjacent home on the west,the average lakeshore setback is determined by the most lakeward extent of the neighboring home on the east. The applicant's home is 98 feet from the lake and the elevated deck extends as close as 87 feet to the lake. The addition will maintain the existing 87- foot setback. There are some mature trees between the two properties, and due to the elevation of both homes above the lake, it is unlikely the addition will impact views enjoyed by the neighbor to the east. Further, the addition is proposed to be located 12 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required and encroach into the bluff impact zone. That zone is intended to be a protected area where no structures or hardcover is permitted. Within the report is Staffls analysis of the practice difficulties associated with the variance request. To summarize, Staff finds that the location, shape, and size of the existing home; the limited legal building Page 1 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. pad depth; the topography; and the proximity and elevation of County Road 51 create practical difficulties making development of the property challenging. The applicant's proposal to construct a 17' x 12' two-level addition on the lakeside of the home in the location of an existing 6-foot wide deck/walkway will not extend closer to the lake,bluff, or further into the bluff impact zone than the existing larger deck and patio. The area between the home and the top of bluff consists of a flat and stable-appearing yard. The applicant is not proposing to extend into or down the bluff slope. It does not appear construction of the addition will compromise the stability of the bluff. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the MCWD. 2. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Building Official during the permit review and construction process, including but not limited to the following: a. Submittal of engineering information due to the possibility of fill soils used to create a stable building pad for the existing home. b. The proposed structure shall be required to be installed on suitable original soils or engineered corrected soils which would need to be tested and approved by the designing engineer. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Rob Eldridge, Ridge Creek Custom Homes, stated Staff has done a great job at presenting all the information and they will definitely comply with Staff conditions as set forth in their report. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Thiesse stated his only concern is regarding the stability of the bank. Thiesse noted the applicant is talking about soils and existing engineering and that he would like the City's engineer to provide an opinion about the global stability of the bank. Curtis asked if he means the applicant's engineer or the City Engineer. Thiesse stated he is not interested in a big study but that he would like an engineering opinion on the stability of the bank that says it is okay. Thiesse asked if the bluff ordinances are in place for stability issues or view issues. Curtis indicated it is for stability primarily. Thiesse stated if someone is going to go into that space, there should be an opinion on the stability. Landgraver asked if that is something the City has required in the past. Page 2 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Curtis indicated it is. Thiesse stated to his recollection the last one they looked at was on Brown Road North. Curtis stated the Planning Commission has looked at 790 Brown Road North and 4731 North Shore Drive in which similar requests were made. Thiesse stated it does not need to be a full-blown design but that someone with an engineering degree should look at the impact moving a house into that area will have. Schoenzeit stated it could be an additional condition of approval. Lemke asked if there were any comments submitted by any of the neighbors. Curtis indicated nothing has been received by Staff. Schwingler noted Commissioner Thiesse's request is reasonable given the fact that a couple of years ago to the east there was an issue. Landgraver asked if it should be a requirement or a recommendation. Schoenzeit stated he is recommending adding that as a requirement. Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3761, Ridge Creek Custom Homes on behalf of Nancy Radermecher,4775 North Shore Drive, granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a bluff setback and bluff impact zone variance, subject to Staff conditions and subject to the applicant obtaining an engineering opinion about the global stability of the house on the bluff. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Curtis noted the Planning Commission will be seeing this property again likely in September due to the notification requirements of the DNR. Curtis noted vacation of the road requires notification to the DNR that the City was not able to meet this time around. 3. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:40 P.M.—8:01 P.M. Christopher Bollis, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated this is a proposed subdivision involving two tax parcels to create a new private road and seven new 2-acre building lots. All lots will be served by individual on-site sewage treatment systems and private wells. The northerly parcel, 350 Stubbs Bay Road North, contains an existing residence and detached garage which may remain within proposed Lot 5 or may be removed. The existing house is located on the southern parcel, which is proposed to remove. The applicants propose to develop the property with seven single-family lots which will be served by a private road extension of Kintyre Lane, which is also private. The proposed 7-lot subdivision is in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family rural residential development at a density of one unit per two acres. Page 3 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. The survey depicts seven lots, each meeting the minimum area requirements. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 meet the 200-foot width requirement as measured at the 50-foot front setback line. Lots 4, 5, and 6 are cul-de-sac lots that widen out to 200 feet further from the front lot, with proposed house locations established to meet the required 30-foot side setbacks. These cul-de-sac lots technically require a lot width variance. The proposed single-family development is consistent with existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Similar single-family lots with 2-plus acre lot sizes exist to the north,while the lots within Kintyre Two to the immediate south range from 1.4 to 3-plus acres. The portion of the property contained within the delineated boundary of the northeasterly wetland is within the Shoreland Overlay District but not within the defined Water Quality Overlay District and is therefare not subject to hardcover regulations. Each lot appears to have a suitable building site meeting the minimum front, side, side street, and rear setbacks of the RR-1 B District. The developer is advised that unless site grading to create individual house building pads as part of the subdivision improvements is proposed,the existing grades for measuring building heights and number of stories will be the grades that exist today. Raised pads that are created must be acknowledged in the development approval stage as creating"new existing grades." Gaffron stated Staff's report provides the lot layout and lot standards for each proposed lot. The City Engineer has provided a number of general and detailed comments which the developer will be required to address as the preliminary plat and final plat inove forward. The original drawings depict a 50-foot buffer that is expected to be required by the Watershed District. Because the wetlands to the northeast and northwest are preserve classification wetland, they will require a 75-foot buffer, which will reduce the area of certain lots. Gaffron pointed out the 75-foot buffers versus the 50-foot buffers. The applicant is proposing septic sites that are located completely within the buffer and every one meets the 50-foot setback but not the 75-foot setback. Gaffron indicated he has a call in to the Watershed District to