Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 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, Christopher McGrann, and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Walsh was present. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21,2015 Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of September 21,2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #15-3780 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON,3596 SHORELINE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:33 P.M.—7:02 P.M. Michael and Lisa Larson, Applicants, were present. Barnhart noted this is a review of an application that was tabled last month. The applicants tonight are presenting revised plans for the Woofington, which is an indoor dog daycare, dog boarding, and dog grooming business. The proposed use will operate out of an existing building that is currently vacant with the exception of a small portion of it that is being used by the owner of the building in conjunction with his dry-cleaning business. The applicants are proposing up to 73 dogs maximum, which is a ratio of one dog per 85 square feet. It will be an upscale dog pet care facility and includes approximately 1,000 square feet of an indoor play area as well as a couple of smaller outdoor relief areas. The applicants do propose some exterior improvements to the building, such as awnings, paint, signage and lighting. At the September Planning Commission meeting, the public expressed some comments and concerns associated with noise. The applicants have developed some mitigation strategies for dealing with the noise and will present their proposals this evening. Barnhart displayed a layout of the building and noted that changes to the plan include relocating the entrance to the building to the northwest corner away from the intersection of Shoreline and Blaine and installation of a fence that would screen an outdoor relief area. Other improvements include removal of the asphalt parking lot located in the front of the building and replacing it with grass, installing awnings and signage. All signage will need to meet City Code requirements. The parking lot located on the north side of the building will be repaved and will remain the same size. The sidewalk will also be shifted to the northwest side of the building. Page 1 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. There are two outdoor relief areas being proposed. One of the outdoor relief areas is in the same location as originally proposed. The interior layout has been modified based on Planning Commission recommendation, including relocation of the entrance way. The property owner will retain the garage space for their cleaning business. Barnhart noted a number of public comments were received at the prior Planning Commission meeting. The adjacent residential property owners are worried about noise and its impact on their properties and the applicants will present their sound mitigation efforts. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has received a number of phone calls voicing opposition to the project. Barnhart stated he did not receive anything in writing. Barnhart displayed an aerial photograph of the area. Barnhart noted this building is 129 feet to the nearest commercial building, 86 feet to the closest residential structure, 225 feet to the other residential structure, and 112 feet from the neighboring property to the west. Barnhart stated the concern comes down to whether the applicants are doing enough to mitigate the noise. This project consists of two applications. One application proposes changes to the B-1 zoning district regulations to permit indoor dog boarding and indoor dog daycare as a conditional use. The Planning Commission recommended approval of that ordinance but the City Council has tabled that pending review of additional information. The other application requests a conditional use permit for the Woofington, which meets the proposed definition of indoor dog boarding and day care. Barnhart noted the applicants are present tonight and would be able to answer any questions relating to their operation. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Mike Larson stated they have had a lot of discussion regarding their application since first submitting it and that they received a lot of great feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council. Larson stated they have taken that feedback to heart and have made some revisions to their proposal. Larson stated as it relates to sound mitigation,they have relocated some of the internal rooms and moved the lobby to the northwest corner, which helps address the concern of noise as well as allows the entryway to be moved away from Blaine Avenue, which eliminates the concern about traffic on that street. Larson stated since Shoreline is a heavily traveled thoroughfare,they knew they would have very minimal impact on traffic on that street, and that they have placed the entrance as close as possible to the parking lot, which should deter people from parking on Blaine. Larson stated as it relates to other sound mitigation efforts,the dogs will only be let out in twos and on leashes so any potential barking can be immediately addressed. The dogs will not be allowed outside unless they are fully supervised. Larson stated in his view these changes wil( go a long way in addressing the concerns of the neighbors about dog barking. Lisa Larson noted there would be dogs allowed outside after 7 p.m. but only one or two at a time. The dogs would be supervised at all times. Michael Larson noted they also have provided some information on other indoor dog facilities in the Twin Cities and that he hopes the Planning Commissioners have had an opportunity to view those other Page 2 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. facilities or consulted with Staff. Larson stated they have not uncovered any subsequent concerns associated with those facilities. Lisa Larson stated it sounds like other communities were concerned about noise but that they have not received any complaints from the adjoining property owners. Larson stated a person can drive up to the other facilities at any time of the day and there is no dog barking. Larson stated she hopes some of the Planning Commissioners have visited those facilities and witnessed that barking was not an issue. Larson stated in her view it is more a perception of the old-fashioned kennels that were located outdoors and that this is a different type of facility. Michael Larson stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Lemke asked if they are still talking about a 25-pound weight limit. Lisa Larson indicated they are. Schoenzeit asked if they have made any changes to their 24/7 staffing plans. Michael Larson stated they have not for the first year. Larson stated they will move to a 24/7 staffing plan as the business grows. Larson stated if they reach their projections earlier,they would be happy to bring in more staf£ Larson stated it comes down to a financial balancing act as to when they reach that occupancy level. Schoenzeit asked if there is any interest to tying that to a vacancy number. Lisa Larson stated once they reach 50 percent occupancy,that would warrant a full-time overnight staff person, which is anticipated to happen by month 11. Schoenzeit asked if they are okay with that being a condition of approval. Lisa and Michael Larson indicated they are okay with that. Landgraver asked what the concern is about the overnight staffing. Schoenzeit stated if the dogs start barking, it could be a half hour before someone gets there, and if it happens during the middle of the night,that could be a problem for the neighbors. Landgraver asked how they anticipate using the two outdoor areas. Lisa Larson stated the southwest area is for all of the boarding dogs prior to 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. During those times no dogs will be let out in the northwest area. The northwest relief area/play space is for the daycare dogs to be able to be let outside for their relief time. Landgraver asked what those hours would be for the daycare dogs. Lisa Larson indicated it would be 7 a.m.to 6 p.m. Michael Larson stated those times can be modified as well if necessary. Page 3 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. McGrann asked how many dogs they anticipate having outside or what the rotation will be for the number of dogs in the northwest relief area. Michael Larson indicated it would be a maximum of ten. Lisa Larson noted there are 54 suites. McGrann asked if they are anticipating having dogs out there consistently. Michael Larson stated they did provide a rotation schedule to the Council and that they are anticipating dogs being out there every hour and a half and then 45 minutes off. Landgraver noted the applicants have created this additional nighttime relief area in response to the concerns of the neighbors. Lisa Larson stated the suites will also be sheetrocked pods and will be completely insulated with full- glass doors on the front to help contain the noise within the pod. The indoor play space will also have thick rubberized flooring to help mitigate the noise. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a good use of the space, but the one question he has is why the signage is not part of this application. Barnhart stated a conditional use permit gives the City the authority to issue a permit for the signage on the property and that Staff has not reviewed it per City Code at this point. Lemke asked if the only access to the outdoor play area is through the garage door. Michael Larson stated to the north of the garage door there will be an access door. Lemke asked if the garage door is there for a purpose and whether it will be open during the summer. Michael Larson stated on the days during the summer when it is nice out with a good breeze,they would like to open the door to bring in some fresh air. Lemke stated the applicants have done what the Planning Commission requested at the last meeting and that he likes the improvements and in his view it is a good use of the building. McGrann asked if the public comments received on the telephone related largely to the noise. Barnhart stated they primarily related to the potential noise issue. Barnhart noted some of the phone calls came from people who also spoke at the public hearing. Landgraver asked how long after the 7 p.m. closing time the dogs would be out in the side yard. Page 4 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Michael Larson stated the last outs would be somewhere in the 8:00 time frame and would start at 7 a.m. Landgraver asked if the neighbors can expect there will be no dogs outside from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Michael Larson indicated that is correct. Landgraver stated it does not sound like any sound will be escaping from the building during those hours given the sound mitigation that will be done. Landgraver asked if the applicants are amenable to some sort of threshold for occupancy to support an overnight staff person. Michael Larson stated they have written that into their business plan and that it is something they are in favor of offering for the ease of mind of their customers. Landgraver asked what sort of timeline they would like to see incorporated as a threshold. Michael Larson stated they are projecting 45 percent average occupancy for month 11, and once 50 percent occupancy is reached, that would allow them to have a nighttime staff person. