Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2000 Planning Commission Minutes • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard, Sandra Smith, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners Janice Berg, Dale Lindquist, and William Stoddard were absent. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Council Representative Barb Peterson, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS (#1) #2513 CONNIE PIEPHO, 540 NORTH ARM LANE -VARIANCES, 6:33 p.m. -6:58 p.m. Connie Piepho, Applicant, was present, along with Mike Movani, Custom Pools. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this application at their August 16, 1999 • meeting, where it was recommended the application be approved on a vote of 5 to 0 to grant an average lakeshore setback variance on the property subject to the property owner identifying a secondary septic site on the property. The original proposal had the swimming pool located within an area designated as the secondary septic site on the property. The Applicant has submitted a new site plan that relocates the pool to the north property line, which requires the application to return before the Planning Commission for review. The present application is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the property line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is less than 750 square feet, requiring a ten foot setback to the property line. The pool itself is proposed to be located 15 feet from the side property line, where ten feet is required. Weinberger stated the Applicant, following the first public hearing, was to identify a secondary septic site. The previous proposal discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the secondary septic site. City Code requires all structures to be located at least 20 feet from the absorportion area of the mound. To date no secondary septic site has been identified which meets all requirements of the Septic Code. One problem in relocating the septic site further to the north is the well for the adjacent property owner is located 16 feet off the Applicant's property line where the Septic Code requires a minimum 75 foot setback between a septic system and an active well. The City's septic inspector will not approve a variance to the septic code to permit a site to be located closer than 75 feet to the neighboring well. Staff has concerns regarding the placement of a potential health risk to an adjacent property owner's water supply to accommodate a property owner to relocate a septic site. Weinberger stated Staff has some concerns regarding the impact the new location of the pool would have on the views to the lake. The intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views for adjacent property owners and to promote consistent development along the lakeshore. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) City Staff is recommending denial of the application based on the negative impacts to the adjacent property and locating the pool within the average lakeshore setback. Weinberger indicated he has spoken with Mike Movani of Custom Pools who has indicated the property owner would prefer the swimming pool to be located in its original proposed location. Weinberger stated an agreement between the two property owners could perhaps be considered to allow a secondary septic site in the proposed location with relocation of the adjoining neighbor's well. This option would be acceptable to City Staff if all the parties are in agreement. Weinberger reiterated that City Staff is recommending denial of the application as presented tonight. Movani commented the property owner would like the pool located in the original proposed location. Movani stated a variance was needed for the septic site in its present location, with no secondary site being found compatible with the City's septic requirements. Movani stated they have attempted to comply with the City's requirements by reducing the size of the pool and trying various locations. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider the application that has been presented tonight. Movani stated they would prefer to have the original application considered. Hawn inquired whether any discussions have been held with the adjoining neighbor. Piepho indicated she has spoken with the neighbor regarding their options. Kluth inquired whether the present septic site operates fine currently. Piepho stated the present system is six years old and operates fine. Smith inquired whether there were any other possible locations for the pool. Piepho indicated they have considered other possible sites for the pool and were not able to find a suitable location. Kluth indicated he was unsure what option the Planning Commission is supposed to be reviewing tonight. Movani stated the Applicant would like to pursue the option of reaching an agreement with the adjoining property owner in which he would agree to relocate his well in the event the Applicant's primary septic site needs to be replaced. Kluth inquired whether this property was located within the MUSA district. Weinberger stated there is a potential this will be included in MUSA in the future. Hawn stated she has a concern with the proposed option in the event the adjoining property owner decides to sell the property, which would encumber future buyers. Hawn stated one other option would be to relocate the well now, which would be an added expense to the Applicant. Tim Pellizzer, 520 North Arm Drive, stated his well was installed in 1984. Hawn inquired whether Pellizzer would have any objections to working out an agreement with the Applicant. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) Pellizzer stated at this time he is not opposed to reaching some type of agreement with the Applicant. Weinberger stated some type of bond could possibly be posted with the City in favor of the adjoining property owner, which could be used to help pay for relocating of the well. Weinberger stated the bond would have to be attached to the property in the event a sale of the property should occur. Smith commented she would rather not see the City involved in an agreement of this type if at all possible. Movani stated in his view he does not see why the City would need to be involved. There were no further public comments. Hawn commented she would be willing to table this application to allow the Applicant time to try to reach an agreement with the adjoining property owner. Movani inquired whether they would need to appear before the Planning Commission again if an agreement is reached. Movani noted the prior application was approved. Hawn stated that approval may have expired. Movani stated he is unsure whether that approval has expired. • Weinberger stated he would prefer a new recommendation by the Planning Commission, noting that the previous approval required that a secondary septic site be identified, which has not been done. Movani commented they will need to find a secondary septic site. Hawn inquired whether the adjoining property owner had other available sites for a well. Pellizer indicated he does. Movani stated there are not available locations for the pool without a variance of some type. Weinberger stated the approval in August was based on the Applicant finding an alternate septic site. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to locate a secondary septic site before August 16 in order for the previous approval to still be in effect. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table this application. Movani inquired whether they would need to come back before the Planning Commission if they meet all the necessary criteria. Hawn stated it will be necessary for them to appear before the Planning Commission again. Movani requested the application be tabled. Weinberger noted the Applicant submitted a letter requesting the 60 day statutory review period be waived Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to table Application #2513, Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Lane, with the understanding the Applicant will seek to reach an acceptable bond and agreement with the adjoining property owner to insure relocation of his well in the event the Applicant's primary septic site fails, and identification of a secondary septic site on the Applicant's property, and further subject to submittal of an accurate sketch depicting the location of the proposed pool and secondary septic site. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2551 THOMAS MICHAEL RANDGAARD, 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This application was not heard due to the absence of the Applicant. (#3) #2556 BARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAD -VARIANCES, 7:00 p.m. -7:13 p.m. Barbara and Collins Cavender, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission reviewed this application at its January 19, 2000 meeting where the application was tabled to allow the Applicants time to revise their plans in order to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit and address concerns regarding the lakeshore setback. The Applicants have submitted revised plans which reflect a reduction in total structural coverage to • 15 percent. The proposed setback to the lake is now 34 feet as opposed to the 30 feet originally proposed. The house would be located further from the lake if the shoreline were consistent across the full width of the property. Weinberger commented many other primary residences along this road are located at a distance comparable to the 34 foot setback. Weinberger noted the City of Orono currently owns and maintains a lift station on the property. The proposed location of the house creates the greatest distance possible on the lot from the lift station. Weinberger stated this application requires variances to permit structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore as well as variances to permit structure and hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. In addition, variances to hardcover in the 0-75' setback is required and a variance to the street setback. The proposed residence will encroach 13.67 into the setback. City Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the following conditions: A. The property has been developed and used as a residential property for many years. To complete the application it is a requirement the lots be combined to permit the construction. B. Most of the property is located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. It is nearly impossible to locate a house outside of the 75 foot setback requirement without building on the street right-of-way line. Other houses in the locality are located at comparable setbacks from the lakeshore. C. The City of Orono owns and maintains a lift station located on the property. The City has a regular weekly inspection schedule for lift stations. It is reasonable to expect a "buffer" between the house and the station based on regular inspections. The City of Orono is requesting an easement for the lift station. • D. The lot has a very limited building pad. Any new construction on the property would require setback variances. Because Rest Point Road is narrow, it is not possible to park cars on the Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued) street without causing a public safety issue. Each lot along Rest Point Road will require off street parking areas to accommodate quests. City Code requires all garages with doors facing a street to be located 30 feet from the property line to allow off street parking, thus requiring the house to be located further from the property line. Mr. Cavender stated Weinberger has done a thorough job presenting the application. Cavender stated one item that was accidentally omitted was a 4' by 4' concrete pad for an air conditioning unit. Hawn commented the proposed plan is an improvement to what currently exists on the lot, noting the Applicants have complied with the direction of the Planning Commission. Kluth commented he does not have a problem with the application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mrs. Cavender inquired whether she would be permitted to do some limited landscaping near the lift station. Weinberger recommended the Applicants work with the Public Works Department on that issue, noting the City typically encourages some plantings in that area. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2556, Barbara and Collins Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, granting of variances to permit structure within 75' of the lakeshore, variance to average lakeshore setback, variance to street setback, • and a variance to hardcover within the 0-75' setback, subject to the two lots being legally combined and granting of an easement to the City for the lift station, with the understanding a 4' by 4' concrete pad will be allowed for an air-conditioning unit. Hawn inquired whether all the patio and underlayment depicted in the diagram will be removed. Mrs. Cavender indicated it will be. Weinberger noted a variance to the average lakeshore is not required in this case. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded,to delete the variance to average lakeshore setback from motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON, 1780 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES, 7:15 p.m. - 7:37 p.m. Anthony Patterson, Applicant, was present, along with David Bergman, Building/Contractor. Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to redesign the deck and side entry to conform more with Orono's zoning code. The Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of additional living space to the existing residence, replace an existing lakeside deck, and replace an existing side entrance on the south side of the residence with a larger entrance. The additional living space would allow the Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued) existing residence to be expanded from a one and a half story to a full two story house. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was issued a permit for construction on the second story as long as the construction did not occur within the 10 foot side yard setback. The Applicants were advised by the Building Inspector that the variances could be denied. Bottenberg stated the Applicants have redesigned the deck to eliminate it from protruding into the setback area, lowering the hardcover calculations in this setback area to 0 percent, which eliminates the need for any variance. The existing deck located in the 75'-250' setback area has been reduced from 291 square feet to 235 square feet. in the combined setback areas, total deck square footage is reduced from 285 square feet existing to 220 square feet proposed. Bottenberg indicated the Applicants had originally proposed to construct a side entry consisting of 165 square feet. They have reduced the side entry to 80 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are still proposing to remove 95 square feet of driveway and 128 square feet of sidewalk. Bottenberg noted a variance is still required for hardcover within the 75-250' setback area, with the proposed hardcover being calculated at 41.4 percent. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has been informed of the difference between hardcover and structural coverage, but is still requesting a variance to structural coverage to allow for 15.9 percent. The existing structural coverage for the lot is 1,977 square feet or 15.7 percent. The Applicant has indicated he would like to keep the side entry at 8' by 10'. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot coverage and side yard setback, • approval of the variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area, including the sidewalk and full driveway. A new survey showing revisions should be submitted to City Staff for approval before a building permit will be issued. Patterson stated he has become aware of the differences between hardcover and structural coverage, noting he was left with the impression after the last Planning Commission meeting that structural coverage could be reduced from the proposed 18.7 percent down to 18.2 percent by removing a portion of the deck and reducing the side entry. Patterson stated they were informed of the need to comply with the 15 percent limit later on, noting they have attempted to comply with the limits as much as possible. Hawn commented the Applicant has made progress on this application, but stated she still has a problem with the proposed structural coverage. Hawn stated she will allow the Applicant to replace what was existing, but she is not in favor of increasing structural coverage any further than what currently exists. Hawn expressed a concern that the Applicant may have a problem navigating a vehicle in the driveway if it should be reduced. Hawn noted the property should have a sidewalk to access the garage. Patterson stated they have conducted some tests on the reduced driveway and feel that it will be acceptable. Kluth commented the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting reflect that the Applicant was advised the deck would be considered structural coverage, with a clear direction being given by the Planning Commission that they would not be in favor of any increases in hardcover or structural coverage. Hawn stated she is opposed to allowing the structural coverage to be increased beyond the existing Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued) 15.7 percent. Patterson stated he will reduce the side entry if necessary. Hawn stated the consensus of the Planning Commission is to leave the structural coverage at the existing 15.7 percent. Nygard indicated the Applicant will need to remove 43 square feet in order to reduce the proposed structural coverage to 15.7 percent. Nygard inquired whether the driveway should be removed. Kluth commented he would like to see the numbers for hardcover and structural coverage kept at the existing numbers. Hawn inquired why structural coverage increases if the deck is being reduced. Bergman stated the driveway was part of the original proposal and apparently has not been removed from the calculations. Kluth stated they need to get the correct hardcover and structural coverage numbers on this application. Hawn commented it appears the hardcover is less than 43.7 percent. Kluth stated he would like some assurance from the Applicant that the existing hardcover and 411 structural coverage limits will not be increased. Kluth stated the Applicant will need to calculate the correct numbers prior to appearing before the City Council. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2558, Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot coverage, and side yard setback, with the understanding that all existing hardcover and structural coverage limits will not be exceeded, and subject to the submittal of a new survey showing the revisions to City Staff for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#5) #2486 ELAINE ERICKSON, 1270 SPRUCE PLACE -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:38 p.m. -8:26 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Nancy Anderson, Daughter, Jeff Olson, Son, and Al Hirsch, Contractor, were present. The Applicant was not present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to remove an existing residence and build a new residence further back on the same lot. The Applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit to permit grading within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The Applicant is proposing to remove a "bulge" in the topography to bring the lakeside of the lot more in natural flow with the adjacent property. The proposal includes relocating the new residence back out of the 0-75' setback area, which will allow it to be more in alignment with the adjacent properties. • Bottenberg stated the Applicant initiated this process in April of 1999, when the Applicant brought Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) in the first set of house plans. The Applicant has submitted several sets of revised plans, with the latest set of plans calling for the elimination of the side yard setback. The Applicant is requesting variances to lot coverage and hardcover coverage in the 0-75' and 75-250'setback areas, with a conditional use permit still being necessary. The bulge that the Applicant is seeking to remove occurred in 1975, when the owner of the adjacent property did some grading work on his property and a walkout was created. Bottenberg stated since that time, the City has denied a number of requests for similar grading to create walkout situations when they involved excavating in the 0-75' zone. The Applicants have been advised by Orono's building inspector that one option to correct the incorrect grading on the adjoining property would be to remove the trees and level it out to flow more with the other properties. Bottenberg stated this option, however, would be inconsistent with the zoning code and with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Bottenberg indicated the Applicant will need to relocate the existing well should this plan be approved since it will be located underneath the new residence. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing total structural coverage in the amount of 1,584 square feet, or 16 percent, where 15 percent is permitted, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback of 5.84 percent where 0 percent hardcover is allowed. The Applicant is also proposing hardcover in the 75-250' setback of 48.6 percent, where 25 percent is allowed. Bottenberg stated the hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback area will be reduced to 0 percent if grading is permitted and the proposed residence and deck are relocated further back on the lot out of the 0-75' setback area. Bottenberg noted if grading is permitted, the sidewalk and steps will no longer be needed. City Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit to permit grading or excavating within 75' of the lakeshore due to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Nancy Anderson stated the biggest issue they are faced with is attempting to construct a single-story handicapped accessible residence to meet her mother's needs. Anderson commented they have attempted to reduce the size of the residence as much as they feel is economically feasible in order to retain its resale value. Anderson stated it is difficult to find a suitable building pad which will meet all of the City's requirements, noting they would like to do some grading on the lot in order to correct the drainage on the lot and to make the lot flatter. Jeff Olson stated he personally is not in favor of altering the lakeshore, but in his opinion some action needs to be taken in order to correct the drainage and remove the bulge that was created from some previous grading work that was completed on the adjoining property. Olson stated his mother would like to construct this new residence so her daughter, who lives next door, will be able to take care of her. Hawn stated the Planning Commission will need to address in further detail what the Applicants are proposing for the lakeshore side of the property. Hirsch stated they would like to remove some dirt to create a walkout to the north. Hawn stated typically the Planning Commission does not allow grading within 75' of the lakeshore and the Planning Commission cannot grant a conditional use permit to allow grading in that area simply because some incorrect grading has occurred on the adjoining property. Hawn acknowledged some incorrect drainage does currently exist on this property, which should be addressed. Hawn 4111 stated ideally it would be better to correct the grade on the adjoining property, but due to the lack of an engineer's report, the Planning Commission is not able to determine what ideally should be done Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) to correct the drainage. Hawn noted the Planning Commission typically does not approve walkouts near the lakeshore. Hawn acknowledged the tree in the location of the bulge has been damaged, which should also be addressed. Hawn noted the Planning Commission typically does not permit structural coverage to exceed the allowable 15 percent. Hawn stated the deck would be considered hardcover versus structural coverage if the proposed residence was a two-story structure. Kluth stated he would like to separate what appear to be