HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE /0 2 C:, -,,,.C)(,_1-
❑ COUNCIL
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
1. _Mti CA7g)(--7—• 5 VW S'aisiDd--f.:--(_-//1-/C- 4/ ,
2.51-6h-- 1/- 1-:-1 0 c;.(7,-- 11:3 ;Z ,')ct-tbi,..7_, t ,--,L )C _
4.Gf A/mot 3z9 v c Cf-c 6 Z
5. 4`\ `r te vi ;s\,. ' \\
6. , '\4 16Z__ + � � ki ,i.,L,,'-(`t
7. A ,,,= .% >? 65 SZt-cti.,te t e'l 7
...)
8. (2'A) i%i w 64 1.1 y 4-41C,/ 1 )Se911 w624 r liil 114
(, '
9. A,._ / ,,,,k co 7.t.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. ,
W:'Administrative Support\(Forms)\Fublc Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 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, Jeanne Mabusth, and
Liz Hawn. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie
Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi Anderson and City Council liaison Jim Murphy.
Commissioners Cynthia Bremer and Stephanie Zugschwert were absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
*(#1) #03-2941 PAUL CADY,465 TURNHAM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2941,
Paul Cady, 465 Turnham Road, granting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
barn on a `through' lot subject to the barn location on the submitted plans. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2952 GREG TRIPP, 3229C CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE
Removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion.
*(#3) #03-2955 MICHAEL PALM, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCE
Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2955,
Michael Palm, 710 Big Island, granting an average lakeshore setback variance and lot
area variance to construct a 3-season cabin on the property which sits entirely in
front of the average lakeshore setback line. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*(#4) #03-2956 HOSSNPAT CONSTRUCTION, 849 BROWN ROAD NORTH,
VARIANCE
Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2956,
Hossnpat Construction, 849 Brown Road North, granting a 68' encroachment on the
average lakeshore setback to construct a new home on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
Page 1 of 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
(#2) #03-2952 GREG TRIPP, 3229C CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE, 6:05-6:13 P.M.,
Continued
Greg Tripp, the Applicant, was present.
Foth reported that the applicant had requested the following:
1. An average lakeshore setback variance in order to change the roof line and pitch of
the roof, improve the design aesthetically, and add dormers.
2. Lake setback variance in order to change the roof line and add a dormer to the
portion of the home within 75' of the lake.
3. Hardcover variance in order to reduce the amount of hardcover within the 75'-250'
zone.
Since this home and most of its property is located entirely within the average lakeshore
setback, and approximately 1' within 75' from the OHWL, this constitutes a valid
hardship; therefore, Foth explained that the Planning department staff recommends the
following:
1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance.
2. Approval of the lake setback variance as requested.
3. Approval of the hardcover variance.
4. Removal of all plastic and fabric landscape liner in planting beds.
Hawn believed the entire project constituted a rebuild, pointing out that there is an
abundance of hardcover on the site. She urged the Commission and staff to find further
reductions in hardcover.
While the applicant has volunteered to remove portions of the driveway, Foth stated that
further removals from the driveway would leave the homeowners with little usable
driveway space.
Rahn asked if changes to ceiling heights would be made to the first or second floors.
Mr. Tripp stated there were no changes to those levels and further volunteered to remove
some wooden steps on the site.
Foth stated that the removal of the steps would constitute an additional 128 s.f.
While she wished for further reductions, Hawn acknowledged the applicant had done his
best to find the current removals and she could accept these.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2953, Greg
Tripp, 3229C Casco Circle, granting the average lakeshore setback, hardcover, and
lake setback variances in order to change the roof line and pitch of the roof, add
Page 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#2) #03-2952 GREG TRIPP, 3229C CASCO CIRCLE, Continued
dormers, and aesthetically improve the design, subject to the removal of all landscape
plastic and liners, as well as, removal of the side wood walkway. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays
0.
(#5) #02-2858 SCOTT STANDA, 2659 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE, 6:13 -
6:43 P.M.
Scott Standa, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant was requesting after-the-fact hardcover and setback
variances to allow the reconstruction of a rotten deck located at the shoreline attached to an
existing accessory building. Variances required include:
1. Structure within 0-75' setback zone, extending out over the shoreline
(cantilevered 2-3' past the OHWL).
2. Structure encroaching within 1 foot of side lot line.
3. Hardcover in 0-75' zone of 16.24% (no changes proposed).
4. Encroachment of average lakeshore setback
Gaffron noted that the deck that was replaced was attached to a 12'x22' accessory building
located 5' from the shoreline and nearly abutting the side lot line. The accessory building
has been there for many years and has apparently been maintained in relatively good
condition.
Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to consider 5 key issues:
1. Would the Planning Commission have recommended approval for the replacement
of this deck had the application been made before the fact?
2. Does Planning Commission agree with staff that the 1992 photo provided by
applicant casts doubt as to whether this deck was 8' deep prior to its replacement?
3. The property has excessive hardcover in both the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. Is there
any hardcover on the site that should be considered for removal if the application is
approved? The surveyor identified 235 s.f. of landscape areas lined with plastic or fabric
that are not included in the hardcover calculations and would be subject to removal if the
application is approved.
4. Applicant paid the after-the-fact fee for the variance application. If the variance is
approved, should an after-the-fact building permit fee be paid? Applicant claims he was
unaware that he needed a permit to replace an existing deck on the property.
Page 3 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2858 SCOTT STANDA, 2659 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued
5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this
application?
Gaffron indicated that staff recommends denial of the application. In staffs opinion, if this
reconstruction had been applied for before-the-fact, the encroachment over the shoreline
and within 1 foot of the side lot line would have been questioned and likely not approved.
He noted that the apparent expansion of the deck from a depth of 6'to 8'would certainly
not have been approved.
Gaffron maintained that, while the fact that the approval process has cost the property
owner more than the project itself is unfortunate, but should not be a factor in determining
whether the approval is granted after-the-fact.
Maintenance and/or replacement of existing decks and lakeshore accessory structures is an
ongoing issue along Orono's 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. Gaffron stated that
the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the current policies and codes are
appropriate, or whether they need to be relaxed or strengthened.
If approval is granted, Planning Commission should address the excessive hardcover on
the property and make a recommendation as to removals. An after the fact permit should
be applied for so the building inspector can confirm the construction meets pertinent
building codes.
