Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 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, J.Marc Fritzler, Jim Leslie,Travis Winkey, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Commissioner Cynthia Bremer arrived at 6:13 p.m. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. CONSENT Items 3, 5, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. There were no public comments regarding these applications. Jurgens moved,Winkey seconded,to add Items 3,5, and 14 to the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *1. #05-3101 JON AND JANE SCHWARTZMAN,425 OXFORD ROAD-VARIANCE, 6:01 p.m.—6:03 p.m. Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3101,Jon and Jane Schwartzman,425 Oxford Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct a 20' by 40' in-ground pool,subject to the condition that the existing shed be moved two feet further off the southern lot line so as to meet the required 10-foot setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #05-3080 INTERSPACE WEST,INC.,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,PUD— DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW This application follows Item 4. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. *3. 05-3086 PHILIP AND CASSANDRA ORDWAY, 1145 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH— VARIANCE—REVISED PLAN Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3086,Philip and Cassandra Ordway, 1145 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a top of bluff variance to allow construction of a new home,subject to the conditions outlined in Staff's Report dated April 14,2005. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #05-3089 THEODORE AND DEBORAH ROZEBOOM,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD— VARIANCE, 6:04 p.m.—6:13 p.m. Theodore Rozeboom,Applicant, was present. Gundlach stated the applicant has revised his application and is now proposing to relocate the hot tub to the roof of the proposed porch, an addition connecting the house and detached garage, and removal of hardcover within the 75-250 zone,which will bring that zone into conformance. A hardcover variance for the 250'-500' zone is required as well as an average lakeshore setback variance. Gundlach indicated the applicants have removed the existing porch and have discovered that the existing walls and roof need to be completely rebuilt in order to accommodate the hot tub. In addition,the applicants are required to have a foundation under the existing detached garage in order to connect the house and garage, and if a foundation is not in existence, the garage would need to be torn down and rebuilt with a foundation in a conforming location. Staff recommends approval based on the stipulations outlined in Staff's Report. Rozeboom stated the porch has been removed but no other work has been completed on the front half of the building. Rahn commented based on his review of the site,the existing garage is not on frost-protected footings. Rozeboom stated they would like to now keep the garage separated instead of the proposed addition,but would like some type of overhang on the backside of the house. Gundlach stated a ten-foot separation is required between buildings and a variance would be needed. Rahn indicated the Planning Commission can only act on the plan that is before them tonight. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like to table his application. Rozeboom stated he would appear before the Planning Commission at the time he decides to go forward with the work on the garage but would like approval on the rest of his application. Rahn inquired whether the location of the overhead garage door would be relocated. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3089 Theodore and Deborah Rozeboom, Continued) Rozeboom indicated it would be. Rahn noted the hardcover for the driveway would be reduced as a result of changing it to a front-loading garage rather than a side-loading garage. Gundlach stated the hardcover in the 75'-250' zone would decrease significantly but that the hardcover in the 250'-500' zone would remain the same. Rozeboom inquired whether he would need to obtain a variance to add an overhang on the backside of the garage. Rahn stated it was his understanding there was more work entailed than just adding an overhang and noted that the Planning Commission does not have a plan depicting the proposed work on the garage. Rozeboom stated when he found out the garage would need to be torn down and have frost-proof footings put in, he elected to leave the garage detached and construct an overhang from the garage to the residence. Rahn inquired where the canopy would be located. Rozeboom indicated the canopy would not extend to the garage and would just be located off the backside of the house. Rozeboom stated the canopy would not extend into the side yard setback and would be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. Rahn inquired what the size of the canopy would be. Rozeboom stated it would be approximately five feet by 12 feet. Gundlach inquired whether the sidewalk would remain. Rozeboom indicated it would. Rahn indicated he does not have any issue with that proposal. Gundlach stated to proceed with that proposal,the Planning Commission would need to deny the side yard setback variance for the attached garage proposal and approve a building-to-building setback variance for the overhang. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. Fritzler pointed out the Planning Commission is looking to approve something that is not in writing and questioned whether approval should be given tonight. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3089 Theodore and Deborah Rozeboom, Continued) Rahn stated in his view the revised proposal is better than the previous proposal. Fritzler indicated he would like Staff to review the plans prior to it moving to Council. Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application 05-3089,Theodore and Deborah Rozeboom,2967 Casco Point Road,granting of a variance to allow the reconstruction of the porch,relocation of the hot tub to the roof of the porch, and a structure to structure setback variance of five feet to allow a 5' by 12' roof overhang to be attached to the existing house, not to encroach within the side setback,and the granting of a hardcover variance for the 250'-500' zone to allow 64 percent hardcover,with the condition that a revised plan depicting the proposed work be reviewed by Staff prior to the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1. Fritzler indicated he is opposed to the motion since there are no drawings depicting what is being proposed and approved. OLD BUSINESS 2. #05-3080 INTERSPACE WEST,INC., 2060 WAYATA BOULEVARD,PUD— DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW,6:13 P.M.—6:29 P.M. Philip Carlson, Interspace West, was present. Gundlach noted the Planning Commission did review this application at the concept plan stage,with the City Council directing the applicant to make some architectural revisions. Gundlach stated the major change to the plan is the increase to five clusters rather than three clusters of building. The number of buildings and square footage remains the same. Staff recommends approval of the general development plan proposal pending receipt of the following: 1. Plans illustrating the dedication of a driveway easement; 2. Plans incorporating the landscape consultant's recommendations; 3. Revision of the monument sign to not exceed 100 square feet prior to final approval. 4. Revised set of elevations illustrating like building materials for all facades to match the building materials noted on the front elevation; 5. Revised association documents. Gundlach noted the City Engineer has approved the lighting plan submitted by the applicant. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3080 Interspace West, Continued) Gundlach presented an overhead of the new proposed building. Rahn inquired whether the applicant is aware of Staff's recommendations. Philip Carlson stated they have reviewed Staff's recommendations. Carlson indicated the architectural style has been changed in accordance with Council's direction and that they have also spent time discussing the project with the residents of Sugarwoods. Rahn inquired whether any color elevations have been generated at this point. Gundlach stated they have been submitted. Rahn inquired whether an elevation front to back has also been submitted. Carlson stated that was submitted to Council. Winkey inquired whether the back portion of the site is the high point of the roofline. Carlson stated the highest portion of the roof is approximately ten feet above the ground level at the back portion of the lot. Leslie inquired how that elevation compares with the previous proposal. Gundlach stated the elevations are virtually unchanged. Winkey inquired what type of landscaping is being proposed for the back portion of the site. Carlson indicated there is some additional berming being proposed for the back and additional trees to help address the neighbors' concerns. Gundlach stated the proposed trees along the top tier range from six feet to ten feet,which should provide some immediate screening. Rahn noted the majority of his concerns have already been addressed. Gundlach pointed out the revised elevations requested in the Planner's Report relate to the exterior materials being proposed for the buildings. Rahn concurred that the specific materials being utilized on these buildings should be delineated for the Council on all elevation views of the buildings. Rahn opened the meeting for public comments. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3080 Interspace West,Continued) Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, expressed a concern that the excavation for the retaining wall would disturb the roots of the trees,noting the trees are on their property and that she does not want the trees to be killed as a result of the work done in the area. Schommer indicated the trees are 20 to 50 feet and that she would like to retain as many trees as possible for privacy reasons. Marilyn Mileusnic, 2110 Sugarwood Drive, expressed a concern that the trees are not being continued across to the northeast corner. Gundlach indicated the landscape plan specifies a berm in that area planted with a prairie grass mix. Mileusnic stated she would like to see some trees planted in that area. Mileusnic indicated she has a concern that this project will negatively impact the value of her property. Rahn inquired whether the City's landscape consultant has looked at the excavation work for the retaining wall and the impact it could have on the trees. Gundlach indicated City code allows a retaining wall to be constructed five feet from the property line and that no permit is required to remove the trees should the property owner decide to cut them down. Gundlach concurred the proximity of the excavation work near the trees may be a concern. Carlson stated he is also concerned about protecting the trees on the neighboring property and that orange screening would be erected to notify the excavator of the boundary line. Rahn closed the public hearing. Fritzler moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3080,Interspace West,Inc.,2060 Wayzata Boulevard West, General Development Plan approval subject to the conditions outlined in the April 13,2005 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS *5. #05-3073 DAVID AND JOANN POMIJE,801 TONKAWA ROAD,PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3073,David and Joann Pomije,801 Tonkawa Road,preliminary plat approval subject to the removal of all existing structures and hardcover prior to final plat filing. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #05-3091 CATHERINE SALLAS,3635 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE,6:29 P.M.—6:59 P.M. Catherine Sallas,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting after-the-fact hardcover,lake and side setback variances to allow an existing rooftop deck to remain 50 feet from the lake and nine feet from the southwest lot line on the roof of the existing home. In April of 1998,the previous property owner was notified that a deck constructed on the roof of the home required permits and a variance. The same property owner repaired the deck after a storm without obtaining the appropriate building permits. In October of 2004,the current property owner was notified that this rooftop deck did not have proper City approval. Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact variances for the rooftop deck subject to a building permit being obtained for the deck. Sallas stated she does not have anything to add to Staff's Report Rahn opened the public hearing. Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive,noted he did submit some photographs to Staff and that he is opposed to the after-the-fact variance for a deck since it would set a bad example. Welch stated the deck also is not very pleasing to the eye and imposes on his privacy. Welch questioned whether it meets City codes. Brad Olson, 3645 North Shore Drive, stated he would concur with Welch's comments and that in his opinion approval of the after-the-fact variance would set a bad example. Olson commented he also has concerns regarding his privacy,noting that the property is currently for rent and that he has concerns about the future occupants of this residence. Olson questioned whether this property is in compliance with the hardcover regulations. Sallas pointed out that both of the adjoining property owners purchased their properties with the deck already existing and that they were well aware of the deck at the time of purchase. Sallas noted this residence is one story and the adjoining residences are a story and a half. Sallas commented in her view this is more of a personal vendetta and that she has put a substantial amount of money into the property to improve the overall appearance of the lot. Sallas stated she is happy to obtain a building permit. Rahn stated the Planning Commission typically looks at after-the-fact variances as if the deck or other structure is not there and whether it would have been allowed in the first place. Donna Olson indicated they did purchase the property knowing that the deck was there but that they did question how often the deck was used at the time of purchase and was told that it was rarely used. Brad Olson stated he did have an issue with the deck from the beginning and thought the deck would be dealt with at the time the property was sold since the City was aware of it. Olson indicated the City's building inspector informed him that the new owner would remove the deck. Sallas stated to her knowledge the previous owner had no conversation regarding removal of the deck. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3091 Catherine Sallas, Continued) Rahn closed the public hearing. Rahn stated the home could be remodeled and a second story added and that this really is not a height issue. Rahn noted the deck was constructed over existing hardcover. Jurgens commented in his view there is not a hardship for the deck to exist and that the property could be enjoyed without the deck. Jurgens noted the lake could be viewed from the existing patio. Jurgens stated because the deck was in existence at the time the property was purchased by the applicant does not negate the fact that it is illegal and that the buyer has to do some due diligence at the time they are considering purchasing a piece of property. Jurgens stated the City never approved the structure, which should have been disclosed by the seller of the property. Bremer commented the City of Orono does allow for structures higher than one story and that a hardship does not need to be demonstrated for the deck to exist. Jurgens pointed out there are hardcover and setback issues on this lot that should probably also be addressed at this time. Bremer noted the lot is small and that the structure cannot be expanded closer to the lake or closer to the side lot line. Bremer indicated she does not see anything illegal about the deck aside from the fact that a building permit was not obtained at the time of construction. Bremer stated in her view the size of the lot and the location of the structure is a hardship and that she agrees with Staff's recommendation. Bremer commented she personally does not find the deck aesthetically pleasing and that the neighbors could find this deck encroaching on their privacy. Bremer stated the property owner does have the right to have a deck. Leslie indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Bremer and that the role of the Planning Commission is to evaluate whether this deck would have been allowed in the first place. Leslie commented the other adjoining structures are higher,which tends to accentuate the privacy issue. Leslie stated in his view the deck is acceptable given the size of the lot. Winkey indicated he also is in agreement with Commissioners Leslie and Bremer,but noted that the hardcover was increased by the amount of the stairs leading up to the deck. Curtis noted the hardcover on the lot increased by 52 square feet. Winkey stated the Planning Commission would probably have looked for a reduction in the hardcover to avoid an increase in the hardcover, especially given the size of the lot. Rahn stated if the hardcover is removed from the lower deck, it could prompt the occupants of the residence to utilize the upper deck more often. Rahn stated the Planning Commission typically does not allow for hardcover to be increased if it is over the maximum amount allowed. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3091 Catherine Sallas, Continued) Fritzler stated the issue of the deck being so close to the adjoining residences would have been discussed at the time a building permit would have been applied for. Fritzler inquired whether the applicant would be utilizing this dock along with the renters. Sallas stated the renter would have a boat but that she has her own dock and would not be utilizing this dock. Fritzler stated he would not be in favor of an after-the-fact variance simply because the previous owner did not bring this deck to her attention. Bremer inquired whether Fritzler would prefer the hardcover be reduced as part of an approval. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of any deck on the structure given the amount of hardcover that exists on the lot. Winkey stated the issue is the additional impact that the deck has on the hardcover,which is 52 square feet. Jurgens stated the Planning Commission is looking at this application as if the deck is not currently there and that the Planning Commission would have looked at reducing the hardcover on this lot. Jurgens stated without the 52 square feet for the stairs,this deck would become worthless, and that the Planning Commission in the past has denied applications because there is excessive hardcover. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would be willing to reduce the lower deck by 150 to 160 square feet since it is encroaching into the average lakeshore setback. Sallas inquired why she is being asked to reduce hardcover by 150 square feet when the upper deck has only added 52 square feet. Sallas stated she is confused why old hardcover is being discussed in connection with this variance request. Rahn pointed out this lot has excessive hardcover. Jurgens stated the Planning Commission addresses the whole site at the time a variance is requested. Rahn commented the lower deck was also probably constructed without a permit. Sallas stated in her opinion the best spot on the whole property is the upper deck and that in her opinion the existing structure will someday be removed. Rahn stated the Council would look more favorably upon this application if the average lakeshore setback variance is eliminated. Winkey stated in his opinion he would like to see the lower deck reduced. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3091 Catherine Sallas, Continued) Kempf commented he does empathize with the neighbors but that privacy is an issue that is inherent with this neighborhood given the small lot sizes. Kempf indicated he is leaning towards denial of the after-the-fact variance and that he is wary of reducing the lower deck since that may prompt more usage of the upper deck. Sallas inquired how a spiral staircase would impact hardcover. Rahn stated it would depend upon the diameter of the staircase but that it could possibly reduce the hardcover. Rahn moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3091,Catherine Sallas, 3635 North Shore Drive,granting of an after-the-fact variance to allow the upper deck to remain, subject to the lower level deck being moved out of the average lakeshore setback by reducing hardcover in that area by 150 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3; Fritzler,Jurgens,and Kempf were opposed. Gaffron noted this application would appear before the Council on May 9th. 7. #05-3097 HASHEM ABUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET—SUBDIVISION,6:59 P.M.— 7:38 P.M. Hashem Abukhadra,Applicant, and Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,were present. Gundlach noted this application did appear before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan and that Staff will be recommending this application be tabled to allow for an engineering and septic review. Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to create six lots on one block, including construction of a private road. The property is abutting Long Lake Creek,which leads to Tanager Lake and eventually Lake Minnetonka,placing the property in the Shoreland Overlay District. One house and guesthouse currently exist on the property. The applicant is proposing a NURP pond near the proposed road on Lot 2, with all of the lots meeting the two-acre minimum with the exception of Lot 5. Gundlach noted the City is currently working on a new wetland ordinance that may impact the current design of this property by requiring the creation of buffers and setbacks to the buffer. Gundlach stated those requirements could eliminate Lot 6. The applicant is requesting the guesthouse be allowed to remain. Gundlach stated some issues raised at the sketch plan hearing related to hardcover and location of septic sites. Gundlach noted the proposed location of the septic sites have been reviewed and have been determined to be appropriate. Gundlach indicated Staff has the following issues with this application: PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued) 1. The Rural Oasis study the City is currently undergoing would require that this property Master Plan as it exceeds the five-acre threshold. The Planning Commission should consider whether the applicant will be required to Master Plan in accordance with the standards the City's consultant has outlined even though the formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment has not been adopted. 2. Should the stormwater potentially created by all 21 dry acres be required to be treated,rather than the current plan that only treats eight acres. 3. Should the ditch wetlands noted in Lot 5 be deducted for the lot area based on the wetland ordinance currently awaiting adoption and what if that eliminates Lot 5? 4. Should setback variances be granted in order to retain the existing guesthouse? Should the existing access from Fox Street to the guesthouse be eliminated upon final plat approval? 5. Should the existing access at the western corner of the site crossing Lot 1 be eliminated up to the proposed outlot even if Lot 1 is not developed? 6. Is the Planning Commission comfortable reviewing Lot 6 as a back-lot requiring 150% of the RR-1B setback standards? 7. Is the Planning Commission concerned about the retaining wall heights necessary for the proposed road? Should these walls be located within the right-of-way, on the property line, or within Lots 1 and 4? 8. Should a 10-foot trail easement be dedicated? Staff recommends this application be tabled to allow for an engineering and septic review. Gronberg stated on Lot 5 the east lot line was originally jogged due to the wetlands and that based on discussions with Gaffron, it was determined that the ditch wetlands could be included. Gronberg stated Lot 6 is a back lot and that there is a considerable amount of frontage on Fox Street,which would make Lot 6 a good lot. Rahn inquired if the existing home is located on Lot 6. Gronberg stated it is. Rahn inquired what variances would be required with the current proposal. Gundlach stated the guesthouse would require a variance even if Lot 6 is called a back lot. Abukhadra stated the guesthouse was constructed approximately 60 to 70 years ago and has recently been renovated. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra,Continued) Gronberg stated the retaining walls are being proposed to minimize the amount of grading necessary and to preserve trees and is a necessary part of the design. Gronberg stated every foot of the new roadway and three of the new houses and half of the existing house would be treated with the NURP pond. Gronberg indicated they would follow the recommendations of the Watershed District for the other two lots. Rahn inquired whether there are any public comments regarding this application. Tom Brown, 760 South Brown Road, stated he has a safety concern with the proposed road,noting that as you are traveling on Fox, there is a berm currently and that the line of vision is impacted. Brown questioned why the road could not remain in its existing location. Gronberg stated that issue was discussed with the City Engineer and that a 35-mile an hour speed analysis was done. Gronberg noted Fox Street is an older road and does not have some of the vertical curves that newer roads have,which would require some grading to improve the vision. Rahn noted the City has not yet received the engineer's report,which may include recommendations regarding some of these issues. Gronberg stated that is a valid concern and they are addressing that. Brown inquired whether the lots would be sold. Abukhadra stated the property has been in the family for 30 years and that it is not their intention to sell off the lots. Abukhadra stated the purpose of the division at the present time is to divide the property among the family members. Brown inquired whether this site could be divided into three lots rather than six given the impact on the wetlands. Abukhadra indicated there are six family members. Gundlach stated this site consists of 21 dry acres but there is a total of approximately 58 acres. Rahn closed the public hearing. Leslie stated at the last meeting the number of septic sites was a concern, and inquired whether there were sufficient septic sites for this development, specifically for Lot 6. Gundlach stated there are two five bedroom septic sites for the existing house and a three-bedroom septic site for the guesthouse. Bremer inquired how the dry acres are being determined. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued) Gaffron stated this issue was discussed with Gronberg. Gaffron stated the City did a wetland inventory in 1974,which did not include many wetlands that would now be included. The City has established a moratorium on wetlands, which has been in effect for the past six months. Gaffron stated under the old ordinance some of those wetland delineations would be allowed as dry buildable. Gaffron stated since there is a moratorium in effect,this property would be subject to whatever the new regulations are and that it is likely that area would not be considered dry buildable. Rahn pointed out this is an environmentally delicate area and questioned whether some of the City's other codes relating to the environment would apply in this situation,which could impact the building pads. Gaffron stated the design process that is being reviewed as part of the rural oasis moratorium consists of looking at the visual impacts of development from across the lake and down the road. That study resulted in conclusions that the City will require in the future that some buffering be done in these types of developments to reduce the visual impact of new homes from lakes and/or wetland. Gaffron stated that study was originally put in place for larger developments but that the Council may find it beneficial to use the study on smaller developments as well to help preserve some of the rural characteristics of the area. Gaffron stated this property is not under a moratorium for development but just a moratorium relating to wetlands. Kempf commented in his opinion it would be beneficial to have a study done on this property. Abukhadra questioned how this property would visually affect other property owners. Kempf stated if a two and a half story house is constructed on one of these lots, it would be visible for miles. Abukhadra stated the purpose of constructing a house on top of a hill is to get a view of the lake,but that they are planning to leave the property pretty much as is and are not planning on constructing any houses in the next few years. Gronberg stated there are three tax parcels at the present time and that they would like to do some long-term planning and create one additional lot. Rahn stated he still has an issue with the setbacks concerning the guesthouse. Jurgens stated in his opinion the setbacks should be met since this would be considered new construction. Gundlach stated a setback variance would be needed from Fox Street. Rahn stated at the time the existing house is redeveloped would be the time to address any nonconformities. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra,Continued) Leslie stated the guesthouse would be closer to the front property line than the main residence,which would require another variance. Gundlach stated she is unsure whether guesthouses are treated the same as accessory structures. Gaffron stated to his recollection the code does not specifically address whether a guesthouse should have specific setbacks relating to an accessory building and that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether that would be considered a back lot. Kempf inquired whether there is another way to configure the driveway without making an outlot. Gronberg stated there was no discussion at the last meeting about making Lot 6 a back lot. Gundlach stated if that were not called a back lot,there would be some access and visibility issues with Fox Street. Rahn stated the guesthouse could also be dealt with at the time the lot is redeveloped. Bremer inquired whether a decision was reached on the ditch wetlands noted on Lot 5. Gronberg stated the lot line could be reconfigured. Bremer and Leslie concurred the lot line should be changed. Abukhadra stated Lot 1 could be accessed through the existing driveway. Abukhadra reiterated that the property would remain undeveloped for the next few years. Gundlach stated Staff feels the existing driveway would be an unnecessary access onto Fox and that they could utilize the new roadway. Leslie stated if this land is developed,that access should be removed. Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission feels Lot 6 should be considered a back-lot requiring 150%of the RR-1B setback standards. Jurgens stated it should be considered a back-lot. Gundlach stated if the existing house were reconstructed in the same exact position,the setbacks would not be affected. Abukhadra stated they only have a concern with Item 6 if it affects future development of the lot. Rahn inquired how the Planning Commission feels about the height of the proposed retaining walls. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued) Gundlach noted Exhibit C depicts the location of the retaining walls. Rahn indicated he would prefer to see the engineer's comments on that item. Rahn inquired whether the 10-foot trail easement should be required. Gronberg stated in his view the trail would work better within the existing right-of-way and noted there are a number of trees that would need to be removed if a trail is constructed on this side of the road. Jurgens suggested the applicant look at options for where a trail could be constructed. Rahn stated that is an issue that the Park Commission will need to deal with. Fritzler stated if Lot 6 is considered a backlot,the guesthouse could be dealt with at the time the site is redeveloped. Gaffron inquired whether the driveway from Fox Street leading to the guesthouse should be removed at the present time. Abukhadra stated the driveway has existed for a number of years and that he would prefer the current access remain. Abukhadra stated it would be difficult to construct another access to the guesthouse. Gundlach suggested that issue be dealt with at the time the engineer's comments are received. Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3097,Hashem Abukhadra, 1745 Fox Street,to the May Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. (Recess taken at 7:38 p.m.—7:45 p.m.) 8. #05-3099 MARY AND MARNIX GUILLAUME,3060 NORTH SHORE DRIVE— VARIANCE, 7:38 P.M.—8:03 P.M. Mary and Marnix Guillaume,Applicants,were present. Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting hardcover variances and a lake setback variance in order to construct a deck off the main level of a walk-out style home on the lakeside, a covered entry over existing hardcover, and a pergola. Gundlach stated a hardcover variance is needed for the 0-75' zone to permit 12.7 percent hardcover when 0 percent is normally allowed and 14 percent currently exists; a lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 58' (deck)when 75' is normally required and a 41' setback currently PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3099 Mary and Marnix Guillaume,Continued) exists(patio); and a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone to permit 33.6 percent hardcover when 25 percent is normally allowed and 33.9 percent currently exists. The applicant is agreeable to removing the lakeside patio within the 0-75' zone and concrete walk within the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zones around the north side of the detached garage. Staff recommends approval subject to the hardcover removals. Marnix Guillaume stated the house is constructed in such a fashion that if there is an emergency situation in the front of the house,the lakeside,there is no exit from the house on the first floor. Guillaume stated the deck would add a security feature to enable them to egress from the house. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. Jurgens stated he would like to see a further hardcover reduction in the 75'-250' zone and that possibly a portion of the driveway could be removed. Jurgens inquired whether pavers would be installed. Guillaume stated pavers would not be installed. Jurgens reiterated his concern with the amount of existing hardcover in the 75'-250' zone and suggested further reductions be made to bring the property closer to compliance. Rahn indicated he would concur with Staff's recommendations. Leslie stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Jurgens and questioned whether additional hardcover could be removed. Mrs. Guillaume noted there currently is a cement slab under the two areas. Rahn inquired whether the rear patio and side sidewalk were the only removals being proposed. Gundlach stated those two areas are the only areas being proposed for removal at this time. Gundlach indicated she did visit the property and that there is a potential to remove a portion of the driveway but that it may impact the ability to maneuver vehicles. Mrs. Guillaume noted a 160 square foot reduction is being made in the hardcover. Winkey stated the focus of the Planning Commission is to try to find ways to reduce hardcover whenever possible without creating too much of a hardship on property owners. Winkey indicated in his view the driveway could be reduced somewhat. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3099 Mary and Marnix Guillaume, Continued) Jurgens inquired what amount of hardcover would need to be removed to bring the hardcover down to 30 percent. Bremer inquired what the shed is used for. Mr. Guillaume stated it is a garden shed. Jurgens inquired whether it sits on the ground or is on a cement slab. Mr. Guillaume stated it has a wood floor but that he is unsure what it sits on. Rahn noted the driveway serves an attached garage and a detached garage. Mrs. Guillaume stated the turnaround is important to retain access to both garages. Gundlach stated a reduction of approximately 600 to 700 square feet would be necessary to lower the hardcover to 30 percent. Bremer commented in her view that amount of reduction in the driveway is not possible. Bremer noted that a longer driveway is necessary due to the length of the lot. Jurgens concurred that it would be difficult to reduce the driveway by 700 square feet. Jurgens noted the shed is in a nonconforming location. Guillaume indicated the shed has a wood floor but that he is unsure whether there is a slab under it. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3099,Mary and Marnix Guillaume,3060 North Shore Drive,granting of a hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone, granting of a lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 58 feet, and a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone, subject to the removal of the lakeside patio within the 0-75' zone and concrete walk within the 0-75' and 75'-250' zones around the north side of the detached garage,and further subject to the area beneath the pergola remaining grass so as to stay pervious. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 4; Fritzler,Jurgens,Leslie and Winkey opposed. MOTION FAILED. Leslie moved to recommend approval of Application#05-3099,3060 North Shore Drive,Marnix and Mary Guillaume,granting of a hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone, a lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 58 feet, a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone, subject to the area beneath the pergola remaining grass, and further subject to the removal of the lakeside patio within the 0-75' zone and concrete walk within the 0-75' and 75'-250' zones around the north side of the detached garage,including the removal of the shed from the 75'-250' zone. Mrs. Guillaume noted the shed consists of 192 square feet and that it would not reduce the hardcover significantly. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3099 Mary and Marnix Guillaume, Continued) Rahn inquired whether 192 square feet could be removed elsewhere. Leslie stated he would like to see a further reduction in the hardcover than what is being recommended by Staff. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the applicants could express their opinions to the Council. Mr. Guillaume inquired whether both the shed and concrete pad would need to be removed. Leslie stated his motion would include removal of the shed and the concrete underneath. Winkey suggested looking at an equivalent reduction of 192 square feet within the 75'-250' zone. Mr. Guillaume stated he would prefer to reduce the driveway somewhat rather than remove the shed. Leslie amended his motion to require a reduction of 192 square feet of hardcover within the 75'-250' zone rather than requiring the removal of the shed and concrete pad within the 75'-250' zone. Winkey seconded the motion. Fritzler inquired whether the shed should be relocated to a conforming location. Leslie stated his motion would remain as stated. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 9. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON,920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH—VARIANCE,8:03 P.M.—8:28 P.M. Kathryn Alexander, Architect, and J. Sven Gustafson,Applicant, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting lot area, lot width,and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property to permit the razing and rebuilding of the existing residence. The property is located in the RR-1B, single-family rural residential district, and has a two-acre minimum lot size. The lot consists of 40,385 square feet. The applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15.0 feet from the south side lot line. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 41 feet from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 Brown Road is approximately 125 feet. Under the proposed plan with a 15-foot setback, the separation between PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) these homes is reduced to 70 feet. The applicants have indicated that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be proportionate with other homes in the neighborhood and in character with the style of home that is currently being built as Orono's rural area re- develops. The width of the remaining buildable envelope is 50 feet when the 30-foot side setbacks are met. Gaffron noted many substantial homes no wider than 50 feet are being built today on smaller lots in Orono and that the side setbacks could be resolved through creative design rather than variances. Gaffron stated the proposed site grading plan have the existing driveway remaining. The existing driveway is less than the required five feet from the side lot line,but its relocation slightly northward to meet the five-foot requirement would result in the removal of two mature aspen trees abutting the north side of the driveway. The topography of the site also limits the driveway relocation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Alexander stated Exhibit H illustrates the size of the lot compared to the surrounding lots and that the hardship is the size of the lot. Alexander stated normally lots consisting of one acre have ten-foot side yard setbacks and requested some leniency be given due to the size of the lot. Alexander stated the terrain and the approach to the house makes it difficult to access the residence and have a turnaround. Alexander indicated there is not sufficient room to construct a side-loading garage. Gustafson indicated they are attempting to construct a house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood and that the size of the proposed house fits in with the rest of the residences that have been constructed in this area. Gustafson stated other 55-foot houses have been constructed on small lots along the lakeshore. Alexander noted the allowed structural coverage is 15 percent and that they are only using 7.5 percent. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. David Skeie, 860 South Brown, stated the existing house is 24.5 feet from the side lot line and that he would prefer it not be reduced further. Gustafson stated the neighbor to the south has indicated he is in favor of the proposal. Fritzler questioned whether the connection of the sewer line to tie in with Weber Hills could be accomplished. Gaffron stated he is unaware if the Public Works Department has approached the County regarding this request,but that it would be a simple extension to the sewer system and would more than likely be approved by the county. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) Fritzler stated he has a concern if the sewer is unable to be connected. Fritzler inquired whether there are any septic sites available on this lot. Gustafson stated two septic sites have been identified on the lot but that they would like to hook into the sewer line. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the side lot variance and that the turnaround could possibly be relocated. Gustafson stated they would prefer to save the existing two trees. Winkey inquired whether the driveway needs to be angled a certain way in order to allow someone to back out. Alexander stated it is largely due to function and that they are unable to construct a side-loading garage given the amount of room available. Alexander stated with a front-loading garage,more of the garage would be visible. Alexander pointed out if this lot were located in a different zone, it would have different side yard setbacks. Rahn stated in his view there are ways to design a home to fit onto a 50-foot building pad and that he agrees with Staff's recommendations. Kempf indicated he also is in agreement with Staff's recommendations and that the side yard setbacks are important in protecting the rights of the neighbors now and in the future. Kempf commented it is possible to construct a very nice residence on this lot. Bremer stated some of the houses recently constructed on Watertown Road had the same issue with the side yard setback and that she has some qualms whether 30 feet is the right number for the side yard setback but that in her view 15 feet is not sufficient. Gustafson inquired whether a small portion of the garage could stick within the side yard setback. Bremer stated that would be less intrusive on that side of the property but noted that the whole length of the house on the other side of the lot would be within the side yard setback. Alexander stated typically a 50-foot wide house is going to be a simpler house, and that given the size of the lot,the house would be located deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Rahn stated proximity to the adjoining properties is a main concern Gustafson stated a deeper house would be out of conformity with the rest of the neighborhood and would look out of place. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Rahn stated the applicant has to design a house that fits the lot. Gustafson reiterated they are trying to design a house that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Leslie suggested tabling the application and having the applicant look at redesigning the house. Leslie commented he might be in favor of some variance but that he is not in agreement with the proposed setback. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of any side yard setback. Jurgens indicated he does not want to express an opinion on the amount of setback and that the goal is to be conforming as much as possible. Kempf stated there appears to be some leeway on the side yard setback and that he would be willing to allow some minor encroachment into the 30-foot setback. Rahn indicated he would be in favor of a minor encroachment. Winkey commented he also would be in favor of a minor encroachment but that he would like to see the house conform as much as possible. It was the consensus of the application that variances to lot area and lot width would be approved. Gustafson stated he would like his application tabled. Gustafson inquired whether the driveway would need to be relocated. Jurgens stated he likes to preserve trees but suggested the applicant look at reconfiguring the driveway if at all possible. Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to table Application#05-3102,Kathryn Alexander on behalf of J. Sven Gustafson,920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 10. #05-3103 JACK AND KARI OLSON, 1966 SHADYWOOD ROAD—VARIANCE,8:28 P.M.—9:01 P.M. Jack and Kari Olson, Applicants,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage on their property to replace a one-stall tuck-under garage that will be converted to living space. The applicants are requesting the following variances: PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3103 Jack and Kari Olson,Continued) 1. A rear yard setback variance for a 7.5' rear setback where 15' is required; and 2. A hardcover variance for 48.9 percent within the 0-75' zone; and 3. A structural coverage variance for 32 percent or 1,799 square feet structure where 1,500 square feet is normally allowed and 23 percent currently exists; and 4. A principal building setback to allow a five-foot setback between the garage and the home where a 10-foot setback is normally required; and 5. A lake setback variance to construct a 22' by 24' detached garage within 75 feet of the lake. Curtis noted the applicants' entire property is located within 75 feet of the lake. The applicants are now proposing a 20' by 20' garage with some hardcover removals. Curtis stated due to the size and location of the property,there may be hardships to support a 20' by 20' garage. Jack Olson stated they initially proposed a 22' by 24' garage but came to the conclusion that that was unrealistic and revised their proposal. Olson stated their neighbor was allowed to construct a 20' by 20' foot garage and that his vehicle barely fits into that size of garage. Olson indicated they would like to construct a garage to accommodate their vehicles and that they are willing to remove some of the hardcover on the property. Olson stated they need a workable garage and that 20 feet is very tight and they would prefer a deeper garage. Mike Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road, stated he is the neighbor that constructed the 20' by 20' garage and that he owns a very common vehicle, an F-150, short box. Mischke indicated it is a very tight fit and that he has not put any sheetrock on the walls because then he would not be able to fit his vehicle in the garage. Mischke indicated he would have pushed for a bigger garage had he known how little room he would have. Rahn noted Mischke was also pushing the 1500 square foot structural coverage. Mischke stated vehicles larger than his, such as an Escolade,would not fit into the garage. Rahn stated the larger issue is the structural coverage on the lot and the massing on the lots,which is a bigger issue on the smaller lots. Rahn stated to his recollection the Planning Commission has not granted variances to structural coverage. Rahn inquired whether the existing garage is a single car garage or a double car garage. Rahn commented that it appears there originally was a double car garage that had a portion converted into living space. Mischke stated the Olson's existing garage does not even accommodate a small car. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3103 Jack and Kari Olson, Continued) Mrs. Olson stated she is unable to park her Jetta in the current garage. Mischke stated the existing garage could not have been any deeper than it currently is given the load-bearing wall that exists. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of exceeding the permitted structural coverage on this lot. Rahn inquired whether there are any additional public comments on this application. Mischke stated if the goal is to reduce runoff into the lake, it would be environmentally safer to store the vehicles in a garage,which would prevent the salt and oil from draining down to the lake. Rahn questioned whether the garage could be redesigned and that he would only approve something with 1500 square feet or less. Rahn stated by locating the garage five feet from the existing house,the garage would appear to be larger than the house. Mrs. Olson stated it is impossible to construct a garage less than 1500 square feet and that they would be forced to remove part of their house in order to construct a garage. Jurgens commented the applicants were aware of the limitations of the lot at the time they purchased it and that the Planning Commission needs to comply with the rules as much as possible. Jurgens stated he does not see a hardship. Mrs. Olson stated a garage would also be more aesthetically pleasing since they would be able to store their vehicles and other items inside. Rahn stated in his view it is possible to construct an attached garage on this lot and still remain below the 15 percent structural coverage. Rahn stated the Planning Commission to his recollection has never granted a variance to structural coverage. Winkey stated it would be easier to construct a detached garage but that it is possible to construct a garage on this lot without exceeding the structural coverage. Mr. Olson stated they are financially unable to do the type of project that was proposed by Commissioner Rahn. Mrs. Olson questioned whether an attached garage with living space above it would look just as massive as a detached garage. Jurgens noted property owners are allowed to construct up but that they are required to stay within a certain footprint. Jurgens inquired whether the applicants would like to table their application to explore their options. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3103 Jack and Kari Olson,Continued) Mrs. Olson stated they have looked at a number of different options but most are cost prohibitive. Fritzler noted that there is some land adjoining this lot which is not their property and that the applicants technically should not be using that land. Gaffron stated it is a county right-of-way and that the county in the past has allowed property owners to use it as driveway access. Jurgens stated the county still has rights to that land and could possibly have some objection to constructing a garage in that area. Rahn inquired whether the applicants would like their application tabled. Bremer pointed out the applicants could argue their case before the Council if they have no intention to revise their plans. Mr. Olson stated he is not financially able to remodel the residence in order to construct a garage. Leslie stated the applicant could submit a different design if this application is tabled and not pay a new application fee. Winkey stated the council also has the option to table it and allow the applicants to redesign their plans and send it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Olson requested the Planning Commission vote on his application. Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3103,Jack and Kari Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road, subject to a redesign that would allow the maximum structural coverage of 1500 square foot and the associated minimal hardcover allowed,and further subject to no further encroachments into the side setbacks. Gaffron inquired whether this application should appear before the Planning Commission again if the plans are revised. Winkey inquired whether the application should be denied. Rahn stated his issue with this application is the amount of structural coverage being proposed. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 5; Fritzler,Kempf,Bremer,Leslie and Winkey opposed. MOTION FAILED. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3103 Jack and Kari Olson,Continued) Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3101,Jack and Kari Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road,to allow a 20' by 20' detached garage subject to the proposed hardcover reductions in the applicants' revised plan. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 5; Rahn,Jurgens, Kempf,Fritzler and Winkey opposed. Winkey moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend denial of Application#05-3103,Jack and Kari Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road,with the recommendation that any future proposal for a garage conform with the 1500 structural coverage limit. Ayes 6,Nays 1; Bremer Opposed. 11. #05-3104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD—VARIANCE, 9:02 P.M.—9:16 P.M. David and Renee Mack,Applicants, and Richard Storling,Builder, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to remove a detached garage, construct a garage attached to the house, add footprint additions to the house, and construct a second story addition over the house and the new attached garage. The following variances are being requested: 1. A rear yard setback variance for a 10-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required for the attached garage; and 2. A hardcover variance for 27 percent within the 0-75' zone and 53 percent within the 75'-250' zone; and 3. A structural coverage variance for 24.5 percent structure where 15 percent is normally allowed and 16 percent currently exists; and 4. A lake setback variance to expand the house footprint further into the required 75' lake setback, a 57-foot setback currently exists, and 51 feet is proposed. Staff recommends approval of the second story additions but recommends denial of the lake setback, hardcover, and structural coverage variances in order to expand the house footprint more lakeward than the existing footprint. Should the Planning Commission find that the depth of the lot serves as a hardship justifying the 10-foot rear yard setback,Planning Staff recommends approval of an attached garage. Curtis stated the size of the garage as proposed may not be supported by the hardcover and structural coverage constraints. Mr. Mack stated they would like to increase their living space to make room for their expanding family. Rahn stated the biggest issue is the structural coverage on the lot and that the footprint of the structure in his opinion has to be determined prior to resolving the other issues. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3104 David and Renee Mack,Continued) There were no public comments regarding this application. Jurgens stated the issue is structural coverage and that he does not have a problem with going up. Fritzler stated he would follow Staff's recommendations and that he would not be opposed to going up somewhat on the existing residence. Fritzler noted there are some restrictions on going up. Gaffron stated there are issues with setback from the lake. Fritzler indicated he is not in favor of encroaching within the setbacks. Rahn indicated he would be more receptive to going up with the structure as opposed to enlarging the footprint. Rahn noted the applicants are currently at 16 percent and that he would not be in favor of increasing the structural coverage on the lot. Rahn inquired what the current setback is. Storling stated the existing setback on the north side of the residence is 15 feet. Rahn stated he would like to see the residence redesigned under 16 percent. Mack indicated he would like his application tabled. Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3104,David and Renee Mack, 1978 Shadywood Road,to allow the applicant time to redesign his plan under 16 percent structural coverage. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Storling noted they have proposed some hardcover reductions. Rahn recommended the applicants consider a reduction in hardcover wherever possible. 12. #05-3105 PETER MARTINSON,4460 FOREST LAKE LANDING—VARIANCE,9:16 P.M.—9:33 P.M. Peter Martinson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The following variances are being requested: 1. A hardcover variance for 32.9 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' setback zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 21.9 percent currently exists; and 2. A structural coverage variance for 16.7 percent where 15 percent is normally allowed; and PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3105 Peter Martinson,Continued) 3. A variance for left side yard setback of 9.2 feet where a 10-foot setback from the adjacent property line is normally required; and 4. Lot width and lot area variances. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing what is depicted in Plan D. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances and denial of the side yard setback variance and denial of the structural coverage variance. Should the Planning Commission determine that there is a hardship inherent to the size of the 75'-250' area with respect to allowable hardcover, a reasonable hardcover variance should be discussed. Martinson stated he would be willing to reduce the garage and deck and driveway somewhat to decrease the amount of structural coverage and hardcover on the lot. Martinson indicated the current house is three feet off the neighbor's property. Martinson stated he has explored a number of different options in an effort to make the house conforming as possible. Rahn inquired whether the setback could be 10 feet. Martinson stated it used to be 3.2 and he is proposing 9.2. Rahn pointed out on new construction the house should be made as conforming as possible. Rahn stated the main issue is the side setback and the structural coverage. Rahn noted the proposed structural coverage is 16.7 percent. Martinson stated he was not aware of the limit on structural coverage until today. Rahn inquired what the elevation of the deck is. Martinson stated the deck would be over the first set of windows. Rahn noted since this is a walkout, it would be coming off of the first floor. Rahn suggested reducing the structural coverage. Rahn inquired if the applicant is agreeable to reducing the structural coverage to 15 percent, whether this application should come back before the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated the hardcover would change. Rahn stated the Planning Commission is able to only act on what is before them. Bremer stated the side yard setback also should be brought into conformance. Leslie stated the issues are the structural coverage and side yard setback,which could be verified by Staff prior to bringing it back before the Planning Commission. PAGE 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3105 Peter Martinson, Continued) Loren Schoentelt,4480 Forest Lake Landing, stated Forest Lake Landing is like 35 or 40 feet from the property and that there is a large piece of city land that would help lessen the appearance of massing on the lot. Martinson commented the neighbors are supportive of his proposal. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission is not able to take into account the city-owned piece of land when considering this property. Curtis stated if 214 square feet of structural coverage were to be removed,the hardcover would be lowered to 30.3 percent hardcover. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application 05-3105,Peter Martinson, 4460 Forest Lake Landing,granting of a hardcover variance not to exceed 30 percent in the 75'-250' zone, and to recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variances. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1; Leslie opposed. Leslie indicated he would prefer to see the plan prior to approval. 