ensure they do not have an issue with septic sites located into their buffer area. Gaffron noted Lot 7 has exactly 2.12 acres of dry buildable and 0.44 acre of wetland. The alternate septic site appears to encroach within 40 feet of the wetland where a 75-foot setback is required, plus a 10-foot additional setback required by the City. A 24-foot road is proposed to match Kintyre Lane. At the time of the Kintyre development,the City granted a variance to allow Kintyre to be 24 feet width rather than the standard 28 feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed road should be built to a different standard than Kintyre. Gaffron stated an argument can be made both ways but that a narrower road would allow the developer to preserve the trees located by the existing house. Gaffron stated the City Engineer will need to look at the narrower road width to see whether he has any concerns. The road extending all the way from Watertown Road is approximately 150 feet. The City's Code standard for a private road with a cul-de-sac is no more than ten lots and no more than 1,000 feet in length. Gaffron noted the City does have a number of private roads that extend well beyond 1,000 feet and that it has been City policy to establish corridors far possible future development of through roads where that ability exists. Gaffron indicated the Fire Marshal will need to take a look at the proposed road width and layout. Page 4 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted the Park Commission has not reviewed this application but it is anticipated that no public land will be required for a public park. The CMP does indicate that a future trail is proposed along Stubbs Bay Road. Whether this trail will ever be completed is unknown but a 10-foot easement along the west boundary for future trail purposes should be considered. In addition, as six new building sites are being proposed,payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for six new building lots would be appropriate. The current fee is $5,550 per lot or a total of$33,300. The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: 1. The unusually high number of drain field sites located at the minimum required setbacks. 2. The impact of 40 feet and 50 feet wetland buffers is significant. If 75-foot buffers are required, the impact is extremely critical. 3. What is planned for the house on Lot 5? What will happen with the access outlot it currently uses and should that be part of this plat given that only the initial few feet are actually used by the neighbar at 300 Stubbs Bay Road? Can the applicant confirm where the existing septic system is in relation to the new lot line abutting Lot 4? 4. Should the existing width of Kintyre Lane,which will become substandard per code requirement, be expanded to meet code? What are the ramifications of such an extension? 5. The applicant should be made aware that City determinations of building height and number of stories rely on the use of existing grades. It might be of benefit to the developer to confer with Staff regarding the potential benefits of establishing new existing grades on certain lots by creating building pads during the site improvements grading process. 6. The Planning Commission should review the Conservation Design materials and determine whether there are any potential concerns. 7. Is the lot configuration at the north end justified, given that three cul-de-sac lots need significant lot width variances? The applicant should be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments and address the issues noted in Staffls report. Gaffron noted the applicants have completed a Conservation Design Report and it has been included in the Commissioners' packets in its entirety. In general the report found that the development will retain the rural character consistent with the surrounding neighbarhood. The applicant has arranged the site to preserve three of the four noted significant tree stands. The fourth tree stand, comprised of introduced conifers near the south end of the site around the existing residence, will be impacted by road construction. Wetlands and drainage patterns will be maintained and the views into the site will not be significantly disrupted. The applicant has also submitted a vegetation management plan that spells out a variety of actions to be taken with regard to wetland buffer areas, buckthorn, and reed canary grass. The suggested Master Plan Page 5 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 dclock p.m. management guidelines will be incorparated into the development agreement and covenants to assure adherence. Staff would recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues that have been raised. Another option would be to forward the application to the City Council subject to the applicant addressing the noted items prior to Council review of the preliminary plat. Gaffron noted a letter was received from the Millers whose property abuts this site to the west. Gaffron noted Mrs. Miller is present tonight. Lemke asked if that squiggly line is where the trees are located at the bottom of the survey. Gaffron indicated that is his assumption. Lemke asked whether there is adequate frontage on the cul-de-sac for Lot 5. Gaffron pointed out Lot 5 on the overhead. Gaffron stated technically it is supposed to be 50 feet back and 200 feet wide. Gaffron noted it does not reach 200 feet until further back and that he does not envision a problem constructing a driveway for that lot. Gaffron stated it is more a question of how many lots should be at the end of the cul-de-sac. The City has granted variances for multiple lots on a cul-de- sac previously but that street maintenance and plowing in the winter could become an issue with the multiple driveways. Gaffron stated if there is a house adjacent to someone's driveway, that can also become an annoyance, which is one reason why the City does not like to see long, narrow corridors. Lemke asked if the City would get involved if Outlot A gets developed at some point. Gaffron stated the City would be involved, and that if the property owners wanted to subdivide it at some point in the future, it would come before the Planning Commission as a subdivision. Lemke asked if there is a reason why it is not part of the plan currently. Gaffron indicated that question will need to be addressed by the applicant. Landgraver asked if that outlot would be divided into four 2-acre lots. Gaffron stated potentially four but that it is mare likely three lots due to the wetland that will reduce some of the dry buildable acreage. Lemke asked if it would be possible to get the road off of Stubbs Bay or whether it has to come off of the cul-de-sac extension. Gaffron stated there are a couple of different options. Gaffron indicated the driveway for the house at 300 Stubbs Bay Road is right at the edge so they do not make use of the entire outlot. Gaffron noted there is steep topography and woods going down to the wetland which does not necessarily preclude a road going through there. Gaffron indicated there are two possible locations to construct a road in that outlot, and if other properties were involved, there could possibly be a third option to bring a road in through there. Thiesse asked if access to Lot 5 comes from Stubbs Bay over Outlot A Page 6 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated it is. Thiesse asked if Outlot A going past 300 Stubbs Bay Road is part of this development. Gaffron indicated it is not. Thiesse stated if the applicant was told that Lot 5 would not be allowed on the cul-de-sac, they could come in through the back. Landgraver noted the letter submitted by the Millers expressed some concern about the road. Landgraver asked about the benefits of a 28-foot road versus a 26-foot wide road. Gaffron stated City Code talks about a road that serves up through six lots being on a 24-foot wide road. With developments that consist of more than six homes, a wider width road is typically required due to a concern with parking. In the 2-acre zone, Gaffron stated it is not as critical far parking because everyone will have a longer driveway. If there is a need far emergency vehicles to access the area, 24 feet is wide enough for access. Gaffron stated