Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE /j A I - L y I ❑ COUNCIL ANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. hi fL tvlI I.-I (tai: O►-i;p,T. bYL., v (Kr yin; 6P4 -M(T-C 2. OY■h tA. .176 3. 0/may V C ow OvRA31...kT 3 a vt tyz: A/c /v 5.ST e) ci)-11 S 2 d r z 6. / i � _es Al l/)(‘•- / 8h1�1 1: R1 i it 9. IL pc):4461 $v 71i2// " ?10. - 1')4 11. DeLy 1 Q 9- I FA, 55 Pi- 121 c r .mac) 12. .3e Pr 5 - m Uo4{ MANI•AItI E,.So , SW-a) 1,1«1. 5 ( Fs)bGwik.Gw v.ak 13. S7+, 't—GGA-oN I rC/Lk.f1''g! c .g".5-R6 y x'2-4°?z-A7?Z 14. 1Z-:%.,r-Pr / Q 7 3 C-7 ..GETtavecC 15. 24\ 4,37 211/ Ce .Q X:Wata\Admin' rative Support\(Forms-Old)\FORMS\FUBLIC.ATT 1 �Q;ltr►� 3 a0 3 571'n ST j e q1 76.rA 7� - 6 364 l � �1t2rwi 3 ),03 C 7 sr. S Lc- �J L L �.,,O 76,3 - 2 72 -6 3 6-‘ K., 1 CBDKA 6o 0/to no On( t ,Q iQ -c-cvrt,e ff" /YAP 1©douy 4 i5 f o W66 6c Sc 4,-Poi,ukt At4. 6y 7 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 5 - a1 - 01 ❑VriPLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER • I 1 1. _ ∎T1T UG 3 s,a C13 IItTi��IT* -- (,1 I- 2. 4 / q.-5.z -II- i ^ 9(01 - 3. /Diwvi knot 3 . 05 - / 'f-- )-2‘ 7 ( 1 Is( C ,le Jt, y_oc,iiW ,,, 4. i0kt\- 1,.i A.tot r,_.. i4 , 5. -, a--O ,10-eM_ 0/- ZG76 V b !-ae,76 6. fy • a/Qi11- / 99.c )7. 4/49-2t_ sai . y nelakefir�r�)S"5365/ 7. •. ' - ' J; l A. a ,.;.‘,. , : r: trvicwL, 11 . . 01 a(O 8. A La. 1`4,1,41:, r 14)-06 ,Spr■...5 Lc.k{gel 1✓1 $ �., ►,.k a D I-,,16,3 to 9. ed...41d k ff' �-6 ) hew 7 aG 2 /07-&ss31' 01 )-x.g6 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Fortes-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT r s MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, Elizabeth Hawn, and Dale Lindquist were absent. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Jay Nygard was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. OLD BUSINESS (#1) #2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,3532 IVY PLACE,VARIANCES, 6:37 p.m.—7:04 p.m. Gary and Susan Cable,Applicants,were present. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed and tabled at the November 20,2000 Planning Commission meeting. The Applicants are requesting a variance to the requirement that an accessory building can remain on the property without a principal building. The accessory building in this case is an ice house located near the lakeshore. A variance is also required to allow hardcover in excess of the 25 percent limit in the 75-250' setback. Weinberger stated the principal building was removed to allow construction of a new house. The property owners were issued a building permit with the understanding they would agree to uphold the decision by the City regarding the future use of the ice house. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was approved on April 19, 2001. A condition of approval was the ice house must be removed or get City approval, by variance,to allow the ice house to remain on the property within 90 days of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a final Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued and the house not occupied. Weinberger stated the permitted hardcover in the 75-250' setback is 25 percent of the area, with the hardcover in the 0-75' setback being deducted from what is allowed in the 75-250' setback. The Applicants have proposed a driveway apron that would only provide access to two garage doors and would not provide access for the third stall. That arrangement eliminated the need for a variance that they had requested in the past. The City then issued the building permit to the Applicants because they were under the 25 percent hardcover limit. Weinberger stated when the 96 square feet of structural coverage for the ice house is included in the hardcover calculations,they are in excess of the 25 percent allowed by 50 square feet. The Planning Commission at its November, 2000 meeting had requested that if the Applicants choose to keep the ice house on the property,they would need to appear before the Planning Commission, with the advice that the City does not approve replacement of foundations for structures located within the 0-75' setback. The Applicants were also advised that if they wished to increase the amount of hardcover on the property,they would need to remove the ice house. The decision on how to use the 25 percent hardcover was left up to the discretion of the Applicants following the November meeting. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the issues for discussion by the Planning Commission this evening are related to the variances which would allow the ice house to remain on the property and the lack of a driveway to the third garage stall and the lack of a sidewalk to the front door of the house. Weinberger stated if those items were to be added in the future,they would cause the existing hardcover to be in excess of the 25 percent allowed. Weinberger requested the Planning Commission give some direction on where additional future hardcover might be allowed on this property to accommodate an expanded driveway and/or a sidewalk to the front door. Cable indicated they have removed a fireplace in order to reduce the hardcover somewhat. Weinberger noted the removal of the fireplace would amount to approximately 10 to 12 square feet of hardcover. Smith inquired what the Applicants' plans are relating to the ice house, the lack of a sidewalk, and the lack of a paved access to third garage stall. Smith stated she would like to know how it is the Applicants chose to use this particular design for their house and garage. Cable indicated they have changed their plan three times during this process. Cable stated if they had located the house closer to the road, it would have required the removal of some trees,which they elected not to do. Smith inquired what the Applicants intended to use the third stall of the garage for. Cable stated he would like to use it for storage. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be driving over the grassy area in order to gain access to that third stall. Cable commented they probably would someday. Smith indicated once the Applicants drive on the grassy area,the soil then begins to act as hardcover in that it does not allow for permeation and in essence becomes hardcover much like a paved surface. Smith inquired about the lack of a sidewalk to the front door of the residence and the Applicants plans in the future regarding that access route. Cable stated it is their intention to leave it as it presently is. Mrs. Cable commented that nine times out of ten visitors to their residence would enter through the garage. Smith stated it is not the function of the Planning Commission to design the Applicants' home, but in her view the lack of a sidewalk to the front of the house and the lack of a paved driveway in front of the third stall of the garage are issues that need to be considered and would eventually result in those areas becoming hardcover. Smith encouraged the Applicants to consider the addition of a sidewalk to the front of the house. Smith stated in her opinion this is a situation where additional hardcover is likely to be added in the future, which would make the property in excess of the allowable hardcover. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be willing to consider the addition of those two items. Cable indicated the construction of the house is completed. Cable stated they reduced the hardcover down to what they were allowed at the time they built the house. Berg indicated the need for a sidewalk and paved access to the third stall was discussed at the November Planning Commission meeting. Berg stated in her view a sidewalk and paved access will eventually be added on this property, which will bring the total hardcover on the property over the allowable 25 percent. Kluth inquired whether the City's Ordinances require a front sidewalk and paved access to all garage stalls. Weinberger stated there presently are not Code requirements pertaining to that. Kluth noted the City did issue a building permit up to the maximum hardcover amount without allowing for a sidewalk and additional driveway to the third stall. Weinberger stated that issue had been discussed at the time the Applicants applied for the building permit, but since this site plan did meet all the requirements of the City,the building permit was issued. Gaffron stated in quite a number of instances Applicants will approach the City with site plans that are in excess of the allowable hardcover,with Staff working with the Applicants in order to reduce the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being proposed on the property. Gaffron stated Staff did question the lack of a sidewalk and lack of access to the third stall of the garage at the time they applied for the building permit. Gaffron stated the Applicants would be able to place a wood chip sidewalk to the house if they so choose. Stoddard stated it is his understanding of the November Planning Commission meeting that they were debating whether the ice house should remain. Stoddard stated since this application did not reappear before the Planning Commission, he had assumed the Applicants had taken steps to address the issue of the sidewalk and access to the garage. Cable stated at the time they appeared before the Planning Commission,the building permit had already been issued. Stoddard stated the function of the Planning Commission is to help insure that the site plans are in compliance with the City's ordinances. Stoddard stated in his view the sidewalk and access to the third stall will be added in the future. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants would be able to reduce hardcover somehow and provide for a sidewalk to the front door. Weinberger stated currently the hardcover in the 75-250' setback is under the allowable 25 percent limit by 46 square feet without the ice house. Weinberger stated the Applicants could provide a paver stone system for a front sidewalk rather than a full sidewalk. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) Stoddard noted the Applicants are entitled to another 12 square feet because of the removal of the fireplace,which would bring it to 58 square feet. Stoddard commented that is one option the Applicants could consider. There were no public comments. Stoddard stated he would be willing to allow the ice house and have the Applicants provide some type of sidewalk to the front door. Stoddard stated he would be against any type of vehicular access to the third garage stall. Smith stated that means no mulch,no paver stones,no fabric would be allowed relating to the third garage stall. Smith reiterated that once that area is driven over,the soil then starts to act as hardcover. Mrs. Cable indicated they are planning to store a Corvette in the third garage stall,which currently is not in operating condition. Kluth commented in his opinion the hands of the Planning Commission are somewhat tied since the Applicants have proceeded to construct a house to the maximum hardcover allowed and then in his view will later come in and request variances for items that probably should have been included in the original site plan. Mrs. Cable stated at the time they purchased this property and began this process,they were somewhat ignorant of Orono's rules and regulations regarding hardcover and structural coverage. At the time they purchased the property,the ice house was one of the attracting features of the property. Mrs. Cable stated they did not deliberately attempt to manipulate the system and had the understanding they would be able to keep the ice house when they purchased the property. Kluth commented the Planning Commission tends to see other applications where they have constructed a house up to the maximum hardcover and structural coverage allowed and then later request additional hardcover. Smith stated all Applicants should provide for reasonable amenities in their site plans, such as sidewalks and driveways, because chances are, in the future,those will be added. Cable commented the house that was removed was considerably in excess of the hardcover and structural limits and in place they have constructed a house that is in compliance with the hardcover limits. Cable stated they did not deliberately try to manipulate the system. Stoddard stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission has been very strict about the 25 percent hardcover limit and has not approved any that exceed that number. Smith inquired whether any restrictions could be placed on this property limiting additional hardcover in the future. Gaffron stated one option would be to ask the Applicants to place a covenant on the property restricting additional hardcover,which would explain to this property owner and future property PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) owners what can and cannot happen on this property with respect to hardcover and structural coverage. Smith commented she is in favor of a covenant. Weinberger stated if the ice house is to remain, a variance would need to be granted. Stoddard stated it was his understanding they were under the hardcover limit by 58 square feet. Weinberger stated that is without the ice house being included. With the ice house they would be 50 square feet over,which would require a variance. Kluth stated if the ice house remains,they would not be allowed to construct a sidewalk or driveway to the third stall. Stoddard inquired what steps the Applicants have taken to reduce hard cover since the November meeting. Cable stated they have removed the fireplace. Smith inquired whether the sidewalk and driveway were included in the site plan at the November meeting. Mrs. Cable stated they were not. Stoddard stated he had misunderstood the situation and thought the Applicants were under the 25 percent limit with the ice house. Kluth stated this application was tabled in November to allow the Applicants time to make some changes to their plan to enable them to keep the ice house,which have not been done and that he would like to make a motion denying the application. Kluth moved to o recommend denial of Application#2636,Gary and Susan Cable,3532 Ivy Place,for a hardcover variance and variance to allow an accessory structure located in the 0-75' setback to remain on the property. Kluth stated the application was tabled in order to give the Applicants time to reduce the hardcover in order to keep the ice house,which have not been done, and by constructing a residence without a sidewalk and driveway access to the third stall of the garage was simply delaying a request for additional hardcover into the future. Kluth stated in his opinion protective covenants have only limited value since it only puts the next property owner on alert to what is or is not allowed on the property,with the City having limited means of monitoring these types of properties. Stoddard stated the Applicants also have the option to table this application in order them to reduce the hardcover further. Stoddard commented he had the understanding the Applicant was going to consider reducing the garage somewhat in order to lower the hardcover. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) Smith noted the Applicants are 38 square feet over with the ice house, but lack a sidewalk to the front of the house and driveway access to the third stall of the garage. Smith inquired whether they would like to table it or have the Planning Commission vote on the motion that has been made denying the application. Cable indicated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the application. Smith seconded the above motion. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#2) #01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES,7:05 p.m.—7:18 p.m. Curt Manley,Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated this is a three-part application,with the Applicants requesting an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances to permit construction of two retaining walls within 75 feet of the lakeshore, a variance to permit two dormer window additions within 75 feet of the lakeshore and within the average lakeshore setback, and a request to replace a deck and three foot hand railing around a detached garage. Weinberger stated the retaining walls were constructed approximately one year ago to help stabilize the lakeside of the residence and to improve the walkout area. Weinberger stated the City is unable to verify that there retaining walls in that area previous to the construction of the new ones. Weinberger stated it is possible some very low level boulder walls may have existed in this area which were completely covered by vegetation and do not appear in the City's photographs. A previous variance application in 1998, which included a survey, did not depict retaining walls in that portion of the property. The City also does not have any documentation showing when the original retaining walls were constructed. The second part of the application is a request to allow the construction of two dormer window additions within 75 feet of the lakeshore and within the average lakeshore setback. A variance is required because the dormer windows