13. #05-3106 CINDY AND BRAD MCDONNELL, 1420 BALDUR PARK ROAD— VARIANCE,9:33 P.M.—10:03 P.M. Cindy and Brad McDonnell, Applicants,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting hardcover and structural coverage variances in order to construct a 168 square foot covered porch entry in place of an existing 76 square foot deck. The following variances are being requested: 1. A hardcover variance within the 75'-250' zone for 54.5 percent hardcover where 54 percent currently exists; 2. A structural coverage variance to allow 1,885 square feet of structure when 1,500 square feet is normally allowed and 1,717 square feet currently exists. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover and structural coverage variance to construct a minimal covered entry no greater than 50 square feet. In addition, Staff recommends removal of the rock fire ring within 75' of the lake and all fabric/plastic landscape liners. Mrs. McDonnell stated they have a hardship because they do not have an overhang and that creates certain safety concerns for people visiting their property. McDonnell indicated the current landing is rather small and they would like to construct a covered landing that is more aesthetically pleasing. PAGE 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3106 Cindy and Brad McDonnell,Continued) McDonnell noted they have reduced the size of the proposed landing once they learned of the hardcover and structural coverage limitations. Mr. McDonnell stated the current landing is small and does not safely accommodate their grandparents and other visits to the lot. Mrs. McDonnell reiterated they would like the project to be visually appealing and have scaled back their plans after becoming aware of the regulations. McDonnell stated they have a small lot and are unable to reduce the garage or house. Mr.McDonnell stated they would like to make the house pleasing and functional but would like to construct a covered entry due for safety reasons. Mrs.McDonnell indicated they are re-siding their house and doing some landscaping and that they are willing to make their property more conforming with the hardcover limits. Mr.McDonnell indicated they are willing to reduce their driveway somewhat. Jurgens stated he would like to see the structural coverage reduced as much as possible. Jurgens inquired whether the deck in the front is considered structural coverage. Curtis stated that deck would be considered hardcover. Jurgens commented he understands the safety issue but that the covered porch entry would need to remain as small as possible. Rahn stated in this particular case it does appear to be a safety issue and it would be over existing hardcover. Mrs.McDonnell stated she would be in favor of a minimally sized entry if it would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. McDonnell pointed out there is a window located close to the door, and if they are required to reduce the size of the porch,the post would be in the center of the window. Rahn indicated he would be in favor of 77 square feet. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kempf stated what is being proposed is basically for aesthetics and functionality and that in his view an aesthetically pleasing landing could be accomplished with a smaller amount of square footage. PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3106 Cindy and Brad McDonnell,Continued) Mrs.McDonnell stated they are willing to reduce a portion of the driveway. McDonnell stated the total driveway is 832 square feet. Leslie inquired when the house was constructed. Mrs.McDonnell stated in 1978. Leslie commented the safety issues associated with an uncovered entry do not appear to be a high priority since it has existed for over 20 years. Leslie stated if the Planning Commission is requiring other applicants to comply with structural coverage,this application is no different. Mr.McDonnell stated people have fallen on that landing and that the uncovered entry is also dripping water down by the foundation of the residence. Mrs.McDonnell stated in her view they do not have an option and that the safety of their children and other visitors to their residence is a priority. McDonnell commented they do not have many options. Winkey commented he does not really see a hardship in this situation and that the Planning Commission needs to remain consistent. Winkey noted the hardcover in the 75'-250' zone is almost double what is allowed and that there should be major reductions in the hardcover. Winkey commented the main issue is the structural coverage. Mr. McDonnell reiterated that a number of people have fallen on this landing. Winkey stated the area could be shoveled and salted. Mr. McDonnell indicated the area is wood and is very slippery when wet. Winkey stated in his opinion the issue is the amount of structural coverage on the lot. Bremer stated in her view this application is different than an application for a garage due to the safety considerations,but noted other applicants have been required to reduce their plans down to the bare minimum in order to comply with the structural coverage limit. Bremer stated she would like to see further reductions in hardcover,which the applicants have indicated they are willing to do. Bremer stated she would be in favor of the 76 feet but that aesthetics is not a hardship. Jurgens inquired whether the applicants are willing to work with the 80 feet. Jurgens pointed out 80 square feet would allow an 8' by 10' landing,which is easier to construct. Mrs.McDonnell indicated they would be willing to redesign their plans to meet the 80 square feet. Fritzler stated in his view a safe covered entryway could be achieved with 76 or 77 square feet and that reductions in hardcover normally are not exchanged for additional structural coverage. PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3106 Cindy and Brad McDonnell,Continued) Jurgens stated 260 square feet of driveway would need to be removed. Mrs.McDonnell requested 80 square feet. Jurgens stated on every application the Planning Commission looks at reducing hardcover wherever possible. Mrs. McDonnell inquired whether the 260 square feet of hardcover could be removed in areas other than the driveway. Bremer stated the hardcover could be removed anywhere within the 75'-250' zone. Jurgens moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3106,Cindy and Brad McDonnell, 1420 Baldur Park Road,granting of a hardcover variance within the 75'-250' zone,with the condition that 250 square feet of hardcover be removed in the 75-250' zone,and the granting of a structural coverage variance to allow an 80 square foot addition in the area where the existing deck is to accommodate the covered porch entry, and further subject to the removal of the rock fire ring and all fabric/plastic landscape liners. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3; Fritzler,Leslie and Winkey opposed. Fritzler, Leslie and Winkey indicated they are opposed because they believe the 15 percent structural coverage limit should be adhered to. *14. #05-3107 SCOTT BISEN AND MICHELLE MOREY,825 TONKAWA ROAD— VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3107, Scott Bisen and Michelle Morey,825 Tonkawa Road,granting of a variance and conditional use permit in order to replace a rotted wooden stair system, subject to the conditions outlined in the April 11,2005 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 15. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 28 AND APRIL 11,2005 Jurgens reported on the March 28th City Council meeting,noting that a number of applications were placed on the consent agenda. PAGE 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Report of Planning Commission Representatives, Continued) Gaffron stated the Rouses were allowed to replace the existing foundation. Jurgens stated the City Council also discussed the Big Island purchase. Rahn indicated he attended the April 11th Council meeting,noting that the Capra application was approved at 30 percent as a rebuild. Rahn noted Council Member McMillan did mention the letter from the Planning Commission regarding Navarre. Jurgens commented he sees County Road 15 becoming a major corridor through this area. Rahn commented he would like to see the Planning Commission be more pro-active in the Navarre area. 16. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 17. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 21,2005 Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to approve the minutes of the March 21,2005 Planning Commission minutes as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 18. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 25 AND MAY 9,2005 April 25—Jurgens May 9-Leslie ADJOURNMENT Jurgens moved,Kempf seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. David Rahn,Chair PAGE 32