other than that, he is not sure it is critical to have 28 versus 24 but that the standard leaps to 28 feet once there are seven or more lots. Thiesse stated in his view parking would be the main reason. Thiesse stated if there is no parking on the street, the narrower width should not be a problem. Lemke noted a narrower road would preclude any access off of Outlot A if it was developed. Gaffron stated with the extension of Kintye, they are talking about a total of 13 houses on the road, and that there was a discussion that specifically talked about the road width back in February of 2006. The resolution of Kintyre says the potential number of homes to be ultimately served by the private road is more than six because the road outlot will extend to the north property boundary to allow for future road development of the next property to the immediate north. It would be appropriate to limit the paved road width to 24 feet if it can be shown that the existing trees that enhance the wooded backdrop can be preserved. Thiesse noted that is a protected vista and is likely why the homes were located where they were a long time ago. Gaffron pointed out the treed area and noted that it extends down to the corner where Kintyre Lane hits Watertown Road. The backdrop was preserved so the views as someone is heading west ar east from Watertown Road they would see a long slope going down to a ponding area and low wetland. Gaffron noted the houses are pretty much bidden, which was a key element of preserving those trees. Schoenzeit asked if there was ever a sketch plan presented showing the property being developed with a road to the north off of Stubbs Bay Road. Gaffron stated to his recollection the applicants have never proposed coming in from the north and then having dualing cul-de-sacs, which exist elsewhere in the City. Gaffron stated there would then be a corridor between the two cul-de-sacs to extend that but that has not been discussed by the applicant. Chris Bollis, Applicant, stated he would like to start out by saying that in his view this development layout is the best they will see for this site and that he would like the Planning Commission to make a Page 7 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. decision tonight on their proposal subject to whatever conditions are required. Bollis indicated he is available to answer questions. Lemke asked why Outlot A is not being developed. Bollis indicated his parents use that as part of their homestead and that they plan on living there for the foreseeable future. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Christine North, 180 Kintyre Lane, stated her first concern is when they purchased their homes,they were not informed that there were plans for a possible extension of Kintyre. North stated she had the understanding she was buying a home at the end of the cul-de-sac. North stated four of the six sites are currently developed and ten kids live in those homes, with six kids being under the age of five, and that they have a big concern about the safety of the children. Cheryl Miller, 195 Kintyre Lane, stated people who are exiting will actually be driving a road up into the existing cul-de-sac, which further creates a safety concern. North stated they are also concerned about the homeowners and the road not meeting code. Miller stated she also has a concern generally about the kinds of things that will be put in place to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Miller asked if there will be rules associated with the size and types of homes. Miller stated it is her understanding there will be two different associations and that she is wondering how that will work. Miller asked wbether it would be possible to have the road come off of Stubbs Bay in order to preserve the existing cul-de-sac; and if not, what will be done with the existing cul-de-sac. Miller asked whether it would be turned into some sort of roundabout to slow traffic down and potentially address safety concerns. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Landgraver noted the Planning Commission is an advisory group and that they will be either approving the application for it to go forward to the City Council or they can deny or table it. Landgraver noted the public will also have an opportunity to speak at the City Council meeting. Lemke asked what will happen with the existing cul-de-sac. Gaffron stated that would be up for discussion but that it has been platted as a complete circle. As a result, it would have to be part of a separate plat in order to have it revert back to the ownership of the two adjacent properties. Staff has not looked at whether it could become a roundabout and the City has not done that anywhere else. Schwingler asked if it big enough to construct a roundabout. Gaffron indicated it is not. Gaffron stated it would likely have an island in the middle, which would force vehicles to go around the island. Page 8 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse stated it is difficult having a cul-de-sac in the middle of the road since you are encouraging people to make a U-turn in the middle of a road. Thiesse stated something would need to be done with it. Landgraver asked if that is a Planning Commission issue or something for the two homeowner associations to work out. Gaffron stated there is no question the two homeowners associations would need to work together on the road. Gaffron stated there are issues concerning the configuration of the road, future maintenance, and who would be responsible far what section of the road. The City Attorney has been working with the applicants' attorney towards making sure those issues are addressed. Landgraver stated the only issue before the Planning Commission is whether to grant a variance to the road width and that the other issues would need to be addressed by the two homeowner associations. Schoenzeit stated since this is a fairly common structure that is seen in the City, it would be reflected in the Kintyre homeowners' paperwork and on the chain of title. Gaffron stated attorneys would say that all owners have constructive knowledge of the possible future extension because it would be included in the title work that is filed against each chain of title. Gaffron stated not all homeowners check into the nuances of purchasing a property, which does not change the fact that those requirements exist. Gaffron stated in the future for similar situations they will probably construct the road all the way to the property line so there was no question in anybody's mind that the road could be extended in the future. Schoenzeit stated since this new development is a clean sheet but yet there seems to be a number of required exemptions for setbacks and lot width. Schoenzeit stated in his view with a clean sheet,the number of nonconformities seems large. Gaffron stated those issues could be resolved but would likely result in the loss of one lot. Schoenzeit stated when it is clean sheet, it should be clean and therefore a lot should be eliminated. Schoenzeit stated in his view there are too many exceptions being requested. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has seen a version with fewer lots. Gaffron indicated they have not. Gaffron noted the Mooney Lake Preserve has a similar layout with the cul-de-sac. Schoenzeit noted the lots in the Mooney Lake Preserve are 3-plus acres. Thiesse asked if any of the proposed house locations are inside the 200-foot width for the front lot. Gaffron indicated there are not but that some of the lots are tight and that you have to go a ways back before you meet the 200-foot width. Thiesse asked if they have kept the building pads behind the 200-foot line. Page 9 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated in each case that is what the applicants are showing. Landgraver stated the other issue is the septic locations. Schoenzeit stated if the Watershed District allows the septic sites within their buffer, it would become a nonissue. Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the locations of the septic sites. Gaffron noted the septic sites meet the 50-foot setback. Gaffron stated some of the septic sites concern him given the lack of elevation between the septic site and the wetland. Thiesse stated the only lot that does not really meet the City's standards is the lot with the existing house. Lemke asked if that would be grandfathered in. Gaffron stated once the subdivision is filed, the applicants will need to meet every expectation that the septic system by or potentially over the lot line will eventually go away. Gaffron stated once you create a new lot line,it becomes noncompliant. Thiesse asked if Staff is saying they can hook up to a new system. Gaffron indicated they could. Gaffron stated as long as the house meets the setbacks from the new lot line, the house can stay. Thiesse asked if the 200 feet across there is arbitrary. Gaffron stated the line was put in to show where it meets the 200-foot standard. Gaffron stated the question is whether the City would allow them to locate the house closer. Gaffron stated it is likely the City would allow that and that there is nothing that says the house must be placed where the lot is 200 feet wide. Thiesse asked if that would be a reasonable condition. Gaffron stated in general the City would like to see lots that are more standardized in shape. Gaffron noted it is a strange lot because of the 75-foot buffers. Gaffron stated they are talking about close to an acre of land that is functionally useful for structures. The Code does not say they cannot use the acreage that is within buffers as dry buildable but that it is an area that cannot be built on. Thiesse asked if the roadway will meet sight line requirements. Gaffron pointed out the location of the proposed and existing cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated there is no question they would be coming up a hill given the topography. Thiesse asked if that is a 10:1 scale. Gaffron indicated it is. Gaffron noted the City Engi��eer's comments talked about 10 to 12 percent grades in the road, which have been attached as Exhibit E, and requests that horizontal sight lines be depicted on the plan. Page 10 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse stated it would be appropriate to look at the vertical sight lines as well. Gaffron stated in his view the City Engineer is saying that the vertical sight lines meet City standards, which are 12 percent for a private road and 10 percent for a public road. Landgraver stated he is hopeful the issues with the street will be factored into the plan since both sides of the development will be worrying about the same thing. Thiesse stated it will probably be a 30-mile-an-hour road. Gaffron stated it would be unusual to see one that is higher than that. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission should go through the issues for discussion. Rick Krieger, 355 Stubbs Bay, stated the only comment he would put forth is the consistency of the two acre lots on the east side of Stubbs Bay Road. On the west side the lots are five acres and bigger. Krieger stated while this development is coming off of Watertown Road,the lots are wedged in tighter than the other development and that they should try to have consistency in lot size and setbacks. Gaffron pointed out the dividing line between the two acre lots and the five acre lots. Gaffron indicated the majority of the lots on the west side are five acres but that there might be one or two that are in the 1-2 acre range. Landgraver stated there is the potential that the remaining lots could be converted to smaller two acre lots on the east side. Gaffron noted there is a fair amount of wetland which would preclude most of them from being subdivided further. Landgraver stated one of issues listed in Staff s report is the unusually high number of drain field sites located within the buffer area is a concern,but as long as they are compliant, there is not much the Planning Commission can do. Gaffron stated if 75-foot buffers are required,the impact is extremely critical, and that it is Staffls position that will need to be dealt with when or if that happens. Gaffron displayed the layout of the site with the 75-foot buffers. Gaffron noted the City requires another ten feet from the edge of the buffer before any structures can be built. Gaffron stated the layout suggests a fairly narrow corridor between the wetland setback and the front street setback for Lot 7 and that it will dictate what type of house can be built there. Lemke asked if it is all right to have the septic sites within the buffer zone. Gaffron stated it is Staff s belief that the Watershed District will be okay with that. Landgraver stated the third issue in Staffls report is what is planned far the house on Lot 5,what will happen with the access outlot it currently uses and should that be part of this plat given that only the Page 11 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. initial few feet are actually used by the neighbor at 300 Stubbs Bay Road. In addition, can the applicant confirm where the existing septic system is in relation to the new lot line abutting Lot 4. Bollis stated Lot 5 would have a driveway off the new cul-de-sac and that they have no plans far that outlot. Landgraver noted the septic system will be an issue and asked what the intention is for that septic system. Bollis indicated they would do an easement with a time frame on when that would have to be removed. If the house is demolished, it would be hooked up to a new septic system. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission would propose a hard date or whether that would be a matter for the City Council or Staff Gaffron indicated Staff would prefer a hard date. Gaffron indicated he is not sure when Lot 4 will be built on and that he does not know what the future intent for Lot 5 is. Gaffron stated the longer the time frame extends, it is unlikely that someone will remember that and that he would as soon as have a certain date. Thiesse asked if it is possible to have a non-transferrable easement. Gaffron stated it is probable. Thiesse stated he does not want to see a functional septic site be taken away simply for a clerical reason. Landgraver asked if the applicants are going to use the existing grades or whether they will be performing additional grading work on the sites. Bollis stated one of the reasons for why the road is located where it is is to limit the amount of grading on the site. Bollis indicated the individual lots will be graded by the future owners depending on the location of the house. Bollis stated the proposed pads could be anywhere behind the 200-foot setback but that he would not want to force a homeowner to only construct a house in the area of what is depicted on the plan. Thiesse asked if he is comfortable with the height requirement and number of stories. Bollis indicated he is. Bollis noted the squiggly line at the top of the cul-de-sac is to preserve the existing trees. In total there are 444 trees on the property and the road as proposed only results in the loss of 15 trees. Bollis stated they could possibly save mare trees if the road is narrowed to 24 feet. Landgraver asked if there is going to be an architectural review committee or standards. Bollis indicated there will be and that the seven homes will be part of a homeowners association, which will have an architectural review component to it. Landgraver noted Commissioner Schoenzeit expressed concerns about a clean sheet since this is a new development. Page 12 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated in his view it is best not to grant variances on a new development but that it is not clear what should be adjusted to make it better. Gaffron stated the only question that he would like strong confirmation on is the width of the road. Gaffron stated in his opinion 30 feet is overkill and that there are reasons for a 28-foot width. Gaffron stated the ability to save trees was the same justification used on Kintyre to have a narrower road, and that unless the fire department has an issue with the narrower road, he is okay with the 24 or 26 feet. Lemke stated he would like to see the road as wide as possible,with 26 feet being the minimum given the fact that there might be some parking on the street. Schwingler stated based on the longer driveways, on street parking is not as much of a concern,but that there will be construction traffic on