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would like them to be successful but that they need to know if there is an agreement on the 50 percent. Michael Larson indicated they are agreeable to that. Landgraver suggested they notify the City if it does not happen within the first year. McGrann noted it is possible to reach 50 percent occupancy at certain times of the year and that he is not sure how that will be structured since there will be various occupancy rates. Michael Larson stated they acknowledge that as well and that they have built their financial plan with certain peak times in mind. Larson indicated they are anticipating a peak time around spring break, a peak time around the 4`"of July, and another peak time during the holidays. Larson stated where they fall in that planning depends on when the facility is opened. Barnhart stated it could be a consecutive three-month period and that he can incorporate it in Staff's memo for the Council. Lemke stated when they board their dog, they always check to see if there is an overnight person, and that their customers might prefer a facility that offers that. Michael Larson stated 24/7 staff is becoming more common, and that if they become successful, it will become a nonissue. Landgraver asked if the police department would have a 24-hour contact number in the event there are any issues. Larson stated they can post that on the building. Page 5 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver noted the applicants have relocated the entrance to address the traffic concerns, added a second play area away from the residential homes, will be making improvements to the exterior and interior of the building, will be placing limits on the outdoor relief times, and are agreeable to the threshold on the overnight staffing. McGrann moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3780, Michael and Lisa Larson,3596 Shoreline Drive,granting of a conditional use permit per the conditions of Staff,with the recommendation that language be incorporated into Council approval regarding a three-month rolling 50 percent occupancy rate triggering the need for an overnight staff person,and to post contact information for after-hour phone calls. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 3. #15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET, VARIANCES,7:02 P.M.—7:40 P.M. Chris Lappen, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances to construct a 21' x 21' detached garage. The applicants have 61 percent hardcover on the property currently and would be reducing it to 49 percent. Currently they are allowed 25 percent. The lot consists of 5,562 square feet in a 2-acre zone. The proposed garage is located five feet from the east side lot line and will replace a garage that was removed approximately eight years ago. The proposed garage is being moved further from the creek but will still be 18.5 feet from the creek where a 75-foot setback is normally required. Early in the application process there was concern about having to place fill in the floodplain area. Based on discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,the flood elevation is 935' and the applicants will not need to fill within the floodplain. The application also involves a setback from the existing house of 10 feet, which meets the standard. The applicants could move the garage forward but that would require an additional variance to be less than 10 feet from a structure. Staff is not recommending that. The property is allowed 1500 square feet structural feet because the lot is less than 10,000 square feet. The property is currently at 1,615 square feet,just slightly over the limit. The applicants could reduce both dimensions of the garage by a few inches and meet the 1500 square feet but Staff does not feel that is a big issue. The applicants could make it a single- stall garage and attach it to the house but that is not what the applicants prefer. As it relates to the average lakeshore setback variance,the proposed garage is completely beyond the line. The property is severely limited by the size and shape of the lot,the location and orientation of the existing house, and the limitations imposed by the creek that is considered as lakeshore for zoning purposes. In Staff's opinion the proposed garage location would appear to be reasonable for a minimum- sized detached two-stall garage. The adjacent property owner has expressed concerns in a letter that has been included in the Commission's packet regarding the impact on her views of the lake. Staff has looked at some ways to Page 6 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. minimize the impact on that neighbor's views. The applicants could decrease the proposed roof pitch from 6:12 down to 4:12 or 3:12 and/or reorient the peak from north/south to east/west. The applicants have revised their plans to a hip roof from a gable roo£ Staff would recommend the design of the garage be revised from what is currently being proposed. The applicants have provided their practical difficulties documentation and have submitted letters from two neighboring properties. Staff would propose the following issues be discussed: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? Schoenzeit asked why the garage will not be connected to the house or what would prevent a breezeway from being constructed. Gaffron stated the applicants would require a building permit along with the hardcover being increased. Gaffron noted this is a two-acre zone where a 30-foot setback would be required. Landgraver noted Staff's report states Staff would recommend that the garage design be modified to reduce the magnitude of the view encroachment if possible. Landgraver asked what Staff is thinking in thatregard. Gaffron stated that is in regards to the peak level. Currently the applicants are proposing a 6:12 pitch. If the pitch is reduced, it would lower the peak of the roo£ Gaffron stated another option would be to construct a hip roof rather than a gable roof, which would reduce the impact to the neighbor. Landgraver asked if that could also be changed to a 4:12 ratio. Gaffron stated it likely can. Gaffron stated currently the peak is running north/south, and depending on the views of the neighbor across that roof, if it is turned so that it is an east/west roof, some additional views may be gained. Gaffron stated there are a variety of options that could be explored. Gaffron noted the neighbor's views are mainly from a second level. Gaffron pointed out the location of a tree that might be impacted by the project. Gaffron stated the applicants will also need to ensure that the drainage does not go offto the neighboring property. Landgraver asked what the impact on the average lakeshore setback would be for the neighbors. Gaffron stated there would be no impact for the neighbor to the west since the lake is to the southwest. Page 7 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Landgraver noted under current code there is nothing preventing the applicant from planting arborvitae or other trees in that area. Chris Lappen, Applicant, stated they looked at the most practical spot to place the garage and that attaching the garage to the house would cost more since they would need to put in frost footings and remodel the inside of the house in that area. Lappen stated they also attempted to mitigate the hardcover as much as possible and not encroach on the property line as much as the previous garage did. The driveway currently runs all the way on the east side from the street to the garage and abuts up to the property line. The new driveway would be a single-car driveway five feet off the neighbor's property line all the way from the entrance of the driveway to the garage. Currently there is hardcover all the way up to the tree. That hardcover will be removed and the driveway will be moved slightly over to the west. Lappen indicated they have discussed with Staff changing the pitch of the roof and that they are open to that. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Rebecca Holzem, 3407 East Lake Street, stated her property is directly to the east of this site. Holzem stated there was a structure that had been there for years. Holzem stated at the time she purchased her property in 1996,the structure was not useable and was sinking into the ground. For 15 years the structure was not useable unless they wheeled a motorcycle or a lawn mower into a side door. Holzem stated it came down to the point where she requested the City condemn the garage because it was falling down and every time it would storm pieces of the garage would end up in her yard. The City did require removal of the garage. Holzem stated since it was falling or sinking into the ground, it had not been used for an extensive period of time prior to that. Holzem stated with regards to the setback, originally the applicants had asked for a 3-foot setback and are now asking for a 5-foot setback. Holzem stated if the Planning Commission reviews the photographs she has submitted, five feet is not much and ten feet would be more optimal. Holzem stated the proposed garage is more than half of the total footprint of her total house. Holzem stated with regards to sight views, her lower level has a patio on the southeast corner of the house, so when she is sitting in her home, she would be looking at a garage. From the upper level, she would be looking at a garage, and on the side overlooking the property from the dining room/living room area, she would be looking at a garage roof. Holzem noted the former garage was only nine feet tall where this proposed garage is almost 16 feet tall and would complete restrict her views. Holzem stated in her view it is excessive. The other properties in the neighborhood with similar width have single-car garages or no garage at alL Holzem stated her solution would be to attach the garage to the home and reduce the hardcover footprint, which would allow him to have a single-car garage. Holzem noted she was only allowed to construct a single-car garage at the time she constructed her house. Holzem noted there was some discussion about restoring the property to what it previously was, but that in her view the applicants cannot restore it to a nonfunctioning garage. The applicants have also stated that there would be no impact to any adjacent properties but there will be a very negative impact to her property. Holzem stated she would have a dark back yard because the garage will be there in addition to Page 8 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. the trees. Holzem stated in her view there are other alternatives that can be explored instead of a structure of that size. Kaylen Whitmore, 3403 East Lake Street, stated she is the eastern most property on the block near Bayside Road. Whitmore stated she owns a double lot with a two-car detached garage. The next property over has no garage, then there is a one-car garage, no garage currently on the subject property, a two-car garage on the double-wide lot, and then two one-car garages, which is appropriate for this size lot. Whitmore noted the proposed square footage of the garage is half the size of her house. Whitmore stated she is also worried about the health of the creek and the lake. Even with removing additional hardscape on the lot, with a double-car garage, the applicants would be 1,200 square feet over the allowable limit. Whitmore stated she purchased her house on Stubbs Bay and Stubbs Creek thinking that this was lakeshore living and that she was allowed a 970 square foot house. Whitmore indicated she traded those things to be on the creek and the lake, and that in her view it is a responsibility as a homeowner in choosing what they want to live with. Whitmore stated that responsibility needs to be paramount along this stretch of land since they are the last leg of the creek before it hits the lake. Whitmore stated to allow that much hardscape on this size lot is not doable from an ecological standpoint. Whitmore stated as far as the previous garage is concerned,to her knowledge it was built in the 1940s and was placed that close to the creek far before anybody had any real concerns and codes about what should be done next to the lake. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area. Gaffron pointed out the location of the applicants' house and the double-wide lot and the creek bed. McGrann asked if the garage would be almost to the front of where the hardcover is in the picture. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Lemke pointed out the house on the left appears to be closer to the lake. Schoenzeit asked if these homes are afforded an average lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated the applicants' house and the house on either side would be considered lakeshore lots. The homes further east are not lakeshore lots. Gaffron stated the lot to the immediate east would have an average lakeshore setback argument where the one further east would not. Schoenzeit asked if the distance from the bay window to the 6-foot line is 13 feet based on the survey. Gaffron stated the 6-foot line is an old lot line and that one lot is 44 feet wide and one lot is 56 feet wide. Schoenzeit stated given the issues with the average lakeshore setback for the neighbor, in his view a single double-deep garage attached to the house is far more appropriate than locating the detached garage there. Schoenzeit stated it is his understanding the applicant was not the owner when the old garage was there and that it was just a slab when he purchased it. Page 9 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the applicant purchased the property last spring. Lemke asked when the garage was removed. Gaffron indicated that was done in 2011. Schoenzeit stated in his view there is the opportunity to construct a single double-deep garage that is pretty such the same start and finish of the neighbor's house which would not block the view out the back. Schoenzeit stated if that neighbor has a lakeshore setback, the Planning Commission is obligated to protect that view. The Planning Commission viewed some photographs of the property. Gaffron asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is suggesting that the applicants remove the bump-out. Schoenzeit indicated he is. Gaffron noted that would leave approximately a 5-foot setback on one side and almost no setback on the other side. Gaffron noted one part of the house is right up against the lot line on the west side. Gaffron stated the result would be having house from one side of the lot to the other. Schoenzeit stated the advantage is that the garage would not be blocking 3407's view. The disadvantage is that the garage addition would be right next to the neighbor's new house. McGrann asked if there are other windows on the side of the house where the double doors come out on the deck. Holzem stated there are windows on the other side of the tree, which is her dining room. Holzem noted the majority of her living space is on the second floor with the exception of a family room. Holzem stated if you look at her file from when she constructed her house, due to the soil type, she ended up having to put pilings in and that the Planning Commission might want to recommend soil borings. Holzem noted some of the pilings had to go down 65 feet. Schoenzeit stated they would need frost footings to attach the garage to the house. McGrann stated as he looked at this, he can see a situation where someone would not necessarily have to attach the garage but that they could perhaps construct a smaller garage without the storage space. McGrann stated in his view the applicants have some flexibility since there was a garage there before rather than saying they should take the bay window out. McGrann indicated he would be willing to explore the option of decreasing the size of the garage versus a double-car garage and that he feels what is being proposed is far too intrusive relative to the setback. Landgraver asked whether the prior owner wou(d have been permitted to construct a 16-foot,two-car garage on the existing slab. Gaffron stated they would have had the ability to replace it in kind if the garage still existed today, which means no higher or wider. Gaffron stated when the garage came down, the prior owner had a year to replace it, which they did not, so now the newer owner must start from scratch. Page 10 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated if the garage is moved forward,there would be less damage to the trees as well. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not in a position to redesign the garage,but that it appears the consensus of the Planning Commission is that changes can be made to the location and size of the garage. Landgraver stated he does acknowledge the hardcover is being reduced but the neighbors are opposed to the new garage. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission can approve the application, deny it, or table the application to give the applicant time to redesign his garage. Landgraver stated he is hearing from the Planning Commission that the consensus is to deny it as proposed. Schoenzeit stated the applicants have not exhausted all the options to minimize the impact to the neighbors. Lappen stated attaching it to the house is extremely more expensive. McGrann stated if the applicants and neighbors can reach some agreement, those tend to have much better reception in general by the Planning Commission. McGrann stated having this large of a garage so much forward will be an issue the way it is proposed currently and that the applicant could table it to look at constructing a single-car garage, which might satisfy some of the neighbor's concerns. Lappen stated that is an option as well. Lappen requested his application be tabled so he can redesign it. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to table Application No. 15-3769,Chris Lappen and Kallyn Bialowas,3409 East Lake Street. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 4. #15-3787 DAVID AND LISA WIPSON,2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,7:40 P.M.—8:04 P.M. David and Lisa Wipson, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants' home is newly constructed but does not have a basement. Last year the previous owners received variances in order to permit construction of a small addition to the home to allow for additional storage space and a two-level shed to provide additional storage as well as a severe weather shelter. The home addition and shed were not constructed. The current owners are proposing to construct a detached garage to meet their storage needs as well as to serve as a storm shelter. The applicants are requesting a structural coverage variance to permit construction of a two-story detached garage on the property to be served by a new driveway on the rear. The footprint of the proposed garage results in the same calculable level of structure as the 2014 approvals but includes a larger cantilevered floor on the top leveL Due to the location of the proposed garage, a second driveway access would need to be approved by the City Council. The new garage is proposed to be 19.25 feet wide and 19 feet deep on the garage level with a 2.5 foot roof overhang. The lower level is 19 feet wide by 15 feet deep. The additional four feet of depth on the garage level is proposed to be achieved with a cantilevered floor. The definition of building footprint does not count the cantilevered floor area because it is greater than four feet above grade. Staff believes the additional 4-foot cantilevered garage floor with a 2.5 foot roof overhang exacerbates the massing effect of the proposed garage. Page 11 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff finds that the location of the sewer easement,the lack of a basement, and the existing structural level create practical difficulties for expanding the home or constructing a detached garage. Staff recommends the Commission consider the current