would be an expansion of the building within a required setback. The dormers would be an expansion of the building envelope within 75 feet of the lake and an expansion of the building envelope within the average setback to the two adjacent residences. The third part of the request is to permit replacement of the deck and a three-foot hand railing that is located on top of the detached garage. Weinberger indicated there was an original deck located on the garage depicted in a photograph taken in 1998, along with a hand railing. The original deck was removed from the top of the garage so the roof could be replaced. The Applicant is proposing to replace the deck and railing in a similar style to what had been there previously. Weinberger recommended the Planning Commission consider the retaining walls separate from the other requests. PAGE 6 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated in the early 1980s,the Council had approved a variance which allowed the garage to be refurbished in its existing location. Two of the conditions the Council had placed on that approval was that the garage be reduced in size and cut back to meet a two foot setback to the street and to be rebuilt with a flat roof so as to not block the view of the lake from the neighboring residence. Weinberger noted this property has double frontage on the lake. The railing is required for safety reasons since access to the roof of the garage is not restricted. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to permit the two dormer window addition and construction of the replacement deck over the detached deck. Weinberger noted this residence was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances. Weinberger stated the addition of the two dormer windows would not change the character or use of the property. City Staff is recommending tabling the request for the conditional use permit and variances for the retaining wall and would request that the survey be updated to include revised hardcover calculations for the 0-75' setback. Manley commented construction of the two dormer windows would not increase the building envelope and would allow them to do some re-enforcement construction in this area. Manley stated the construction in this area is poor and needs to be improved to make the structure more stable. Manley indicated it was the intention at the time the deck was removed to fix the roof and that a railing is required for safety reasons since the roof of the garage can be accessed from the ground. Manley noted the size of the deck is being reduced somewhat. Manley stated he is in possession of some pictures which show the original retaining wall consisting of two courses of railroad ties and shale,which was considerably overgrown. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to separate the retaining walls from the rest of the application to allow additional survey work to be completed. Manley stated he is fine with that. Bill Delay, 1971 Fagerness Point Road, commented he is in favor of the plan being proposed. Stoddard moved,second by Kluth,to recommend approval of Application#01-2668, Manley Brothers Construction, 1973 Fagerness Point Road,granting of variances to permit the construction of two dormer windows and construction of the replacement deck above the detached garage based on the findings and hardships contained in the Planner's Report dated May 3,2001,and to table the request for a conditional use permit and after-the-fact variances for the retaining wall to permit additional survey to be submitted for review and approval by City Staff. Smith inquired whether there were any structural or hardcover issues associated with the retaining walls. Weinberger stated there is an issue with hardcover relating to the retaining walls. Weinberger stated Staff would like to review the area in an effort to determine what had existed previously. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION,CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether the interlocking retaining rock that has been utilized to construct the new retaining walls is acceptable. Weinberger stated typically Staff would request that an engineer review what is there in order to determine what is necessary. Weinberger stated since it is an after-the-fact variance, Staff will need to find out what the recommendation of the engineer is for what exists today. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#3) #01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KRISTIN JACQUES,645 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES,7:19 p.m.—7:19 p.m. Smith moved,second by Berg,to table Application#01-2671,Alistair and Kristin Jacques, 645 Old Long Lake Road,at the request of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#4) #01-2667 NORTH SHORE MARINA,3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:20 p.m.—7:20 p.m. Smith moved,second by Kluth,to table Application#01-2667,North Shore Marina, 3222 North Shore Drive,at the request of the Applicants,and to extend the application review period to August 5,2001. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#5) #01-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, 1420 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE RENEWAL,7:21 p.m.—7:26 p.m. Gary Peterson and Dennis Killian, Applicant,were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting renewal of a bluff setback variance. The variance was approved by the Council on September 27, 1999, and since a building permit was not requested within one year of variance approval,the variance expired. The variances approved in 1999 permitted a 20 foot encroachment on the top of bluff setback. Weinberger stated this property is located along County Road 15 and Tanager Lake,with double lake frontage. Weinberger stated the bluff setback variance was approved with the four conditions contained in his May 4, 2001 Planner's Report. Weinberger stated the property has not been altered and conditions on the property have not changed since variance approval in 1999. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN,CONTINUED) Staff recommends approval of the renewal with the conditions contained in the resolution approving the variance in 1999, including removal/relocation of the garage and hardcover outside of the 75' lakeshore setback. Killian stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report. There were no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant was the new owner of the property. Killian stated he is the current owner of the property. Stoddard inquired whether there is any proposed building permit application in sight. Killian stated he has had the property for sale and someone has recently purchased the property with the condition that this variance be renewed. Kluth moved,second by Berg,to recommend approval of Application#01-2674,Dennis and Diane Killian, 1420 Shoreline Drive,granting of a variance renewal to bluff setback subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono City Council in Resolution No.2516. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Stoddard suggested the City Council consider allowing variance approvals to be good for two years rather than one year. Gaffron stated there is no statute limiting the effective life of a variance to one year and that it could be extended to two years. Gaffron commented another option would be to have the variances automatically be renewed once or twice before it needs to come back before the Planning Commission. Stoddard suggested this item be placed on the agenda for the next work session. (#6) #01-2675 DONNA LILE,2765 ETHEL AVENUE,VARIANCE,7:26 p.m.—7:30 p.m. Donna Lile,Applicant,was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace a deteriorating porch and add a gabled dormer above it. The porch has deteriorated over the years and has become a safety hazard. The dormer is to be added above the porch and provide cover from inclement weather. The dormer is decorative and will not add additional living space to the residence. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN,CONTINUED) Bottenberg stated a side yard adjacent to street variance is required to permit the roofline to be 13.4 feet from the street where 15 feet is required. Bottenberg noted structural lot coverage would not increase with the roofline expansion. City Staff recommends approval of the application. Lile had nothing to add to Staffs report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved,second by Berg,to recommend approval of Application#01-2675, Donna Lile,2765 Ethel Avenue,granting of a side yard adjacent to street variance to permit the roof line to be 13.4 feet from the street where a 15 foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #01-2678 KRISTI ROESLER, 1169 ELMWOOD AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:30—8:03 p.m. Kristi Roesler, Applicant,was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated this is a two-part application. The Applicant owns two properties located at 1169 North Arm Drive,which is an off the lake parcel with a residence, and Lot 7,Block 1 of Skarp and Lindquist's Gernhill,Lake Minnetonka"addition, which is a vacant lot consisting of 50 feet of lakeshore. Bottenberg stated the two parcels have not been legally combined and are separated by the Elmwood Avenue right-of-way and are offset by approximately 100 feet. The Applicant purchased the properties approximately two years ago and has since learned that a dock is not allowed on the lake lot because there is not a principal structure on the lot. Bottenberg stated the first part of the application is to review variances for lot area/width regarding the lake lot to permit future residential construction. The lot is approximately 11,100 square feet or .255 acres where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, and approximately 50 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width required for the LR-1B zoning district. Part two of the application is a request for a variance to permit a lot combination of a property not adjacent to the building lot for lake/dock use. The two properties are separated by Elmwood Avenue. The Applicant is requesting the ability to have lake access/dock via Lot 7,which is not combined with 1169 North Arm Drive. The lot does not have a principal structure. Bottenberg indicated a structure could be constructed on the property through a special lot combination agreement,which would function as a covenant requiring the two parcels remain in common ownership. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the two lots to be combined and a variance to accessory buildings at time of construction. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) Bottenberg stated the lakeshore lot has been vacant for many years. In 1971 a prior property owner applied for lot width and lot area variances. The variances were denied by the City Council, and the lot was considered unbuildable. Since the 1970s,the lot has been used for dockage and lake access by the owner. The lot does not have a principal residence, so such dockage is technically a violation of City Code prohibiting accessory structures without a principal structure. Bottenberg indicated the lot abuts undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. A City sewer lift station is blocking the right-of-way on the south end. Access to this lot for building purposes would require an easement from an adjacent property owner. The lot received lateral sewer assessment for 50 feet, but was not assessed unit charge or sewer plant charge. As a result,the lot was considered to be unbuildable at the time the sewer was installed. Bottenberg stated when the lot area/width variance application was reviewed in 1971, hardship was discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. A finding for hardship for development of vacant lots would include no adjacent vacant land is available for development. This is not the case for this property. In 1971 and today,the lot adjacent to the north was/is vacant and is being used similarly for lake access by the owners of 1135 North Arm Drive. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances for lot area and lot width on part one of the application, and is recommending a dock be permitted without a primary structure by means of a special lot combination agreement. John Waldron, Attorney-at-Law,reviewed Staff's report, noting that the paved street ends in the approximate location where this property begins,with an existing driveway to the property. The lift station is located very close to the adjoining property owner's neighbor and apparently straddles the two property lines. Waldron stated in his view the lift station is really not an issue in determining access to this lot and would not require an easement from the adjoining property owner. Waldron stated with respect to the prior application in 1971, based upon the records they've reviewed, at the time the sewer was installed,there was not an issue at that point that the lot was unbuildable or buildable. In 1971, when there was an application made by a previous owner,the lot was then declared unbuildable and it was determined the owner did not have to pay the sewer assessment. Waldron stated this property has been a lot of record since 1933, and was a Torrens property originally registered in 1933. Waldron indicated the previous property owner made a similar application to Roesler's application requesting variances to lot area and width, which was denied. Waldron stated one of the reasons that application was denied was the fact that there was an adjoining lot which could be combined. The property owner of the lot immediately to the south then made a similar application to the City. That lot consists of 50 feet of lakeshore. The City Council at that time approved the lot area/lot width variances to allow the construction of a residence on that property. Waldron stated they have been attempting to find differences between that application and this application. Waldron stated in his view there are really no differences between that application that was approved and tonight's application. Waldron stated Exhibit C is the best record available that demonstrates what happened in that application,which notes that the zoning requirements are one acre PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) and 140 foot width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still exist today according to Staff's report. Discussion was also held on the matter of"single separate ownership", and it was indicated had the property been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property having the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership,which was the case with the neighboring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Roesler does not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted approval of the variances previously. Waldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two properties and that this application should be approved as well. Smith inquired whether the Applicant is considering those two lots the same for comparison purposes. Waldron stated that is correct. Waldron indicated the lot that was granted variances is actually slightly smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg stated at the time the approval was granted,the lot was 50 feet by 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure was permitted to be built on this property,the neighborhood uniformity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside from the fact that this application does not differ from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot, Waldron indicated the property owner is being deprived of all practical use of that property. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even able to place a dock on that property. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakeshore lot. Roesler stated at the time she purchased the property, she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had been declared unbuildable. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's intentions were to construct a house on the lake lot. Roesler stated that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at the time, and inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application. Gaffron stated that application was approved approximately 28 or 29 years ago and the records in the City's possession at this time give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron stated City Staff could do an analysis of similar sized lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation would be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. Gaffron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan demonstrating how they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for applications in the future. Gaffron stated most lots of this size currently have a house erected on the property or have been considered unbuildable for years. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could see similar lots in the future when those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. Stoddard stated he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving an application where there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only 50 feet wide where 140 feet is required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a dock for the lakeshore lot. Kluth inquired how a prospective buyer might become aware that the lot has been deemed unbuildable. Kluth noted that decision by the Council is not filed with the County. Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s,the City Council did not file variance approvals or denials. Since that time the City has filed them on the chain on title. The property owner could find out that information by asking the City to review that file. Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the past with no sewer. Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property,there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildable at the time the sewer was installed,the City more than likely would not have assessed them the 50 foot frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the Applicant would owe the updated unit and plant charge. Smith inquired if a small cabin had existed on this lot at the time sewer was installed in this area, how that property would have been treated. Gaffron stated they would have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with a unit charge and a plant charge. Stoddard inquired whether there is a dock currently on the lakeshore lot. Roesler stated the dock is not legal. Roesler stated her main purpose in purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if the first part of the application were tabled and the second part approved,whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first part of the application with the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of this application. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated he would prefer the Planning Commission make a recommendation on both parts of this application rather than tabling one part of it. Stoddard reiterated he would be willing to approve the second part of the application but that he would prefer to get some input from the City Council on the first part before acting on it. Stoddard stated he would be hesitant to approve the first part of the application given the small size of the lot and the zoning requirements for this area. Weinberger stated both options would be presented to the Council. Kluth commented the Planning Commission has only been presented with one example of what might be a similar situation, with Staff indicating that there might be other examples that exist on both sides over the years regarding other similar properties. Kluth stated in his view the Planning Commission should look at this application in today's terms and look at recent precedent and how the City Council would deal with this. Smith stated if part one of the application were approved,the Applicant would be looking at some very severe restrictions on what could be constructed on the property due to the small size of the lot. Kluth inquired if this property were deemed to be buildable, whether they would be retroactively assessed the sewer charge. Gaffron stated they would be. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to table part one of the application or have the Planning Commission act on both parts tonight. Stoddard noted he probably would not be in support of approving part one at this time. Stoddard stated if part one was tabled,that may allow the Applicant time to conduct further research to determine whether other similar applications have been approved in the past. Roesler stated she would like the Planning Commission to act on both parts of her application tonight. Berg stated if the two lots were combined,the Applicant would not be able to build on the lakeshore lot. Berg stated the Applicant could build on the back lot. Smith commented the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them tonight and not what happened twenty some years ago. Stoddard noted Orono's Comprehensive Plan has changed over those 28 years. Waldron stated he understands it is the City's desire not to have residences constructed on these 50 foot lots, but the point that the Applicant is making is that this application cannot be looked at in isolation due to the history of the other similar lot and that the applicable ordinances have not changed. Waldron stated this is the exact same fact situation and exact same request and exact same ordinances as that situation which existed a number of years. Waldron stated they would like the City to explain how they differ. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) Berg stated sewered lots are treated differently than unsewered lots. Berg stated she needs to deal with the present and not what happened twenty some years ago. Smith stated it is her feeling from the discussion so far that part one of the application probably would not be approved but that part two might be approved. Smith stated the Applicant still has the option to table the application or a portion of it if she would like to do so. Roesler stated she would like the Planning Commission to vote on both parts of the application. Smith moved to recommend approval of Part One of Application#01-2678,Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue,granting of variances to lot area/width to permit future residential construction. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Kluth moved,second by Stoddard,to recommend denial of Part One of Application #01-2678,Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue,and not grant variances to lot area/width to permit future residential construction. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Stoddard moved,second by Kluth,to recommend approval of Part Two of Application #01-2678,Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue,granting of a variance to permit a lot combination of a property not adjacent to the building lot for lake/dock use. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#8) #01-2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF 450 AND 480 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:04 p.m.—8:30 p.m. Michael Moore and Jeff Sweitzer appeared on behalf of Sharratt and MacDonald Design Company. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application for a"guest house". The lot is approximately 14.73 acres and currently has two residences on the property. The principal residence and barn are addressed as 450 Orono Orchard Road and the existing caretaker house and detached garage are addressed as 480 Orono Orchard Road. The two properties were legally combined in the late 1970s with the different addresses remaining. Staff's research has concluded that no conditional use permit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the property was legally combined. The Applicants are proposing to demolish the existing caretaker house and garage and construct a new guest house. The new guest house will be located where the garage is currently located. City Code allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as a"separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests." A condition of approval shall be the property owner file a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house will only be used PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY,CONTINUED) and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property. The guest house cannot be used for a home occupation. Bottenberg stated over 13 acres of the 14.73 acres are considered to be dry buildable land, with this district requiring two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house conditional use permit requires an additional two acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than one dwelling unit per two acres. The property does meet the minimum area and width requirements for a guest house. Bottenberg stated two variances are required for the guest house. A variance is required because the guest house is proposed to be closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. A second variance is required for a second oversized accessory structure. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed on a property. The proposed guest house is approximately 1,500 square feet and the existing barn is approximately 2,000 square feet. The guest house and barn are both accessory structures; however,the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dwelling on the property for people to reside. Bottenberg noted a new on-site sewage treatment system was installed on the property in October, 2000. The treatment system is sized for eight bedrooms. The main residence has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. The proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate location will need to be located on the property per a letter provided by the treatment system installers. City Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their non-paying guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house not be used for a home occupation. Stoddard inquired why a second variance is required for the guest house if the proposed guest house is 1,500 square feet and the barn is 2,000 square feet. Stoddard noted they have a maximum of 6,000 square feet allowed. Weinberger stated they are only allowed one oversized accessory structure on the property. Bottenberg stated both structures are considered to be accessory structures and both are oversized. Gaffron stated they are allowed one oversized accessory structure, with the 2,000 square foot barn being oversized, and any other accessory structures on the property need to be 1,000 square feet or less. Gaffron stated the guest house is 1,500 square feet. Sweitzer stated they have nothing additional to add to Staff's report. Sandy Osborn, 360 Orono Orchard Road, stated currently there is no fence along the front side of the property or on Dickenson Street. Osborn stated there are presently nine dogs which are being trained PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY,CONTINUED) and raised on the property. Osborn commented these dogs have gotten out from time to time due to the lack of fencing. Osborn inquired when and if fencing would be erected on this property. Moore stated there is fencing on Dickenson Street on the back side of the barn. Moore stated they have discussed the issue with the dogs before with the City Council and that is not on the agenda tonight. Osborn inquired how long the property would be unfenced. Osborn stated she has safety concerns regarding the dogs. Smith stated the resident would like to know whether any additional fencing would be erected in the future. Moore stated they are anticipating the main residence will be completed in August,with the site plan showing proposed fencing and berms with trees along the whole front of the property. Moore stated following completion of the project,the residence and guest house will not be visible from the street. Moore stated that fencing and trees would continue along Dickenson Street. Smith suggested they discuss this further with the neighbor following tonight's meeting. Smith inquired whether the Applicant had considered moving the guest house further back to be in line with the principal residence. Sweitzer stated they have not considered that possibility. Stoddard stated if the guest house were relocated, a variance may not be needed. Sweitzer stated they could look at that option. Sweitzer stated the current driveway works well as far as drainage. Gaffron pointed out the guest house would need to be moved approximately 40 feet back in order to be in line with the principal residence. Smith and Stoddard commented they were not aware the guest house would need to be moved that far back. Weinberger indicated Exhibit F shows the view of the guest house from the street. Weinberger stated the guest house would not be visible from the street. Weinberger stated the guest house has been designed to meet a 50 foot setback each way so it meets all principal building setbacks in the event this lot is every split. Smith stated if this property were ever subdivided or sold,the City has required in the past that the oversized accessory structure be removed. Smith inquired whether that was the case in this situation. Gaffron stated the City requires a standard covenant for every oversized accessory structure,which includes that language. Gaffron stated if the property is ever divided in the future,the divided property would need to have the required acreage to support those accessory structures or they would need to bexemoved. PAGE 17 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY,CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether the Applicants had any comments or concerns about that restrictive covenant. Moorse stated they would need to speak with the property owner regarding that,but that he does not have any intentions of selling or subdividing the property at this time. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would like the Planning Commission to act on their application tonight or table it. Moore stated they would like to proceed forward. Smith inquired whether the requirement that the guest house not be used for a home occupation was a standard requirement that the City has imposed in the past. Weinberger stated that is a standard condition. Kluth moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2679, Sharratt and MacDonald Design Company on behalf of 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road,granting of a conditional use permit for a guest house and a variance for a second oversized accessory structure subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their nonpaying guests or domestic employees,and that the guest house not be used for a home occupation. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#9) #01-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN,2715 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES, 8:31 p.m.—9:13 p.m. Sid Levin, Builder, and Terry and Dorothy Erwin,Applicants,were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to renovate and refurbish the existing house. The renovations include some work to the existing foundation, removal of the second floor and replace with a new floor plan. All of the proposed renovation would be within the existing foundation. The foundation of the house will not be increased. The building envelope would be expanded in two areas, one over the existing den and another over the existing dining room. Weinberger stated in the area where the residence currently is one story, a second story will be added, making the entire house two stories. Weinberger stated the residence does encroach into the average lakeshore lakeshore setback and within the 75' lakeshore setback. Any structural work within 75 feet of the lakeshore and the average setback requires variances. A variance is required to permit alteration to structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback. A second variance is required to permit structural work to the house within the 10 feet side yard setback. In addition,variances are also needed to permit the structural work to the foundation. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the existing hardcover on the property consists of 987 square feet or 20 percent in the 0-75' setback and 6,274 square feet or 55 percent within the 75-250' setback. The hardcover in the 250-500' setback consists of 1,656 square feet or 26 percent. The hardcover within the 0-75' setback includes a stairway, a walk down to the lake, a large patio, and a small portion of the house. The hardcover within the 75-250' setback consists of a driveway, a large parking area,the house, some walkways, and a storage shed. Weinberger noted there would be relatively no change to the building envelope within the 10 foot setback encroachment on the north side of the house. Primarily the areas where changes would occur meet the required 10 feet setback. No variances are required to expand the second level living areas up to the 10 foot setback. Weinberger stated one concern with the proposal is the expanded roof line to the north side of the Applicants' house that may affect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property. Another factor contributing to potential drainage issues is the total existing hardcover on the property. Weinberger stated the house is non-conforming as it is located within the required setbacks. The property owners have two options to consider with this application. One is to consider remodeling the existing house, which requires the removal and replacement of the second story and some structural work to the foundation; or two,removal the existing residence and build new. The Applicants have chosen to remodel and renovate. One question to address is whether the proposed foundation work is of such a magnitude that this project should meet the standards for new construction. The Applicant has indicated the majority of the foundation work consists of some repair work to the lakeside of the residence,with the remaining foundation being intact and in good condition. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should consider whether the total amount of hardcover should be reduced if the variances are granted and whether the shed should remain. Weinberger commented the shed would require repair at some time in the near future. Construction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located within the size setback and within 10 feet of another structure. Staff concurs that the topography of the site makes any substantial revisions to the location of the house challenging. The steep slope to the road results in the need for a long driveway and significant site regrading and alteration of drainage patterns in the immediate neighborhood would be necessary to move the house to a location where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, with no expansions where it encroaches required setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow renovations and remodeling of the house subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must demonstrate and confirm the foundation work is not required only to allow the expansion of the second story, but would be needed even if no expansion was planned. 2. Hardcover removals within the parking area should be required to provide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building envelope shall be permitted within required setbacks. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the recommendation of approval is based upon the fact the existing structure is a legal non-conforming structure that was built prior to the current zoning ordinances and that no further expansion of the non-conformities would occur. The proposed expansions are being completed within the required setbacks. Levin stated he has reviewed the entire foundation of the existing residence and found that the area underneath the porch areas on the front of the house needs to be repaired. Levin stated the depth of the foundation is not adequate and need to be at 42 inches. Levin stated the house has a full basement and the remainder of the foundation is in good condition and would be able to accommodate the expansion. Levin stated due to the steep slope to the road, a turnaround area is necessary. The Applicants are proposing that the driveway area would be reduced by 800 square feet, reducing the hardcover in that setback to approximately 47 percent from 55 percent. Levin stated the improvements would add character to the house and more aesthetically pleasing. Levin stated the main level of the residence is scheduled to be fully remodeled,with a new floor plan being proposed. Levin indicated some walls will be removed and some windows will be relocated. Smith stated one item the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to consider is possible removal of the shed due to the amount of hardcover on the property. Mrs. Erwin stated the shed is used for storage at the present time,with gasoline for their boat and lawnmower being stored in there as well as other items. Erwin stated they would like to make some improvements to the shed to make it match the appearance of the house. Kluth inquired whether the Applicants could address the concrete patio. Kluth stated in his view the builder will need to do some work in the area of the patio to work on the foundation. Kluth inquired whether the patio would be replaced following the foundation work. Levin stated they would be willing to consider a reduction in the size of the patio. Weinberger stated they currently have a two-stall garage. Weinberger stated the City has had a problem with outdoor storage and would prefer having a shed for storage on this lakeshore lot as long as the Applicants are below the structural coverage limit. Weinberger stated the Applicants could consider possibly relocating the shed. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the shed. Stoddard stated he would like to see the shed brought into conformance with the setbacks. Kluth noted the shed currently is on a concrete pad. Levin stated in his view the shed could be rotated slightly to make it more square with the house as well as having some improvements done to it. Levin commented he would be hesitant to say they would be able to move it enough to meet the ten foot setback since it would encroach into the turnaround area, but they would be willing to relocate it possibly three to five feet off the lot line. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN,CONTINUED) Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants could come into conformance with the average lakeshore setback. Weinberger stated the largest encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is two to three feet. Levin indicated the encroachment does not impact the neighbors' view of the lake,which is the intent of the setback. Kluth stated the average lakeshore setback tends to vary among the houses in a given area. Kluth stated since there is only a two to three foot encroachment, he does not have a problem with it. Weinberger stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views of the lake. Mrs. Erwin stated the neighbors do approve of this project. Smith inquired how much of the foundation is being replaced. Weinberger stated he does not have a percentage of the foundation that is being replaced at this time. Weinberger inquired whether any repair of the foundation is required to add the second story. Levin stated the foundation work is required regardless if a second story is added to the house. Weinberger inquired whether a structural engineer's report could be submitted on the foundation work prior to the City Council meeting. Levin stated he has submitted that already. Weinberger stated he would review that report prior to the Council meeting. Art Kane, 2697 Casco Point Road, indicated he is in support of this project. William Miller, 2691 Casco Point Road, commented all the houses in this area are non-conforming, with 12 out of the 14 requiring variances. Miller stated the Applicants have taken steps to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property. Miller stated he is in support of this project because it would help to improve the neighborhood. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Kluth moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2677,Terry and Dorothy Erwin,2715 Casco Point Road,granting of a variance to permit alteration to structure within 75' of the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback,and a variance to permit structural work to the house within the 10 foot yard setback,subject to the conditions outlined in the May 16,2001 Planner's Report,subject to the size of the patio being reduced,and with the understanding the shed will be relocated off the property line a reasonable distance prior to the completion of the project, PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN,CONTINUED) Stoddard inquired what the hardcover numbers are on the driveway. Levin stated they would be reducing the driveway area by 800 square feet. Stoddard inquired what size the patio is and how much it would be reduced. Kluth stated the patio consists of 520 square feet. Kluth inquired how much the patio could be reduced. Weinberger stated a portion of the patio will be removed in order to do the foundation work, and technically replacement of the patio would require a hardcover variance since it is located within the 0-75' setback. Weinberger inquired how much of the patio would be removed. Levin stated approximately four feet along the length of the patio would need to be removed in order to do the foundation work. Levin stated they would not be removing the rest of the patio. Weinberger stated the rest of the patio could remain, but any replacement would require a variance. Levin stated the 520 square feet might also include the sidewalk and deck area, but he would be willing to reduce the patio by 150 feet. Levin stated the 520 square feet is just the patio area. Kluth stated the Applicants would need a hardcover variance in order to replace the portion of the patio that is removed in connection with the foundation work. Smith commented the Planning Commission likes the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' to be limited as much as possible. Kluth amended the motion,Berg seconded,to include reduction of the patio by 160 square feet. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (#10) #01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH,MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.42, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,9:15 p.m.