the new road as well as Kintyre Lane. Bollis stated in his view there is an additional six trees that could be saved with the 24-foot road. Bollis pointed out the wider the road is,the faster people tend to drive on it, and that he would be in favor of the 24-foot width to keep it consistent. Bollis noted Kintyre Lane is 24 feet wide. Schwingler stated consistency is good from an aesthetic point of view. Schoenzeit stated as far as the road width, with two acre lots, there should be sufficient driveway and turnaround space to accommodate guests. Thiesse stated there are trees and safety issues but that there are also road standards and they should not be approving a narrow road simply to have a narrower road. Thiesse stated in his view 24 feet is fine and that he has more concerns about the existing cul-de-sac. Schwingler indicated he is in agreement with that. Bollis stated a City Council resolution approved in 2006 talks specifically in Paragraph 6 about this land and the fact that they would like to see a 24-foot road width. Potential numbers of homes to be ultimately served by the private road is more than six. Because the road outlot will extend to the north property boundary to allow for future road connection for development of the next property immediately to the north, it would be appropriate to limit the paved road width to 24 instead of the normally required 28 feet for seven or more homes if it can be shown that the existing trees that enhance the wooded backdrop can be preserved. Bollis stated in his view they are talking about the trees in the area near the proposed road. Gaffron pointed out the area of the wooded backdrop that the resolution is discussing. Gaffron noted he handled that application ten years ago. Schoenzeit stated the road should be kept at 24 feet for consistency since it will help keep the traffic slower provided there are no fire marshal objections. Schoenzeit stated the road issue should be a part of the recommendation by the Planning Commission and that perhaps there needs to be a review of the roads in the entire area to address safety concerns. Thiesse asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is looking for coordination of the roads and cul-de-sac or an existing agreement with the homeowners association. Page 13 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock�.m. Landgraver noted this will be a shared road and that the two homeowner associations need to look at how the roads can be made safer. Schoenzeit stated it needs to be a coordinated road system and should be engineered from Watertown Road to the cul-de-sac. Christopher Huntley, Attorney-at-law, stated the development agreement that was recorded against the properties to the south contains language regarding this road, and it basically says that the developer, being the person who developed the land to the south, shall also provide a separate declaration of private covenants, restrictions and conditions. Such documents shall allow for the extension of the road to the property to the north, being the subject property, at the cost of the developer that developed the original land. It also allows for future owners of the property to the north access to Watertown Road via a private road at no cost except for the sharing of maintenance. Huntley indicated they have come up with a cost sharing agreement but that this would be an additional cost that should be borne by the land to the south. Schoenzeit stated they are adding to the road,which can create new unsafe conditions, and that therefore the new development needs to make sure the way the road attaches is safe with the existing road. Humley indicated he respects that. Schoenzeit stated since the new development is attaching to the existing road,those would be costs borne by this development. Hummel stated he is more concerned with some other costs that are attached with requiring the developer to the north make the changes to the property to the south. Gaffron stated that is outside the realm of the Planning Commission and will need to be between the attorneys,the property owners, and the homeowners associations. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission's recommendation is end-to-end safery and that they can figure out how to pay for it. Charlie Wiemerslage, Sathre-Bergquist, stated he used the existing design for Kintyre as well as the sight values and speeds on the road and that they meet all of those with this design. Wiemerslage stated he is not sure there is any need to redesign Kintyre. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission did not ask for that but that they asked that the new road meet the sight lines and safety. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has now been told it does. Thiesse asked what his recommendation would be for the existing cul-de-sac. Wiemerslage stated that would be a question for the fire marshal but that the idea of putting an island might not be a bad idea to slow traffic down. Wiemerslage stated that is probably an issue for the homeowners in the area. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3763, Christopher and Gail Bollis,200 and 350 Stubbs Bay Road, granting of preliminary plat, subject to Page 14 of 25 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. an engineer review of the road as a complete system, subject to Staff recommendations and City Engineer recommendations, and subject to a road agreement being entered into between the two homeowners associations prior to going before the City Council. Gaffron noted Staff would need the road agreement before final plat. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Landgraver noted the discussion of the Planning Commission was that the road width be kept at 24 feet. 4. #15-3758 CITY OF ORONO AND CLIFFORD OTTEN,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND REZONING,2251 PINE RIDGE LANE AND PINS 34-118-23-22-0019, 8:01 P.M.—8:21 P.M. Gaffron stated the City requires additional land adjacent to City Well No. 3 in order to install a second well to the northerly well system for the City. The property is located right behind the northeast corner of the Otten operation,the Service 800 building, and the strip mall. The City currently has a well house for Well No. 3. The area is accessed from Willow Drive along the road system that Cliff Otten has created for his business. The City, in needing to add a second well,requires additional land, and is proposing to acquire a piece of land from the adjacent property. An agreement has been reached with the adjacent property owner in which the City will acquire the necessary acreage, resulting in 2251 Pine Ridge becoming smaller than the 2-acre minimum of the RR-1 B District. The plat of east Willow Woods was created in 1990 and includes the creation of a small parcel, Outlot B, to be used for a City well as a critical element of the City's north water system. Mr. Otten has agreed to sell a portion of his abutting property to the City. The sale is contingent on a number of conditions: 1. The 60-foot right-of-way corridar known as Outlot C, East Willow Woods, is to be vacated. Outlot C is owned by Otten and the Ciry has an underlying easement with certain use restrictions. That easement would have to be extinguished or vacated. 2. A sewer connection to be provided to the remainder of 2251 Pine Ridge Lane, with the City to waive the sewer connection fee. 3. Rezoning of the remainder parcel from RR-1B to R-lA will allow the Otten parcel to remain conforming. This 1-acre zoning is the same as that existing in the adjacent Sugar Woods development. 4. City to provide driveway easement for remainder parcel. 