Chair Smith asked if staff had recommended to the applicant that he consider a lockbox.
Gaffron indicated that the discussion had not pursued that far, since it was the applicant's
intent to keep what he had.
Mr. Standa volunteered to make additional removals of hardcover on the property,
including the concrete slab behind the accessory structure, sidewalk along side of the home
to the accessory building, and repair or removal of the crumbling lake access steps.
Mabusth recommended the lake access steps be replaced for safety sake, since the lot is a
steep lake lot.
Mr. Standa pointed out that the retaining walls would also be in need of repair in the near
future.
Hawn questioned the necessity of the fire pit and flagpole.
Mr. Standa indicated that he would prefer to keep both his flagpole and fire pit; however, if
it was mandated he could remove the fire pit.
Page 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2858 SCOTT STANDA, 2659 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued
Mabusth questioned whether the LMCD would have an issue with the structure protruding
over the water.
Gaffron stated that the LMCD may want to look at it if the posts are at or below the
OHWL.
If this application had come before the Commission before the fact, Mabusth asked the
Commission what they would have allowed. She noted that she would have asked for the
removal of the slab.
Hawn questioned whether they would have approved a deck on an accessory structure, and
an even bigger deck than previously attached to this nonconforming structure. She asked
whether it was the Commission's intent to do away with these structures altogether. Hawn
asked what record the City has of the previous deck size.
While he felt that he probably would not have allowed it, Rahn stated that it was not out of
character of what is currently in the neighborhood.
Mr. Standa stated that the deck has always been on the structure.
Gaffron agreed that, to everyone's knowledge, the deck had always been there. He noted
that research could be done to find the original paperwork.
Rahn maintained that the cantilevered portion was new, and asked the applicant consider a
straight replacement, without the cantilever, and minimum landing.
Mr. Standa stated that he would like a deck to allow for safe exit from the sliding doors
that have always been there as well.
There was no public comment.
Fritzler suggested the applicant remove the sliding doors and replace them with a solid
window.
Mabusth stated that she believed the applicant should be allowed some kind of access
platform out of the doors, for safety sake, adding that a second exit is beneficial.
Rahn noted that two accesses are not mandatory.
In light of the removals, Mabusth stated that she felt a 4' platform was a fair compromise.
Page 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2858 SCOTT STANDA, 2659 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued
Hawn questioned whether the deck and/or structure could be moved further than 1' from
the property line.
Mr. Standa pointed out that the entire boathouse is just one foot off the line and has always
been that way.
Mabusth acknowledged that many of the boathouses in the neighborhood are the same
way. She reminded the applicant that the City does not approve of major structural repairs
to nonconforming structures such as this.
Mr. Standa asked how the storm of 1998, which damaged several boathouses in the area,
impacted this policy. He questioned if the precedent had already been set allowing the
repair of these structures due to `acts of god', and reasoned that soil erosion etc. are also
`acts of god'.
While catastrophic events are exempt, Gaffron reiterated that the code limits structural
repair. He indicated that painting, new siding, and roofing are allowable repairs.
Mabusth stated that she felt a 4' landing was reasonable.
Gaffron asked for further clarification, whether the deck was to be 4'X4' with 3' wide
access steps.
Aesthetically, Rahn indicated that the deck should run the entire length of the patio doors,
which are approximately 6'. He suggested the Commission approve a 7'X4' deck and
access stairs 3' wide to the ground.
Mabusth and Chair Smith concurred.
Fritzler disagreed, stating that one exit should be sufficient and the doors should be
replaced by a window.
Gaffron reviewed the recommendation, which included the removal of the concrete slab,
fabric, and sidewalk along the side of the home, reconstruction of the lake path and
retaining walls to be permitted at a later date, and the fire pit and flagpole allowed
remaining.
Chair Smith asked if this was acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Standa agreed.
Page 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2858 SCOTT STANDA, 2659 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued
Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03-2858,
Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road, granting after-the-fact variance approval for
the reconstruction of a 4'X7' deck and 3' wide access stairs to the accessory structure,
subject to the removal of the concrete slab, sidewalk along the side of the residence,
and all landscape plastic prior to the final inspection; Duly noting that the structure
is considered a nonconforming structure and limited structural repair is allowed.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting.
Fritzler stated that he neither supported the work being proposed to the nonconforming
structure nor could support the after-the-fact request.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 6:43 —
7:40 P.M.
Stevan Wagner, the Applicant, and Martin Woody, the Architect,were present.
Foth reported that the applicant has submitted an application for a building expansion and
remodel in the B-1 Zoning District. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a
commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City
Council. The applicant has requested the following:
1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and
expand an existing 2310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f.
building, a 1,770 s.f. total expansion.
2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8'
from the front property line where 10' is required. The signage itself will extend an
additional 4' into the setback area for a sign setback of 4' when 10' is required.*
3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural
hardcover.*
*Foth noted that each of these items would be reviewed in part with the overall
commercial site review
Foth explained that the property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive has historically served as
an equipment rental business. While lawn and garden equipment rental is a permitted use
in the district, there is a great deal of outdoor storage associated with this business.
Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the Industrial district only.
While the existing sign is located 8' from the front property line, where a 10' setback is
required, Foth stated that the applicant is proposing to re-use this sign in part including the
non-conforming setback. The property is allowed signage up to 250 s.f.; therefore, the
proposed signage of 150 s.f. is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Page 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
Although this property is almost entirely within the 500'-1000' hardcover zone, Foth
indicated that currently there is 35,030 s.f. of hardcover constituting 72.75 %. Most of this
hardcover is gravel and paved parking areas with buildings consisting of only 6,132.75 s.f.
or 1/6 of the 72.75%.
With regard to parking spaces and/or garages, these shall be located in areas other than the
required yard; except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the
rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an R district; in which
case the setback distance shall be 35'. The applicant's property is irregularly shaped and
surrounded at the rear and on the west side by residential property. The eastern side lot
line abuts another B-1 district. Based on the size of the business, it is required to supply 11
parking stalls; however, currently there are 18 stalls.
Foth noted that a drainage and surface water management plan should be submitted to the
City for Engineer review prior to final approval with two-foot contour interval or spot
elevations on a 100-foot grid if the two-foot contours are over 100 feet apart.
