HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,May 16,2005
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 J. Marc Fritzler,Travis Winkey, Cynthia Bremer,Roland Jurgens,Jim
Leslie, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie
Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lili McMillan was
present.
City Engineer Tom Kellogg arrived at 6:13 p.m.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
1. #05-3098 CITY OF ORONO, SECTION 78-1285 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT,
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,6:01 P.M.—6:55 P.M.
Gaffron addressed the Orono Planning Commission concerning an amendment to Section 78-1285 of the
Shoreland Management Zoning Code. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
language at their April work session where it was felt that the addition of language making the
"Vegetations Alterations"ordinances applicable to protected tributaries could have impacts on a large
number of properties. Staff was directed to notify individually the 100 plus owners of property located
within 75 feet of a protected tributary to inform them of the proposed amendment and gather public input
regarding this new element of the amendment.
Gaffron stated the proposed language reads as follows: "Invasive Species Removal. Removal of
buckthorn and other invasive or exotic plant species is encouraged by the City. However, such removals
when occurring within 75 feet of the shoreline of a lake,within 75 feet of the OHWL of a tributary
stream, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the shoreland overlay district,have a
potential to result in conditions that could be considered as intensive vegetation clearing. Therefore,the
following regulations shall apply for such removals:
1. The property owner shall obtain a City permit prior to invasive species removal when such
removals are located:
(i) within 75 feet of the shoreline of a lake or the OHWL of a tributary; or
(ii) on steep slopes; or
(iii) within a bluff impact zone,
In order to obtain a permit,the property owner shall provide a site plan indicating the location, species,
number and size of proposed vegetation removals.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3098 City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment,Continued)
2. In cases where invasive species removals are expected to result in intensive vegetation clearing,
the property owner shall submit with the permit application a vegetation restoration plan,which shall
require approval of the Planning Director.
d. Violations: Restoration Required. In the event that trees or vegetation are removed, cut,
pruned or trimmed in violation of the above provisions,within 30 days of such violation the property
owner shall provide to the city for City Council review and approval a restoration plan providing for the
re-establishment of vegetation on the site. The property owner shall,within a timeframe determined by
the City Council,re-establish vegetation on the property per the provisions of the approved restoration
plan. Suitable restoration measures to be incorporated into a restoration plan must include,but are not
limited to,the following:
1. Planting of up to three(3)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 compatibility with surrounding vegetation,
appropriate caliper(2"min.) 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.
3. Establishment of a Restoration Agreement to be filed in the chain of title of the
property, and 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 the existing language specifically does not allow the removal of any trees that are six
inches in diameter or greater within 75 feet of the lake without obtaining a permit from the City and
requires that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to
the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Gaffron indicated the
existing language also requires an inspection prior to the removal of any dead trees within 75 feet of the
shoreline and allows limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting,
pruning and trimming of trees of any size to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site
and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings,picnic areas, access paths,beach
and watercraft access areas,etc.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
John Whitman, 1570 Sixth Avenue North, stated their property contains a secondary septic site within the
affected area and also a culvert that crosses the back portion of their property. Whitman stated they
would like to be insured that their access to the back portion of their property remains following passage
of this amendment. Whitman indicated they have incurred some expense in having the second septic site
identified and having the culvert installed,both of which have been approved by the city in the past.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3098 City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Gaffron stated things that have been approved in the past should be documented in the file,and
questioned whether language should be included in the amendment that allows projects that have been
approved in the past to be exempt under the amendment. Gaffron suggested the City Attorney be
consulted on whether additional language should be included.
Whitman inquired whether the property owner would be held responsible for any vegetation that is
removed by someone who does not have the property owner's permission to remove the vegetation.
Gaffron stated there are some existing regulations dealing with that type of situation and that the City
would likely continue following those same regulations,which takes into consideration a trespass
situation.
Steve Wilson, 325 South Brown Road, stated Long Lake Creek runs through their property and they are
supportive of protecting the creek, which they have done in the past and will continue to do. Wilson
stated in his view the amendment is intrusive to the property owners and as far as Item A is concerned,
there should be some type of appeal process available to the property owner.
Wilson pointed out the pruning and trimming of trees is necessary for other reasons besides providing a
view to the lake,noting that pruning is necessary for disease control and proper growth of trees. Wilson
stated the invasive species language is counterproductive to require a property owner to obtain a permit
for every single species that they would like to remove and places a burden on the property owner.
(Leslie leaves the meeting at 6:18 p.m.)