aesthetic concerns versus hardships that exist due to the topography of the land. Kluth commented he is in agreement with Hawn and that some action should be taken to correct the incorrect drainage that has occurred as a result of the grading on the adjoining property. Kluth stated he would like City Staff to continue working with the Applicants to see if some resolution could be reached to these issues. Anderson stated a walkout could still be created without the bulge being removed. Anderson stated they are in agreement that something needs to be done with the damaged tree. Hawn inquired whether additional fill could be put near the tree. Anderson stated if additional fill were placed in that area, it would block the neighbor's view of the lake, which was one reason why the grading was completed. Anderson stated the house could perhaps be moved further back out of the 0-75' setback, and suggested that the grade between her mother's house and her house be altered to help correct the drainage in that area. • Hawn inquired whether that would eliminate the need for a retaining wall. Anderson stated it would. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs some direction from an engineer as it relates to the excavation and the impact to drainage that any grading work would do to this property as well as the adjoining properties. Kluth commented he has concerns regarding the grading and drainage. Kluth suggested the parties speak to City Staff regarding the removal of the damaged tree. Hawn stated the City's forester should perhaps take a look at the situation before the tree is removed. Hawn stated she would not be opposed to a small amount of grading on this property, but noted the overall grading and drainage issues need to be further addressed before any approval can be given. Anderson stated they are merely requesting the right to level the land in this area. Hawn reiterated that an engineer will need to review the situation and submit his recommendations to City Staff. Weinberger stated the City Engineer can review this situation and how it will affect the lakeshore. Weinberger commented the City wants to protect the natural environment as much as possible. Nygard acknowledged there appears to be a major drainage issue which needs to be addressed. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to show how much grading will occur, where the grading will • occur, and how much dirt will be moved. Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 II/ (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) Hawn stated the Applicant needs to address the drainage concerns and reduce structural coverage. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with an attached garage. Kluth commented the driveway is not a major issue in his opinion. Hawn remarked the Applicant may have some issues with snow removal as well. Anderson commented the road was not constructed as it was originally platted and should be located further uphill. Weinberger stated the City Engineer can review the drainage and grading plans prepared by the Applicant's engineer and make whatever recommendations are necessary. Weinberger noted the City Engineer normally does not go out and review the site. Gaffron pointed out it would be hard to tell the viability of the tree at this time of year, and suggested the Applicant hire a tree service to look at the tree and make some recommendations on what should be done. Hawn suggested the application be tabled. Anderson requested the matter be tabled. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded,to table Application #2486, Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place, to allow the Applicant time to revise their plans, submit a grading and drainage • plan, and to address the issues with the damaged tree. Gaffron inquired whether the Applicant will be allowed to keep the structural coverage at the proposed 16 percent. Hawn stated the Planning Commission typically does not allow structural coverage to exceed the allowable 15 percent. Hawn stated it is hard to determine the exact amount of hardcover being proposed at this time, which will need to be recalculated. Gaffron suggested the Applicant lower the deck below six feet so it will not be counted as structural coverage. There were no public comments regarding this application. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#6) #2559 GILBERT GEHLE, 1392 BALDUR PARK ROAD -VARIANCES, 8:28 p.m. -9:15 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gilbert Gehle, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting hardcover variances to permit hardcover in excess of 25 percent within the 75-250' lakeshore setback and to permit hardcover within 75' of the south lakeshore. A variance is also required to permit a small amount of regrading within the south • 0-75' lakeshore setback for a driveway. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 II/ (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Weinberger noted this property has appeared before the Planning Commission on a number of times for various variances over the years. In August of 1998, the City Council approved hardcover in the amount of 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75' setback and the 75-250'setback due to the fact the property is located on a peninsula and has two 0-75'setbacks. In April of 1999, the City Council approved 5,606 square feet of hardcover in the south 0-75'setback and the 75-250' setback, which is 119 square feet less than the first approval the previous year. Weinberger stated the property presently contains an existing residence and detached garage. The garage and driveway will be removed but will continue to utilize essentially the same access point that currently exists. Weinberger noted any change in access to the property would require variances due to the access to the property being located within the southerly 0-75' zone. Staff would agree that this limited access does place an undue hardship on the property. The proposed development meets all setback requirements. Weinberger stated the hardcover variances are related to the size