The applicant has proposed additional vegetative screening between the west side of the
proposed building and the western drive. In addition, a lighting plan has not been provided
with the application. The applicant should address how or whether the individual
buildings, entryways, or parking lot will be illuminated.
With regard to the building quality, Foth explained that the applicant has proposed vertical
wood siding with a field stone base for the exterior façade of the building. The Planning
Commission should discuss whether these "residential" materials are appropriate for the B-
1 district.
In conclusion, Foth presented a summary of issues for discussion:
1. Is the outdoor storage use non-conforming? Should it be allowed to be improved
and/or expanded?
2. Should the building be constructed to accommodate all of the equipment storage for the
business, including the equipment currently being stored outdoors?
3. Should one or both of the accessory structures be removed?
4. Should, if permitted to remain, the outdoor storage be restricted to a specific amount,
type and location of equipment? Should additional screening be installed?
5. The west and south lots on the property are gravel. Is gravel an appropriate parking
surface for a business district? Should all of the lots be provided with curb and gutter?
Page 8 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
6. Is the vertical wood siding as proposed an appropriate exterior wall finish for a
commercial building?
7. Should the pole sign be relocated to a conforming location?
8. Will there be tenants in the other building on the property? How will that use impact
the site?
9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Foth indicated that it would be staffs recommendation:
1. To approve the sign variance.
2. Planning Commission should advise staff and the applicant regarding issues which the
applicant should address regarding the commercial site.
Mr. Wagner stated that it was his intent to beautify the existing site and sign. He indicated
that he has proposed a north woods feel for his improvements which would improve the
views from County Road 15 dramatically. In addition, he noted that he has attempted to
further screen the storage area.
Chair Smith asked what the building nearest County Road 15 is used for and whether the
proposed additions were simply to move the business around.
Wagner replied that the building currently houses two offices, the one upstairs occupied by
an interior designer. He maintained that it was his goal to better manage his current
business versus increase or grow his business further.
Chair Smith questioned whether the circle drive is effective.
Wagner stated that the circle drive allows his customers to maneuver one way in and out of
his business easier, especially with big equipment.
Hawn acknowledged that the site offered unique challenges of its own, along County Road
15, the edge of a marsh, etc. She voiced her concern that propane tanks were left near the
marsh which could potentially leak into the wetland. She asked whether gas or oil tanks
must be kept on concrete pads.
Page 9 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
Wagner stated that any fuel storage is contained within the required double wall tanks, in
addition, he uses oil waste traps to collect waste. He indicated that he could put a slab near
the diesel fuel area but didn't know how the City would react to that suggestion.
Woody added that any waste that is collected with runoff is filtered in the traps before
allowing the runoff to reach the stormwater sewers.
Rahn noted that this was a common practice to use waste traps which can be pumped out
and cleaned once waste is collected.
Hawn asked for more specifics regarding the sign.
Gaffron pointed out that,while the applicant is allowed a certain square footage, he has
fallen below his allowance.
With regard to the issues for discussion, Hawn stated that she would prefer to see more
storage moved inside. While she recognized that many pieces of equipment cannot be kept
inside for practicality, Hawn requested that these items be moved towards the back of the
site.
Mabusth asked about the dock sections kept in the north yard.
Wagner stated that these would be removed in an effort to clean up the site. With regard to
the trucks and equipment, Wagner stated that he would try to screen these better and move
them to the best of his ability.
Mabusth asked if there were a staging for rental of vehicles etc.
Wagner explained that once an item is reserved, it is typically, moved to the west side to be
picked up. He noted that further jostling of the arrangement could be done; however, added
that certain arrangements are necessary to ensure efficiencies.
Rahn pointed out that they would be gaining a great deal more space indoors,
approximately 1700 s.f.
Fritzler questioned whether the industrial business itself was compatible with the B-1
Zoning standards of the site. He believed the applicant should be more amenable to
screening and moving things around.
Noting that it was not her wish to see the business go away, Chair Smith urged the
applicant to utilize the indoor space by moving more of the equipment inside.
Page 10 of 29
,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
While he could not get specific until the remodel was complete, Wagner acknowledged
that he would strive to move equipment around and inside as best he could.
Hawn suggested the applicant provide the Planning Commission and City Council with a
schematic where everything would go in the new plan.
Chair Smith recommended he include the landscaping and lighting plan in this schematic.
Mabusth agreed that she, too, would like to see a final site plan relative to placement of all
of these rental things.
With regard to the outdoor versus indoor storage, Rahn suggested the applicant consider
installing overhead doors versus patio doors to the lower level in order to ease the
nonconformity of outdoor storage to a certain degree.
Chair Smith concurred, stating that she would look favorably upon further effort to store
less equipment outdoors. She questioned whether the Commission should limit the type or
amount of equipment.
Rahn felt they should not attempt to further limit the type or amount of equipment
necessary for him to run his business.
Hawn suggested they have him designate a specific number of stalls for his items in the
schematic.
Gaffron pointed out that the business is allowed a certain number of parking stalls,
warehousing may require fewer; however, rental may require more.
Mabusth asked how many trucks the business typically houses.
Wagner stated that,between Budget and Ryder, they have 7-10 trucks on hand. He
indicated that he could draw up the landscape plan, as requested, designating where those
trucks will go.
Rahn stated that the site plan detail phase will allow him to do this.
Fritzler maintained that the City may need to be more restrictive with this applicant, if the
business requires more than most other businesses in the zone.
Hawn agreed that a specific site plan would be helpful, since this business has been found
to be acceptable.
Page 11 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
Chair Smith asked for comment on gravel versus blacktop.
Mabusth stated that she believed that gravel had been recommended by the Engineer the
last time due to the business' proximity to the wetlands.
Wagner pointed out that, long ago, gravel was not considered hardcover and was
preferable to blacktop in containing some of the runoff.
Mabusth suggested the City allow that some kind of concrete pad be placed near the tanks
and wetland for containment purposes, a waste trap. She further suggested that the western
access drive be paved if the Engineer agrees.
Woody believed the Engineer would support a paved apron on the west.
Hawn recommended the applicant gather this information and report back to the
Commission.
Wagner stated that he was facing time restraints if he were forced to wait to report back
next month.