Wilson stated the violation provision assumes the worse case scenario and does not allow for minor
situations. Wilson stated in his view this amendment has not been well thought out and should be given
more consideration.
Sheila Smith,445 South Brown Road, indicated she is in agreement with Wilson,and inquired whether
this ordinance or a similar ordinance exists elsewhere within the state.
Rahn stated the City has been enforcing this same language around the lake for a number of years.
Smith indicated she has resided in this area all her life and that she has seen numerous people remove
trees and natural vegetation along the shoreline. Smith inquired whether permits have been obtained in
those instances.
Smith stated she owns horses and that some trees and vegetation need to be removed because they are
harmful to livestock. Smith encouraged the city to put further thought into this ordinance.
Smith indicated there have been a number of instances where trees have been cut down and have been left
near the creek and have jammed her culvert. Smith stated she has contacted a number of governmental
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3098 City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
agencies trying to have the logs removed and that she would like some assistance from the City in order
to deal with this situation.
Susan Wilson, 325 South Brown Road, stated they have improved their property considerably and have
taken steps to remove the buckthorn on their property. Wilson noted that buckthorn prevents maple trees
and other native trees from reseeding and that further thought needs to be given to the natural reseeding of
the wooded areas.
Tom Lane, 915 North Brown Road, stated they have attempted to keep the buckthorn under control on
their property but that in his opinion the requirement of a permit for removal within 75 feet of the
shoreline is excessive.
Gaffron indicated the City encourages removal of buckthorn and other invasive or exotic plant species,
but noted if that happens within the first 75 feet of the lakeshore, it is necessary to obtain a permit.
Gaffron stated the City has experienced a number of situations where a property owner has stripped the
area near the shoreline clear, which creates issues with erosion. Gaffron stated buckthorn has essentially
taken over some portions of the lakeshore and that there needs to be some procedures in place for the
proper removal of buckthorn and other invasive species and for restoration of the shoreline.
Lane suggested individual areas should be reviewed rather than making the ordinance so broad. Lane
stated the City has been negligent in the past along North Brown Road by failing to maintain the ravine
and failing to properly clear the culverts out on a regular basis. Lane concurred that additional thought
should be given to the amendment.
An unidentified resident stated Long Lake Creek was originally a ditch that was dug out by the WPA a
number of years ago.
Kempf inquired what the cost of a permit is for a property owner who wants to remove some buckthorn.
Gaffron stated no fee has been established at the present time since this amendment is still in the concept
stage.
Kempf stated the comments of the residents are well taken but pointed out that the land near the
watershed district are sensitive areas and need to be dealt with appropriately. Kempf stated the
amendment requests that property owners submit plans showing what their intentions are regarding the
vegetation in that area prior to removing anything,noting that not all residents are as sensitive to the
environment as they could be.
Jurgens stated he is in agreement with Kempf and that the amendment has been written for people who
are not aware of the issues concerning the removal of vegetation along the lakeshore. Jurgens stated the
City is limited on how to deal with removal of vegetation within 75 feet of the shoreline and that this
amendment helps give the City some guidance on how to handle violations. Jurgens pointed out the
majority of the restoration items relate to violations of the amendment.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3098 City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Rahn stated this amendment has been driven by the redevelopment the City has experienced along the
lake and the clearing of lots.
Bremer stated the City appreciates residents who are ecologically sensitive to the vegetation along the
lakeshore,but that the amendment is designed to help develop a plan to help maintain and preserve the
natural vegetation. Bremer stated the issue may be the removal of buckthorn and how that should be
handled.
Winkey stated in the short period of time he has been on the Planning Commission the removal of
vegetation along the lake has been consistent and has raised numerous issues. Winkey stated the City is
attempting to guard against the clear-cutting of properties and put in place a plan to help protect the
natural vegetation of the area.
Fritzler stated it is not the intention of the Planning Commission or the City to walk onto someone's
property and tell the property owner what they can and cannot do,but that there needs to be some type of
controls or guidelines in place to deal with the removal of vegetation along the shoreline by people who
are not environmentally conscious.
Ms. Smith stated she would like to know whether this ordinance was drafted after another city's
ordinance.
Gaffron stated parts(a)and(b)were taken almost word for word out of the DNR's ordinance for
shoreland in 1992. Items(c) and(d)have been created by the City to deal with the issues that have
arisen in Orono and is not specifically taken from another city. Gaffron stated he is unaware of other
cities having an ordinance similar to this.