of the proposed house, with the need for a variance being minimized in the 75-250'setback by a reduction in the size of the house. The southerly 0-75' hardcover variance as proposed is the minimum necessary to permit a driveway, and this is a factor unique to the property. Staff is recommending that no mature trees be removed within 75'feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger noted the proposed driveway location may require some loss of natural vegetation. City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant on the alignment of the driveway to help prevent any loss of mature trees. Gehle indicated he would like to have a walkout in the front, noting that the vast majority of the houses on the lake have a walkout. Weinberger stated Exhibit D shows a two story building with the lowest story being part of a walkout. The Applicant is not proposing to do any grading within 75' of the north lakeshore. The City's Comprehensive Plan discourages any changes to the natural grade along the lakeshore, which would occur if any grading should take place within 75' of the north lakeshore. Weinberger stated the proposed hardcover on the property is 5,738 square feet, which is 4.3 square feet short of the allowable 25 percent. Gehle stated he is willing to raise the elevation of the house if necessary, but would like to avoid that due to aesthetic appearances and creating a pedestal type look. Gehle pointed out a large amount of grading has occurred in the past in the middle of the lot, with a knoll existing by the trees. Gehle stated he would ike to retain the trees and reduce the knoll if possible. Gehle stated it will be necessary to remove one to two trees in order for the proposed driveway to be constructed. Gehle stated he would like to construct a front loading garage. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant was proposing to construct a path to the back side of the garage. Gehle stated the existing garage and driveway will be removed and replaced with vegetation. Weinberger stated he has a concern with the areas that are proposed to be redone, noting Staff was not informed they would be driving across the lawn. Hawn inquired whether there was any public comment regarding this application. A resident on Baldur Road expressed some concerns regarding potential drainage issues that may • be created as a result of this project. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Hawn inquired whether any drainage problems currently exist. The resident stated no. Weinberger stated any proposed retaining wall will need to stay within the allowable hardcover. Kluth inquired whether any grading is proposed in the north 0-75'. Gehle stated they do not plan on doing any grading in the north 0-75' setback. Gehle commented they may place some paving stones down to the lake, but will limit the hardcover to a minimum. Kluth commented the issues are the proposed hardcover in the south 0-75' and the 75-250' setback. Kluth recommended the Applicant keep the concerns of the neighbor in mind when doing any grading. Hawn inquired whether a large amount of grading will be necessary once the existing house is removed. Gehle stated some fill will be needed by the garage. Gehle stated the elevation of the house will dictate how much fill is required. Smith noted the City did not allow any grading within the 0-75' setback on the two previous applications. • Hawn stated she would like to know the specific amount of fill proposed to be used as well as the amount of grading to be completed on this property. Gehle requested the Planning Commission consider allowing him to change the contour of the land within the 0-75'setback area and to allow him to keep the house at a reasonable level. Gehle stated the ideal situation would be to lower the house and do the grading that was previously approved. Hawn stated the Planning Commission would be more comfortable knowing the exact amount of fill to be moved as well as the grading that is being proposed. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to know the impact to the grading and drainage before they can approve the elevation of the house. Kluth stated he is not fully aware of what was previously approved. Gaffron stated his recollection of this application is that the two large trees on top of the knoll were approved to be cut down, as well as the knoll. Gaffron commented there were no proposed changes to the grade in front of the house, with the City requiring a land alteration permit in the 0-75' setback to allow for the placement of fill after the structure is removed, with the contours on either side being matched. Gaffron commented the Planning Commission needs to be cautious about changing the contour of the property in order to create a walkout. Gehle stated he was unaware he would need the figures for the amount of fill to be moved tonight. Weinberger stated in the previous application the owners were proposing to return the land back to its original natural contour, with the elevation of the house remaining the same as the previous house. • Hawn indicated a conditional use permit is required if the Applicant plans to move more than 500 cubic yards of fill. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Gaffron noted City Staff has not received any formal grading and drainage plans on this property. Gaffron stated the Applicant needs to submit a plan showing the proposed drainage and grading. Kluth suggested a restriction be placed on this application limiting the amount of grading or table the application to allow the Applicant time to submit a grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated City Staff has just received this plan recently, with the present plan showing some grading on the property. Staff had understood the Applicant would be working within the existing grades on the property nor did Staff anticipate any grading beyond what would be necessary to create a natural walkout in the area. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission was in agreement that grading should occur on this property. Nygard stated grading was not approved in the previous application. Kluth commented it is difficult to determine what people mean by a little fill without the exact figures being spelled out. Hawn commented it is unclear what is meant by restoring the natural contour without it being further defined. Gaffron stated the existing house is proposed to be removed, with the existing foundation being filled in to match the surrounding contour of the land, which returns the land back to its original state prior • to construction. Gaffron commented some grading may have occurred on the site prior to construction of the original residence. Gaffron stated the Applicant is not allowed to do any grading within the 0-75'setback. Weinberger stated grading within the 0-75'setback requires a conditional use permit, which has not been applied for, as well as additional variances. Weinberger inquired whether the Applicant still wished to continue to work within the existing grades on the property. Gehle stated he would like to work within the existing grades. Gehle stated he is not proposing to do any grading within the 0-75' setback. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable to maintaining the contour of the land as it presently exists. Gehle indicated he is agreeable to that. Hawn inquired whether that would be agreeable to the Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Applicant should stay within the existing contours of the land. Weinberger stated in the two previous applications, the applicants were given credit for the hardcover in the south 0-75'setback. Weinberger stated it would be acceptable to Staff to keep within the existing contours of the land. Hawn stated she would be reluctant to approve any additional hardcover over what has been previously approved in the O'Keefe application. • Weinberger stated O'Keefe was approved at 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75' setback and the Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) 75-250' setback. Weinberger stated this proposal exceeds what was approved in the O'Keefe by 13 square feet. Gehle stated he would be willing to reduce the patio. Hawn indicated she would like to see the patio reduced to meet the same percentage that was approved in the O'Keefe application. Hawn stated she is willing to allow the contours of the land be restored, with no additional grading to accommodate a walkout, the existing garage and driveway to be removed, hardcover reduced to 5,725 square feet, no tree removal in the 0-75' setback, with the understanding the adjoining properties will not be negatively impacted by any drainage and grading, and submittal by the Applicant of the appropriate drainage and grading plans to City Staff for their review and comment. Hawn stated the Applicant will also need to work with City Staff on the issue of the placement of the driveway. Gaffron stated in his view that encompasses the issues. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2559, Gilbert Gehle, 1392 Baldur Park Road, with the understanding the Applicant will submit a grading and drainage plan to City Staff for their review and comment subject to the grading being limited to restoration of the existing contours of the land, with no additional grading being allowed for a walkout; hardcover being reduced to 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75' and the 75-250'setbacks; the existing garage and driveway being removed, with the Applicant working with City Staff on placement of the new driveway to avoid the removal of mature trees; and further subject to no removal of trees within the 0-75' setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2561 FRANK AND BARBARA PETERSON, 1261 ARBOR STREET-VARIANCES, 9:18 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Barbara Peterson, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit the construction of a 28' by 32'detached garage on the northwest corner of their lot, which will be accessed from Minnetonka Avenue. The property currently does not have a garage. The proposed garage will be constructed where parking space is currently located. The shape of the lot is such that it does not allow for the garage doors to face away from the street. Bottenberg stated the property lies within 1,000 feet of French Lake, with the amount of proposed hardcover not exceeding the allowed 35 percent. Bottenberg stated the detached garage will increase the structural coverage from 10.9 percent to 17.3 percent, where 15 percent is allowed. A variance is required to allow the accessory structure to be located five feet from the rear property line where 15 feet is required. A variance is also needed to allow the doors to be 20 feet from the traveled paved roadway where 30 feet or more is required and a variance to side street yard setback to permit the proposed garage to be located 10 feet from the side street lot line where 50 feet is required. Peterson presented the Planning Commission with pictures of other sheds and garages that exist in • her neighborhood. Peterson inquired whether the 15 percent structural coverage limit is geared towards lakeshore properties or to the City at large. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2561 Frank and Barbara Peterson, Continued) Nygard commented the City's policies are designed to help lessen the impact to the lake and lakeshore as much as possible. Peterson noted a garage located in her neighborhood did obtain a variance to structural coverage. Peterson commented she would be willing to remove the existing shed in order to construct a nice garage. Bottenberg stated most of the sheds located in this area have been constructed without the necessary approvals and permits. Peterson stated they have a one-story house and would like to construct a garage to store their vehicles as well as other personal property. Smith stated it can be a hardship to be without a garage in Minnesota. Smith inquired what the structural coverage would be if the garage was reduced to 24' by 28'. Bottenberg stated it would be 15.6 percent. Hawn commented that the Planning Commission generally does not deviate from the 15 percent. Hawn stated