Hawn suggested the Commission review the application and schematic during their
November work session.
Chair Smith asked if the Commission found the exterior finish and sign acceptable.
Hawn stated that, personally, she would prefer horizontal,but was comfortable with the
sign and siding as proposed.
Wagner stated that the proposed sign would not be as tall and extend less close to the road
than the existing sign.
Rahn stated that the proposed sign did not seem out of place.
Chair Smith suggested the applicant supply the Commission with specific detail, a lighting
and landscaping plan, runoff and drainage plans, stalls,bays, etc. before they move the
application forward to Council. She recommended the applicant also consider overhead
doors and paving the west entrance, subject to the Engineer's report.
Wagner stated that he would get those items done to meet the work session deadline.
Mabusth asked what the shed was used for in the back and suggested that it be moved in
order to use its current location to store other items out of sight.
Page 12 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued
Wagner stated that the shed is used to store unsightly items, such as scaffolding and parts.
He indicated that he would give serious consideration to relocating it.
Rahn agreed that relocating the shed to a lower site on the property would free up valuable
parking space for large equipment.
Mabusth asked how long Mr. Wagner had been in the rental business.
Wagner replied that it's been a family owned business since the 60's.
Dan Crear, 3701 Shoreline Drive, the adjoining property and business owner stated that he
was curious to see the proposal and decided to attend. He pointed out that this remodeling
project is a prime example of what was accentuated at the Navarre Town Meeting last year.
Crear maintained that, if Orono had a concrete master plan or vision for the redevelopment
of the Navarre area, the City could provide Mr. Wagner with valuable direction in his
remodeling efforts. He felt this was one of the reasons to look at that overall vision, as
opportunities to beautify and clean up sites like this occur. He believed this site would
better serve the community as a `people site' and was pleased to see any efforts to beautify
and clean it up.
Chair Smith shared with Mr. Crear that, the City too, has put the Navarre vision or master
planning process at the top of its priority list in the Navarre beautification effort.
Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #03-2923, Stevan Wagner,
3607 and 3609 Shoreline Drive, to allow the applicant time to provide the
Commission with a detailed site plan at its Work Session in November. VOTE: Ayes
5, Nays 0.
(#7) #03-2934 JASON BLISS, 3445 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:40—8:04
P.M.
Jason Bliss, the Applicant, and Paul Larson, the Architect, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested a number of variances to construct a
new residence on the property. The variances include:
1. Lot area and width.
2. Side street setback (required 15'proposed= 11'-12.5').
3. 75-250' Hardcover(existing= 1,985 s.f. = 30.6%; allowed= 1,623 s.f. =25%;
proposed= 1,668 s.f. =25.7%; adding AC pad, minimal sidewalk and probable future
8x12 deck yields 1824 s.f.=28.1%).
Page 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #03-2934 JASON BLISS, 3445 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, Continued
Other items of note:
- Lot coverage by structures proposed at 1420 s.f. including entry portico (1500 s.f.
allowed).
- All existing structures to be removed.
- Garage will have doors 14' from right-of-way, 37' from traveled roadway.
- This property does not have lakeshore, and average setback is not applicable.
While this extremely small property has contained a small home and single-stall detached
garage for many years, the existing residence and garage are in poor condition and are in
nonconforming locations. Gaffron explained that the applicant recently purchased the
property with the intent of removing the existing structures and construct a new 2-1/2 story
residence with tuck-under garage.
Gaffron stated that staff would recommend the following:
1. Approval of lot area and width variances.
2. Denial of side street setback variances, and require that the house and portico be
redesigned to eliminate the proposed encroachments.
3. Approval of the degree of hardcover variance necessary to accommodate a house
(and its essential amenities) that is conforming in terms of setbacks and lot coverage; i.e.,
allow only the amount of hardcover necessary to functionally accommodate the house,
driveway, necessary sidewalks, AC pad, and perhaps a limited front deck (because the
tendency is that one may eventually appear anyhow if not addressed now). An option is to
address the deck issue by formally directing that under the approved plan, no deck shall be
allowed.
4. The resolution should include language regarding the fact that this property does
not abut the lake and does not currently have the right to a dock, as a warning to future
buyers.
Mr. Larson stated that in order for the applicant to retain and make reasonable use of the
property, remove the nonconforming home, and work within the parameters of the corner
lot, they have presented this proposal. He pointed out that the ROW is exceptionally deep
for this lot. Larson distributed copies of a revised plan reflecting sidewalks, 10'X15' deck,
and AC pad drawn up by Gronberg and Associates for consideration. He noted that the
revised hardcover calculations reflect 28.7%hardcover. Larson stated that, due to the
narrow, irregular, substandard lot, it was difficult to design a home a mere 25'-27' wide.
Hawn commented that the applicant had done a good job trying to work within the codes,
while having to also back out on to a busy road.
Page 14 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #03-2934 JASON BLISS, 3445 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, Continued
Chair Smith asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the side street setback
request.
Mabusth, Chair Smith, and Hawn replied that they found the setback acceptable.
Rahn stated that the stoop is a legal encroachment with the roof overhang encroaching 2'.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth believed that the revised deck should not exceed 8'X12' for a home this size.
Hawn suggested the applicants decide the shape for the deck as long as it did not exceed
120 s.f.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2934, Jason Bliss,3445 Crystal Bay Road, granting lot area and width variances, side
street setback to the west, hardcover variance to allow for 28.7% including the deck
of no more than 120 s.f. meeting all setbacks, and walkway of 3' wide in order to
construct a new home on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#8) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PIERPONT, 1849 WEST FARM ROAD, LOT
LINE REARRANGEMENT, 8:04—8:11 P.M.
The Applicants were absent; however, a neighbor wished to make public comment.
Benjamin Whitten, 1889 West Farm Road, and his daughter Alison, voiced their
opposition to the proposed lot line rearrangement. After moving to the neighborhood in
1996, Mr. Whitten was comfortable in the knowledge that the minimum 2 acre size lots
would preclude anyone from building a house directly to the east of their home. He
pointed out that the applicant has, not only, one residence on the site,but an occupied
carriage house. Whitten stated that he was concerned that the lot would no longer be
conforming and that the additional runoff created by the construction would have an
adverse impact on his property. He indicated that he had bought an easement to that
property and that the Shaw home with the barn and silo have been the focal point of the
neighborhood. In addition, Alison Whitten added that the construction would be an
extraordinary inconvenience to them and the neighbors.