Smith stated she understands the reason for the amendment but that the need to obtain a permit to prune
trees is ridiculous. Smith encouraged the Planning Commission to put more thought into the amendment.
Smith inquired how many residents have been identified as being potentially affected by this ordinance
amendment.
Gaffron stated approximately 120 residents were notified of the hearing tonight.
Smith suggested the Planning Commission look at regulating fertilizers due to the runoff into the lakes.
Fritzler indicated state law regulates the use of fertilizers along the lakeshore.
Tom Browne, 760 South Brown Road, stated one possible solution is to address a smaller area,noting
that the City is already busy enough without granting a number of permits to anyone who wants to prune
a tree.
Rahn stated the intent of the amendment is to prevent the complete stripping of the shoreline.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3098 City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment,Continued)
Mr.Wilson stated the issue really appears to be erosion control and that perhaps an ordinance should be
drafted requiring the homeowner to address the erosion.
Lane stated he is aware of situations around the lake where builders have come in and stripped the land
and that perhaps the ordinance should address those specific types of situations rather than the minor
pruning of trees by a property owner. Lane stated perhaps the ordinance should be more specific to
address the type of situation that the City is afraid might occur.
Jurgens noted the original language of the code addresses limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six
inches in diameter to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the
placement of permitted stairways and landings. Jurgens stated perhaps the language should be modified
to address maintenance of properties. Jurgens noted the code does allow limited pruning.
Gaffron stated in the past people were allowed to prune along the shoreline without a permit but that
under the amendment they would be required to apply for a permit.
Winkey recommended the public comments received tonight be taken into consideration.
Lane inquired what would happen if the wind or other forces of nature knock down the trees.
Smith stated she was forced to remove 72 trees as a result of one windstorm and commented that the cost
to obtain a permit to remove the trees would be costly.
Bremer noted the fee would not apply to each tree.
Rahn stated he is in agreement with Winkey and that the concerns of the residents should be taken into
consideration and that the amendment should be tabled.
Whitman inquired what process would be followed in approving this ordinance amendment and whether
the public could attend the meeting.
Bremer stated the hearing would be open to the public and that the City would also be obtaining the
opinion of the City Attorney on the language contained within the amendment. Bremer stated she would
like to see some thought go into incorporating language into the amendment to deal with previously
approved situations.
Kempf suggested the City address what it feels is intensive clearing of a lot. Kempf noted buckthorn does
have a tendency to take over an area and that there needs to be a plan to address its removal.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3098, City of Orono, Section
78-1285,Shoreland Management,Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
2. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON,920
BROWN ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,6:56 P.M.—7:23 P.M.
J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Rick and Janet Francis,property owners, were present.
Gaffron noted a letter was received from Kathryn Alexander supporting her position regarding the request
for variances.
Gaffron stated at the last Planning Commission meeting the applicants had proposed side setback
variances on both sides to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15
feet from the south side lot line. The applicants have since revised their plans and are now proposing a
north side setback of 18 feet where 30 feet would normally be required in addition to lot area and lot
width variances. The applicants have eliminated the request for a south side setback variance.
Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission discuss the revised plans and determine whether there is hardship or justification
for the side lot setback variance.
Gaffron noted at the last meeting a discussion was had regarding the long narrow lot and how the same
size footprint, without the side yard setback,would make the house longer and have a greater view impact
on the neighbors. Gaffron stated the applicants are willing to remove two trees to relocate the driveway
to meet the five-foot setback from the south lot line.
Gaffron noted there are no hardcover or structural issues on this property.
Gustafson stated they have taken the Planning Commission's comments into consideration and have
revised their proposal to limit a variance on only one side of the property. Gustafson indicated he would
prefer to split the distance between both sides of the property line. Gustafson stated the trees that they are
proposing to remove are cottonwoods and that the neighbors are not opposed to the removal.
Gustafson distributed three different footprints of the type of home the property owners would prefer to
be built on this lot. Gustafson indicated the neighbors are not particularly in favor of the house designs
given the length of the house. Gustafson stated in his opinion the neighbors would prefer the difference
be split and the house made wider,which is also the property owner's preference.
Rahn stated it appears that the survey conflicts with the original floor plan and questioned whether the
deck and porch would encroach into the side yard setback. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of
approving a deck or a porch if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Rahn stated Exhibits B1 and B2
show the deck located outside of the dining room and the screen porch encroaching.
Gustafson agreed they do appear to be inconsistent.