5. City to grant the lot split to establish separate tax parcel ownership. Gaffron noted the lot line rearrangement does not result in any structure setbacks becoming nonconforming. The existing house will still be approximately 70 feet from the new east lot line. The impacts to surrounding residential properties are anticipated to be minimal. There will be some vehicle and machinery noise during well construction, but after that the site will only require the Page 15 of 25 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. occasional maintenance vehicle using Dickey Lake Drive and Pine Ridge Lane to access the well building. A new driveway will be constructed extending from Pine Road Lane to the well house. Schoenzeit asked if the piece of property being required is large enough to accommodate a third well. City Engineer Edwards stated there is currently no requirement for a third well, but that the City would require a 110-foot x 110-foot square piece of ground in order to install another well. Edwards indicated by going further north, the City could potentially add a third well. Schoenzeit stated as long as the City is going through this effort, he would make sure that there is ample room for a third well. Edwards stated the north/south lot line is 110 feet from the other property line, which gives the City what they need. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Hank Radintz, 720 Dickey Lake Drive, stated with changing the zoning far this parcel,his concern is that it would not be eligible for multiple residential development. Gaffron stated the RR-lA district is a single-family zone and does have provisions that would allow someone to construct a two-family dwelling as a conditional use permit. If the property owners propose to take this home down, since it would now be a 1.6 acre parcel, proposing a duplex would be a conditional use permit and a public hearing would be required. Thiesse asked if they can remove that designation from this lot, which would preclude someone from constructing a duplex. Gaffron stated if it is not rezoned, it would be left as RR-1 B. Gaffron stated there are no other options for rezoning. Thiesse asked if it can be rezoned with conditions. Gaffron stated not to his knowledge but that the City Attorney would need to review that. Gaffron stated once it is rezoned to RR-1 A, it would have all the opportunities that district would allow. Gaffron stated he is not sure the purchase agreement would go through if it is not rezoned to RR-1 A Radintz indicated currently he has been using his half for parking his trailer. Radintz stated the public portion of Pine Ridge Lane has not been maintained or plowed in the wintertime by the City but that he or the Ottens would occasionally plow it. Radintz stated it sounds like there will be daily traffic, which will entail winter plowing and that he wants to make sure he does not get plowed in on his half of the vacated property. Edwards stated that would become the access into the well house,which would require at least daily visits by Public Works staff to conduct water testing and normal maintenance, so year-round access would need to be maintained and that section would be plowed. Edwards indicated the City will try not to plow him in or cause access issues. Page 16 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron asked if his driveway is coming in off the main road or off of Ridge. Radintz stated their main driveway access is off of Dickey Lake Drive and would not be affected by this but that potentially his parking area would be. Radintz asked if the City would ever sell that piece of land so it could be developed for other uses, Gaffron stated the parcel that is owned by the City is devoted to a well and well house and that he cannot imagine the land would be sold off for another purpose. Gaffron stated in his view it will be around for a long, long time. Radintz asked if access to there would be off of Pine Ridge, which borders between the Otten property and the neighboring property. Gaffron illustrated the proposed easement that would service the house and also the piece of land being acquired by the City. The easement that is being acquired would require a new driveway in the corner of the property. Gaffron stated he is not sure what the future use of the property will be that is owned by Cliff Otten but that it is his assumption it will continue to have a residential structure on it. Lemke asked if the City would take care of the rezoning and would not be the responsibility of Cliff Otten. Gaffron indicated it would be a joint effort. Landgraver asked if there are any restrictions on the well building. Gaffron stated to his knowledge the City is not planning on constructing another building. Edwards stated one of the reasons for pursuing this option far the second well was its proximity to the existing well house, which has sufficient capacity to handle both wells. The only structural difference that will be seen other than the dirt road is the actual wellhead where it comes out of the ground. That structure would be the approximate size of the lectern. Landgraver noted there is a buffer along the Sugar Woods development. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearin�at 8:20 p.m. Schoenzeit noted they will be doubling the amount of water supply for the City. Gaffron indicated it is a 300 to 400 foot deep well and the majority of the residents' wells are in the 100 to 200 foot range. No expectation that it will affect the individual wells in the neighborhood. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3758, City of Orono and Clifford Otten, granting of a lot line rearrangement and rezoning of 2251 Pine Ridge Lane and PINS 34-118-23-22-0019. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #15-3753 CITY OF ORONO PARK COMMISSION,LYDIARD BEACH,VARIANCE, 8:21 P.M.—8:27 P.M. Page 17 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Barnhart stated the Park Commission is requesting a variance to allow construction of two split rail fences consisting of approximately 125 feet and 58 square feet of hardcover within the required 75-foot lakeshore yard at the end of Lydiard Avenue. The fences are intended to delineate the parking area from the beach area and the channel adjacent to the parking area. The Park Commission is proposing to remove 10 deteriorating wooden bollards that currently mark the boundary between the parking and beach areas with a more visually appealing split rail wooden fence. The fence will not be more than 42 inches tall and will include two horizontal rails. Lydiard Beach is not a platted lot and is an extension of Lydiard Avenue right-of-way. The right-of-way terminates at the water's edge. Barnhart noted that post cards were not mailed for the public hearing and that the public hearing will need to be held at the City Councillevel. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as proposed. Schoenzeit asked if this would be considered a fire lane. Barnhart stated it is a platted road, with a portion of it being paved and a portion being a dirt road. Thiesse expressed concern that the fence may not be strong enough to withstand potential vandalism. Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3753, City of Orono Park Commission,Lydiard Beach swim area, granting of a hardcover variance and a lake setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. #15-3754 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE REGARDING APPLICATION APPROVAL EXTENSIONS,8:27 P.M.—8:37 P.M. Barnhart stated the City Council had identified a need for some guidance in terms of an ordinance amendment that limited or at least defined the number of extensions associated with a preliminary plat. In a review of the ordinance by Staff, it was found that the ordinance does have criteria in terms of when activity must be completed ar at least commenced with regard to variances, site plans, and conditional use permits,but nothing specific on preliminary plats. As it concerns to variances, site plans, or conditional use permit, the property owner or builder has to affect the changes or make progress on the building permit within a year ar obtain an extension. Barnhart stated the City has had some situations where the preliminary plat has been extended up to five to seven times and the City Council felt there should be a level of discussion on what the appropriate number of extensions is. Barnhart noted five extensions would mean the application is five years past the public hearing and that property ownership could change in the neighborhood or other issues raised. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance is intended to help address the concern raised by the City Council. Barnhart stated there is no magic number but that Staff chose a four-year extension, which should allow the project to be completed in a timely manner. Page 18 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if these extensions would be granted by Staff or by the City Council. Barnhart stated that would be an item for discussion but that he gets a little uncomfortable with an extension two or three years past the initial approval being approved by Staff. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Landgraver noted the language included in the draft ordinance reads as follows: A site plan review approval shall become null and void one year after the date of approval unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition, or alteration, ar use requested as part of the approved plan. Landgraver asked if the ordinance would extend that approval out to four years or whether the property owner would have to do one of these activities every year to show momentum and continuity. Landgraver stated he reads it that as long as someone does the first one, they would get up to four years. Barnhart stated an extension would need to be applied for every year. Barnhart indicated he did not intend to imply that someone would need to make progress every year but that it is probably the goal to make progress. Schoenzeit noted the applicants would have some substantial expense associated with getting their project approved given the engineering and surveying and that the City probably would like them to be able to preserve that for some period of time through an administrative extension. Barnhart stated they also want to avoid the situation where people do not have the money to continue with the project and then they are afraid that their permit might go away,which is the purpose for the four year extension as well. Thiesse stated his concern is all of a sudden the bank has a piece of property that they are unable to get rid of and the City has forced them into a clean slate. Thiesse stated allowing the public to have another say, however, after four or five years is reasonable. Landgraver stated the number of extensions needs to be tightened up, which this ordinance helps to do. Thiesse asked if this is for preliminary plat or final plat. Barnhart indicated it would cover variances, site plan approvals, conditional use permits, and preliminary plats. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3754, City of Orono,Amend City Code Regarding Application Approval Extensions allowing a maximum of four extensions. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. #15-3755 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 78-72 REGARDING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, 8:37 P.M.—8:48 P.M. Page 19 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the proposed amendment is intended to codify the City's long-standing policy and practice regarding the expansion of nonconforming structures by clarifying the site conditions under which such expansions may or may not occur. The City Attorney has requested that Staff review the existing code language since the existing language does not specifically define what is meant by expansion of a nonconforming structure. By definition in the Zoning Code,nonconforming structure means any structure legally existing upon January 1, 1975, which would not conform to the applicable regulations of the structure were to be erected under the provisions of this chapter. The City Attorney has suggested the following language: "Expansion of nonconforming structures includes any increase in a dimensions, size, area,volume or height; any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed befare; any addition of a site feature such as a deck,patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool; any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed; and any exterior storage, signs, or specifically listed and allowed herein: a. Expansion of nonconforming single-family residence structures. Lawful, nonconforming single- family residential structures may be expanded,provided: 1. That the expansion does not occupy any space within a nonconforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally, and complies with all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 2. That if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width For the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 3. That in cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50 percent of the required setback far that zoning district,the City will require at a minimum that applicant shall make up the discrepancy by enlarging the opposite required yard depth to result in an aggregate yard depth equivalent to the combined required yard. b. Expansion of residential accessory structures. Lawful, nonconforming residential accessory buildings may be expanded provided: 1. That the expansion does occupy any space within a nonconforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally, and complies with all height, setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 2. That if the accessory structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 3. That in cases where an accessory structure encroaches upon the lot line setback, the City will require, at a minimum, that the existing accessory structure shall be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Page 20 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Gaffron stated the changes help make it very clear what is allowed and that Staff recommends adoption of the proposed text amendment. Schoenzeit stated he understands what the policy is but that it says expansion may be provided that. Schoenzeit asked Staff to provide an example of a substandard nonconforming structure where Paragraph 1 would allow it if it is not. Thiesse stated the expansion cannot be there but has to be somewhere else on the house that did not cause a greater nonconformity. Gaffron stated if someone wants to expand the structure in an area that is currently conforming,they would not be allowed to make it nonconforming. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a very important piece of code and that the current language could allow someone to bypass the regulation. Gaffron stated there are other cities that do allow someone to go up from an existing substandard setback or keep the same close to the line setback. Gaffron stated those things in the past have had to go to a variance process and that this clarifies that it does indeed have to go through a variance process. Schoenzeit stated in his view the residents are expecting the City to have this code in place to protect them from their neighbors. Thiesse stated in his view the word not should be crossed out in Paragraph bl. Gaffron stated then it would read that a person can do it if the expansion does not occupy any space within a nonconforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally. Gaffron stated Commissioner Thiesse is correct. Lemke stated under No. 3 it says, any addition of a site feature such as a deck,patio, etc. Lemke asked if they could add something like similar site feature at the end of that sentence to address other areas that they have not thought of. Gaffron indicated Staff can do that. Gaffron stated it could read: Any addition of a site feature such a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool, or additional site features such as but not limited to. Schoenzeit asked if this ardinance would make obtaining a variance harder. Gaffron stated not in 17is view and that the language is just defining current practice. Staff will be able to point to a piece of code that makes it very clear as opposed to saying that is how the City has always done it. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at p.m. Page 21 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3755, City of Orono,Amend City Code Section 78-72 Regarding Nonconforming Structures,with the discussed changes being made to the draft ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #15-3760 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE TO ALLOW HAIR REPLACEMENT CLINICS IN B-1,B-3,AND B-5,8:48 P.M.