Mr. Whitten stated that he attempted to contact Mr. Pierpont to no avail and did not get a
reply to his message.
Chair Smith thanked the Whitten's for their comments and assured them that their
concerns would be duly noted for the record.
Page 15 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PIERPONT, 1849 WEST FARM ROAD,
Continued
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to table Application #03-2951, James and Judith
Pierpont, 1801-1849 West Farm Road, in the absence of the applicants. VOTE: Ayes
5, Nays 0.
(#9) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
VARIANCE, 8:11 —8:55 P.M.
Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, the Applicants, and Michael Cronin, their representative,
were present.
Foth indicated that the applicants have requested side-yard setback, lot width and lot area
variances in order to construct a new home on a substandard lot in a two-acre zone. They
also request a conditional use permit for minor re-grading within their lakeshore yard. The
application consists of:
1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the minimum lot area is 2-
acres and the minimum lot width is 200 feet and the existing area and width are 0.71
acre and 132 feet respectively.
2. Side yard setback variances to allow setbacks of 20.3 feet on the north and 15 feet on
the south where a 30' side setback is required.
3. Hardcover variance to allow 34.1% hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25% is
required.
4. Conditional use permit in order to re-grade the 0-75' lakeshore yard to create a natural
slope where a failing 6' retaining wall exists currently, and to improve drainage away
from the house.
In planning the reconstruction of their home, the applicants' intent was to have their
proposed home comply with all zoning requirements. However, the applicants
inadvertently applied the '/2 acre standards to their lot. Upon meeting with Staff on site
they were made aware of the need for variances. The applicants have been planning the
details of their home for over one year and in applying the V2 acre standards used the
existing side yard setbacks of their current home.
Foth added that the applicants have also applied for a conditional use permit for land
alteration in the 0-75' zone, to re-grade the slope where a failing 6' retaining wall currently
exists, and to grade the lakeshore yard to improve drainage away from the house.
Foth reported that the Planning Department staff would recommend the following:
1. Approval of the lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence
on a substandard sized lot.
2. Denial of the side setback variances.
Page 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Continued
3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75'-
250' zone.
4. Approval of the conditional use permit in order to remove a failing retaining wall and
re-grade the lakeshore yard as proposed, maintaining a 3:1 or less side slope where the
retaining walls will be eliminated.
5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds.
Should the Planning Commission approve the request as proposed, Foth stated that
Planning Staff would recommend submittal of a more detailed drainage and grading plan
indicating one-foot contours and drainage arrows in order for Engineer review.
Mr. Cronin asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the staff recommendations
with regard to the side setback and hardcover variance requests. He pointed out that the
side yard setbacks for the neighborhood are substandard based on the size of the lots;
therefore, he recommended the %2 acre standard which more accurately depicts the
character of the neighborhood apply. Based on a 2 acre minimum lot, it is difficult to force
a .7 acre parcel to fit these requirements. Cronin asked what the reasonable use of this site
would be. He pointed out that the noise from County Road 15 encouraged the current
design which asks for a mere 6" variance on either side of the home.
Chair Smith asked about the hardcover calculations.
Cronin stated that the applicants would be removing the entire 775 s.f. of hardcover in the
0-75' setback zone or 12.8%, coupled with driveway removals, this reduces the excess
hardcover by Y2. He pointed out that the applicants are proposing to build over existing
hardcover and reduce the overall hardcover on the site. Although the applicants share a
driveway, and must maintain some limited parking since there is no parking along County
Road 15, they have agreed to reduce the driveway by half.
While Chair Smith noted the Commission could support lot area and lot width variances,
as well as, the conditional use permit for regrading, she felt there was an opportunity to
stay within conformance and eliminate the need for a side yard setback variance.
Mabusth asked if the proposal imposed a mere 6"to the side yard setback. She asked if the
neighboring property on the curve was a remodel or rebuild.
Gaffron explained that, although the project next door started out as a remodel, the further
the neighbors got into the remodel, the more that needed to be torn out, which virtually
turned the project into a total rebuild that was required to meet the setbacks.
Page 17 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Continued
Since the building envelope allows adequate room for the home to fit into a conforming
location, Fritzler agreed with staff regarding its setback and hardcover recommendations.
Mabusth stated that, while she agreed 72' was adequate to rebuild, she also heard a
hardship with regard to the shared driveway access and no direct access to County Road
15. While she believed the Commission could support some excess hardcover to make up
for the driveway problems, Mabusth stated that the side yard setback request must be held
to new construction standards.
Hawn concurred with Mabusth, stating that she believed this would be precedent setting
for rebuilds in this community if the Commission approved the side yard setback request.
Rahn stated that he, too, agreed a hardcover allowance could be granted; however, since
the building pad is fairly large, he could not support the side yard setback variance request.
He suggested the applicants redesign the proposal to fit within the building envelope to
determine if the hardcover variance is appropriate.
Cronin inquired whether the Commission could support the special circumstances imposed
by the excess highway noise and safety concerns.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission had agreed and insinuated that they would
consider those elements in the hardcover request.
Ms. Newkirk stated that the house to the north/east is merely 10' from the lakeshore and
would dramatically obstruct their views if their house were to be situated within the
building envelope.
Mr. Newkirk stated that, having met with Paul Weinberger over a year ago, he was led to
believe that they were headed in the right direction and would not have difficulty meeting
the side yard setbacks. He believed there was a misinterpretation somewhere along the
line. Newkirk stated that, rather than be forced to rebuild behind his neighbor, he would be
forced to remodel what was there.
Hawn asked if the neighbor's home truly sat just 10' from the lakeshore.
Gaffron confirmed the neighbor's home was 10' off the water.
Hawn stated that she felt some responsibility in this case due to what was supposedly
relayed to the applicant early on and based on the proximity of the neighbor's home.
Page 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Continued
While Gaffron did not know what Weinberger had told the applicants, he maintained that
when he met the applicants at the site, he explained that the 2 acre standards must apply to
the property. He indicated that, from a legal standpoint, it does not matter what the
applicant was told upon his initial inquiry.