Rahn stated he does not have a major issue with the garage encroaching but would not be in support of the
deck or porch encroaching into the side yard setback. Rahn noted the neighbor to the north had asked that
the home not encroach any closer than 24 feet.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued)
Gustafson stated the neighbor has indicated he would prefer a wider home rather than a longer home.
Gustafson stated the angled garage is less of an encroachment on the neighboring property.
Winkey inquired what plan the applicant would like the Planning Commission to focus on.
Gustafson stated they would like the Planning Commission to look at the first plan in the packet
distributed tonight.
Rahn noted that plan calls for a 10-foot encroachment on each side. Rahn pointed out Staff has not had
time to review the plan being proposed by the applicant tonight.
Gustafson stated they would like some direction from the Planning Commission on whether they would
be acceptable to an angled garage.
Rahn stated it was his recollection that the Planning Commission would be acceptable to a minor
encroachment.
David Skeie, 860 Brown Road South, stated he has resided to the north of this property for 28 years.
Skeie indicated there is a grove of trees between his house and the proposed residence and that he is not
opposed to the plan being proposed tonight by the applicant. Skeie stated he would prefer to have the
house wider rather than longer.
Kempf stated he sees the advantage to the shorter building and that a corner of the garage encroaching
into the side yard setback is not as significant as the encroachment of the entire side of the garage.
Jurgens inquired what the total length of the house with the angled garage is.
Gustafson stated it is 70 feet wide and 80 feet long,which includes the deck.
Jurgens inquired what the length of the home with the L-shaped garage is on the survey.
Gustafson stated it is 96.10.
Jurgens noted that is an additional 17 feet in depth,and inquired whether the back of the house would be
going east if the house is constructed longer on this lot rather than wider.
Gustafson stated the house would probably be pushed further to the east.
Winkey inquired whether the house has been reduced ten feet by whether it is angled differently on the
lot.
Gustafson stated the size of the house was reduced and the layout of the house was rearranged somewhat.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3102 Sven Gustafson,Continued)
Winkey stated his recollection of the last Planning Commission meeting the applicant was given direction
to minimize the encroachment and that this proposal is a good step towards achieving that goal.
Fritzler inquired what the side yard setback would be with the angled garage.
Gustafson stated it would be 20 feet.
Bremer stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey and that the plan being proposed tonight is
a good compromise. Bremer noted one of the goals in reviewing variances is to protect the future
property owners of the adjoining lots and that it might be necessary to reduce the encroachment into the
side yard setback. Bremer stated the size of the lot in her view does constitute some hardship.
Rahn inquired whether it would be necessary for this application to reappear before the Planning
Commission if the Planning Commission is in favor of the 20-foot side yard setback.
Gaffron stated in his view the applicant could submit a plan depicting exactly what is being proposed
tonight for staff review and would not have to reappear before the Planning Commission.
Rahn stated he would prefer to see a home that does not go deeper,which would be more intrusive to the
neighbors.
Bremer noted the encroachment does not go the entire length of the lot but is rather a limited area.
Fritzler stated he prefers the angled garage even though it does encroach into the side yard setback rather
than the longer house.
Jurgens indicated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approval.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3102,Kathryn
Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build,920 Brown Road South,granting of a 20-foot side yard
setback to the north and a 20-foot side yard setback to the south,with the understanding that the
footprint proposed to be constructed is the one contained on page two of the handout and should be
identical to that floor plan except with a reverse image. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed.
Jurgens reiterated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approving it.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #05-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:24 P.M.—8:25 P.M.
Sheryl and Larry Palm,Applicants, and Blake Buchanich,Architect,were present.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance,a lot width variance, and a conditional use
permit to allow retaining walls and grading within five feet of the adjoining lot line. Staff has concerns
regarding the grading plan for this specific lot and the number of retaining walls being proposed, some as
high as 14 feet high. Gundlach stated the concerns deal with the height of the walls as well as
maintenance of the walls and the need to construct a swale.
Gundlach stated four grading plans have been submitted,with the City Engineering having reviewed two
of them. Staff also has a concern that the current plan does not address construction on steep slopes.
Gundlach indicated the City's code defines a steep slope as "land having average slopes of 12 percent or
greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more that are not bluffs." The Planning
Commission should discuss whether screening should be required for any retaining walls and structures in
an effort to preserve existing vegetation screening as viewed from the lake
Gundlach noted the building inspector is requesting that this application not be moved forward to the City
Council pending approval of the grading plan. Staff is also recommending tabling the application to
allow the City Engineer to review the latest grading plan.