—8:56 P.M. Barnhart stated the City Council recommended an ordinance amendment that regulated beauty shops and barber shops, which was recently approved. Based on the direction of the City Council, Staff reviewed the ardinance further to see where hair replacement clinics could be regulated. It is Staff's opinion that hair replacement establishments are typical of a clinical setting and should be regulated as a clinic. Clinics are currently allowed in the B-4 zoning district as a permitted use and in the B-6 District as a conditional use. Barber shops and beauty shops are located in the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts. The draft ordinance allows clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only in the B-1 as a conditional use and in the B-3 zoning district as a permitted use, which is similar to professional offices and offices of a general nature. The majority of Orono's B-1 and B-3 commercial district is located in the Navarre area. Staff proposes a conditional use process in the B-1 district to ensure concerns related to clinics can be addressed through a review process. These concerns could possibly relate to hours of operation,parking, and access. Barnhart noted clinics are currently undefined in the Code and that the Planning Commission may wish to add the following definition: "Clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only: a place where a group of physicians, dentists, or the like, in connection with a medical school or a hospital,provide medical treatment and advice far nonresident patients, sometimes at low cost or without charge." Thiesse asked if there are only three B-5 businesses. Barnhart pointed out the location of the B-5 districts on the overhead. Landgraver suggested the clinic definition read as follows: "Clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only: A place where a group of licensed medical practitioners provide medical treatment or advice on an outpatient only basis." Landgraver stated it then would not need to be linked to a medical school or hospital. Landgraver stated he also found the term nonresident confusing because in the code resident and nonresident are defined and that in his view nonresident patients was an ambiguous word. Barnhart stated the reason the word nonresident was included was so people do not stay there overnight. Landgraver noted it defines it for an outpatient basis only, which would achieve that. Landgraver stated the City would not know whether they are associated with a medical school or a hospital. Thiesse asked if there is a need far the phrase low cost or without charge. Landgraver stated in his view there is not, which is why he eliminated it. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 22 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Barnhart suggested the new definition be added to the draft ordinance. Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3760, City of Orono,Amend City Code to Allow Hair Replacement Clinics in the B-1,B-3, and B-5 Districts, with the following deGnition of clinic being included: "Clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only: A place where a group of licensed medical practitioners provide medical treatment or advice on an outpatient only basis." VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 9. #15-3766 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE REGARDING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, 8:56 P.M.—9:07 P.M. Barnhart stated in Staff's review of the Code and based on the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council at their joint November wark session, one of the priorities to be addressed was the average lakeshore setback. At that time the Planning Commission identified no new changes since the system appeared to be working well in terms of variances and applying that on a case-by-case variance. Staff is proposing tonight that the Planning Commission make a recommendation on codifying the practice that the City has been applying on situations where someone is adjacent to a vacant lot or a right- of-way. Barnhart stated if you are the owner of Property B,the average lakeshore setback, assuming there is a house on Property C, would a line from the lakeward most point. If there is no building on Lot C, there is no place to draw the line. In practice the way the average lakeshore is applied is whatever the average lakeshore setback is the distance the standing house is from the ordinary high water level. The Code currently reads: "No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles, and pump houses. Further,the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. In instances where the average lakeshore setback cannot be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval." Staff is proposing that the phrase planning directar be eliminated and replaced with "city ad�ninistrator or designee." Barnhart noted no substantive changes are being suggested to the City's practice but that Staff wanted to confirm practice in certain unique situations and codify this practice. Schoenzeit stated the goal is not to get as close as someone can to the 75-foot line without going over, which, over time, allows the homes to creep closer to the lake Page 23 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement but that there are still some issues that bother him. Thiesse stated the case he is referring to is where the neighbor claimed a view from one of their back windows and that none of this will address that. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3766, City of Orono,Amend City Code Regarding Average Lakeshore Setback. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED ON JiJNE 22,2015,AND JULY 13,2015 Schoenzeit stated he attended the July 13, 2015, City Council meeting, and that on the George Stickney application more background information was submitted and that Mr. Stickney made it imperative that approval be granted that night. Schoenzeit stated he was confused as to why Plan A was being discussed again when it was voted down. Gaffron indicated it might have had something to do with the fact that there was a purchase agreement for the lot that was eliminated in the Big Woods and that Mr. Stickney wanted to present both plans for Council review. Schoenzeit stated Gabriel Jabbour also reported on the number of emergency calls over the 4�''of July weekend. There were seventy-five 911 calls on Lake Minnetonka, which overwhelmed the system. Schoenzeit stated his take on it is that Orono has no public land to unload items brought in from Big Island and that the City depends on the goodwill of private marinas and private landowners. Landgraver asked if it was residents of Big Island making the calls. Schoenzeit stated the pictures showed a massive amount of people gathered in a few spots and that one of the emergencies involved someone whose leg was cut by a prop and someone who dove into shallow water. There was also a considerable amount of debris left following the celebration. Gaffron stated at the June 22 City Council meeting, there was a presentation on the Turnback 112 project as well as a presentation by the coordinator of Tour de Tonka. The Mark Anderson application was approved with conditions and final plat approval was given to the Lakeview development. Remediation work is still being done on the site and the plat has not yet been filed because a number of final documents need to be completed. The City Council also discussed the Navarre holiday decorations. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schwin�ler noted he would not be able to attend the City Council meeting on July 27. Page 24 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 20, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver indicated he would cover the July 27 meeting if Schwingler could cover the December 14 meeting. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should hold a work session to discuss some of these ordinance amendments. Thiesse stated he would be happy to have a work session if they have something to discuss. Schwingler asked if the Planning Commission would be doing a boat tour. Curtis noted Staff had a boat tour approximately one month ago and that if the Planning Commission would like to have a boat tour, one could be arranged. 12. ADJOLJRNMENT Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. � � ATTEST: J" � ��-�- / f __.._. �_ Kevin Landgraver, Ac�ttg_. Page 25 of 25