Chair Smith asked the applicants if they wished the Commission to vote on what was
before them.
Mabusth encouraged the applicants to redesign and return with a new plan, since the
hardships for hardcover were acceptable to the Commission.
Gaffron pointed out to the applicants that even if the proposal became a remodeling
project, the applicants would unlikely be allowed to replace some portions of the home that
would disappear during the remodel process.
Ms. Newkirk stated that it was their opinion that the redesign versus remodel was the best
option given the reductions in hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone.
Mabusth again suggested the applicants table to take the opportunity to work with the
planners on their options.
Cronin asked the Commission to vote on what was before them.
Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of the lot area and
lot width variances, and Conditional Use Permit in order to regrade the 0-75'
lakeshore yard to create a natural slope where a failing 6' retaining wall exists
currently, and improve drainage away from the home. In addition, Chair Smith
moved to deny the side yard setback variance and to table the hardcover variance in
order to construct a new home on the substandard lot. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0,
Abstain 1, Hawn abstaining.
Hawn stated that she was uncomfortable denying the application, since she did not know
what representations were made to the applicants.
(#10) #03-2954 HOWARD R. ALTON, III, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET,
VARIANCE, 8:55—9:17 P.M.
Howard Alton, the Applicant, was present.
Waataja reported that the applicant had requested the following variance to construct a
patio on the lake side of his home:
Page 19 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #03-2954 HOWARD R. ALTON, HI, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued
1. Hardcover variance to allow 26.9% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is allowed
and 24.5% currently exists.
Waataja explained that the applicant received a building permit to construct a large
addition to his home in November of 2002. The building permit consisted of the removals
of 476 square feet of patio in addition to removals of driveway and sidewalk together
totaling 866 square feet to meet hardcover requirements. With the 2,940 square foot
addition these removals were required for the property to maintain a hardcover of 24.9%
when 25% is allowed. Waataja stated that the applicant now requests a variance to allow
1,000 square feet of new patio resulting in hardcover of 26.9%when 25% is allowed.
Waataja stated that staff does not find a viable hardship to grant approval of the hardcover
variance request. The applicant removed patio hardcover in 2002 in order to construct an
addition to the home. The applicant at that time could have adjusted hardcover amounts to
allow for the proposed patio but chose to accept a 168 square foot patio. Should the
applicant wish to construct additional patio, .5% could be constructed amounting to a total
patio increase of 171 square feet for a total patio area of 179 square feet (including the 8
s.f. which currently exists). This would put the property at 25%hardcover and not require
a variance.
Therefore, Waataja stated that, staff would recommend denial of the hardcover variance to
allow 1,000 square feet of patio in the 75-250' zone resulting in a hardcover percentage of
26.9%when 25% is allowed.
Alton pointed out that he probably owned one of the largest lots on the lake and found it
ironic that he was being denied a hardcover variance to construct this patio. He stated that
his total hardcover was less than 10% of his property and that similar communities within
the lake boundaries allow the 0-75' calculation to be included in the total equation. Alton
stated that he chose to remove his boathouse on his own, instead of waiting to use it as part
of a trade-off for his patio. He maintained that the one size fits all policies of Orono are
difficult to fathom for many residents.
There were no public comments.
While Mabusth stated that these exact points had been discussed at a recent work session,
she commented that it was unfortunate the applicant did not plan for the addition of a patio
in 2002.
Alton indicated that he had several sets of patio doors which he would like to have a patio
to exit onto. He pointed out that he had deeded a portion of his lot to the neighbor when he
purchased the property, as well as,paved the cul-de-sac himself.
Page 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #03-2954 HOWARD R. ALTON, HI, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued
Chair Smith stated that it sounded as if the applicant was not unfamiliar with hardcover
discussions and wondered why he had not pursued the appropriate variances in 2002 to
allow for his patio.
Alton maintained that he was shocked there was a hardcover issue in 2002 and, based on
the contractors recommendation to pursue the patio later, went forward with the addition.
Chair Smith stated that, unfortunately she could not find a hardship to support the variance
request.
Mabusth concurred, stating that while she could appreciate all that he'd mentioned, there
was little the Commission could do other than adopt the staff recommendation.
Alton encouraged the Commission to consider the topography of his site, noting that it is
totally flat. He suggested the Commission discuss the concept of topography in an
upcoming work session as well, since the intent of the ordinance is to ensure that drainage
is not directed toward the lake, and in his case it would not.
Hawn felt the contractor misled him to believe that the patio could be added later with a
variance request. She stated that it would be precedent setting to approve the request with
lack of hardship. Hawn encouraged the applicant to use the remaining square footage he
had to construct landings for the existing patio doors.
Chair Smith asked the applicant how he wished to proceed.
Alton asked the Commission to act on the application.
Fritzler moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2954,
Howard R. Alton, III, 1635 Concordia Street, denying the hardcover variance request
to construct a patio on the lakeside of the home due to the lack of a viable hardship.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#11) #03-2957 JOSEPH THIES, 1180 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH, VARIANCE, 9:17
—9:35 P.M.
Joseph Thies, the Applicant, was present.
Waataj a explained that the applicant requests the following variances to construct an
addition to the home and a detached garage:
1. Rear yard setback variance to allow an attached garage and house addition to be setback
32.5 feet when 50 feet is required.
Page 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2957 JOSEPH THIES, 1180 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH, Continued
2. Rear yard setback variance to allow a deck to be setback 24 feet from the rear property
line when 50 feet is required.
3. Rear yard setback variance to allow a detached garage to be setback 5 feet from the rear
property line when 10 feet is required.
Waataja stated that the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing attached garage and
build a new garage with living space above and an 11 x 24 foot addition which connects
the new garage and living space to the main house. The applicant is also proposing a
detached garage to be located in the southeast corner of the property.
Currently, the existing attached garage maintains a 43.5 foot setback to the rear property
boundary when 50 feet is required. With the additions, the applicants are proposing a rear
yard setback of 32.5 feet when 50 feet is required (11 feet closer than existing). In
addition, the applicant is proposing a second story deck setback approximately 24 feet
from the rear property boundary.