Gundlach displayed grading plan number four that was received on Friday depicting the location of the
retaining walls,noting that the elevation of the retaining wall may not work with the proposed grading
plan.
Buchanich stated they have gone through a number of revisions to the grading plan due to concerns raised
by Staff. Buchanich stated the house to the north,when it was constructed,was cut into the hill which has
resulted in a steep grade and has created an abnormal condition to the north. Buchanich stated the idea of
constructing a retaining wall to the right was to help mitigate some of the runoff issues on this lot as well
as the adjoining property.
Buchanich stated the applicants have revised their plans to address the requirement that the retaining wall
not be located within five feet of the adjoining property. Buchanich stated under this plan the applicants
are not able to divert as much of the neighbors' runoff as originally proposed. Buchanich noted under the
latest proposal the majority of the drainage is being diverted to the south and that very little water goes
along the north property line,which is significantly different than what currently exists.
Buchanich stated the retaining walls being proposed are two-tier,with a five-foot wall and a six-foot wall
being proposed.
Rahn inquired whether the City Engineer has reviewed this plan.
Gundlach stated Staff received the plan on Friday and that the City Engineer has not reviewed it.
Rahn noted the City Engineer would need to review the plan prior to the Planning Commission making a
final decision on it.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
Buchanich stated the current plan does address the concerns raised by the City Engineer over the past
month.
Gundlach stated one of the neighbors has contacted Staff today to notify the City that they have not seen
the latest revised plan.
Larry Palm stated he has submitted grading plans a number of times based on staff comments and that
they have taken steps to address all the concerns brought to their attention.
Gundlach stated the City Engineer did review grading plans one and two. Gundlach indicated the City
Engineer has not reviewed plans three and four, which were submitted last week.
Palm stated plan two was drafted based on comments from the city engineer and in an effort to address
issues raised in the southwest corner. Palm stated grading plan number four is what they are proposing at
this time. Palm stated roof gutters and drain tile would be installed along the entire length of the house.
Rahn inquired whether there are any public comments regarding this application.
Maggie Erikson,4455 Forest Lake Landing, stated they have had a number of discussions with the
applicants regarding the drainage. Erikson stated they handle the runoff from their property but that the
runoff from the hill needs to be addressed. Erikson stated in her opinion there is not adequate room for a
swale and that they would prefer the retaining wall along the property line.
Palm stated the only difference with plan number four from the previous plan is that the retaining wall is
located five feet off the property line to comply with the City's regulations. Palm indicated he also would
prefer the retaining wall to be located along the property line.
Sandy Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail, indicated she has had an opportunity to discuss the project with
the applicant and that she has two areas of concern, one dealing with erosion and the other dealing with
the trees along the property line. Rasmussen noted the property was originally covered with buckthorn
and that in the process of developing the property the lot had been clear-cut.
Rasmussen stated the house faces the lake and that in the area down to the water there are a number of
mature trees they would like to have protected during the construction process. Rasmussen stated the
applicant has assured them that the trees would not be impacted during the construction but that they
would like a fence to be erected while construction is ongoing.
Rasmussen noted there are some trees that would be lost as a result of the construction and that they are
requesting that those trees be replaced on a three to one or four to one basis. Rasmussen stated they also
would like the applicant to bear the cost of removing those trees.
Rasmussen stated the natural grading of the property shifts direction from the north to the south towards
their property. Rasmussen stated their property is located two to three feet lower than the subject property
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
and that they would like some assurance that the runoff is addressed in that area. Rasmussen indicated
they would not be opposed to a berm in that area.
Rasmussen stated they do not have any issues with the layout and footprint of the house,but indicated
they would like to see the buffer replaced on their side of the swale.
There were no further public comments.
Kellogg indicated he has not had a chance to review the latest drainage plan until tonight. Kellogg stated
his previous concerns with respect to how the drainage should be handled. Kellogg stated some issues for
discussion are whether the size of the house is appropriate for the lot and is the footprint situated in the
right position. Kellogg stated the perception from the lake should be taken into account when considering
the two-tiered wall.
Kellogg stated the grades of the swale are also a concern,noting that a five percent swale is typically the
maximum on a slope without some further engineering.
Rahn inquired whether the height of the wall would be reduced as it goes further north up into the
property line.
Buchanich stated the height of the wall would decrease as it goes near the property line.
Kellogg stated in his opinion allowing the wall to encroach within five feet of the property line may be a
better solution.
Buchanich stated they would like to direct the drainage into the center of the lot.
