Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Roland Jurgens, Cynthia Bremer, Janice Berg, Travis Winkey, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young, Council Member Jim Murphy was present. Commissioners J. Marc Fritzler and Jim Leslie were absent. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. CONSENT Chair Rahn opened the public hearing for Items 1, 2, and 3. There were no public comments regarding these applications. Chair Rahn closed the public hearing. 1. #05-3075 MITCH AND KIM OLSON,3275 CARMAN ROAD,VARIANCE, 6:01-6:02 p.m. Bremer moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3075, granting of hardcover variances,lake setback variance and average lakeshore setback variance for the property located at 3275 Carman Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. #05-3090 JEFF ENGLER, 2760 SHADYWOOD ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL PERMANENT DOCK—PUBLIC HEARING,6:01 —6:02 p.m. Bremer moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3090,granting of a conditional use permit to permit construction of a permanent dock for the residence located at 2760 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 3. #05-3096 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING ON BEHALF OF BEN FAUS,550 BIG ISLAND, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:01 —6:02 p.m. Bremer moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3096,granting of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a permanent piling dock. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0 PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS 4. #04-3010 THEODORE CAPRA,3534 IVY PLACE,VARIANCE,6:02—6:37 p.m. Ted Capra,Applicant,and Kathy Alexander, Architect,were present. Gundlach stated the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission at the June and August 2004 meetings with slightly different proposals,both requiring hardcover variances. The Planning Commission recommended denial of both requests. At the last City Council meeting the Council directed the applicant to redesign his plan. At the present time the Applicant is proposing what he considers to be an addition/remodel as opposed to a rebuild. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing structure and add an attached garage and mudroom. The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to allow 32.5 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 49.5 percent currently exists, and a hardcover variance to permit 4.4 percent hardcover within the 0-75' zone where 0 percent is normally allowed and 4.4 percent currently exists. The improvements include the following: 1. Existing footprint and first floor rooms remain. 2. All existing outer walls remain. 3. Existing second story to be removed including floors/first story ceiling to accommodate higher ceilings (existing ceilings are less than 8 feet). 4. New second floor with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Gundlach stated the applicant has been made aware of the City's policy regarding an addition/remodel versus a rebuild. Gundlach indicated the main issue for the Planning Commission to decide tonight is whether this would be considered an addition/remodel or a rebuild. The applicant is proposing that the gravel driveway be tradable for other hardcover. Total new structural coverage is 1,050 square feet with a reduction in non-structural hardcover. Staff finds that no hardcover should be allowed within the 0-75' zone,with the exception of the necessary hardcover for an access to the lake. Staff recommends that all hardcover within the 0-75' zone be removed. If the Planning Commission considers this a rebuild,the applicant should be held to the 25 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone and 0 percent within the 0-75' zone. Gundlach noted a letter has been distributed to the Planning Commission regarding the foundation of this residence, which indicates that a further review is necessary in conjunction with the soils and existing footprint. Capra stated at the present time he is proposing to remodel the existing residence rather than construct a new residence. Capra stated he would like to retain the current driveway,which enables him to park his boat and vehicles. Capra indicated he would also like to construct a deck on the second level,which PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3010 Theodore Capra, Continued) would extend over the existing patio. Capra indicated the gravel in front of the deck could be removed as well as the walkway to the lake. Winkey inquired what the size of the patio is. Gundlach stated she does not have an exact calculation of the patio's area but that she is recommending a reduction of 200 square feet. Chair Rahn asked for public comments on this application. There were no public comments. Capra commented he has recently driven around the city and observed the construction that is going on in this area. Capra stated in his view he is not attempting to do anything more than the other property owners that are undergoing renovation at the present time. Capra stated his current residence is an eyesore and has not been used in three to four years. Capra indicated he would like to improve the appearance of the property. Kempf stated in his opinion the first issue to discuss is whether this is a remodel or a rebuild, and that in his opinion this project is close to the 50 percent,but that he would consider it a remodel rather than a rebuild. Rahn commented he does not feel that people who remodel should be rewarded over new construction, noting that the new residence was recently denied at a 30 percent limit. Rahn pointed out the proposed new footprint is almost twice as large as what currently exists. Rahn stated the main issue in most of these applications is the amount of hardcover on the property. Alexander stated the reason for raising the roof is that the height of the ceiling on the main floor is 7.8', which is substandard,with an attached garage being added. Rahn stated according to the discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting,he does not feel this qualifies as a remodel. Rahn stated the applicant is not allowed to expand the nonconformity. Alexander inquired whether the garage is being considered as part of the new addition. Rahn inquired whether the attached garage is the same size as the existing detached garage. Capra stated it is slightly larger. Capra noted the current hardcover on this lot is 49 percent and that this proposal is a major improvement. Capra stated the 25 percent limit is unrealistic given the price of the lot and that he has eliminated whatever he possibly can. Capra indicated he would prefer to construct the new residence at 30 percent rather than remodel. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3010 Theodore Capra,Continued) Winkey stated the Planning Commission has struggled in the past with what constitutes a remodel project versus a rebuild. Winkey inquired if there are any prices that the City has on this project. Gundlach stated she has not done a price per square foot calculation but that 1,584 square feet exist currently and 1,050 square feet is being added. Gundlach stated the existing second story is not going to be expanded except for a bathroom and a storage area will be added above the garage. Gundlach stated in her opinion this project is borderline for being considered a remodel. Winkey stated in his opinion the value of the remodel project would exceed 50 percent of the value of the residence and should be considered a rebuild. Bremer cited a previous situation where a property owner was allowed to add a second story where none existed, add one foot to the first story, and add an attached garage. Curtis stated in that situation the garage was not attached but that the ceiling height was raised in a portion of the existing residence, with a half-story addition being added. Curtis noted the Planning Commission would be discussing that application later at tonight's meeting due to some issues that have arisen. Gaffron stated the property owner in that situation has determined after-the-fact that the foundation is basically worthless and that very little of the original house will remain following the construction. Rahn stated he has a difficult time approving a remodeling project when the size of the footprint is almost being doubled. Bremer stated restoring original homes along the lake helps to preserve the rural character of the city but that there is always a concern with using the existing foundation. Capra stated due to the present condition of the house,it would be better to tear it down. Alexander stated the exterior walls of the house are fine but that the height of the main floor is substandard,which is the reason for raising the height. Capra noted the existing residence is only 1,000 square feet and that he is only basically allowed to go up under the 25 percent hardcover limitation. Rahn pointed out he is not saying the applicant is limited to only going up with the structure. Jurgens stated the main reason this application is before the Planning Commission is the amount of hardcover on the lot,which is preventing the applicant from obtaining a building permit. Jurgens inquired if the rationale for removing the second story is because of the substandard ceiling height of the first floor. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3010 Theodore Capra,Continued) Alexander stated they could piece in a foot and a half on top of the first floor rather than tearing down the first floor walls,which would help preserve more of the original house. Alexander stated that type of construction is more expensive. Jurgens stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 30 percent. Winkey noted they were denied at 30 percent on the rebuild proposal and that the Planning Commission may not be achieving their ultimate goal of 25 percent hardcover by allowing the remodel at 32 percent. Winkey stated in his view this is a rebuild and that the objective should be to reduce the amount of hardcover to less than 30 percent. Capra stated the cost to do a remodel project is thousands of dollars more and that it would make more sense to construct new on this lot but at 30 percent hardcover. Berg stated in her opinion this is a rebuild and not a remodel. Berg inquired why the proposal on the new residence was denied. Rahn stated the Council denied the previous proposal and directed the applicant to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent strictly because it was a rebuild. Bremer inquired whether the additional removals of hardcover outlined on Exhibit F would bring the hardcover below 30 percent. Gundlach stated the additional removals would bring it down to 29 percent. Gundlach stated the applicant would like to retain the existing driveway. Gundlach indicated if a portion of the driveway is not removed under the current proposal in Exhibit F, it would reduce the hardcover to 31.5 percent. Capra stated he would rather do without the patio than reducing the driveway any further. Gundlach noted she is not suggesting the entire patio be removed but rather reducing it by approximately 200 square feet. Capra stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the patio in exchange for keeping more driveway. Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3010,3534 Ivy Place,granting of a hardcover variance to permit 30 percent hardcover in the 75'-250', a hardcover variance to permit only so much hardcover in the 0-75' as required to permit access to the lake,subject to the reductions in the hardcover to 30 percent, and further subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. AYES: 4,Nays 2,Berg and Rahn opposed. Rahn stated he is opposed to the motion since it does not meet the intent of what the City hopes to achieve by remodeling existing buildings. Rahn stated if 30 percent is to be allowed,he would prefer a new residence be constructed. Berg concurred with Rahn. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 5. #05-3085 JULIE KRESLINS ON BEHALF OF JUL ANN HAIR FASHIONS AND BUILDING OWNER ALECK G. OVERSON,3455 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW,6:38 P.M.—7:03 P.M. Julie and Harry Kreslins,Applicants, and Paul Overson were present. Gundlach stated this application for commercial site approval did appear before the Planning Commission at their February meeting,with the matter being tabled to allow the applicants to work on a more acceptable parking arrangement that would not require variances and to confirm whether legal access exists to the rear of the building. The applicants have submitted a shared parking agreement with Mr. Keaveny, the adjoining property owner to the east, as well as confirmation that ingress and egress easements exist. Gundlach stated the formal easement for the ingress and egress pertains to the apartment tenants and not the business invitees. Gundlach noted prior to the meeting a fax was distributed to the Planning Commissioners from Mr.Keaveny that states if needed he will incorporate ingress and egress for Jul Ann Hair Fashions and the customers into the parking space license agreement. Staff's major concern with the proposed shared driveway and access agreement is that the parking agreement may be terminated under five different circumstances; and should the agreement be terminated,the City would have a difficult time evicting Jul Ann's. Gundlach noted the City Attorney concurs with Staff's thinking and that the City would be required to file suit against Jul Ann's for not meeting the requirements of her occupancy permit should she not voluntarily vacate the premises. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the ingress and egress agreement and the shared parking agreement submitted by the applicants in making a recommendation to the City Council. Harry Kreslins commented no lease is forever and that they have been forced to relocate because they have lost their previous lease. Kreslins stated if that happens at this location,they would be forced to move. Bremer noted the difference here is that this is not a lease on the building space being occupied but rather on the parking spaces located at the adjoining lot. Harry Kreslins stated they could stipulate to the City that they would relocate to another location if they lose their parking. Bremer stated in her view that would be an important stipulation to include in the agreement. Bremer stated the first paragraph of the parking agreement should provide the exact number of parking stalls being provided for this tenant. Bremer inquired how many parking spaces Keaveny would be providing. Overson stated Mr.Keaveny has agreed to lease them however many spaces are necessary to meet the requirement of the City. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann Hair Fashions, Continued) Bremer recommended the agreement be redrafted to include the actual number of parking spaces being leased by the applicant and that all the language be contained in one signed document. Bremer suggested language also be included in the agreement that requires the City be notified immediately if the parking agreement is terminated. Bremer further suggested a provision be included in the lease with the Oversons stating that Jul Ann's tenancy would expire should the parking agreement be terminated for some reason. Bremer inquired whether the City is aware of a similar type arrangement anywhere else within the City. Gaffron noted there are a couple of shared parking agreements in other parts of the City, such as Culvers and Synders and the city parking lot located on the north side of Shoreline Drive in Navarre. Berg questioned if the church and the Freshwater Institute have a shared parking arrangement. Gaffron indicated he is unsure whether those two parties have a formal written parking agreement. Harry Kreslins noted parking at their current location is also undefined. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application. Beth Kreslie, 3455 Shoreline Drive, stated the parking at this site is a big concern of hers and that the parking should be better defined. Kreslie inquired whether the agreement covers the upper parking lot or the lower parking lot. Kreslie noted the landlord is aware of the parking situation. Gundlach stated the existing three businesses and the five apartments require 30.5 stalls,with the upper and lower lots providing 28 stalls. Gundlach noted this does not include the parking requirements for Jul Ann's. Gundlach stated all the parking spaces for Jul Ann's,plus 2.5 additional spaces,would need to be provided on Keaveny's lot, for a total of 8.5 stalls. Chair Rahn closed the public hearing. Rahn stated in his view adding another tenant in this building is over-leasing this building and that the lower units were probably originally constructed to accommodate storage. Rahn noted the City does not have any record of tenants being in the lower level even though there have been tenants located in there in the past. Rahn commented the shared parking agreement might be a dangerous precedent in this situation. Harry Kreslins inquired what the objection would be if they meet all the requirements of the City. Rahn stated typically people are required to meet the code on that subject property. Rahn commented this is similar to people borrowing hardcover from another property and applying it against this property. Rahn reiterated his concern that this property is being over-leased by adding another tenant and is compounding the parking concerns. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann Hair Fashions, Continued) Overson noted the neighboring lot is not currently being utilized and that there is plenty of parking space available. Gundlach stated if the bowling alley reopens, the parking would not be sufficient on that site and the parking agreement with Jul Ann's would probably be terminated. Winkey inquired how many employees Jul Ann's employs. Julie Kreslins stated she has four employees, with a maximum of three beauticians being there at one time one day out of the week. Kreslins noted she is reducing the hours her business is open each week and that they would like a more economical location. Overson commented the type of clientele that would utilize the parking would not be parking on the site for the entire day but rather 15 minutes to an hour. Berg noted there was a beauty salon at that location for approximately 20 years. Gaffron stated the City has no record of the beauty shop ever being granted approval. Kempf stated one of his concerns is when the situation with the Keaveny building changes and how the termination of the parking agreement and its impact on this site would be enforceable by the City. Gaffron stated the City Attorney stated the City would be put in a difficult situation if the parking agreement is terminated and would be faced with possibly evicting the tenant. Kreslins stated they would be willing to stipulate in writing that if the parking agreement is terminated for some reason,they would vacate the premises. Bremer inquired whether the shared parking agreement could be made a part of the main lease with Overson. Overson stated that could be incorporated into the lease. Bremer stated she would still like to see some notice to the City if the shared parking arrangement is terminated. Bremer noted this application would need to be delayed to allow the City Attorney time to review the lease document. Harry Kreslins indicated he is fine with that arrangement. Jurgens noted the parking on this site is already substandard without the addition of another tenant, and inquired why the landlord is not being required to add more parking to bring this lot up to code. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Jul Ann Hair Fashions, Continued) Overson stated he is unaware of what is permissible and what the costs would be to accommodate the additional parking. Jurgens inquired what issues are preventing the landlord from creating the additional parking stalls. Berg noted there is no place to create additional parking on this site. Overson commented there is a hill to the west of the lot. Jurgens stated the addition of more parking would have some costs associated with it but that in his opinion the owner should be required to look at how the parking on this site can be increased. Gaffron noted Item 1 in the parking space license agreement does not specify where these parking stalls are to be and that it does not alleviate the concern that people would utilize the upper level of the parking lot. Overson stated as a courtesy Jul Ann could tell all of its customers to park in the back of the building but that they cannot control where people choose to park. Rahn stated he is not supportive of this application since in his view the building is over-leased. Rahn moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend denial of Application#05-3085,Julie Kreslins on behalf of Jul Ann Hair Fashions and building owner Aleck G.Overson,3455 Shoreline Drive, Commercial Site Plan Review,because of lack of parking. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 3; Berg,Kempf and Bremer opposed. Rahn noted this application would move forward to the City Council. Bremer noted she is in favor of the shared parking arrangement. Winkey stated the vacant building adjoining this lot some day will become occupied and would require the proposed leased parking stalls. Bremer commented the applicant was directed at the last Planning Commission meeting to come back with a parking agreement,which she did, and that in her opinion an appropriate document could be drafted that would address the concerns of the City. Jurgens stated in his opinion the landlord should look at expanding the parking on his lot. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. NEW BUSINESS 6. #05-3089 THEODORE AND DEBORAH ROZEBOOM,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES,7:03 p.m.—7:21 p.m. Theodore Rozeboom,Applicant,was present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit an additional four-foot extension of both stories into the existing non-conforming average lakeshore setback. The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone to permit 31.7 percent when 25 percent is normally allowed and 33.2 percent currently exists, and a hardcover variance for the 250'-500' zone to permit 67.5 percent when 30 percent is normally allowed and 64.4 percent currently exists. Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the strict interpretation of Section 78-1279 (6), which aims to protect views to the lake. Gundlach stated Staff would minimally recommend removal of the hot tub and fence if the average lakeshore setback variance is approved. Gundlach noted the fence does exceed the six-foot height requirement and that the neighbor has expressed concerns regarding the hot tub and fence. Gundlach stated based upon a further understanding of the topography of this lot,it became clear that views would also be blocked for the neighbor to the south and that she would no longer recommend going forward with Exhibit L. Rozeboom had nothing to add to Staff's report. There were no public comments concerning this application. Rahn inquired whether the hot tub and fence are both encroaching. Gundlach stated the fence is over the property line,with the City requiring the hot tub and deck to be located ten feet off the property line. Gundlach indicated they are currently located one to two feet off the property line. Rozeboom stated they have resided in this house for approximately 22 years and that he would be willing to revise their proposal. Rozeboom noted the house was originally constructed in 1907 and that the porch was not part of the original construction and is not intended to be used year-round. Rozeboom indicated they would like to insulate the porch to make it usable at least three seasons of the year. Rozeboom concurred that the addition on the other side of the house would impact the views of the neighbor. Rozeboom indicated he would be willing to relocate the hot tub and reduce the height of the fence to six feet. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3089 Theodore Rozeboom, Continued) Gaffron noted the fence line has to be located behind the 75-foot line in order to be six feet. Rozeboom commented he would like to retain the fence for privacy. Rozeboom stated he attempted to nestle the hot tub in among the existing trees. Rozeboom inquired how he can accommodate the neighbors' views. Rahn suggested the applicant work with Staff and that the Planning Commission is not able to design the applicant's plans. Rozeboom stated the retaining walls could be removed, which are not depicted in the current plans and would reduce hardcover further. Rozeboom stated in his view there is a hardship due to the topography of the land and that they need to retain a turnaround on the site in the 250'-500' zone since they have a hidden driveway. Rahn suggested the applicant make whatever reductions possible in the hardcover. Rahn noted the City typically approves turnarounds with less square footage than what exists on this lot currently. Rozeboom stated a portion of the turnaround is utilized for parking. Rahn suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant time to work with Staff. Gundlach pointed out an average lakeshore setback variance would still be required for the hot tub even if it is relocated. Rozeboom stated he felt the hot tub would not restrict the views of the neighbors but that the issue is the screening of the hot tub. Winkey inquired whether the patio or deck being proposed would be included in the revised plans. Rozeboom stated the canopy piece would be removed but that the deck is included in their plans and has been calculated in the hardcover. Rozeboom noted he felt the deck would not affect the neighbors' view of the lake. Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to table Application#05-3089,2967 Casco Point Road,to allow the applicants time to redesign their plans. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 7. #05-3092 MATTHEW HOFFMAN,ON BEHALF OF CAMELOT CONSTRUCTION, INC., 1225 DICKENSON STREET,VARIANCES,7:22 p.m.—7:30 p.m. Matthew Hoffman,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lot width,lot area, and a side street setback variance in order to rebuild a new single-family residence on a property 135 feet side and .60 acre where 200 feet of width and two acres are required. The applicant is requesting the side street setback variance to construct the proposed home 35 feet from the side street where a 50-foot setback is required. Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variance for a home rebuild on this property. Additionally, if the Planning Commission finds the 50-foot side street setback requirement to be a hardship for this property, a side street setback variance would be appropriate. Curtis noted the proposed driveway curb cut is wider than 20 feet,which would have to be reduced to 20 feet or less. Hoffman indicated the landscape plan has been revised and that the curb cut for the driveway has been reduced. Hoffman inquired whether he could have a 30-foot setback rather than 35 feet from the street. Rahn inquired why the applicant is requesting the additional five feet. Hoffman indicated there are steep slopes in that area. Hoffman noted the existing residence is located seven or eight feet from Keene Avenue. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn commented he does not have a problem with this application with the 30-foot setback. Bremer inquired whether the footprint would remain the same. Hoffman indicated he is considering adding five feet to the house. Rahn stated he would be opposed to adding to the existing footprint. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has to deal with what is being proposed tonight and that the applicant could table his application if he would like to redesign his plans. Hoffman stated he would like to keep his current plan and that he is proposing the house be shifted five feet to the west, which will help the water drainage to the east. Hoffman noted he would also be acquiring the property to the east for a tear down and rebuild. Rahn stated he would be in favor of the 30-foot setback. Jurgens noted he did not receive a portion of the applicant's hardship statement in his packet. Jurgens asked the applicant to explain what he feels is the hardship for this lot. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3092 Matthew Hoffman,Continued) Hoffman stated due to the elevations and setbacks that are allowed,the 30 or 35-foot setback would allow for less soil disruption and demolition of the property as well as helping with drainage. Hoffman stated he would also like to preserve a large tree with the 30-foot setback. Jurgens commented he is unsure whether there is a hardship on this property and that the existing building envelope could be utilized with the house reoriented. Hoffman stated if the house were reoriented,the rear of the residence would face Keene Avenue and would not make the best use of the lot. Rahn inquired whether the applicant is aware of the letter from the city engineer. Curtis stated the applicant has responded to the recommendations from the city engineer and is willing to incorporate them in his plans. Rahn moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3092, Camelot Construction,Inc., 1225 Dickenson Street,granting of variances to lot width and lot area, a side street setback variance of 30 feet to help alleviate drainage issues,subject to the existing footprint being used and all requirements of the City Engineer being complied with. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 8. #05-3093 JEFF LINDGREN OF STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL AND BERIT FRANCIS,2995 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:31 p.m.—7:33 p.m. Melanie Traxall, Streeter&Associates,was present. Curtis stated Streeter&Associates on behalf of the applicant is applying for a conditional use permit for plumbing within an accessory structure. Curtis stated the accessory structure in this instance is the pool house, which does meet the required setbacks. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to filing a restrictive covenant on the property title. Traxall had nothing to add to Staff's report. There were no public comments regarding this application. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3093 Jeff Lindgren,Continued) Kempf moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3093, Streeter& Associates on behalf of Michael and Berit Francis,2995 Watertown Road,granting of a conditional use permit to allow plumbing within an accessory structure. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 9. #05-3098 CITY OF ORONO, SECTION 78-1285,ZONING AMENDMENT, 7:33 p.m.—7:58 p.m. Gaffron addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission did review this amendment at their previous work session. The intent of the ordinance amendment is to incorporate vegetation restoration requirements and vegetation replacement requirements. Gaffron noted one of the comments from the Planning Commission was to identify more specifically locations where permits would be required for invasive species removal, which has been added to the amendment. A permit would be required to remove invasive species within 75 feet of the shoreline of a lake or tributary, on steep slopes, or within a bluff impact zone. In addition,the Planning Commission recommended establishing standards for what trees or plants may be removed. Gaffron indicated it is difficult to develop such a list since it would be incomplete and that the condition or location of an otherwise high quality, appropriate tree may impact whether it should be removed. Gaffron stated Staff does follow a number of rules of thumb but would prefer they not be codified since homeowners may start to make their own interpretations and remove trees that Staff would normally not allow to be removed. Gaffron stated included within the ordinance amendment is the addition of the language requiring that a vegetation restoration plan shall be submitted whenever there is intensive vegetation clearing. Gaffron noted the ordinance amendment also requires vegetation restoration plan approval by the Council in the event that trees or vegetation are removed, cut,pruned, or trimmed in violation of the City's rules. The City may require the following: 1. The planting of up to three replacement trees of a species and size approved by the City for each tree illegally removed. Native species will generally be required. Determinations of suitability of proposed replacement trees will take into account compatability with surrounding vegetation, appropriate caliper(2"minimum) for greatest expectation of survivability while ensuring the earliest restoration of canopy. 2. Planting of replacement understory, shrubbery, and groundcovers in a manner that will return the property to its condition prior to the violation in the shortest reasonable time period, and when appropriate, enhance the erosion control capability from the pre-existing condition. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3098 City of Orono,Continued) 3. Establishment of a Restoration Agreement to be filed in the chain of title of the property,which contains provisions for financial security to ensure the plan is executed, and provisions for maintenance of new trees until they reach the size or diameter at which they are protected under City ordinances. Gaffron stated these elements are basically what the City has been following in the past and have merely been incorporated into the ordinance amendment. Rahn inquired what the City normally requires for financial security. Gaffron stated normally a letter of credit for 150 percent of the City's estimated value is required. Gaffron stated a letter of credit gives the City the ability to proceed forward with the work if the property owner neglects to complete it. Jurgens stated Section(a) is somewhat confusing in his view and may give the property owner the impression that he is allowed to do certain things without first obtaining a permit. Jurgens suggested the language be modified to include that as part of the permit this condition must be met. Gaffron stated language to that effect could be included. Jurgens indicated he also has a concern with the language in Section (b)that says"trimming of trees of any size". Jurgens stated that language could also give the property owner the impression that he is allowed to top the tree. Gaffron stated he would need to draft some language that would address that concern. Jurgens questioned whether the City would be able to obtain what existed previously on the property. Jurgens suggested the Planning Commission consider using a percentage rather than the language "up to three replacement trees"in Section(d) 1. Winkey stated the intent of the ordinance amendment is to create some type of deterrent to prevent the clearing of trees and shrubs along the lakeshore. Winkey inquired whether the City has considered imposing a fine in a situation like this. Gaffron indicated the City has considered imposing a fine in the past but that the minimal fine that a judge might impose is not a sufficient deterrent. Jurgens stated there might be an instance where the property owner cannot replace every tree that was removed and that perhaps some replacement trees could be planted on city property. Jurgens stated part of this amendment could include maintenance of the trees. Berg questioned whether the City wants to become involved in a private homeowner placing trees on City property. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3098 City of Orono,Continued) Rahn stated the City should do a better job of educating new residents. Gaffron stated the City becomes aware of a new property owner when they come in and file for homestead,which sometimes does not occur. Jurgens commented it would be helpful to televise the Planning Commission and City Council meetings,but that if this ordinance is strong enough,word will get around. Bremer stated that would not help new homeowners to the City. Winkey stated in his view it would be difficult to make a financial deterrent given the price being paid for some of these lots and that this ordinance amendment is a good step in the right direction. Rahn commented the City does need to have something in place for when lakeshore clearing occurs. Jurgens stated in his view real estate agents could disclose to the potential purchaser that there are rules regulating the removal of trees along the lakeshore. Bremer suggested this item also be included on the City's web site. Berg commented the City's newsletter is also a good way to keep the residents informed. Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would prefer a percentage rather than a number of replacement trees. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the language in Section(d) 1 as is. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application 305-3094,City of Orono, Section 78-1285,Zoning Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN 10. #05-3094 BOHLAND/CALVIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, SKETCH PLAN Jim Mollis, Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is seeking site plan review for the property located at 177 Glendale Drive. Both plans are generally conforming with the zoning district and community management plan for single-family dwellings at a density of two to three units per acre. Gaffron noted the property has not PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3094 Bohland/Calvin Presbyterian Church,Continued) yet been rezoned to match the CMP and is still zoned RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, requiring 2.0 dry buildable acres per lot and a 200-foot lot width. The proposed single-family detached development with an average lot size of around 15,000 square feet fits into the general range of lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. The residential neighborhood directly to the west in Orono has existing developed SFR lots generally ranging in size from 17,000 square feet to 22,000 square feet. The area southeast of the church has lots in the range of 14,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Gaffron stated a density of two to three units per acre would mean an average lot size of 14,000 to 22,000 square feet, which is similar to the surrounding developments. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission discuss the three proposed lots in the 12,000 square foot range. Gaffron stated the proposed road layout of Plan A appears to meet the corridor standards of a 50 foot right-of-way and 100-foot cul-de-sac diameter. The access location onto Willow Drive is approximately 150 feet south of Elm Lake,which just meets Orono's 150-foot standard for street intersection offsets. Gaffron noted the City of Long Lake has submitted a letter that indicates they would be more in favor of the plan that provides access to the development from Willow Drive rather than through the church parking lot from Glendale Drive. Currently Long Lake's ordinances do not allow the construction of private roads to more than two homes and requires cul-de-sacs to have a 60-foot right-of-way with no less than 48 feet of pavement. Gaffron noted Orono normally requires that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from the new local road rather than from the arterial road. Proposed Lot 10 would access directly from Willow Drive. An alternative would be to create a 30-foot corridor from the proposed cul-de-sac road,but this would have a significant impact on Lots 8 and 9. Gaffron reviewed the City's PUD standards for SFR developments and noted that the City typically requires a 15,000 square foot minimum lot area, 90-foot minimum lot width at the setback line, a 125-foot minimum lot depth, and a 25-foot setback on internal streets. The proposed lots in certain cases would not meet all of the City's PUD standards and the Planning Commission should discuss whether the RPUD standards are appropriate for this development and whether any variances to those standards would be considered. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether the density for this small a plat should be based on just the area within the lots or should be based on the lots plus the road. Gaffron stated one option would be to create a subdivision of the R-1A District and zone the site at one-half acre. Gaffron noted municipal sewer for this development would most likely come from the existing line located just south of the church property. This sewer system discharges to the Long Lake sewer system and its use will require an amendment to current sewer agreements with Long Lake. The developer will pay all costs of utility construction and installation and it is expected that Long Lake will charge unit connection fees for new connections to their system. The Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan also calls for a future connection from the Highway 12 corridor trail down Willow to Hackberry Park. The ten new lots in Plan A would be subject to the standard 8 percent park dedication fee. It is likely that this will be in the form of a fee rather than land dedication; although the Park Commission will be reviewing this application. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3094 Bohland/Calvin Presbyterian Church, Continued) Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission give the applicant some guidance on lot sizes as it relates to this development. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn stated he prefers combining Lots 8 and 9 into one lot and providing access to Lot 10. Rahn stated he also has some issues with Lot 1. Rahn indicated he would like to keep the lot sizes at a minimum of 14,000 square feet,which would be similar to the neighboring parcels, and to retain the wetland. Rahn inquired whether the applicant has considered what type of ponding is necessary. Mollis indicated he has discussed that issue with Staff and that they have not arrived at any definite plans at this time relating to the stormwater drainage on this site. Jurgens stated he also would prefer a minimum lot size. Jurgens inquired whether these lots would be walkouts. Mollis stated not all the lots would be walkouts and that preservation of the trees in the back of the site is important as well as planting new trees and the creation of a berm. Jurgens indicated he prefers access onto Willow but that he is hesitant to add driveways to Willow. Jurgens commented he does have some concerns relating to the wetlands and drainage for this site and the need for some ponding,which may leave Lot 3 unbuildable. Jurgens suggested the applicant consider obtaining additional land from the church. Berg inquired whether there would be access from Highway 12 onto Willow. Jurgens stated the only access points on the new Highway 12 corridor are Highway 6 and near Wayzata. Gaffron stated there are approximately eight to ten driveways onto Willow. Gaffron stated acquisition of the Williamson property would help alleviate the driveway situation. Jurgens pointed out the road could be relocated south and the wetland mitigated. Jurgens inquired whether additional land could be acquired from the church. Mollis indicated he has not discussed that with the church. Gaffron stated the developer might not be able to mitigate the wetland offsite. Jurgens stated variances might be needed for the lot width. Rahn suggested a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3094 Bohland/Calvin Presbyterian Church,Continued) Gaffron pointed out there are some areas where there is very little screening and that the developer should look at whether those areas should be screened. Jurgens inquired whether the Planning Commission would consider an upscale twin home situation in this area,which would allow for higher density. Rahn indicated he would prefer single-family residences. Rahn inquired whether there is a minimum number of units that are required to make the development viable. Mollis commented acquisition of the Williamson property would allow access onto Willow and allow for little bigger lot sizes. Mollis stated the minimum number of lots would be six. Gaffron suggested one option would be to move the road north if additional land could be acquired from the church. Bremer stated she is not as concerned with the smaller lot sizes if more of the wetlands and trees could be preserved. Gaffron stated in his opinion not many trees will be able to be preserved. Rahn stated he also would not be as opposed to the smaller lot sizes if some of the natural features to this site can be preserved. Gaffron noted this area is targeted for higher density but that the City is looking at a minimum of six houses on approximately four acres of land. Jurgens recommended the developer consider a vegetative buffer along Willow to help maintain the rural character. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 14,2005. This item follows Item#12. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION #03-3066 WILLIAM AND ANITA ROUSE,4051 HIGHWOOD ROAD—VARIANCES Gaffron addressed the Planning Commission regarding the variance application for William and Anita Rouse,4051 Highwood Road,which was reviewed and approved at the November 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron stated the applicants at that time were proposing to remodel an existing one-story house with crawl space that encroached into the alleyway and a drainage way. At its November 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission approved an addition above a portion of the house. The applicants at that time were planning to retain all the exterior walls and foundation and remove the roof. Gaffron stated following the commencement of work on this project,the applicants have discovered that the foundation from the early 1900s is in a very deteriorated condition and needs to be replaced. Gaffron stated the builder has already removed the floor and floor joists above this section of the foundation, with the ceiling to be removed, and that what will be remaining of the existing structure in this area are the walls. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission had originally approved this application as a remodel and not a rebuild. Gaffron stated in the past the City has attempted to hold to the 50%rule but that the City's ordinances do not clearly address this policy. Gaffron noted state statutes have also changed to allow replacement of nonconforming structures. Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would have approved this application with the current setback from the alleyway if they had been aware that a portion of the foundation would be removed. Rahn indicated he would have required a greater setback. Rahn stated to his recollection the front door is almost on the property line and that the entire driveway encroaches into the drainage way. Curtis stated the driveway encroaches into the alleyway that the City has rented to them. Rahn noted in prior situations where the foundation is questionable the Planning Commission has required the applicant to re-appear before the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated that was not part of the discussion on this application and it was not incorporated into the resolution. Jurgens inquired whether a basement is being constructed. Gundlach indicated it would remain crawl space. Gaffron stated a portion of the foundation was constructed in 1984, which is in good shape,but the portion of the foundation constructed in the early 1900s is the section that has deteriorated. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-3066 William and Anita Rouse,Continued) Rahn inquired what the required setback is. Curtis indicated the street setback is 35 feet and that the garage was reviewed as a side yard setback, which is 10 feet. Gaffron noted there was another situation within the City where a property owner had removed everything but the basement and the cap,which ended up being more than 50 percent of the residence. Gaffron stated in that instance it was better to remove all the walls rather than to try to preserve the walls. Rahn inquired whether the cap is remaining on this house. Gaffron stated the stud walls on the main floor are remaining but that the floor and the floor joists have been removed above the deteriorated foundation. Gaffron indicated the current ceiling would also be removed. Rahn inquired how much of the foundation was exposed at the time this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Bremer noted the pictures are from the inside of the crawl space. Jurgens stated it appears from the pictures that the foundation had been sealed on the outside. Curtis noted the applicants did have a structural engineer look at the foundation that indicated he thought the foundation would be adequate but that he recommended another person also look at the foundation. Gaffron stated the statute now allows people to replace nonconforming structures, and that the issue becomes whether a greater setback would have been required at the time this application was originally reviewed if it had been known that the foundation needed to be replaced. Gaffron stated one option would be to decrease the width of the house by five feet. Gaffron noted this application would be appearing before the City Council at its March 28th meeting. Jurgens stated if the applicants choose to tear down that entire section of the house,he would prefer they meet the required setback. Rahn commented that the amount of original wall that would be retained is very small. Rahn stated the difference between what was approved and what is being proposed is that the residence will now be sitting on a new foundation. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-3066 William and Anita Rouse,Continued) Gaffron commented since the City did approve the improvements to the house in that location,that it would be feasible to make the house the best quality it can be. Gaffron stated it is likely the applicant will want to retain the original walls to avoid the need to meet the required setback. Rahn inquired how wide that portion of the house is. Gaffron indicated it is 28 feet wide. Rahn stated the City should try to make this house compliant. Winkey noted the Planning Commission at the time it approved this application thought the foundation was adequate. Rahn noted one of the reasons given by applicants for not relocating a residence is the fact that the foundation is in good shape. Rahn stated if the Planning Commission had known that this foundation was not in good condition,they would have required a 10-foot setback. Jurgens stated in his opinion this has become a rebuild rather than a remodel project. Rahn moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend that Application#04-3066,William and Anita Rouse,4051 Highwood Road,be required to meet the 10-foot setback if the applicants elect to substantially repair or replace the existing foundation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Bremer opposed. NAVARRE VISIONING LETTER Gundlach inquired whether all members of the Planning Commission were in favor of sending the letter to the City Council regarding the future redevelopment of Navarre. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to send the letter to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed a list of applications that had recently been approved or denied by the City Council and the recommendations given by the Planning Commission on those applications. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 11. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 14,2005 Gaffron gave a brief recap of the February 28th Council meeting,noting that the ZB Construction application was approved pending receipt of the mylars and the Eric Vogstrom application was approved. Gaffron stated the Interspace application was also reviewed by the Council, with the roofline of the buildings being redesigned to give the structures a more conventional look. Kempf gave a brief report on the March 14, 2005 Council meeting,noting that some Townline residents expressed concerns at the meeting regarding the development project being undertaken in Medina and the impacts on the road and how the road improvements would be paid for. Kempf stated the Council was planning on scheduling a citizens meeting to discuss the issues associated with that development. Kempf noted the O'Rourke application was denied and the Christensen and Interspace applications were approved. 13. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,2005 Berg moved,Bremer seconded,to approve the minutes of the February 22,2005 Planning Commission meeting as amended,with Roland Jurgens being noted as absent. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 14. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 28 AND APRIL 11,2005 March 28—Jurgens April 11 —Rahn ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. David Rahn, Chair PAGE 23