Staff finds there are several hardships which would constitute a rear yard setback variance
for the proposed attached garage and living space addition. The property is on its second
septic system and the new mound system precludes any additions from expanding
northwest as the mound and septic tanks may be disturbed. Also, the applicant's well is
located directly north of the most eastern line of the house precluding any additions from
going north as the well may be disturbed. The only other alternative would be for the
addition to be constructed off the southwestern side of the existing house, however, the
layout of the house would not be sensitive to that as the garage would be accessed through
the living area rather than the kitchen. The existing setbacks and layout of the home would
not support any addition to the south.
Therefore, the only alternative is to expand to the east where an existing non-conforming
setback is already occurring. The non-conforming setback would be increased by 11 feet,
however, the adjacent neighbors would not be affected. The new rear yard setback would
be 32.5 feet on a property which is under an acre in size. If the property were located in a
one acre zone this 32.5 foot setback would meet the 30 foot required rear yard setback.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing a rear yard setback variance to allow a deck to be
setback 24 feet when 50 is required. Waataj a pointed out that staff does not find any
hardship which would constitute this variance approval. The deck is not required, is for
aesthetic purposes, could be relocated to the north side, and is accessible from only the
master bedroom. Further, such a deck would not be permitted even in the V2 acre or one
acre zones, since the minimum rear setback for those less restrictive zoning districts is 30'.
Waataja continued, stating that the applicants are also proposing a 528 square foot
detached garage in the southeast corner of the property. Any detached garage under 750
Page 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2957 JOSEPH THIES, 1180 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH, Continued
square feet must be located behind the house and 10 feet from the side and rear property
lines. The applicants are proposing a setback of 5 feet from the rear property line and 12
feet from the side property line.
Waataja indicated that staff does not find any hardship which would constitute this
variance approval. The required setback is 10 feet and there is adequate room for the
garage to be shifted west to meet the setback and not interfere with the house. To do this,
the applicants may be required to construct a 22 x 22 foot garage rather than a 22 x 24 foot
garage to maintain a 10 foot separation from the house, and staff believes this can be
achieved without any variances.
In summary, Waataj a indicated that staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the rear yard setback variance to allow an attached garage and house
addition to be setback 32.5 feet when 50 feet is required due to limited alternate
locations available for expansions, that the lot is substandard in size, and that the
variance will not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.
2. Denial of the rear yard setback variance to allow a deck to be setback 24 feet from
the rear property line when 50 feet is required due to it not being a necessary
component of the addition and that it could be relocated to meet all required
setbacks.
3. Denial of the rear yard setback variance to allow a detached garage to be setback 5
feet from the rear property line when 10 feet is required because the garage can be
shifted to meet the setback.
Mr. Thies stated that, while he could appreciate staff's revised garage position
recommendation, he voiced concern about backing out of the attached garage and bumping
into the detached garage. He pointed out that he had attempted to shorten the garage depth
knowing that there were tight parameters. With regard to the deck, Thies asked whether he
could be allowed a landing and steps to the ground from the master bedroom if no deck
were approved.
Waataja stated that an access in and of itself is an allowed encroachment; however,
Gaffron pointed out that it may not be an allowable encroachment in addition to a current
encroachment.
Rahn questioned what the hardship was to tear down one garage, build a new one, and add
a second detached garage to the property.
Hawn asked what the intended use of the detached garage would be.
Page 23 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2957 JOSEPH THIES, 1180 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH, Continued
Thies stated it would be used for automobile storage.
Hawn, Chair Smith, and Fritzler agreed with the staff recommendation.
There were no public comments.
Rahn stated that he was not in favor of the application, would allow for replacement in
kind, and would not allow a further encroachment into the rear setback. On the other hand,
Rahn stated that if the detached garage were moved to a compliant location, he would have
no problem with it.
Chair Smith asked the applicant what he would prefer the Commission do.
Gaffron asked if the applicant felt he could gain additional space from the neighbor.
Although the neighbor was hesitant to sell him land at this time, Thies stated that he and
the neighbor have a `gentleman's agreement' that when the time comes Thies will
purchase an additional 80' from him.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would accept staff's alternate plan.
Thies agreed.
Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2957,Joseph Thies, 1180 Willow Drive North, granting approval of the rear yard
setback variance of the alternate plan which eliminates the need for items #2 and #3
of the request to allow an attached garage and house addition to be setback 32.5'
when 50' is required due to limited alternate locations available for expansion, the lot
is substandard in size, and that the variance will not negatively impact the adjacent
neighbors. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Rahn dissenting.
Rahn could not support further encroachment without a viable hardship.
(#12) #03-2958 JUDSON DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, VARIANCE,
9:35— 10:05 P.M.
Judson Dayton, the Applicant, was present.
Waataja reported that the applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing
oversized accessory structure to remain on the lot absent a principal building and for it to
be relocated to a conforming location in the rear of the lot.
Page 24 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2958 JUDSON DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued
Waataja gave a brief background to the history of this parcel noting that the previous
owners of this lot received a variance which allowed the barn to exist on the lot absent the
principal building. The developer of the subdivision acted on behalf of the owners in the
variance request in an effort to temporarily allow the building while the property was being
marketed. The variance allowed the building to be oversized and conditioned that the
building be moved to the rear of the lot where it would be conforming once a principal
structure was constructed. The building was never moved to this location and therefore the
variance became null and void. The lot was never developed and the current applicant,
who is a new owner and who resides on the adjacent property to the immediate west, is
now requesting that the variance be renewed so he can move the building as noted on the
site plan and Resolution#4297.
Waataja identified several issues that relate to the original approval which needed to be
reviewed to determine whether a renewal variance should be approved. The issues were as
follows:
1. The original variance was granted to the previous owners. Variances run with the
property not the applicant. However, the approval was based entirely on the fact
that a principal structure would be constructed on the lot in the near future. The
resolution even re-defined what lot lines were considered side, rear, and front to
clear up any confusion for when a principal building would be constructed.
2. Staff believes the current owner has no intention of selling the lot for development
in the near future. The applicant has expressed his desire to keep the lot separate
from his and no plans have been expressed that the lot is intended to be sold.
3. The barn, if moved to the location indicated on the site plan, would be conforming
if the applicant combined the lot which contains his residence to the lot which
contains the barn. The applicant has stated he does not want to combine the two
lots.
Based on the issues discussed above Waataja indicated that there were several options
available that the Planning Commission should review prior to making a recommendation.