request against the previous approvals, which are still in effect The applicant does not wish to add on to the home as was previously contemplated. Limiting current approvals for an enlarged shed/garage to the total square footage permitted in 2014 may be an appropriate consideration. Staff further suggests the Commission discuss the effects of the additional visible massing resulting from the 4-foot cantilever with 2.5 foot roof overhangs. Schoenzeit asked if the City or state would have any severe weather requirements for the building when someone constructs a slab on grade home in Orono. Curtis stated not to her knowledge. McGrann asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors. Curtis indicated she has not received any. Curtis displayed elevation views of the house from the front and back. The applicant has significant screening currently on the property and is proposing additional trees to screen that view. Landgraver asked where the 4-foot cantilever is proposed to be constructed. Curtis pointed out the 4-foot cantilever. Curtis stated the previous approval had a 2-foot overhang but that they are not adding 289 feet in addition to what was approved previously. The previous approval included square footage added onto the home and a shed. The current applicant is asking to combine that footprint and construct one building. Curtis indicated the footprint is the bottom footprint reflected in the calculation. As a result of the changes, the shed got bigger and a larger cantilever is being proposed than what was previously approved. Lemke asked if the previous application would be re-approved if there were no changes. Curtis indicated it would. David Wipson, Applicant, stated to address the 289 square feet, they are proposing the same combined square footage but are asking to combined that footage into one project along with the 4-foot cantilever on the back. Wipson noted the 2-foot cantilever was approved on the garage previously. The 2-foot overhang that was approved on the garage and accessory building resulted in 72 square feet of overhang and that his 4-foot cantilever results in 76 square feet. Wipson stated the issues of the practical difficulties are the same now as they were back when the prior owner was here. Wipson stated when the home was originally constructed, it did have a basement in it, but when they went through and applied to rebuild the home, they had to fill that in and lost the basement at that time. As a result of the basement being eliminated,the storage was lost,the mechanical room was lost, and a safe haven from severe weather was gone. When the home was rebuilt, there were also issues with a sewer easement, which was incorrectly recorded by about ten feet and limited what the previous owners were able to do. Page 12 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Wipson stated if you look at where the property is located, it is fairly unique. Crystal Bay Road basically wraps around the corner, and when you look at Shadywood Road,the elevation is quite high above what he is proposing. Wipson stated it is a fairly small garage as opposed to his neighbors on Crystal Bay Road and that the impact to the neighborhood is very minimaL Wipson stated the view from Crystal Bay Road is very narrow view due to the vegetation and is very well screened. Wipson stated as it relates to the massing,the apparent size of the lot is much bigger than the legal lot is due to being on the corner. Wipson stated there is an additiona120 or so feet of apparent lot width that is city owned and is the street easement. Wipson stated many of the issues relate to them not having a safe haven, which was brought to the forefront in July of this year when the tornado sirens sounded. Wipson indicated they actually had to leave their home and go to a friend's house. Wipson stated they were aware of that when they purchased the property but that the storm brought home the fact that they need something to protect their family. Wipson stated they also were aware that the prior owners had applied for a variance at about the time they were purchasing the property but that they would prefer to have one large addition rather than two smaller additions since it would be more functional. Landgraver asked what the practical difficulty is for the extra two feet of cantilever. Wipson stated it would be for storage since there is not a lot of extra space in the house and existing garage. Wipson noted the driveway is also quite short. Wipson stated they experience a lot of challenges given the lack of storage space. Lemke asked why Staff recommends dimensional limitations be placed on the overhang. Curtis stated that is to address any perceived massing that would result from the additional overhang and cantilever area. Curtis noted there was a lot of discussion with the Planning Commission and Council about the massing with the original approval. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. McGrann stated the property is noticeably different in terms of the elevation changes. McGrann stated since the City has not heard any comments from the neighbors in opposition, he would be apt to move forward with it. Schoenzeit stated he does not have any problem approving the combined numbers and that this will give the applicant a far more useable addition. Lemke indicated he does not have any problem with the proposal. Landgraver stated currently it appears the drainage goes through the back yard to the lake. Landgraver asked if the drainage would be shifted down the street. Page 13 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated she cannot answer that at this time but to her knowledge that is not the intent. Landgraver stated it appears there is a practical difficult associated with lack of storage and that this is using the property in a reasonable manner. Landgraver noted there are other homes in the area that have basements but that he is not sure whether the City considers the lack of a safe haven to be a practical difficulty. Schoenzeit stated the City has had people say that not having an attached garage in Minnesota is a problem and the City has been sympathetic to that. Schoenzeit stated on the other hand he does not remember hearing that the lack of a safe haven is a practical difficulty. McGrann stated in his view this would not set a precedent and that he would be in favor of moving forward, not because of the fact that the applicants need the storm shelter but because the City has previously approved the square footage and there is no comment by the neighbors. Schoenzeit stated since the applicant is commenting on the need for a storm shelter, he would like to ensure that the proposed structure meets whatever requirements are necessary in order to be storm shelter compliant. Schoenzeit suggested a letter from an engineer be submitted showing that the structure is capable of being a storm shelter. Lemke asked if that would set a precedent. Schoenzeit stated if the structure is not heavy-duty enough,that would be a problem since the applicant is saying he needs this structure in part to act as a storm shelter. McGrann stated he is worried about setting a precedent, which would then require the applicant to do it. Lemke asked if the City should look into that. Schoenzeit asked if City Code or state code requires a storm shelter. Gaffron stated he is not aware of that. Barnhart stated there might be some area of refuge in the building code, but that he is not sure if that applies to single-family homes. Gaffron stated that issue has not been brought up in previous applications. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission can approve it as is and the City Council can look at requiring an engineer certification that the structure is storm proof. Schoenzeit stated he does not want to start the precedent of requiring one, but if the applicant is saying he is building one,the City should require him to build it. Wipson indicated the structure will have a concrete foundation around it and a concrete floor on top with rebar. Page 14 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated the basic concern is that it does not have a$98 door facing the storm and that the structure should be sturdy. Lemke moved,McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3787,David and Lisa Wipson,2264 Shadywood Road,with the condition that a letter from an engineer be submitted verifying that the structure is of storm structure quality. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 5. THE BROADWAY GROUP,LLC,3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,8:04 P.M.—8:17 P.M. Gaffron stated the property owner is requesting approval to reconstruct the residence at its existing location, plus adding a 5' x 37' expansion area and deck on the lake side of the house. The new home will be two levels as is the existing home but with a higher roofline. Portions of the existing house do encroach the east side and front street setbacks. The new home is proposed to continue these encroachments. Relocating the new home to meet street and side setbacks would result in an encroachment of the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated the required side setback is 10 feet, the east side setback of the existing house is 6.1 feet at the northeast corner, and 63 feet at the southeast corner. The east wall of the new home will be 30 feet in length or four feet longer and lakeward than the existing walL The adjacent home is believed to be ten feet from that side lot line. The required front street setback is 30 feet. The existing home is located 24 feet from the street lot line at the southeast corner and the garage is 21 feet from the street due to the angled street lot line. The proposed home will retain these setbacks but the gabled front entry and garage overhang would appear from the plans to extend approximately 2-1/2 feet closer to the street. The peak height will increase from approximately 16 feet as viewed from the road to nearly 25 feet per the submitted plans, although the new peak is expected to still be lower than that of the adjacent home, which is at approximately the same street setback. Gaffron stated the submitted survey is lacking detail in order to accurately determine whether the average setback is met based on the proposed five foot lakeward expansion. Past surveys of this property and the adjacent properties have not shown the 929.4' elevation contour and the current survey does not show that contour extending past the property boundaries,nor how it may curve inward to the immediate west. The survey also does not appear to correctly depict the driveay width. Given the constraints of the buildable area between the 75-foot setback line and the 30-foot front setback line, replacing the existing house in virtually the same location would appear to be more appropriate. The Planning Commission should consider whether the front entry overhang as proposed is acceptable at a distance of approximately 20.5 feet from the street lot line. Gaffron noted the applicant is not present tonight but that the Planning Commission should discuss the issues outlined in Staf�s report. Schoenzeit asked if an engineer's letter has been submitted regarding the foundation. Gaffron indicated it has not. Schoenzeit asked if approval could be subject to receiving that letter. Page 15 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated approval could be contingent upon the applicants being able to use the existing foundation. Gaffron stated it is doubtful they can move it further west since moving it any further west would likely create a greater encroachment. Landgraver stated he inferred from the applicant's practical difficulty statement that the foundation is falling apart. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Lemke noted there is a support letter in the packet from a neighbor. Gaffron stated to his knowledge that neighbor lives two or three houses to the east. The Planning Commission reviewed the issues for consideration outlined in Staff's report and found that the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner and that the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Gaffron stated he does not want to take this to the Council until an updated survey has been submitted. Landgraver stated in his view the recommendation for the existing driveway is appropriate and that it would be difficult to back down the driveway if it is narrowed. Schoenzeit stated he would recommend a dual approval in the event the foundation is not useable. Schoenzeit stated the numbers are acceptable but the location should be optimized for the least number of encroachments. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3789,The Broadway Group,LLC,3590 North Shore Drive,per Staff recommendations, and the additional dual approval that if the existing foundation is not to be used,that the resulting new location is optimized for new construction and that this does not go to Council without an updated survey. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 6. #15-3790 CITY OF ORONO,PIN#34-118-23-22-0020,OUTLOT C, EAST WILLOW WOOD,VACATION,8:17 P.M.—8:28 P.M. Gaffron stated the City is proposing a vacation of the easement that exists over a piece of privately owned road outlot. Before a decision on Highway 12 was made,the City had plans to have a backage road between the commercial and residential properties. That decision was made back in 1990. Once a decision was made to relocate the bypass, the need for a through road between Willow and Brown was decreased. As a condition of the purchase agreement,the City is acquiring land from Clifford Otten for Municipal Well No. 4 and is required to vacate the easement over Outlot C of East Willow Woods. The easement in Page 16 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. question is located within Outlot C of East Willow Woods, a subdivision plat filed in 1990 which created two residential lots abutting Dickey Lake Drive and Pine Ridge Lane. It also created two commercial lots and three outlots. Staff is recommending vacation of this easement. Letters have been sent to the various utilities and Staff has not heard anything back. Gaffron stated the utility companies might request the City retain the easement for utility easements, but for purposes of the road,that is being extinguished. The property owner's legal access to the property will not be affected by the vacation of the easement in Outlot C and adjacent or nearby properties will have their access limited by it. Zoning Code Section 78-9 governs the vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. In past vacation requests,the City has determined that vacations may be appropriate when the vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. Staff has determined that it does not in this situation. In addition,the City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of-way as road except for utilities and access purposes. Staff finds that the unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. It is Staffls opinion that these three conditions have been met. Staff recommends approval of the vacation. Lemke asked how much time the City gives the utilities to respond. Gaffron stated typically the ones that have an interest in it respond fairly quickly. Gaffron stated the letters just went out last week but that the City typically hears back in two weeks. Schoenzeit asked if the City could retain the utility easement. Gaffron stated if there are existing utilities, it is his belief the property owner would want to retain that easement. Landgraver asked if access to the well is on Pine Ridge. Gaffron indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the outlot continues to the right. Gaffron indicated outlots were created as part of the Sugarwoods subdivision and that there is an outlot that continues behind the Service 800 Building, the strip mall,the office building, and then the senior center. Gaffron stated at this point there does not seem to be any future need for this to be a through road. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Lemke stated he would like to retain the utilities easement. Page 17 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3790,City of Orono,PIN#34-118-23-22-0020,with the recommendation that the utility easement be retained. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 7. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 78-1 DEFINITIONS AND LAKE YARD LANDSCAPING,RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING,AND LIVING WALLS,8:28 P.M. - 9:25 P.M. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission reviewed this text amendment at its September meeting. Staff has attempted to address these issues in one ordinance but that the Planning Commission may wish to separate the two. Barnhart stated the City has a preriy rich history of preserving lake views from residential property into the lake area by prohibiting or regulating structures. It is recognized that landscaping can have the same effect as a structure and there has been some interest expressed by some residents that the City look at regulating landscaping in the zone near the lake. The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance when placed within the average lakeshore setback. A living wall must be evergreen plants planted. Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae and spruce. Other plants such as lilac, dogwoods, etc., that may provide similar screening characteristics part of the year are not included as these varieties are not likely to be chosen for nuisance landscaping. Trees placed by nature, regardless of size, type, and location, are not a living wall and non- evergreen trees planted are not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Barnhart noted living walls are frequently used for screening throughout the city. The definition of a living wall in the ordinance means a combination of three or more evergreen plants that are six feet or more in height and planted in such a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of the plant. Barnhart stated evergreens that grow on their own would not be considered a living wall. Schoenzeit asked what would happen if something meets the nuisance definition. Barnhart stated the property owner can trim the tree or shrub back to the point where it is no longer six feet high or widen the width of the plant space or they can remove part of the living wall providing an opening to the lake. Barnhart stated alternative aggressive solutions would likely be similar to how the City pursues other nuisance situations. Schoenzeit asked if it would be considered a living wall if there is a four feet space even though the row of trees is 100 feet long. Barnhart stated if there are three or more trees in a row and one is removed every so often, it would no longer be considered a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize that this is not a perfect solution but that Staff is attempting to balance reasonable landscape goals with the reasonable expectation of someone's view of the lake. Schoenzeit stated trimming it back to six feet would be enough to help mitigate it but removing every third tree would not be. Page 18 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated when the City is in the process of enforcing the ordinance, some type of guidance has to be given. Schoenzeit stated there are hundreds of examples of this in the City and that they need to know what the intention of the living wall is. Schoenzeit stated in his view taking out every third arborvitae is not going to mitigate this nuisance. Barnhart stated a living wall is defined in a specific way in the ordinance and the property owners will be advised what they need to do to ensure it is not a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize there will always be some visual impacts for property owners who choose to plant a tree in the 0-75 foot zone. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission has some specific recommendations for enforcement, those can be incorporated. Schoenzeit stated currently there are neighbors feuding over this and that the City has an obligation to fix things, but if the nuisance enforcement does not have sufficient strength,the City will not solve anything. Lemke asked if he would have to trim the tree down to six feet if it grows over six feet and is located in the 0-75 foot zone. Barnhart stated the height, spacing, and the number of trees in a row defines a living wall and that trimming the tree down to six feet would be one way to mitigate that. The property owner could also increase the spacing or reduce the number of trees. Schoenzeit stated the goal is to create a view by breaking down a living wall, and the nuisance remedy has to be in maintaining the view that is opened by mitigating the nuisance. McGrann asked if the City has received any commentary related to non-lakeshore living walls. Barnhart stated the more notable complaints are associated with the lakeshore lots but that there have been some concerns expressed with living walls near an intersection. McGrann stated it feels like the City is being selective on what views to protect and that they may run into challenges in the future. Barnhart stated this is a drastic change to the City's ordinances and that it will be an enforcement challenge. Barnhart stated due to the City's history of protecting lake views, he is recommending it. Schoenzeit stated the ordinance should not allow grandfathering in. Barnhart stated the second component of the ordinance deals with lighting. The most common, non- regulatory solution is for the property owner to willingly adjust or shield lights so that it does not impact a neighbor. For situations where that does not occur,the proposed regulatory solution establishes measurable lighting at the property line as a nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the code, including citations and mitigation. Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulating lighting in the zoning ordinance only but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring properties would be considered legal non-conforming and allowed to continue in perpetuity. Staff is proposing the City Code be amended by adding the following: "Fully shielded luminaire means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly Page 19 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane through the fixture's lowest light-emitting part. Light emitting part, for the purposes of this section, may include bulb,diode, or tube." Lighting that casts light on adjacent residential property that exceed one foot candle as measured at the property line would not be allowed. The ordinance further states, "Any lighting used to illuminate a structure, an off-street parking area, or other area in any residential zoning district shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential property or from any public right-of-way. All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the following provisions: l. Lighting adjacent property. Lighting sources shall not be permitted so as to light adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity. 2. Maximum intensity. No light source or combination thereof which casts light on a public street shall exceed one foot-candle as measured from the right-of-way of said street, nor shall any light source or combination thereof which casts light on adjacent residential property exceed four- tenths foot candles as measured at the property line. 3. ArchitecturaVhistorical light fixtures that feature globes that are not shielded may be approved by the City Administrator or designee. In no case shall the light affect adjacent properly in excess of the maximum intensity. 4. Shielding. Outdoor light fixtures, when placed within the lake yard, shall be fully shielded. The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding glare or heat to mean a specific type of lighting and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting. Barnhart noted a 60-watt bulb measured at 15 feet would be a one foot candle, which in some situations could be the distance from a person's house to the property line. A chart in Staff's report illustrating the various distances and candle measurements has been included in Staff's report. Barnhart stated he would advise against making it lower than a one foot candle. Barnhart stated the enforcement of this code may be challenging and will likely require equipment not currently owned by the City. Due to the nature of the potential violation, enforcement will most likely be completed by police officers. Schoenzeit noted one component in order to be considered a nuisance is it has to be a certain foot candle across the property line. Schoenzeit asked whether all lights have to be shielded in the lake yard. Barnhart stated the lighting would be determined at the property line. As it relates to the shielding, that would be part of the new lighting standards but is not necessarily deemed a nuisance. Schoenzeit asked if the old lights would be grandfathered. Barnhart stated they would be. Barnhart noted there are quite a few dock structures and lake improvements that have lighting and that it will take years before there is a noticeable difference, which is the reason why Staff went with the nuisance component. Barnhart stated the property owner wouid be allowed to replace the bulb if it is part of the lighting fixture and would be considered normal Page 20 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. maintenance. Barnhart stated shielding would only be required in the lake yard and foot candles would be measured anywhere on the property. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Joey Mandel stated he is here tonight representing his parents who live at 3155 North Shore Drive. Mandel displayed a picture of the lot adjacent to his parents' home. Mandel stated the lot was unmaintained for six years and was a nuisance. The property to the left is his parents' property. Both properties are located on Crystal Bay. Reed Mandel stated the property owner was hauling in a bunch of fill a little bit at a time, which meant that every two weeks there were heavy construction vehicles and noise. Joey Mandel stated the construction vehicles left a lot of dust, noise, and rodents. This situation eventually led his parents to calling into the City and filing a complaint against the property and how it has been maintained. Reed Mandel stated as a result of the work, flooding occurred on his parents' property and for the entire summer the yard was flooded. Mandel stated all the dirt from the hill and debris ran into his parents' front yard and caused the driveway to always be muddy. Joey Mandel stated the neighbor also built a very large white fence all the way down the property line but did not follow regulations. The mud and debris could still go under the fence. The neighbor's latest effort has been to install a living wall all the way down the property line. The trees are 16 or 18 feet tall and are evergreen. Mandel stated the trees were just planted a couple of months ago and also affects another property a lot and a half back from the lake. That property owner cannot see the water anymore as a result of the living wall. Reed Mandel displayed a picture of the view from the interior of his parents' house. Mandel stated this is not within the 75 feet jurisdiction but that it is impacting his parents' lives greatly. Joey Mandel stated the living wall has dramatically changed their views of the lake. Landgraver asked if they are suggesting that it is not just a hard measurement from the lakeshore and it should be the average lakeshore setback. Joey Mandel stated they wanted to convey that he applauds the 75-foot setback as an option and that it is a good start. Mandel stated what he is suggesting is that even though the 75-foot setback is a great start, there will always be circumstances that will be drastically violating the intent of the ordinance. Mandel stated a special mediating committee could be instituted whereby the committee mediates the situation and determine whether it is a violation of the intent of the statute. Mandel stated the examples shown here are within the 75-foot guideline but are clearly intended to be hostile and degrading to the other property owner's enjoyment of their property. Lemke asked if the residence is located behind the 75-foot line. Page 21 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Joey Mandel stated it is approximately 75 to 80 feet. Mandel stated as it relates to the view, if his parents were looking straight out at the lake from the house,that view is not affected, but if they look to the right, it is impacted. Schoenzeit stated as proposed it is the fence setback line and not the 75-foot line,which would cover the view to the right. Schoenzeit stated the City's proposal is more aggressive than the 75-foot line. Barnhart stated previous versions were at the 75-foot line and that the more recent version reflects the average lakeshore setback. Joey Mandel stated the neighbor's home is well away from this wall. Barnhart displayed an aerial photograph of the property. Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated the situation with this neighbor started ten years ago and that he appreciates the City taking a look at this. Russin noted their properly is not on the lake but that they did have a view of the lake when they first purchased the property approximately 20 years ago. Russin indicated they built a screen porch a number of years ago, and because of the living wall,they cannot see the lake anymore. Russin stated if that living wall was put in to shield someone from looking in that neighbor's windows, that is one thing, but the house is far away from the trees and that it is not for privacy. Russin stated the living wall was put in there because they complained about other things. Russin stated their general concern with the proposal is having some type of relief valve for special circumstances, and the reason for that is to deal with the white fence. Russin stated as the fence was going in, he called the City, and after a couple of conversations,the City told him they were going to take a pass on enforcing the ordinance. Russin stated the fence is ugly and white, but the biggest issue is, if you look at the fence,there are gaps because one section is eight feet high and other sections are six, which leaves a two-foot gap in some areas. Russin stated he also has watched the maintenance guy blow all the leaves under the living wall into the Mandels' property on a couple of occasions. Russin asked how they can resolve that situation. Russin stated the other issue relates to the lighting. Russin stated the general issue with the lighting is the one-foot candle. Russin noted .4 is the lightness of the moon coming in but that moonlight is natural light. Russin stated the neighbor has five commercial size lights that are extremely bright. Russin stated he also has an issue with the Orono Police Department enforcing the lighting code. Russin stated he has called the police several times about the lights and that they were told to cover their window with solid materiaL Russin indicated he did not receive good service from the police department and that in his view enforcement has to be through some other avenue. Russin displayed a picture of the lighting. Russin noted they hired a professional photographer to come out and photograph the lights when there