she would like to see the Applicant comply with the 15 percent, noting she does not have a problem with the rest of the application. Kluth inquired whether the Comprehensive Plan addresses garages at all. Gaffron stated the City's Comprehensive Plan contains a statement which says the City will not adopt an ordinance requiring a minimum house size nor will it specify that the house should have a garage. The present City Council looks at the applications as if the Applicant will eventually build a garage if it is not specified in the plan and requires that the Applicant allot some of their structural coverage to a future garage to insure that they will comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired what the structural coverage would be with a 24' by 24' garage. Bottenberg stated with a 24' by 24' garage, the Applicant would be under the allowable limit. Bottenberg noted the garage cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to allow structural coverage at 15.6 percent. Kluth commented the Planning Commission needs to have a consistent standard to adhere to. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with approving the other variances, but would like to see the Applicant comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Peterson commented a 24' by 24'garage is smaller than most of the sheds that exist in the area. Hawn stated a 22' by 22' garage is the standard size garage, which can accommodate two cars. Nygard commented the Planning Commission may be setting a precedent if they approve anything in excess of the 15 percent. • Peterson stated she would also like to construct the garage to help improve the appearance of the Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 • (#2561 Frank and Barbara Peterson, Continued) property, which would allow her to eliminate the need for a small storage shed. Peterson stated the City should look at whether they are creating another problem by limiting structural coverage to the 15 percent. Peterson commented in her view property owners are forced to store cars and other personal property outside or in small, unsightly storage sheds, which is very detracting to the appearance of the neighborhood and appears to be a growing problem. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission has ever approved structural coverage in excess of 15 percent on any other applications. Hawn stated the City does allow Applicants to replace what is existing. Hawn noted this garage would be considered new construction. Kluth stated he would not be opposed to considering Minnesota winters a hardship. Gaffron stated the City prior to 1983 granted variances to hardcover with minimal discussion if the property exceeded the allowable limit. The City Council, starting in 1984, realized that excessive hardcover was getting out of hand and started to enforce the limits. Over the years the City has gotten stricter on hardcover and structural coverage. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of building an accessory building which exceeds the height of the principal structure. Peterson stated this garage would be used to store vehicles, snow blower and lawn mower. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to compromise on the size of the garage. Peterson stated she would like to build the garage as proposed. Kluth moved to recommend denial of Application #2561, Frank and Barbara Peterson, 1261 Arbor Street, unless the proposed garage is reduced in size to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. NO SECOND. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to construct a garage which will comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Peterson stated her husband probably will not be agreeable to limiting it to the 15 percent and will erect a shed to accommodate their other personal items. Peterson stated rather than deny the application, she would be agreeable to limiting the structural coverage to 15 percent. Kluth moved, Nygard seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2561, Frank and Barbara Peterson, to permit the construction of a garage not to exceed the allowed 15 percent total structural coverage on the lot, and to grant variances to side yard setback, lot coverage and location of the garage doors. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#8) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 24, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 24, 2000 Hawn indicated the Hoyt application was discussed at the City Council meeting and appears to be heading back to the Planning Commission for review. Hawn stated the Applicant failed to apply for certain variances and a public hearing will need to be held on the request for the variances at the Planning Commission level. Gaffron noted the City Council tabled the application. Peterson stated she has the understanding he will be filing an application for the variances. Hawn stated the Department of Transportation is presently seeking other sites for the sand/salt storage facility. Weinberger stated they are looking at the new maintenance facility in Medina. (#9) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron indicated Rick Luzaich has recently signed his response to interrogatories, with the Judge requesting the matter be resolved by June. (#10) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22, 1999 AND • JANUARY 19, 2000 Nygard moved, Smith seconded,to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Smith moved, no second, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1999, as submitted. NO VOTE The recording secretary noted a change was made in the November 22, 1999 minutes as it relates to the Edin application. Kluth requested the minutes from the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting be included in their packets for their review prior to approval. (#11) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AND MARCH 13, 2000 February 28, 2000- Smith March 13, 2000 - Nygard ADJOURNMENT Motion by Kluth, second by Smith,to adjourn the meeting at 10:29 p.m. %d • 72 Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 17