Option 1: Because the original variance approval was based on a dwelling being
constructed and that is not the applicant's current intention, if the applicant
wishes to keep the barn, require that the lots be combined and the barn be
moved to the location indicated on the site plan because its current location
is non-conforming with respect to setbacks.
Option 2: If the applicant does not want to combine the lots, then require that the barn
be removed and the lot remains vacant until it is sold for development.
Page 25 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2958 JUDSON DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued
Option 3: Allow renewal of the original variance allowing the accessory structure to
remain on a lot which has no principal structure and still require it to be
moved to the location indicated on the site plan, but not address whether a
principal structure would ever be constructed.
Option 4: Grant a new variance allowing the barn to remain absent a principal
structure still stipulating that it be moved to a conforming location. The
new resolution could include language specifying a time limit by which a
dwelling needs to be constructed or the accessory structure must be
removed and the variance would become null and void.
Waataja encouraged the Commission to consider the neighbor's comments and indicated
that it would be staffs recommendation to require removal of the barn if the applicant
doesn't wish to combine the parcels, or, if the applicant agrees to combine the parcels
require the building to be moved to the conforming location noted on the site plan.
Dayton indicated that he would not be opposed to combining the lots in an effort to
preserve the barn which has been on the property for over 100 years. While he wished to
comply with the neighbor's requests to move the barn to a compliant location away from
the property line, when they purchased the property, they were not aware that the original
variance had expired. Although they have no long term plans, Dayton stated that it is their
intent to preserve and relocate the barn.
Chair Smith commented that it is a charming barn, although damaged a bit by the
developer, adding that combining the lots and moving the barn would be the best option.
Steve Hoyt, 2865 Little Orchard Way, stated that, as someone in the restoration business,
he had difficulty seeing much charm to this building. He maintained that, to the
neighborhood, this is an eyesore and was only to remain temporarily until the property was
developed. Hoyt stated that this is the only parcel not developed and he believed that
Dayton should move the barn to their adjoining 30 acres. He agreed with the staff
recommendation for denial.
Chair Smith asked Gaffron to clarify whether the applicants were within their rights to
keep barn after moving it, if the applicants combined the parcels.
Hoyt stated that was not part of the original request.
Hawn asked what the applicant's timelines were.
Dayton stated that they wished to move the barn and begin preservation efforts this fall,
until they learned the variances had lapsed.
Page 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2958 JUDSONDAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued
Gaffron suggested the applicants combine lot 3 with the homestead, although it would not
necessarily be keeping in line with the original intent of the variance.
Rahn asked what code stated for the presence of multiple oversize accessory structures.
Gaffron indicated that property owners are not allowed to keep 2 oversize structures on the
same property, even if combined, acknowledging that this would be the case in this
scenario.
Rahn pointed out that once the barn is lifted and moved to a new location it may also have
to meet other standards as well.
Hawn asked if the applicant had considered building a small principal structure on the
property or constructing living quarters within the barn.
Dayton stated that this was doubtful. He commented that he would hate to lose one of the
few remaining old barns to more development.
Waataja stated that the barn was approximately 1,104 s.f. in size.
Hoyt pointed out that the neighborhood homeowners association would not approve of the
barn becoming living quarters. He reiterated that it was the neighbors understanding that
the old barn would be removed.
Chair Smith asked what other stipulations the homeowners association can make.
Hoyt stated that the association must grant architectural approval for construction of a new
home.
Chair Smith asked what direction the Commission should pursue, since new issues might
arise with the combination of the lots.
Hawn suggested the barn be moved to one of the Dayton's other vacant lots.
Dayton stated that he would take this under consideration and would like to comply with
the neighbors request to move it off the property line.
Gaffron stated that, once the two lots were combined, the applicants might then be forced
to apply for a second variance to allow for a second oversize structure on the property. In
addition, further consideration would need to be given to height restrictions.
Page 27 of 29
.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2958 JUDSON DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued
Rahn stated that he was hesitant to approve any of the options presented by staff's
recommendations without knowing the ramifications of the options.
Dayton urged the Commission to take its time to consider the ramifications, which extends
the life of the barn that much longer.
Hoyt interjected that the homeowners association would care how long the City takes to
investigate the options and reminded the Commission that no viable hardship exists to
allow the barn to remain.
Hawn asked what middle ground the Commission or City had in this matter to allow him
to move or not to move the barn.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant could couple this request to a request for combination.
Hoyt urged the Commission to set a timeline on the present application.
Rahn explained that if the barn cannot be moved without filing additional variances, the
applications will cause Dayton to come before the Commission once again, which doesn't
mean that the Commission will be willing to grant those variances.
Although the applicant indicated he would combine the parcels, Chair Smith suggested the
Commission table the request in order to allow the applicant and City time to investigate
the options.
Waataja agreed that a timeline be set for just such determination.
Gaffron recommended that the applicant, along with staff, investigate the questions raised
this evening and review them at the next meeting. He believed that by digging deeper into
the viability and ramifications of each of the options, the City and applicant could make an
informed determination.
Chair Smith asked the applicant whether he would be willing to work with staff to resolve
these issues.
Dayton replied that he would do so.
Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #03-2958,Judson Dayton,
2885 Little Orchard Way, in order to allow time to resolve issues raised regarding the
proposed options. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 28 of 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 20, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 AND OCTOBER
13, 2003
Gaffron reported that during the September 22, 2003 City Council meeting two pertinent
items were discussed. First, due to the hesitancy of any engineer to make an assertion
about the lakeside deck and concrete retaining wall on the Maureen Murphy application,
the Council moved to approve the deck to steer clear of any liability issues. Second, there
was some discussion and resident concerns voiced with regard to the impending house
move along Watertown Road to the Butterfield property.
Mabusth stated that both Planning Commission items for October 13, 2003 were put on the
consent agenda.
(#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
A Work Session will be held on Wednesday,November 5, 2003 from 5:30 -7:00 P.M.
(#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER
15, 2003
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, approving the Minutes of the September 15, 2003,
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#16) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON OCTOBER 27,AND NOVEMBER 10, 2003.
October 27—Fritzler November 10—Rahn
ADJOURNMENT
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
10:16 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
>1_41t44. . /A(44t-
, Chair
Page 29 of 29