was no moon. The neighbor has had as many as 12 floodlights on at one time pointed at his house. Russin stated the neighbor's house is located up on the hill and that the light comes into his house. Russin displayed a picture of his master bedroom and the reflection of the light on the bedroom door. Russin pointed out his bedroom has small windows, which prevents even more light from coming in, but that it is still lit up. In addition,the entire back of their house is lit up by this individual's lights. Page 22 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Russin stated in one of the court hearings, the judge wrote in her order that this individual would probably put a cannon on the dock and fire it because the City did not specifically say he could not. Russin stated in his view, whenever they ask for a relief valve, the neighbor will do something else to circumvent the City's regulations, which is why he is asking for more detail to be included in the ordinance. Russin displayed a picture of the Wagner property. Russin indicated originally there were five of these lights and each one of them has three bulbs. Russin stated they also light up the inside of his house all night long. Another five lights have since been put in, for a total of 30 bulbs now. Russin stated he is in favor of beautifying property but that he is not sure why these lights have to stay on until 1:30 at night. Russin stated if they were for safety, they would stay on all night long. Russin stated he does not care that these are commercial lights on the property but that they cannot stay on until 1 or 2 in the morning. Russin stated the only time they vary is because of daytime savings. Russin stated their entire house is lit up on both sides. Russin noted the lights are 53 feet from the lake and that in his view it is a safety hazard because someone might mistake them for landing lights since there are so many of them. Russin stated the neighbor initially started with a flashlight over his head as he walked through the easement path and that he called it in numerous times but the police questioned how he would know it was his neighbor. Russin indicated he finally put an animal camera on the easement, which stopped the neighbor from doing that. The neighbor then put a construction light near the garage and focused the light on his wife while she lay in bed. Russin stated he again called the police several times but nothing was done. As a result, they secured a mirror in the tree and shined the light back in his house, which stopped that. After that the neighbor installed the lights down by the lake. Russin stated this situation has been going on for ten years and that the ordinance also needs to consider the time of day the lights are on. Russin stated unnatural light can be harmful. Russin stated they are not concerned with someone lighting their property with motion detectors for safety, but that he has 14 lights shining on his property and into his house. Russin indicated he has tried to resolve this many, many times with the City but has basically been ignored. Russin stated it is impossible to draft language to address all scenarios in planning ordinances but that a relief valve solution will enable the City to address each situation with an objective thought process. In that way citizens would be encouraged to work out their issues before mediation is put into effect, which will lessen the ultimate burden placed upon the City. Russin stated that way all residents will be served rather than the privileged, motivated and/or wealthy families who are able to actively seek gray zones. Russin stated the situation is very, very unfortunate. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Landgraver asked if Staff should bundle these or separate the ordinances. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to separate the ordinances. Landgraver suggested the Planning Commission discuss the living wall component first. Schoenzeit stated the living wall definitions are fair and usable but that his concern would be once it becomes an ordinance and a nuisance definition is available, once someone brings the nuisance to the City, mitigation is not part of the ordinance. Schoenzeit asked what the venue or avenue is to discuss the Page 23 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. mitigation. Schoenzeit stated if that is not defined, in his view it is going to be an issue. Schoenzeit stated you can change the mathematical spacing but it might still be opaque, which will not solve any problems. Barnhart stated he does not have a solution to that at this time. Barnhart acknowledged that there are landscaping, trees, and other natural improvements that do block views of the lake. Barnhart stated someone can have a row of maple trees 20 feet apart that will block the view just as effectively as a row of evergreen trees. Barnhart stated how the City mitigates the nuisance is to make sure the improvement does not meet the definition of a living wall, and that mitigation could include trimming the tree or removing the tree. Barnhart stated there are a lot of scenarios but that it depends on actual dimensions and field work. Schoenzeit stated they could also see if nuisance and mitigation brings any satisfaction to the issue; and if not, it could be brought back before the Planning Commission. Barnhart stated that is why the City reviews their ardinances annually. Landgraver stated people who have been impacted by a living wall might become frustrated if it is not satisfied like they think it will be. Landgraver noted the proposed ordinance is attempting to have a vertical and horizontal solution but that perhaps they should simply limit the trees to six feet tall. Landgraver stated in that case it does not matter how close someone plants them together, but if it is over six feet tall, it is a nuisance. Schoenzeit stated if you have two trees at six feet,you should need six feet of open space between the two trees, which would severely disrupt the living wall. McGrann stated he would rather see two out of three trees removed. Schoenzeit stated the blocking factor should not be more than 50 percent. Barnhart stated he understands the comments made so far. Barnhart indicated he is trying to craft an ordinance that does not make everything i(legal but yet also recognizes that there are some challenges with certain individuals in how they choose to landscape their yard. Schoenzeit stated the number of trunks is irrelevant and perhaps they should adjust it to take into account the blocking factor of the trees. Schoenzeit stated if the living wall is blocking more than 50 percent of the view,then it should be considered a nuisance. Landgraver stated he would propose a height limit of six feet tall to help manage it. Landgraver stated it is likely the City will have to hire someone to measure the trees. Schoenzeit stated a nuisance is also the number of trunks, but if the stand of trees is mature and full, the mitigation should be the height. Schoenzeit stated if someone removed every one out of three trees,the view could still be mostly blocked and unimproved. Schoenzeit stated in his view the mitigation in that situation is not sufficient, but if they are cut down to six feet, it would be improved. Page 24 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Barnhart stated with the last version, a number of trees was not listed, and based on past direction, he started with three trees. Barnhart asked if it is the expectation of the Planning Commission that a group of three pine trees will get cut down at six feet. Schoenzeit stated it depends on the blockage. Barnhart stated that is where it gets fuzzy and that he has to write an ordinance that defines a living wall. Barnhart indicated there is a fine line between a living wall and trees that block visibility, and that even if the City does nothing, there will still be people out there that will plant trees based on their own goals regardless of their relationship with their neighbor. Barnhart stated there are also situations where trees are planted by nature or where someone stops maintaining them. Barnhart stated if the intention is to impact their neighbors or someone did not really think about the impacts,this ordinance will fix that, but if someone is looking for loopholes, they will find a loophole. Barnhart stated the ordinance is very challenging from an enforcement standpoint and that he would be cautious about being more aggressive on this type of ordinance. Barnhart stated if they look out in their neighborhoods,they would likely find a living wall pretty quickly even if it was unintentional. Barnhart stated he wants to avoid people coming in for a variance related to landscaping. Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to go forward with the ordinance even though not all situations will be resolved. Lemke stated he has a concern with grandfathering or not grandfathering. Lemke stated he planted trees along the side of his yard that are now 20 feet ta1L Lemke asked if the City is going to require him to cut them down to six feet. Schoenzeit stated someone would need to lodge a complaint. Lemke stated if that happens, he is going to be pretty mad. Lemke asked if the City can retroactively put an ordinance in. Barnhart stated in working with the City Attorney, this is the approach they arrived at, which was to come at it from a nuisance standpoint. Barnhart noted the living wall would need to be located within the average lakeshore as defined in the ordinance. Barnhart stated if the City receives a complaint and it is determined to be a living wall, mitigation could include removing one or more trees. McGrann stated he agrees with Commissioner Lemke, and that out of 100 times that this has happened, perhaps only three or four are intentional. McGrann commented they could be opening up Pandora's Box. Schoenzeit stated there could also be a number of people who are impacted and are getting no relief. McGrann asked if he can call the City and say Bruce's trees are a nuisance even though he does not live next to him. Barnhart stated anyone could complain as the ordinance is currently written. Page 25 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated in his view the City is asking for trouble if they have an ordinance that is difficult to enforce. Lemke stated if the ordinance makes a lot of people upset, he is not sure the City should pursue it. Landgraver asked if Commissioner Lemke is suggesting grandfathering the trees or whether he is against the ordinance. Lemke stated he is suggesting grandfathering the trees. Lemke noted that then raises the question of how the City would know the trees are grandfathered. Lemke stated he is not sure how the City would regulate that. McGrann stated he has no problem moving forward with being more restrictive on living walls but that in his view the retroactive piece is going to be difficult to determine. Schoenzeit stated the rights and rules for fences are very clear and that they should have applied from day one. Schoenzeit stated someone should not be allowed to organically abuse someone's property like this. Schoenzeit stated even though the trees are beautiful, once the trees take off, they truly can be a nuisance to the neighbors. Schoenzeit stated the question is who is able to call in about a nuisance. Schoenzeit stated in his view the person complaining about the nuisance should be affected by the nuisance rather than living out of state or out of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit noted Prior Lake requires the person calling in the complaint undergoes the same sort of review on his property that he is complaining about. Schoenzeit stated it should go both ways, which is different from what the City currently does. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether there is anything in the draft ordinance that says somebody's view has to actually be blocked in order for it to be considered a nuisance. Gaffron noted there are situations where someone could have three trees in a row up by their house and they are technically violating the average fence setback ordinance but not blocking lake views at all. Gaffron stated the question becomes from what part of the house are those views protected and is someone allowed to have a 180 degree view from the side of the house. Gaffron asked whether it would be considered a legitimate blockage if the side views are blocked. Gaffron stated there are so many loopholes that could be found and that the whole idea of limiting vegetation is difficult to deal with. Landgraver noted some citizens have asked the City to do something about this and that the City Council directed Staff to take a look at it. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission has a concern about whether it should be grandfathered or not. Schoenzeit stated if existing nuisance conditions are grandfathered, this is a waste of time, but at the same time it is a difficult position to put the City in because there are many residents who are then stuck duking it out on their own. Schoenzeit commented he is not sure whether the City is throwing a weight or a lift raft at these situations, but that grandfathering would gut the ordinance. Lemke and McGrann indicated they disagree with that. Schoenzeit stated simply because the material changes and is not a fence,the abuse can go wild. In addition, a fence would stay in the same position but a living wall would grow and expand. Schoenzeit Page 26 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. stated the particular walls that are being focused on are the arborvitaes and that perhaps the ordinance could be more narrowly focused since they are not talking about spruce trees that are 20 feet apart. Barnhart agreed the majority of the complaints relate to arborvitaes. Barnhart noted the earlier draft had much closer spacing but it was widened based on Planning Commission feedback. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could table the draft ordinance and Staff could review it a little bit more. Barnhart stated he is not sure what the solution is, but that it appears the main issue is the nuisance and whether the trees/shrubs should be grandfathered. Another option is the Planning Commission could move forward with that being a strong concern. Staff could work with the City Attorney on it and present the challenges or reasons or responses to those challenges to the Council. Landgraver stated he would like to advance it and that there will never be a perfect solution. Landgraver stated there might be something responsive to the citizens that is enforceable but that there likely will be some negative feedback from the residents. Schoenzeit stated there is value and concerns with the ordinance and that he would suggest Staff ask the City Council how they would like to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated even if someone is in favor of it, it is apparent it will have negative connotations and would be difficult to enforce. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has vetted some key issues but that they are getting diminished returns on the discussion. Landgraver suggested Staff look at the ordinance further based on tonight's discussion. Barnhart asked what thoughts the Planning Commission had on the lighting portion of the ordinance. Landgraver stated in his view one candlelight measurement is too liberal versus the .4. Barnhart stated originally it was .4 for three minutes or five minutes. At the suggestion of the City Attorney, the time limit was removed and the higher candle limit was included. Barnhart stated whoever enforces it would need to be on site for that time period, and if the person flips off the light for one minute, the time period would start over. Schoenzeit stated the City could require the light to be off for a certain period of time. Barnhart noted lighting offers securing and regulating the limit of time or how frequently it needs to be off is very dangerous and he would not recommend it. Landgraver stated the typical measurement by the City is the power of the light. Landgraver noted there was a concern raised by one of the residents about enforcement and having to go through the police department. Landgraver stated that resident suggested some type of inediation. Lemke stated he is not sure whether it should be one foot candle or half a candle. Lemke noted he is able to see his neighbor's light that is around 200 feet away. Lemke stated he would like to see more shielding not just on lakeshore properties but non-lakeshore properties as well. Schoenzeit stated clearly new light fixtures should have shielding regardless of whether they are lakeshore properties or elsewhere. Page 27 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Barnhart stated the candle measurement would be the distance from the light fixture and would apply at the property line. Barnhart noted he is not proposing any shielding for lights that are not near the lakeshore. McGrann asked if the City's current light ordinance is sufficient to cover other properties. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance only talks about glare and heat and that he is not proposing any level of shielding with this ordinance for non-lakeshore properties. Barnhart indicated that could be a topic of discussion in the future if the Planning Commission would like to expand that. Barnhart suggested the Planning Commissioners use the City's light meter to gain some idea of what one foot candle is. Barnhart stated he is trying to balance the annoyance factor with the nuisance factor. Lemke asked if existing light fixtures would be grandfathered in. Barnhart indicated they would be unless they throw more than one foot candle at the property line. In that situation they would be considered a nuisance and would need to be addressed. Schoenzeit stated at some point any light can be a disturbance, but if the foot candle is measured at the property line, it seems reasonable and also fairly straight forward on mitigation. Barnhart stated the ordinance can always be changed, but that the Planning Commission may want to explore it further on how it impacts the neighborhood. Barnhart stated it would be difficult for Staff to enforce the lighting ordinance since Staff is not here in the summertime at night and the police would need to be involved. McGrann stated he does not know what the exact lumens should be but that he is comfortable with a baseline. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission likes the language in the text,they can either test the lumens or forward the ordinance to the City Council. Barnhart stated he would offer the Planning Commission the opportunity to use the light meter to explore it at their convenience if they so desire. Schoenzeit stated he would suggest moving the living wall component forward and having the Planning Commission take a look at the lumens. Lemke asked whether they could do that as a group. Barnhart noted the inspection would need to be done individually since it would be considered a public hearing if they all got together at the same time. Landgraver requested the Planning Commissioners use the lighting meter on their own to get an idea of the lumens. Landgraver noted there will also be issues with commercial versus residential. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend on Application No. 15-3784, City of Orono, Text Amendment to 78-1,Detinitions and Lake Yard Landscaping,Residential Lighting,and Living Walls,that the living wall component and the lighting portion of the ordinance be separated, with the lighting component being tabled and the living wall component proceeding forward to the Page 28 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. City Council,with Staff highlighting the Planning Commission's discussion regarding the pros and cons of grandfathering living walls. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMENT COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 28,2015,AND OCTOBER 12,2015 Schoenzeit stated he attended a portion of the September 28 Council meeting and that Mediacom gave a brief presentation. Schoenzeit noted he asked some questions of Mediacom, which they have yet to answer. Curtis stated at the October 12 meeting,the BPS Properties application received approval for final plat subject to a number of conditions. In addition, the Gustafson, Ridge Creek Custom Homes, Zitzloff, Balan, and Kator applications were placed on the Consent Agenda. Gaffron noted there was quite a bit of discussion on the Steadman application regarding the temporary access road. The application was tabled to allow the applicant to consider eliminating one of the cul-de-sacs. The Trinity Church application was approved with the message being changed every 60 seconds rather than every eight seconds. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:04 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ATTEST: � Kevin Landgraver, Acting Chair Page 29 of 29