Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 7_ ) i_ 2c.A) ---7--, 0 COUNCIL ,81. PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED PARK COMMISSION El BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. El OTHER PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. A .--,-). , ft S./- , iy,/7. / ?(V 2. P)trt-f_c. 3 t:a- .:.cr--)7_€, _ 14,< 4 14 I .., k( ,; 1---7%. If A LA v (1) 1 / iN ;.A.ses1 z,th-cv__ 4. TAr‘ 40 riC,L- 4-1 -..; 6 re)i,)"C' C;x-avz.t.v1112) i" %imA \''k 5• ai ite rtivc afriut%'.\ 1'),").-c;Eqi_tv,(-,-- A-,j-k_ W ' 4- - A 03---,;-7/o 6. ,4 r I 3 ex-e4 i,f--e_.-_ -4'nit,ei, .1-/1,P-5 gr. r-c-zi/U 0 3 —E_ E13 7. inX- .c._,,, -4,1_ /5 Y C; •° ----g-,..., (12-,t. "ec:-/ 0 ) in 1 . ' 1 i 8. tY,C17) Ti.lc tY.■, p(. 1‘‘,‘ ('I 9. 7.,.1. C -2.2c': /(ic),"'A ifrtil 0:3 a.70 10. , c) _) „ , / / M a-7 .'' ( '--)/6'. 4A r i 11 -2\11-11 ijcirAt 31- 176triz•- L( r ,--- 12 '7 , 14. (- 4 {.), \11'-t R.L17, ,A.) ,..,>__,, :--,, 0 )(,-i.)" ; W:Wdministrative SupportVorms)Tublic Attendance.wpd PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 7 %2 I — r ) j ❑ COUNCIL ;71 PLANNING 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 L >h-t---Gt et:X.- a./ /6t20/ 7-10,S-7`--4er D3-a- ,?,, o ,yam 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzler, late arrival Liz Hawn, Jeanne Mabusth, Cynthia Bremer, and alternate Jan Berg. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and Council Representatives Jim Murphy/Jim White. Commissioner Zugschwert was absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2809A RICK STERLING, 1300 VINE PLACE, VARIANCE AMENDMENT Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2809, Rick Sterling, 1300 Vine Place, granting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 32'X12.5' deck addition. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #03-2911 PETER AND LISA RYSKAMP, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2911, Peter and Lisa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail, granting approval of the conditional use permit for replacement of a permanent dock subject to staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #03-2912 MARVIN AND MAY SMITH, 1940 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD — VARIANCES—PUBLIC HEARING Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2912, Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, front and side yard setback variances to allow the construction of a second story addition to the existing home. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #03-2918 BRUCE SINGER, 330 TONKA AVENUE — VARIANCE — PUBLIC HEARING Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2918 Bruce Singer, 330 Tonka Avenue, variances to permit construction of a new residence on a lot with area of 18,750 s.f. (.43 acre) and width of 150' where the required lot area and width are 2. acres and 200' respectively. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 1 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#5) #03-2921 MACDONALD AND MACH ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF EDWARD H. HAMM, TRUSTEE, 485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD S — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—PUBLIC HEARING Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2921, MacDonald & Mach Architects on behalf of Edward H. Hamm, Trustee, 485 Orono Orchard Road S., for a conditional use permit to allow construction of an entrance gate subject to it meeting the 50' setback requirement from the roadway easement. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#6) #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, 4125 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — REVISED PROPOSAL — CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, 6:04—6:34 P.M. John and Roberta Henrich, the applicants, were present. Gaffron explained that the applicants have proposed to remove the existing house and construct a new house on the property. The application was reviewed at the May Planning Commission meeting; Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances for lot width, average setback and accessory structure without a principal structure during construction; and voted 5-0 to table at applicant's request to allow him to work with City staff to find ways to reduce hardcover on the property to nearer the 25% limit. Gaffron indicated that a revised site plan has been submitted which substantially reduces hardcover in the 75-250' zone from the existing 37.1%to just over 28%. Gaffron reported that it would be staffs recommendation to: 1. Approve the average setback variance for the revised location, finding no impacts to lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. 2. Approve the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75-250' zone, if Planning Commission can make a hardship distinction between this proposal and other total rebuilds that have been held to the 25% limit. Approve proposal to make no changes to 0-75'zone hardcover. 3. Approve the 4' encroachment of the house into the 30' bluff setback. Note that only a small protrusion of the house will encroach the bluff setback. 4. Planning Commission should advise applicant whether replacement of the deck in kind within the bluff setback would be looked upon favorably. Gaffron stated that the applicant has worked with Building Inspector Bruce Vang to devise a revised site plan that reconfigures the driveway access to the site. Much of the excess hardcover on the property was related to the location and elevation of the existing garage, which is relatively new and which the applicant does not plan to remove. The new site plan results in a 20' eastward relocation of the driveway access point onto Highwood Road, allowing for removal of a major portion of the existing driveway while maintaining a functional access to the garage PAGE 2 of 37 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued) and house, and retaining usable parking area. As noted in May, Gaffron stated that the house footprint will increase from 1219 to 1635 s.f. Structural coverage including the garage, house and shed will only be 8.3% where 15% is allowed. In addition, the revised site plan has an alternate version that moves the house about 4' closer to the lake than proposed in May. This proposal would allow for additional green space between the house and the driveway. However, this also results in a 4' encroachment of the 30' bluff setback, as the existing house is at a 32' bluff setback and the initial proposal just met the 30'requirement. Gaffron reported that the proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone has been significantly reduced from the existing level of 6,180 s.f. or 37.1 % to 4,630 s.f. or 27.8 %. (28.2% if the bluff setback is not allowed, as deck will then not be reduced). The applicant included in his initial letter of request a number of factors which he believes are hardships that support the variance request. These factors included the ability to park numerous vehicles off of Highwood Road which is very narrow and has only minimal ability for on-street parking. The revised site plan still accomplishes these goals at a much reduced level of hardcover. Staff believes the new plan is very reasonable given the stated hardships and the fact that the existing garage will remain on the site. Chair Smith thanked the applicants for their efforts to revise the plans and reduce hardcover dramatically. Mr. Henrich indicated how pleased and surprised he was that they were able to reduce the hardcover numbers so significantly. Although the hardships still exist and warrant the need for variances, the steepness of the slope, the existing structures, etc., he believed they had found mutually acceptable solutions. Chair Smith asked Gaffron whether the narrowness of Highwood Road could also be viewed as a hardship. Gaffron stated that Highwood is a substandard size road which allows for little, if any, street side parking. He indicated that it might be considered as having hardship characteristics for the whole neighborhood, whereas, the steepness does require everything to be pushed back 30' from the top of the bluff. Chair Smith asked how the Commission might further reduce the hardcover to even closer to 25%, and suggested the deck size be reduced. While he had no problem with the house, Rahn questioned whether they could lose hardcover from the 480 s.f deck and 160 s.f patio, and require the shed be removed. PAGE 3 of 37 . 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued) Mabusth maintained that, not only could the deck size be reduced, but it could be pulled further out of the bluff setback as well. Mr. Henrich argued that the mosquito population is a nuisance and the deck raises them out of the grass. In addition, he pointed out that the deck was granted approval in 1990 and should be allowed to remain. Henrich added that neither the deck, nor shed, are noticeable from the lake. He maintained that, theirs was a definite hardship property. Rahn questioned if this were new construction, whether the deck would be allowed to stay and the hardcover meet 25%. Hawn arrived at 6:20 P.M. Chair Smith suggested they remove the shed. Berg asked what the shed was used for and noted that without it, the owners would need to house everything uphill. Henrich pointed out that, due to the extremely steep slope, the shed houses their pump, dock supplies, etc. Rahn stated that they have required others to lose their shed in lieu of a lockbox and asked how much space would be gained. Gaffron stated that the shed and steps constituted approximately 112 s.f. Rahn indicated that he liked the changes the applicant had made and stated that he would be willing to support the application as recommended by staff; however, he would require the removal of the shed and their going to a lockbox. Hawn stated that she viewed the application as new construction and found difficulty with the proposal. Henrich stated that, if he were able to rebuild, he would do so. Since his garage and deck have already been redone; however, it is only the house that remains and it does not meet code. Mrs. Henrich pointed out that they had already removed the top portion of the deck and maintained that if they were forced to remove much more of the deck, it would be unusable as a deck on top of the bluff. Mabusth suggested the Commission require the applicants to cut back the deck to meet a 10' bluff setback. She indicated that she could accept the 28%hardcover, recognizing they had come PAGE 4 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued) a long way to do so. Mr. Henrich asked if they could redesign the deck to meet the 10' bluff setback and still maintain the 600 s.f. size deck they currently have, or maintain the 28%hardcover figure. Mabusth agreed, stating that this solution would be consistent. Chair Smith indicated that if the applicants could compromise their design to meet these suggestions, the Commission could support the 28% due to the steep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road. There were no public comments. Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2893, John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, approving the average setback variance for the revised location, approving the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75- 250' zone due to the steep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road, require that the deck be pulled out to meet a 10' top of bluff setback, and the shed be converted to a lockbox. Gaffron questioned whether the Commission would approve the small 4' encroachment of the house into the 30' bluff setback. Mabusth amended her motion, adding that while the deck needs to be reconfigured in order to be pulled 15' from the top of bluff setback, the house could remain encroaching by 4' into the 30' bluff setback. Hawn moved that the prior motion be withdrawn, Bremer seconded, VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2893, John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, approving the average lakeshore setback variance for the revised location; approving the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75-250' zone due to the steep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road; approving a 4' encroachment of the house into the 30' bluff setback; however, the Commission would require that the deck not encroach more than 15' from the top of the bluff and the removal of the shed in lieu of a lockbox. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 6:34—6:48 P.M. Scott Cooper, the builder representing the applicant,was present. PAGE 5 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, Continued) Gaffron explained that the applicant requested an after-the-fact variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500-1000' zone. This item was tabled at the June meeting to allow applicant to explore ways to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed=35%= 6,785.6 s.f. Existing= 50.8%= 9,860 s.f. Initial Proposal =45.9% = 8,908 s.f. Revised Proposal=39.7% = 7,693 s.f. The applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the lower driveway. Gaffron stated that if the Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances would be in order As this item was tabled at the June meeting in order for applicant to work with staff to reduce the hardcover to as near the 35% limit as possible, staff met with the applicant and discussed each item of hardcover on the property. Applicant made some decisions as to the relative importance of each hardcover item to his use of the property. After working with a landscape architect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could result in a positive impact to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2,167 s.f., yielding a final 500-1000'hardcover of 7,693 s.f. or 39.7%. Gaffron noted that, while additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels are integral to his use of the property (patio areas) or which the removal of would reduce the functionality of the site (reduction of the lower driveway surface would make it difficult to maneuver vehicles into that space). Issues for Consideration 1. The applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.f. less than the existing but still exceeding that allowed by City Codes by 908 s.f. 2. The applicant's acquisition of the property was finalized before he knew the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. 3. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or are less than 26' from wetlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. While the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-ways and they appear to a casual observer as part of this property, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-ways, hence applicant cannot make the property larger to reduce the hardcover percentage. Gaffron indicated that staff would make the following recommendations: 1. If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history PAGE 6 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, Continued) of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after- the-fact variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. Chair Smith questioned whether the unique circumstances surrounding this application could be considered hardships. Gaffron stated that, while the applicant should have done some further investigation before purchasing the property, there is some debate over whose fault the overages of hardcover could be blamed. Although certainly unique, Gaffron acknowledged he did not know if they constitute hardships by definition. Chair Smith pointed out that the original approvals allowed 30% hardcover. During the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to get as close to 35% hardcover as possible. She questioned whether further removals could be made to reach 35%. Cooper commented that construction occurred over a four year period and that the current applicant has gone to great lengths to reduce hardcover substantially and still have good access to the property. Hawn asked how the retaining walls would be changed. Cooper stated that the walls would be pulled onto the property; however, as allowed at the last meeting, they would not meet a 5' setback. Gaffron stated that minimal reductions would be gained with these removals and that the remaining pavement is necessary to ensure adequate turning radius and maneuverability. He pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the patios. Hawn and Bremer felt the applicant had done a good job faced with a difficult situation. Fritzler stated that he would insist the removals go further to meet the 35% as originally directed at the last meeting. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she saw no hardship to support the need for two driveways. PAGE 7 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, Continued) Gaffron pointed out that the two driveways access two different levels of garages. There were no public comments. Cooper reiterated that they had taken out the circular driveway, for a decrease of some 2,000 s.f., and all that remains was a sidewalk accessing the front door. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2904, Richard Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive, after-the-fact variances per the revised removal plan, subject to staff conditions including; the removal of retaining walls, fill, or paved surfaces within the existing encroachments of wetland or wetland setbacks; removal of retaining walls where they extend over the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or aesthetic in nature, and those unnecessary to support topography of the site should be removed. In addition, all landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Chair Smith and Fritzler believed the removals should meet 35%. (#8) #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES, 6:48—7:19 P.M. Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, the applicants, were present. Gaffron stated that the applicants at the June meeting provided a new plan which reduced the number and magnitude of variances needed to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on July 14. The variances required by the most recent revised plan include: 1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75' setback zone, 65' from shoreline. 2. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. 3. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. 4. Attached garage addition and grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4') and moved back toward existing house footprint to avoid encroaching sewer line easement. 5. Remove existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75'zone, replace with a smaller 95 s.f. deck still slightly encroaching average setback line. 6. Hardcover in 0-75' zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f.(29.4%)to 535.31 sf(14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed,by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250'zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf(51.9%) to 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. Changes not requiring variances include: PAGE 8 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, Continued) > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.f. (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f. where 1500 s.f. is allowed (no variance required). > Total hardcover as a percent of 75-250'zone will reduce from the existing 3315 s.f. (76.3%) to 2496 s.f. (57%). Gaffron indicated that staff would recommend the following: a) Denial of the 4' side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10' setback with some interior design changes. b) Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks,because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback. d) Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. At the June Planning Commission the Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. The applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, the changes needing variance approval are summarized above. Gaffron explained that the characteristics of the most recent plan include: - Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f.) deck in 0-75' zone to limit structural coverage; - Removal of extraneous hardcover in 0-75'zone and 75-250' zones; - Relocation of the attached garage to be approximately 6' from the left side lot line at its closest point, and to avoid encroachment of the sewer easement; - The second story additions directly above the existing house footprint remain, so the side setback and lakeshore setback variances are still requested; - The driveway is minimized to a width of 10', widening near the garage; the existing detached garage by the road will be removed. Gaffron continued,pointing out the primary issues with the current proposal including: a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75' zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than normally allowed. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4'-5' on the left side and 2.5-3.9' on the right side. The Building Official has determined that windows can be allowed wherever the walls are 3' or more from side lot lines, which leaves only a short length of the south side wall as ineligible for windows. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 6' from the side lot line, which is better than the original proposal but still constitutes new structure in a substandard setback. PAGE 9 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, Continued) d) Drainage is still a concern, although from staff's perspective the most recent plan will actually reduce the magnitude of overland drainage from the rear half of this site. Staff believes the drainage issues are not made worse with this plan, and a suitable drainage plan incorporating swales and roof gutters can be devised to reduce any current drainage problems. When designing his proposal, Mr. Ziebarth stated that he believed hardcover to be the most important element of the design, as opposed to setbacks. He indicated that the biggest challenge he faced was the sewer easement, and the struggle to meet several requirements, and still get what they need for livable space. Ziebarth contended that, under the allowable calculations, he would only be allowed a 500 s.f second story if he were required to meet 10' side yard setbacks. He indicated that he had assumed they would be allowed to construct a second story above the existing first story. Chair Smith stated that the revised drainage plan seems doable and that the second story could encroach into the 0-75' setback; however, the side yard setbacks remain the issue. She stated that feedback from the neighbors at the last Commission meeting and letters in the packet still contend this to be an issue. Ziebarth stated that, in his opinion, his home has been overshadowed by neighboring properties, and that a precedent has already been set to the south allowing the second story, albeit further from the lot line. Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive, the neighbor to the south, indicated that his home is compliant 23' from the property line. He stated that, as proposed, this home would be larger than his home on a smaller piece of property. He maintained that if the home were located just 2' from his property line, and still two stories tall, the impact would be 10 times worse than his, which is compliant. Otteson stated that he was not allowed a walkout design; therefore, went with the two story plan. He objected to a two story home located 2' from his property line. Chair Smith asked for the applicant to comment on staff's recommendation that the garage be shifted. Ziebarth stated that moving the existing structure would compromise the layout of the house. He maintained that the design and look of the house would be substantially changed and that shifting the garage over would drastically block the house and any sunlight from its southwest corner. Chair Smith asked for Ziebarth to comment on the second story recommendation. Ziebarth stated that a 490 s.f. second story would look odd sitting atop the home. Chair Smith stated that the Commission could vote on what was in front of them or table the PAGE 10 of 37 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, Continued) application for redesign. Ziebarth stated that he had looked at other designs and believed that hardcover was more important than setback; therefore, they chose this layout. He stated that being given the 0-75' setback zone grace was insignificant, since the average lakeshore setback protrudes further than their home. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had allowed limited side yard setbacks in the past. Gaffron stated that the Commission has gone so far as to approve 5' side yard setbacks, but no less on both sides of a tiny lot. Ziebarth maintained that he could rebuild a new 720 s.f. footprint home meeting all of the setbacks and questioned why he could not do this which was a smaller design. Hawn reiterated that the home would be too close to the side yard setbacks and too close to the neighbors. Fritzler commented, small lot, small house. Rahn agreed with staff recommendations. Mabusth suggested the applicant reconsider the detached garage in order to allow them additional living space. Ziebarth repeated that he felt the detached garage would have a negative impact on the design and increase their hardcover. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether the Commission should table or vote on the application. Ziebarth asked what other options there might be. Hawn stated that they had given the applicants direction. The Commission would consider something less than a 10' side yard setback, but no less than 5', more like 7.5' and encouraged him to consider this. In addition, Gaffron stated that, if the applicant chose new construction, he would be required to meet 25% hardcover, versus the rebuild design which allows him 45%. In reality, Gaffron indicated that new construction would most likely be identical to the hardcover of the rebuild. Ziebarth asked for further second story suggestions. PAGE 11 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, Continued) Rahn stated that he was not in favor of the plan. Though he refused to redesign the home for the applicant, Rahn suggested the applicant meet second story setbacks, stepped in with a sloping roof and no further encroachments. Ziebarth asked the Commission to vote on what was before them. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend Application #03-2907,Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive, as proposed, Denial of the 4' side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10' setback with some interior design changes; Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance; Approve the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback; Approve the hardcover variances as proposed, unique to the submittal, as this plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property; and Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#9) #03-2895 GARY GERMUNDSEN, 4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:19 — 7:40 P.M. Gary Germundsen, the applicant, was present. Waataja reported that the applicant has requested the following variances to construct a 12'X12' deck on the lakeside of the new residence. 50.5% hardcover in the 75-250' zone (46.8% currently exists) where 40% is allowed Per Resolution#4645 Approved in April 2001 and 1,708 s.f. of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists)where 1,500 s.f. is allowed. Waataja stated that staff would recommend denial of the request based on Resolution #4645 which approved renewal variances allowing construction of the existing house, limiting the applicant to 40% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structural coverage. Furthermore, denial of the request would be recommended since, as it currently exists, the home is over on the hardcover allowance and the lot coverage by structures allowance which was approved with the renewal variances in April 2001. When reviewing hardcover calculations, Waataja pointed out that retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper drainage and were not proposed with the initial renewal variance review process. The driveway also appears larger than what was depicted on the original survey. Currently, the home is in excess of the lot coverage by structures by 28 s.f., at 1,528 s.f. This was PAGE 12 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9 #03-2895 GARY GERMUNDSEN, Continued) a result of modifications to the plan upon construction of the home. Waataja stated that the modifications include the 1.5'X12' two story bump-out on the east side of the home. The applicant is proposing a 12'X12' second story deck and stairway(180 s.f.) off the lakeside of the home greater than 6' off grade; therefore, it would be included in the lot coverage by structures figure. The proposed lot coverage by structures would be 1708 s.f. Due to a lack of viable hardship, and the stipulation set forth in Resolution #4645 which set limits for the property, staff would recommend denial of both variance requests. Germundsen stated that sightlines for his neighbors are not a concern and referred to letters from neighbors submitted to Planner Bottenberg. He indicated that both neighbors on either side of his home have decks that extend further than his home. He stated that, originally, he underestimated how bad parking on Highwood Road was, and that drainage would be as significant an issue as it has proven to be. Germundsen stated that, currently, all of the water running down Highwood runs between him and his neighbor's property; therefore, warranting the need for the retaining walls. He maintained that the driveway does exceed what was approved, but believed miscalculations must exist. He stated that he had no other outside structures on the property to remove in order to gain room to allow for the deck. Chair Smith stated that no letters accompanied the packets. Germundsen pointed out that letters from neighbors on both sides of his home were submitted with the original packet. He indicated that he would supply staff with new copies of those letters, as provided to the previous planner. Berg questioned the bump-out on the lakeside, as it did not exist on original plans. Germundsen stated that he purchased the house with the plans and that a window was present on the plans. Waataja indicated that the bump-out was not approved; whereas, a window was granted approval. Rahn questioned whether driveway removals could be made to allow for the deck. Germundsen stated that he could reach 40%with driveway removals. While staff could live with the fact that the retaining walls were necessary to control drainage and that the second story bump-out appeared during construction, Gaffron stated that staff could not support the addition of a 12'X12' deck above the other approvals. Fritzler stated that the lot, in his opinion, had been maxed out. PAGE 13 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9 #03-2895 GARY GERMUNDSEN, Continued) Chair Smith was hesitant to endorse further driveway removals given the safety needed to maneuver onto Highwood Road. Hawn felt granting approval for the application would set a poor precedent going against the 2001 Resolution. There were no public comments. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether he wished the Commission to table or vote on the application. Germundsen asked whether the impact on his sightlines caused by the neighbors justified his request. Berg stated that the sightlines had nothing to do with his structural coverage excess. Germundsen could see no where to pull additional hardcover from the property and asked the Commission to vote on the application. Fritzler moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2895, Gary Germundsen, 4101 Highwood Road, due to lack of viable hardship and the stipulation of Resolution #4645 which set limits to the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCE, 7:40—7:44 P.M. Wayne and Anne Johnson, the applicants, were present. Foth explained that the applicants request a side yard variance in order to encroach 15' into the side yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to place their proposed porch at 15' from the side lot line where a 30' setback is required. Based on the hardship of the Small lot size (0.47 acre) in a 2-acre zoning district, and location of the existing house and well, Foth indicated that the staff would recommend approval of the side yard variance for 15' encroachment into the 30' setback. Foth stated that the application is to rebuild a porch addition which will be slightly larger than the existing porch and will have an attached deck. The new porch is proposed to be 15' from the side lot line at its closest point for a total increase in square footage of the deck and porch to be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The lot size in this situation is 0.47 acre, typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setback of 15' would be conforming if this area was zoned for %2 acre lots. PAGE 14 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, Continued) Fritzler believed the location of the well to be adequate hardship. Gaffron pointed out that the neighbors detached garage is also an issue. There were no public comments. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2910, Wayne and Anne Johnson, 1225 Lakeview Avenue, approving a side yard setback variance for a 15' encroachment into the 30' setback. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. (Recess was taken from 7:44—7:54 P.M.) (#11) #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, 583 PARK LANE, VARIANCE, 7:44 — 8:28 P.M. Gina Hansen, the applicant,was present. Foth reported that the applicants request a variance to construct a 6' x 20' covered entry located 5' from the side lot line where a 10' setback is required. The variances include: 1. Decrease structural coverage from 2459.7 s.f(25.9 %) existing to 2439.2 s.f. (25.7%). Net decrease of 20.5 s.f. 2. Encroachment of 5' into the required 10' setback. 3. Hardcover in 0-75' to remain at existing 10.3%where no hardcover is allowed. 4. Decrease hardcover in the 75-250' zone, will be reduced from 3641.16 sf(63.3%)to 3503.16 (60.9%). In summary, Foth stated that staff would recommend: a) Denial of setback variance of 5' from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. b) Approval of change in structural coverage amounts (net decrease). c) Staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the side yard setback and resulting in a further decrease in proposed structural coverage. d) Staff suggests removal of 356 s.f of landscape beds to further reduce 75'-250' hardcover. Hardship: Staff finds that there is no viable hardship. Applicants are looking for aesthetic change to façade rather than added space. Foth provided background, stating that the applicants wish to add a 6'x 20' covered porch on the street side entrance to their home where previously a 6' x 6' platform existed. This porch would be located 5' from the side property line. This proposed encroachment is less severe than that of the existing home. The home is located 3' from the NW side yard, where a 10' setback is required. With the proposed reductions to existing stairs, and lakeside deck, the proposed porch addition will decrease the structural coverage totals for this property. In addition, the applicants have proposed a 67.5 s.f reduction in their driveway hardcover. PAGE 15 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11 #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, Continued) In July 2000, the applicants received a 7'side yard variance to allow house additions 3' from the side lot line where a 10' setback is required, in order to construct a 225 square foot second story addition over the back portion of the residence and enclose a 4' x 18' deck into living space. Foth expanded on the staff recommendation as follows: a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of 5' from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. However, staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the 10' side yard setback and resulting in a further 30 s.f. (5' x 6') decrease in proposed structural coverage. b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be required by removing the 59.5 s.f. segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to be 6' x 15' (90 s.f. installed as opposed to 120 s.f.). c) The applicant's proposal does not include removal of 356 s.f. of plastic/fabric lined landscape beds in the 75'-250' zone. If these are removed(staff recommends removal), final 75'-250' hardcover will be (3503.16-356)=3147.16 s.f. or 54.7%. Chair Smith questioned the revised hardcover calculations based on fabric or plastic lined landscape bed removals, as they are not considered hardcover removals for the purpose of trading hardcover. Mrs. Hansen stated that they were striving to reduce hardcover and the massiveness of the newly constructed wall which was granted approval for a 6'X6' deck. She indicated that they were going to great lengths to move the lakeside stairs to within the deck itself and removing space from that deck altogether, along with 2' from the driveway for plantings. She stated that they would remove plastic from the keystone wall beds. She questioned how moving the covered entry deck wall over in front of the window would impact the addition. Chair Smith asked if the wall could be moved closer to the door to avoid the window altogether. Hansen stated that was how the original 6'X6' deck was before. Gaffron stated that by placing the wall to the north side of the window you would have a 5' setback, if it were placed the other direction there would be a 10' setback and the well and pressure tank would be obstructed. Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant was trying to obtain more usable space or improving aesthetics. Hansen stated that she was trying to make the porch more appealing and give the plan more character. PAGE 16 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11 #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, Continued) Shannon Burger, architect and neighbor at 594 Park Lane, stated that the porch succeeds in breaking up the expanse of wall and provides a needed covered entry from the detached garage. Paul Duenow, 577 Park Lane, stated that, aesthetically, he agreed this would improve the look for the neighborhood. As the adjacent neighbor, he did not feel the addition to be an imposition and believed it to be a functionally better design. He maintained that the lakeside removals were a reasonable accommodation to the request. Kris Rudd, 601 Park Lane, concurred, stating that she, too, supported the request and did not view air circulation as a problem. As inside access was available, Mabusth questioned whether outside access to the pressure tank was necessary. Rahn stated that the applicants already far exceeded their hardcover and structural coverage limits. Bremer stated that she would prefer to see the removals made from the lakeside of the home to allow for this addition and agreed that, aesthetically, the design was better. She felt, given the small lot, improvements by decreasing the structural coverage were desirable. Chair Smith questioned whether trading off the side yard encroachment was acceptable. Hansen stated that the home itself protrudes further into the side yard than the proposed deck. Duenow felt that, in reality, the zoning was the issue. Although she recognized the intense use on the street side, Hawn stated that she would prefer it there, and to lose the intensity on the lakeside. Fritzler concurred with Hawn. Gaffron stated that the old survey failed to properly reflect existing decks and the concrete slab below. He noted that the applicant could remove the deck and slab of concrete below which would equate to more structural cover than being proposed for the streetside. Hansen added that the shifting of the lakeside stairs and removal of the deck would also allow for a better opening accessing the lakeside yard. Rahn indicated that he would support the staff recommendation, since he believed the need for the covered porch should have been planned for in the original submittal process. PAGE 17 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11 #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, Continued) Hansen stated that she assumed the deck was part of the original submittal, as both the lakeside and streetside decks had been there for years and not reflected on the survey accurately. Hawn asked if the removals could be accomplished by the fall. Hansen stated that they could. Gaffron stated that, if one assumes the 6'X6' deck is structural, then the removals of the lakeside decks and slab results in a decrease of at least 20 s.f. Fritzler maintained that the removals would need to be accomplished before the final inspection. Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2913, Stewart and Gina Hansen, granting the setback variance 5' from the side yard, subject to the removals of the lakeside deck structural coverage, shifting the stairs into the deck, and removing the concrete slab prior to final inspection, along with removals of fabric from the landscape beds. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#12) #03-2915 NORTHERN SUNROOMS, INC. ON BEHALF OF SCOTT UDELL, 2166 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE, 8:28—8:45 P.M. Scott and Deah Udell, the applicant, and Joe Lucas, of Northern Sunrooms, were present. Foth reported that the applicant, Northern Sunrooms, Inc, on behalf of the owner requests a variance to allow an 8' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback for construction of a second-story porch addition. Also a variance for a side yard encroachment of roof eaves. The variances include: 1. Encroachment of 8' into the average lakeshore setback for a 13' x 11' second-story sunroom addition over the existing kitchen. 2. Existing roof eave 3.5'into side yard setback area. Only 1.5' is considered a non- encroachment therefore, the remaining 2' is considered encroachment. Note that: ■ Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 3466 s.f. (18.3 %)where 15% is allowed— Variance granted in August 1993, file#1826. ■ Hardcover in 0-75'to remain at existing 229.5 s.f.(4.7 %) where no hardcover is allowed— Variance granted in August 1993, file#1826. ■ Hardcover in 75-250'zone will remain at existing 5021 s.f. or 41.9%, i.e. 600 s.f. less than the 5621 sf(46.8%) approved in 1993, where 25% is allowed—Variance granted in August 1993, file#1826. Based on the hardship due to the location of the residence, Foth indicated that staff would recommend: a) Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback than the existing home. The addition would not affect the views of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially blocks PAGE 18 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#12 #03-2915 NORTHERN SUNROOMS,INC. ON BEHALF OF SCOTT UDELL, Continued) only the view of the neighboring yards. b) Denial of the requested excess roof eave encroachment. While the existing roof eave encroaches 3.5' into the 10' side yard setback, only 1.5' of the eave is considered a non-encroachment. Applicant wishes to keep the existing eave. Udell maintained that they would confine the construction to building on top of existing structure. Rahn questioned where overhangs exist elsewhere on the home and whether the eyebrow would be flat or raised. Gaffron pointed out that the 3' overhang runs the entire length of the other side of the home. Chair Smith asked if the work could be done without the excess eave. Deah Udell stated that they needed the eave to reduce water and drainage problems. Mr. Lucas stated that, aesthetically, the applicant would wish to keep the existing overhang which matches the overhangs across the entire home. Mr. Udell stated that the inset eyebrow and 1-2" inset gutter would assist them in eliminating the flat rubber roof and water problems they face currently Hawn asked if the applicants could make the design work with no further overhang than currently exists. Chair Smith questioned why staff had recommended denial for the overhang. While, aesthetically, the overhang should be there, Gaffron stated that it encroaches and there is no hardship to support its approval. Udell maintained that without the overhang water pools at the corners and they need to be able to channel the water to the outside edges. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2915, Northern Sunrooms, Inc.for Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Road, granting the average lakeshore setback variance and excess roof eave encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 19 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13) #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:45 —9:11 P.M. Phillip Smith, the applicant,was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a Y2-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. Gaffron reported that staff recommends that a hardcover variance be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site Because the proposed additions are mostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sidewalks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantly reduce the hardcover increases. The total proposed hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone is 601 s.f. including the porch addition, small portions of the garage addition, and sidewalks either side of the garage. Existing 0-75'hardcover associated with the shed and patio totals 1375 s.f. A 1:2 removal would result in a reduction of 0-75'hardcover of 300 s.f or from 2561 s.f. (21.3%) to 2261 s.f. (18.8%). Staff suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 s.f.) would be more consistent with past City approvals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. A net decrease in hardcover could be achieved by reducing the patio even further. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 would create a better long-term situation, given the excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75-250'zone may result in parking problems Gaffron stated that it should be noted that the runoff from the west half of the house, i.e. most of the 75-250' zone, flows westward to a low area west of the main driveway serving the immediate neighborhood, rather than flowing directly to the lake. If gutters which currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the east, could be redirected to the west, this would reduce the impact of existing 0-75'hardcover. Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75' hardcover he would remove is the 100 s.f shed and 200 s.f. of the 1300 s.f. patio. He would prefer to not remove additional areas of patio, but also notes that driveway reductions are the only likely other area of removals, and because the road in front of the house is a private easement driveway, parking on it is problematic. He would prefer to not have to remove driveway areas. PAGE 20 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13 #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, Continued) Mr. Smith submitted a neighborhood recommendation from four neighbors supporting his position to reduce 1 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area for every 2 new s.f. in the 75-250' setback area. Mr. Smith explained that his home is oriented to the lake and has four doors which exit to the lakeside. In an effort to maintain the character of his home, he suggested that he remove 300 s.f from the 0-75'. He expressed his hesitation to remove additional pavement from the driveway, since the road is a private driveway with no where to park. As proposed, Smith stated that they would build over the 1 V2 car garage. With regard to the stormwater diversion, Smith indicated that he could divert all but one of the gutters away from the lakeside. There were no public comments. Hawn stated that she had a problem supporting the 1:2 removal ratio. She added that the shed was currently too close to the property line and would need to be relocated or removed. In addition, she felt further removals than the estimated 300 s.f. offered would be required. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could support a redesign of the drainage flow, if their interest did not support the 1:2 removals. Rahn concurred with the staff recommended 1:1 removal ratio. Mabusth stated that she did not wish to see further driveway reductions, and believed the removals would need to come from the patio. Smith pointed out that he had tried to save the patio and create something that would reduce runoff into the lake. He maintained that this was not a large lot, that most of the home falls within the 0-75' setback zone, and 40% of the property is not counted in hardcover calculations. While he was willing to move the shed, he encouraged the Commission to review this application in the variance process based on its own merits and not the cookie cutter standards often mandated across the board. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would be inclined to support the staff recommendation, along with removals of landscape fabric, and asked the applicant whether he would prefer the Commission vote on or table the application. Smith asked if the Commission could vote on the portions of the application independently and provide him the opportunity to present his 1:2 removal ratio recommendation to the City Council, along with his plan to redirect runoff away from the lakeside of the residence. PAGE 21 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13 #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, Continued) Chair Smith moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2916, Phillip Smith, 2600 West LaFayette Road, granting approval of the upper level second story addition in the 0-75' setback zone; and hardcover variances be approved to allow additions to the porch and garage subject to staffs recommendation that the hardcover additions be concurrent to removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 with no net hardcover increase on the site; further requiring, that the shed be relocated on the property if removals from the 0-75' are required; and that all landscape plastic be removed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, 90 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 9:11 —9:49 P.M. Deborah Thompson, the applicant, was present. Gaffron reported that the applicant requests a side street setback variance to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage. A second variance is requested to allow the new garage to be attached to an existing 848 s.f. detached garage via a 11'x_(?)_' greenhouse (dimension undetermined). The variances include: 1. Side street setback of 23.1'where a 50' side street setback is required. 2. Oversize accessory structure variance (no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f. is allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area). (Note: Applicants had indicated they also want to add a pool requiring a side street setback variance, but have not provided the requested location/size detail for that pool, so the pool request is not under consideration as part of this application) Gaffron indicated that staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure. c) Consider whether screening should be required. Gaffron explained that the applicants propose to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage 11' southeasterly from their existing 848 s.f. detached garage. The new garage will be located 23.1 feet from the south side lot line, which is by definition a side street lot line. It abuts the dedicated right-of-way of old Highway 12 or Wayzata Boulevard. While the portion of Wayzata Boulevard immediately adjacent to the property has not been used for road purposes since the extension of I-394/US 12 in the 1970's, it is still MnDOT right-of-way and must be treated as a street for zoning purposes. With regard to the Oversize Accessory Structure Variance, Gaffron stated that the Council adopted the Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS) ordinances in the late 1980's to place limits on the size of individual accessory buildings as well as on the total square footage of accessory buildings that could be located on a property. For lots smaller than 2 acres, it was concluded that PAGE 22 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued) no oversize accessory structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f. would be considered as oversized. The concern was the mass and bulk of structures on properties, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. The visual impacts of the combined structure are potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage, resulting in a rear southwest-facing facade nearly 70' long, which will be visible to anyone entering Orono on Highway 12. The City has a 10' building-to- building separation requirement not only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. While staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and the potential locations for such structure are limited because this is a wooded corner lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessory buildings total 1844 s.f. The property is allowed up to 2000 s.f. of accessory structures in total, but no individual accessory structure over 1000 s.f. Connecting them with an 11' x (8'?10'?12'?) greenhouse-style structure would not be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and would potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid. Gaffron reviewed the staff recommendations for: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more storage and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, required setbacks, sewage system location,wetlands and topography. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be in conflict with the intent of the OAS ordinance. c) Planning Commission should determine whether any vegetative screening should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allowing the structure in a location nearer the side street lot line than would normally be allowed. Ms. Thompson stated that, since beginning their plans for a garage, the setbacks have changed from 20'-50'. She indicated that they proposed to construct a greenhouse between the existing and new garage in an effort to enhance and maintain the area between the two buildings. With regard to screening, Thompson stated that there are pine trees to the side of the property. Although she and her husband wished to submit plans for the entire proposal, including the pool, she felt as though she had not been given clear direction from staff as to what was required. Chair Smith noted that the pool was not part of this formal application. Hawn suggested the Commission table the application in order to give the applicants time to meet with staff and add the pool request to the submittal. Gaffron stated that the City sent a letter to the applicants on June 26 requesting more information PAGE 23 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued) if they wished to include the pool as part of the application. He encouraged the Commission to give the applicant direction with regard to the oversize accessory structure created by combining the two buildings and greenhouse. Rahn stated that it appeared the applicants would exceed the 2,000 s.f. accessory limit, as well as the 1,000 s.f. accessory size per building limit by attaching the greenhouse between the two. Gaffron pointed out that there was no information pertaining to the dimensions of the proposed greenhouse. He stated that, if the greenhouse were a small structure, the totals might fall under 2,000 s.f.; however, it may still exceed the 1,000 individual limit when combined with one of the other structures. Thompson stated that, eventually, they would like to use a portion of the new garage as a pool house. While swimming pools are not considered part of the accessory structures, Gaffron pointed out that they must still meet setbacks. Thompson asked if variances were given for pool setbacks. Hawn believed a converted pool house with plumbing brings new issues to light, as does the need for a conditional use permit. She maintained that more information was necessary in order for the Commission to vote on this application. Although the garage would eventually be converted to a pool house, Thompson indicated that their current use would be for storage. Berg reiterated that, since the Commission lacks the necessary information to attain a clear understanding of what the applicant wants, the Commission could not vote on the application this evening. Gaffron suggested the Commission provide the applicant with further direction of what is needed for application prior to the next meeting with regard to plumbing, pool location and size, and whether the Commission could be persuaded to grant a side yard setback. Berg added that dimensions for the greenhouse were necessary as well. Fritzler pointed out that accessory structures are required to be 10' apart if not attached, and if attached, they cannot exceed the oversize classification. Thompson stated that she believed they were below the 2,000 s.f. limit with the buildings attached. PAGE 24 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued) Fritzler reminded the applicant that she would exceed the individual 1,000 s.f. limit. Berg moved to table Application #03-2919, Kevin and Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtlewood Road. Hawn repeated that plans and dimensions would be necessary to proceed. She believed the Commission could support the side street setback variance. Gaffron stated that the side street lot line to the Highway 12 right-of-way had always been there as a grassed over area. Chair Smith questioned whether there were alternate sites for the garage. Thompson indicated that the only alternate site would eliminate an alternate site for the mound system. Chair Smith indicated that she could support the side street setback variance with additional screening. Rahn stated that he concurred with staff recommendations and that he believed the Commission would not support the oversize accessory structure. He suggested, once again, that the applicant provide staff with detailed dimensions and a pictorial drawing of the plans. Gaffron agreed that it would be unusual for the Commission to grant a variance to oversize structures on a 1 %2 acre lot. Thompson asked if they could construct the greenhouse on the other side of the existing garage. The Commission supported this suggestion provided the individual building and attached greenhouse do not exceed 1,000 s.f. There were no public comments. Mabusth seconded Berg's motion to table the application for purposes of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) #03-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 865 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:49— 10:00 P.M. Allen and Judy Starkey, Judy Hoover, and Chuck Whittaker, representatives of St. Edward Episcopal Church, were present. PAGE 25 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#15 #03-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Continued) Gaffron explained that the church structure was destroyed by fire in April, 2002. The foundation remains, and it is proposed to be re-used. During review of City files, staff found that no conditional use permit had ever been issued for church use, hence re-use of the site for church use will require a CUP approval. This review will also include a brief site plan review, although most aspects of the site are not changing Gaffron provided background, explaining that St. Edwards was originally granted Council approval for a building permit for a church in 1966, but the record indicates no formal CUP was ever granted for the church use. The church building was destroyed by fire in April 2002, and the congregation has decided to rebuild in the same location using the existing foundation. They have chosen HGA as the architect for the project, and preliminary building plans are included in the packet. The church use is a permitted conditional use in the RR-1B district, and is regulated by certain defined performance standards in the code, i.e. a minimum building setback of 50' from lot lines; minimum parking standards; signage standards; access location standards; etc. With regard to setbacks, Gaffron pointed out that the existing/proposed building location is centered on this 4+ acre property, more than meeting the building setback requirements. While the building location is more than 26' from delineated wetlands in the NE and NW corners of the site Gaffron suggested the applicants contact MCWD to obtain any necessary permits. While parking for the church use is regulated in terms of minimum number of spaces and location. The number of stalls is determined by the seating capacity of the main assembly room, at a rate of 1 stall per 4 seats. The main worship area has seating designated for 143 persons, with an overflow area for an additional 40, totaling 183 persons: Main Assembly Room Seating Capacity: 183 Required Parking Stalls per Seat: 0.25 Required Parking Stalls: 46 Proposed Parking: 59 Stalls Gaffron noted that the current parking lot has approximately 80 stalls, but the westerly parking wing is proposed to be converted to a bituminous turnaround and a meditation garden. Staff has not heard of any past parking issues with St. Edwards, and we have no problem with the reduction in parking. Gaffron stated that no new signage has been proposed. The existing permanent sign is approximately 50 s.f. in area of each side (staff has not measured its dimensions so this is an approximation) and would require a variance if it were to be replaced. Because this is existing signage, staff recommends that continued use of the existing signs be approved. Any new signs would need to be submitted for review prior to issuance of a permit. Gaffron indicated that the existing church driveway off of North Ferndale Road approximately PAGE 26 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#15 #03-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Continued) 220 south of the Ferndale/Co. Rd. 6 intersection. is appropriate and poses no problems for sight distance. Once again, no lighting plan has been indicated on the submitted plans. City ordinances require that light sources not be visible at the lot lines. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for continued church use of the site at 865 North Ferndale Road. Planning Commission should provide direction on any issues which should be addressed relative to the use and the site plan. Judy Starkey stated that they were not sure whether they would be vacating the westerly parking wing for the meditation garden at this time. Pastor Judy Hoover stated that, based on informal contact she made with surrounding neighbors, they've expressed their support for the Church to rebuild on this site. Allen Starkey indicated that they wished to construct a small shed to house the lawn maintenance equipment near the end of the parking lot. Gaffron stated that the location must meet a 50' lot line setback. He indicated that it would not be a problem to add a 12'X12' shed to the application. Mabusth questioned whether the Daycare or Montessori would need to file a new CUP. Gaffron explained that the existing CUP is current, even though the building burned down, the CUP accompanies the property. He stated that any new daycare provider would merely need to meet the conditions set forth in the original CUP. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2920, St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church, 865 North Ferndale Road, accepting the Conditional Use Permit for continued church use of the property,with the addition of a 200 s.f. shed to be placed in a conforming location. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#16) #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, 1685 AND 1655 FOX STREET,VARIANCE, 10:00— 10:35 P.M. Myrna Ornstein, of Imaginality, and Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates, were present on behalf of the applicant. Waataja reported that the applicant requests a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of address monuments. The applicant has expressed a need for a more defining address marker. Currently, a small address sign sits very low to the ground on the side of the private drive. The applicant has stated that the hidden drive results in cars passing, stopping and having to turn around. PAGE 27 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#16 #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Continued) Thus, the applicant is requesting a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of two stone address monuments, one on each corner of the private drive. The existing split rail fence would be removed. Wetlands exist on each side of the private drive. Waataj a stated that the applicants have submitted a survey showing property lines, easements and the proposed location of the stone monuments. The wetland boundaries shown on the survey are not the result of a wetland delineation but rather the wetland boundaries that were recognized when the property was platted. After a site visit, staff has concluded that the wetland boundaries depicted on the survey are not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger(especially on the western side of the drive) and staff believes both stone monuments would actually be closer to the wetland than what the survey is showing(15' and 17'). Waataja identified several key issues for Consideration; 1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed? 3. Due to the topography and tree line, would the address monuments improve the visibility of the drive entrance, or does the split rail fence suffice? 4. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? 5. If the location of the wetlands and vegetation constitute a hardship, and approval of the variance is being considered, should a wetland delineation be conducted to confirm the magnitude of the variance? Based on these issues, Waataj a indicated that staff recommends denial of the wetland setback variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve with the placement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence. Ornstein stated that the current location of the address plaques makes it difficult to read them in the winter months. She stated that they often are knocked over and it is critical for emergency vehicles to be able to identify the addresses in the event of an emergency. She pointed out that most of Fox Street is lined with split rail fence and that there is little to distinguish this entrance. Since entrance markers are allowed in the City Code, Ornstein indicated that they would be open to following staff recommendations regarding the type of monument and footings to ensure their stability. She stated that she had visited the site and that the 1992 survey shows the monument would fit in the 30' sight triangle. Chair Smith asked how the monument could be moved outside the wetland setback zone. Gaffron indicated that it appears that the wetland has grown since the 1992 survey was performed. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, indicated that they had identified a partially blocked culvert under the railroad tracks 10 years ago and suggested the City unclog the culvert since it could be some of the cause behind the backup issues faced by Fox Street. He questioned whether PAGE 28 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#16 #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Continued) this clogged culvert could have inadvertently inflated the water level of the wetland along Fox Street. Gaffron felt the MCWD would need to reexamine where the wetland exists today, even with the clogged culvert issue. He believed staff had tried to locate the culvert once before to no avail. In addition, Gaffron pointed out that the vegetation and trees lining the property might be an even larger issue than the wetland. Chair Smith asked what other methods could be used to mark the access. Gaffron felt other methods or different size markers than monument markers were available. Ornstein stated that they created the original design based on City Codes, not realizing a wetland existed, and now the presence of the wetland has caused issue. While sympathetic to the need to mark the entrance with the addresses, Chair Smith suggested a smaller scale or size be considered. Gaffron pointed out that a sign post would be the bare minimum for this type of marker situation; however, the City had not been faced with this issue before. Chair Smith commented that something more permanent than a signpost would be necessary in this case. Hawn asked Gaffron if someone from the City could go out to Fox Street, locate the culvert, and hopefully, unclog the culvert. Gronberg indicated that his staff could take representatives from the City to the site and check it out. Gaffron did not feel it was realistic to expect that, if the City found the culvert and cleaned it out, the wetland or water level situation would improve along Fox Street. Hawn questioned why the City had instituted the groundwater management plan and fund, if not to solve some of these problems like those found on Fox Street. Bremer concurred that it was rather swampy along Fox Street and that something should be done. Despite the conditions along Fox Street, Rahn maintained that the wetland would need to be delineated. PAGE 29 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#16 #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Continued) Waataja stated that a wetland is defined by plants and soil types and water alone does not constitute a wetland. Chair Smith inquired whether the property owners would be interested in performing a delineation to find out where the wetlands are. Ornstein indicated that she had been given the impression that the owners would be willing to take the next step by identifying the wetland and refining the monument design accordingly. Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application to allow Ornstein the opportunity to conduct the delineation. Waataja asked the Commission if they felt a hardship existed, whether it be the wetland, vegetation or location of the drive. If they felt there was a hardship and would consider a wetland setback variance, then a delineation should be conducted. If they didn't feel there was a hardship, there would be no sense in requiring a wetland delineation. Chair Smith believed that, while the markers could be revised, they are necessary. She indicated that not all members of the Commission would support overturning staff's recommendation to put up the monument in the wetland. Ornstein asked for direction. Gaffron encouraged the applicant to design a street sign, on a 4X4 post with hanging address plates. He noted that the code allows 2 s.f. per address. Berg questioned whether the monument could be moved up to replace the current split rail fence. Gaffron stated that the sight triangle would be negatively impacted by moving the monument in place of the fence. He indicated that many possibilities exist and should be discussed in further detail, especially, since the vegetation and trees themselves also obstruct the sightline. Berg moved, Mabusth seconded, to table Application #03-2922, Imaginality on behalf of Mike Cashman, for the purpose of redesign and wetland delineation. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#17) #03-2924 TODD SMITH ON BEHALF OF JIM AND JULIE HARSTAD, 4550 WOLVERTON,VARIANCE, 10:35— 10:38 P.M. Todd Smith, on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, was present. Chair Smith stepped out of the Chambers briefly, from 10:35-10:37 P.M. PAGE 30 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#17#03-2924 TODD SMITH ON BEHALF OF JIM AND JULIE HARSTAD, Continued) Gaffron explained that the applicant requests an after-the-fact variance to construct an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence. The gazebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The gazebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10' minimum side setback for a 200 s.f. detached accessory structure Gaffron stated that the applicants commenced construction of this building without obtaining the necessary building permit. When the work was stopped by the Building Inspector, it was determined that due to the location of the house near the rear of the property, the accessory structure was in a location nearer the street than the house, out of compliance with the Code. Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining the appropriate after-the-fact building permit for the accessory structure. There were no public comments. Mabusth moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2924, Todd Smith on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, 4550 Wolverton Place, granting an after-the-fact variance to construct an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence, subject to the applicant obtaining after-the-fact building permits for the structure. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Chair Smith abstained having missed the discussion. SKETCH PLAN (#18) #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., 2165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, SUBDIVISION, 10:38— 11:00 P.M. John Ringer, son of applicant, and Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates,were present. Gaffron reviewed the sketch plan for a 5-lot residential plat of property abutting the Dakota Rail Corridor and Lake Minnetonka. The proposal includes development of a private cul-de-sac road plus an outlot driveway serving one "back lot". The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site is wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1920's. With regard to the sketch plan review, Gaffron expanded on its characteristics as follows: 1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) The property is guided for single family residential use at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The proposed plat conforms to this use. The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to PAGE 31 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) be developed using municipal sewer and private wells. The proposed use appears to be in conformity with the CMP. 2. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property is abutted on the east by the Dakota Rail property which is slated to become a regional trail in the foreseeable future. To the southwest, the property abuts a navigable circular inlet of Lake Minnetonka. To the west and north, the property abuts the Kingsley Murphy property, approximately 50 acres of wooded and open land containing a primary homestead and a caretaker residence structure. Staff has within the past 6 months had discussions with the probable future owner of the Murphy property, and we have informally reviewed a development scheme which would appear to provide a potential road connection to the Ringer property. In general, Gaffron indicated that the proposed plat is consistent with surrounding development. 3. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is in the LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential District, which allows for single family residential use, with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. Each proposed lot appears to contain 2.00 acres or more, although Lots 1 and 2 include wetlands abutting the shoreline but potentially above the 929.4 elevation, which is not specifically identified on the sketch. These wetlands must be delineated to determine their actual boundaries and allow verification that each lot has 2.0 acres of dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands. The 929.4 elevation must be surveyed and shown on the plat to assist in determining lot areas and required lakeshore &wetland setbacks. 4. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Lots 4 and 5 are relatively standard-shaped lots which meet the 200' minimum width requirement. The 50' front and rear, 30' side setbacks for Lots 4 & 5 are correctly depicted on the proposed plan. Lot dimensional and setback standards for Lots 1, 2 & 3 are somewhat complex due to the location relationships between the lots, the lake, and the front/back lot code requirements: a) Lot 3 appears to just meet the 200' width requirement as measured at the rear of the required front yard. b) Lots 1 and 2 are lakeshore lots, and each must meet the required 200' minimum width at the defined OHWL and at the 75' lakeshore setback line. Depending on the location of PAGE 32 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) the OHWL, Lot 1 may or may not meet this requirement. c) Lot 2, as a lakeshore back lot, must also meet the width requirement at the rear of the required front yard. The required front yard by definition [11.30 Subd. 5(C)(2)(b)] of Lot 2 is the yard abutting the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2. Lot 2 appears to meet the 200' width as measured along the rear of the front yard; however, the line depicting the front yard is shown with a 30' setback rather than the 75' setback required, because the back lot yard requirements are 150% of the district standard requirements. d) The rear yard of Lot 2 is the line abutting the RR right-of-way and requires a 75' setback. e) The line between Lots 2 and 3 is a side lot line, requiring a 45' setback rather than 30' as shown. f) Lots 1 and 3 are considered as "front lots"because they abut an Outlot driveway serving a back lot. As front lots, they are subject to a 50' setback requirement from the Outlot [per 11.30 Subd. 5(C)(3)] which is shown as only a 30' setback on the proposed plat. This becomes critical if the existing house is intended to remain, because it is only 40' from the Outlot rather than the 50'required. 5. Road Layout and Standards The proposed road corridor is 50' in width as required by the Subdivision Code and CMP for a local private road. The standard paved width for this road would be 28'. The use of the front/back lot configuration as opposed to continuing the cul-de-sac to Lot 2, is worthy of discussion. The subdivision ordinance regarding applicable uses of the back lot(11.30 Subd. 5(C)(1) states: 6. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that require dedication of land from this property. However, the southerly point of the property brings the shore of Lake Minnetonka nearly to the base of the railroad grade, which is a unique configuration that should be looked at by the Park Commission to determine whether the dedication of land could result in regional trail access to the lakeshore. 7. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over the private road, which should be platted as an outlot. Further, this plat should not go forward except in conjunction with an upgrade to City private road standards of the private road within the Murphy property. The applicant's property does not abut a public road but is about 800 feet south of North Shore PAGE 33 of 37 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) Drive (Co. Rd. 51). This land is landlocked except for existing driveway easements through the Murphy property. 8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed Development of the property will likely require creation of stormwater management facilities which may include storm sewers, swales and runoff rate/quality control ponding within the site. Again, coordination with the development of the Murphy property may be beneficial from a feasibility and cost-saving standpoint. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, established currently at $2700 per acre for the 2-acre zone. 9. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by private wells and municipal sewer. Municipal sewer with capacity to serve the small number of units proposed is available in the Crystal Bay neighborhood just North of North Shore Drive. 10. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Whether a sewer unit connection charge for use of the existing sewer system would be required of this new development, has yet to be determined. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with bringing sewer laterals to serve the proposed new lots, as well as for obtaining appropriate easements through the Murphy property for the sewer. 11. Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity with Shoreland Regulations Lots 1 and 2 are the only lots which will abut the lakeshore, and the only lots which will have riparian rights. The applicant is not currently proposing any lake access for the non-riparian lots. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The only apparent wetlands on the site are those abutting the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. However, the preliminary plat application should include a completed wetland delineation report to verify that no other wetlands are present. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is heavily wooded with a variety of tree species. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, where clearcutting and removal of trees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. PAGE 34 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) 13. Archaeological Site Proximity or Study Needed Given the unique nature of the site in its proximity to Lake Minnetonka, the developer is advised to contact the State historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. 14. Bluff Impacts The existing residence on proposed Lot 1 sits on a bluff, the slope rising 46' in a distance of 110' for an average slope of 42%. The existing house is just outside the bluff impact zone (the bluff and the first 20' above the top of bluff) but appears to not meet the 30' required setback from the top of bluff. The bluff extends into Lot 2, and further limits potential house sites within Lot 2, which is severely restricted by the back lot setback standards... In summary, Gaffron stated that the goal of this review was to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. While the above comments reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat, they should provide direction to the applicants regarding the plat. During the sketch plan review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present particular problems, so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval or denial of variances to code standards can be addressed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. Mr. Ringer indicated that his parents had purchased the home in 1970. As they are in their mid 80's, it is their intent to use the sketch plan as part of their estate planning. He explained that they wish to keep the parcel in the family and divide it into lots for their four grown children. Ringer indicated that he would likely be building on lot 2. Gaffron stated that, although the parcel would be platted for two lots now, they would plan for roadways and the expansion to 5 lots in the future. He noted that the City would like to coordinate their efforts by working with the Kingsley/Murphy sketch plans as well. Though the code does not specifically mandate ways in which to execute `ghost planning', Gaffron acknowledged that it is the City's desire to understand how the future of these parcels all fit together. Ringer stated that they were flexible on dividing the parcel into 2-5 lots. Gaffron noted that the new vacant lot created in the subdivision might be assessed a park fee; however, the remaining outlot for the other sites could be delayed those charges. PAGE 35 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) Gronberg pointed out that it could be rather onerous for the owners to pay connection fees now for future development. Gaffron agreed, stating that the connection fees could be delayed to a future time frame. He noted that if the parcel was subdivided into 2 lots, once the road was ready, the rest of the developments could be `phased in' similar to a subdivision or development. Although a unique situation, Gaffron praised the City and applicant for trying to the right thing now by planning for the future and not missing out on any opportunities it might hold. Hawn questioned the idea that the park dedication come directly out of the lakeshore, acknowledging that this would be a bit egregious to expect a piece of the most valuable portion of the property. While Gaffron understood her position, he noted that it was necessary to at least broach the subject. Noting that the sketch plan was well laid out, Chair Smith complimented the applicant and Gronberg for an attractive proposal. With regard to the future roadway, Gronberg stated that they would suggest a bigger loop that comes back upon itself in order to preserve the treed area on the property. He questioned how the backlot ordinance might impact their plans. Ringer stated that the title states that if the lot easement from Kingsley/Murphy is unavailable, this property would be given an easement directly parallel to the railroad tracks on the property. Ringer asked the Commission if they felt the proposal was feasible for them, the Ringers, to pursue before they commit to any further great expense to file an application. Chair Smith stated that the sketch plan seemed more than feasible. Gaffron suggested they design a 4-5 lot plat, starting with the initial 2 properties now as the preliminary plat and outlotting the second phase of 3-5 properties. As the City has done outlots for developers with additional phases of completion, Gaffron believed this to be and acceptable solution. He indicated that the City would need to obtain some kind of commitment from the Murphy's as to where the proposed roadway would run. Chair Smith thanked Ringer and Gronberg for their presentation and indicated that the Commission had no further issues. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PAGE 36 of 37 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#19) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23 AND JULY 14, 2003 Rahn reported that, during the June 23r1 Council Meeting, the Gumnit application, as well as were the Planning Commission recommendations and justification for approval of the Killian and Denali applications. Hawn stated that many of the applications for the July 14th Council meeting were on the consent agenda, other than the McGlynn application. The Council spent a great deal of time discussing the boathouse restoration and, ultimately, found that no variance was necessary and that they wished to see the structure remain. (#20) OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron stated that a Work Session will be held on August 6, at 5:30 P.M. to discuss remodel versus rebuild and the idea of quantifying variance requests. (#21) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 16, 2003 Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, approving the Minutes of the June 16, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0,Abstain 1, Berg abstained. (#22) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 28, 2003 AND AUGUST 11, 2003. June 28 —Fritzler(Bremer back-up) August 11 —Chair Smith ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 37 of 37