—9:56 p.m. Helmer Heckel, Pastor, and Don Greenley, Attorney-at-Law,were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting an amendment to the Municipal Code that would list "churches"as a conditional in the B-4 zoning district. Churches are allowed by conditional use only in"R" districts. The request is made on behalf of the Baywind Christian Church,who has an interest in the Applicant's property,which is owned by Franklin J. Svoboda,to use a portion of the existing building for church use. This particular request is for the amendment to the B-4 District. Should the City approve the amendment, a conditional use permit application would be required to consider the Baywind proposal for the use of this site for a church use. PAGE 22 a • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH,CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the B-4 Office and Professional Business District is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. Weinberger stated if the Applicant wishes to have a church at this location, a conditional use permit would be necessary following approval of the amendment to the B-4 District. Greenley stated they are requesting that one more conditional use be added to the B-4 District. Greenley indicated the building can presently be utilized as a school, and in his opinion a church would have less impact on the neighborhood since most of the activity occurs on the weekend. Heckel stated they are currently located in Excelsior and would like to relocate in this area. Heckel commented the building would serve their needs well,with the church being a good improvement to the neighborhood. Heckel stated the building has been on the market for approximately one year,with the inside of the structure not well suited for office use. Kluth inquired why churches were not included in the B-4 District to begin with. Gaffron stated the B-4 Zoning District goes back to the 1960s, and it is his understanding no churches were located in that area at the time the zoning district was created so they were not included. Frank Svoboda stated the majority of the building is constructed out of precast concrete and is an extremely solid and well built building. Svoboda stated a sprinkler system would not be required. Rodney Beestrom added that a sprinkler system is not required by Code unless there are more than 300 people in attendance. Gaffron stated one of the issues that was raised early on was whether the change in occupation from an office to a church would require significant changes to the building because of the Building Code. Gaffron stated the City has not investigated that yet and he is unsure whether the church members have consulted with the City's building official regarding that issue. Stoddard requested Staff follow up on that possible conversion to see what changes would be required. Smith stated other issues to address would be traffic,noise, lighting,and signage. Smith inquired what discussions have taken place regarding those items. Weinberger stated Staff would need a complete site plan in order to determine whether there is adequate parking and appropriate signage and lighting for this site. Weinberger stated Staff has not gone into those issues at this time. Berg stated she has a major concern with the traffic in this area and the speed of the traffic as it goes down County Road 19. Berg indicated she has a concern with parking across the road from the church and then attempting to cross County Road 19. Berg stated she would prefer that people not cross that road due to the high speeds of the traffic. PAGE 23 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH,CONTINUED) Stoddard stated if churches are added to the B-4 area, it would apply to all other B-4 Districts within the City. Kluth pointed out issues dealing with traffic and parking and lighting would be addressed at the time the Applicant approaches the City with a request for a conditional use permit. Heckel stated at the time they were considering purchase of the Grace Baptist Church,they had discussed parking with the previous City Administrator and they were informed at that time that they could use the municipal lot across the street. Berg stated the traffic going south on County Road 19 is more significant than the traffic going north. Smith stated at the time the Applicant requests a conditional use permit,he will need to address those concerns. Smith stated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether churches should be added to the B-4 District. Stoddard commented the church would be used primarily during the evenings and on weekends,with the B-4 District being primarily businesses that operate during the day. Stoddard stated he would like more research done on the Uniform Building Code and the reasons why churches were omitted from the B-4 District. Smith stated the other uses allowed in the B-4 District, such as nursing homes, hospitals, schools, restaurants, and libraries also have weekend and evening activities to some extent. Kluth stated he personally does not have a problem with the hours of the church and other uses currently in the B-4 District. Kluth stated he would like to know what regulations the"R"District requires for churches and whether some of those regulations would be left out by adding churches to the B-4 District. Heckel stated historically in this country churches have not been associated with businesses but have usually been located in residential areas. Heckel stated in today's society, churches are becoming more dynamic and are beginning to be located in business districts. Beestrom stated he lives in this area and it is his understanding the Covenant Church near Lord Fletcher's was permitted parking on the other side of County Road 19. Beestrom stated a majority of Lord Fletches is also on the other side of County Road 19. Smith inquired whether the crossing of County Road 19 and the parking could be addressed with signage. Berg stated there is a significant amount of traffic on 15 and 19,with minimal traffic going north compared to what is going south. Berg stated the safety of any pedestrians in this area is a major concern of hers. Kluth reiterated the parking and signage is an issue to be discussed with the conditional use permit. PAGE 24 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH,CONTINUED) Kluth stated he has not done enough research to determine whether churches would be appropriate in this district. Kluth stated he would like to table this application in order to give the members of the Planning Commission and City Staff time to compare the"R"District with the B-4 District to insure that they are compatible. Greenley suggested that if it is approved tonight,they could simply make it subject to the same requirements as the"R"District. Stoddard inquired whether the church has a specific time frame they would like to follow. Heckel stated the church would not be a hinderance or an obstacle to the neighborhood. Heckel stated they are currently located at the Excelsior Elementary School and they are losing families because that is not their target area. Heckel stated they would like to relocate back to this area as soon as they can since a large number of their parishioners come from this area. (Janice Berg leaves at 9:52 p.m.) Smith stated due to one of the commissioners leaving,there no longer is a quorum present on the Planning Commission,which means this application must be tabled to the June meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to table this application. Weinberger suggested the Applicants meet with City Staff to discuss some of these issues prior to the City Council meeting. Gaffron suggested this application be discussed at the 29th City Council meeting to see whether the Council would be willing to hear this application at their June meeting without a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission. Smith noted a City Council member has been in attendance at tonight's meeting, and it will be clearly communicated to the Council why there is not a formal recommendation on this application. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 23,2001 AND MAY 14,2001 May 29—Stoddard June 11 - Kluth (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None PAGE 25 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19,2001 AND APRIL 16,2001 This item was not discussed. (#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 29,2001 AND JUNE 11,2001 May 29—Stoddard June 11 - Kluth ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Sandra Smith, Acting Chair PAGE 26