Rahn stated he would like to see a gradual swale. Rahn inquired what type of screening is being proposed
and what type of materials would be used to construct the wall.
Buchanich stated the closest portion of the wall would be located 150 feet from the lake.
Rahn stated he would prefer to see a more detailed lake elevation showing the walls and the screening for
the walls. Rahn inquired whether a decision has been made on the type of materials for the walls.
Palm stated their choices are block,boulder or Keystone.
Rahn stated another option would be a poured wall,noting that the potential failure of the wall is another
concern.
Palm stated they originally considered a poured wall but changed to a keystone wall because they did not
think the City would approve a poured wall. Palm stated a Keystone wall would be an engineered wall.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm,Continued)
Bremer stated one of the concerns with the retaining wall is the appearance from the lake,the screening,
and the amount of distance between the two walls.
Kempf suggested the applicant consider planting shrubs along one of the tiers.
Palm stated their intent is to plant arborvitaes to help screen the wall.
Jurgens stated another point to consider is the fact that at one point the wall would not be perpendicular to
the lake but rather to the neighboring property and that some type of screening for the neighbor would be
desirous. Jurgens indicated he did visit the site and in his opinion, given the slope, some type of retaining
wall is necessary.
Jurgens expressed a concern regarding a small collection basin on the north end of the garage with a
12-inch pipe over to the swale. Jurgens questioned whether the swale would be able to handle all the
runoff if the 12-inch pipe is full and requested the City Engineer review that issue.
Jurgens noted trees over six inches were removed from this property and questioned whether a
replacement plan has been proposed or is necessary.
Gundlach stated every tree that has been removed is not protected by City code.
Buchanich stated Gronberg has done full runoff calculations for this site, including the neighbor's runoff.
Buchanich pointed out the site itself has a greater than five percent slope,which makes it difficult to
create slopes that are less than five percent.
Rahn stated the underlying issue that creates the length of the swale and the retaining walls is the size of
the house and garage being proposed.
Gaffron stated it is 95 feet.
Rahn stated the length of the house on the site also creates some of the issues with drainage. Rahn
inquired whether the proposed basement floor is higher than what currently exists.
Buchanich stated the new house would be located approximately 20 feet back.
Palm stated if the house is slid back, it creates more green space,which makes it more difficult to manage
the water runoff. Palm stated the purpose of locating the house in this spot is to allow easier access to the
garage.
Rahn indicated he has a concern with the length of the proposed house and that a smaller house would
impact the elevation.
PAGE 13
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
Buchanich stated if the house is located further back, the slope of the driveway would exceed 15 percent.
Bremer indicated she is agreeable to granting the lot area and lot width variances but that some direction
needs to be given to the applicant on the drainage issues. Bremer inquired whether the other Planning
Commission members are in favor of granting the lot area and lot width variances.
Rahn stated due to the topography of the lot,the size of the house and the amount of hardcover being
proposed in two zones contributes to the drainage problems on this lot. Rahn reiterated that he would
prefer to have a drainage plan that has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to
reviewing this application.
Palm stated as it relates to the water runoff off the hill,they can manage that runoff and that they are
dealing with issues further up the hill. Palm stated the existing house is less than half of what is being
proposed and that they are unable to control the runoff issues. Palm indicated the larger house would give
them the ability to control the runoff and that a lot of effort has been put into designing these plans to deal
with these issues.
Rahn stated he probably would be in agreement with the proposal if the city engineer approves the
drainage plan and that it is difficult to act on an application without that approval.
Bremer stated in her opinion this is a buildable lot and that she would be in favor of the lot area and lot
width variances. Bremer stated she also is in agreement with allowing the retaining wall to go up to the
property line.
Rahn stated he does not want to hear later that the drainage plan may not work given the length of the
house.
Palm stated he would be able to save a month if he is allowed to go before the City Council with a
drainage plan that has been approved by the city engineer and staff.
Winkey inquired whether there is anything else that Rahn is concerned about should the city engineer
approve the drainage plan. Winkey indicated he would not be opposed to moving the application forward
to the City Council subject to staff approval of the drainage plan.
Kempf indicated he is not opposed to the lot width and lot area variances. Kempf noted a letter from
Bruce Vang has been received which says the extreme topography of this lot makes it one of the most
difficult lots to construct on in Orono. Kempf stated in his view it is valuable to see elevations of what
will be seen from the lakeshore and that it would be valuable to have information concerning the type of
materials the wall would be constructed of.
Kempf noted if the wall ever did fail,the neighboring house located below the wall could face potential
devastation and life-threatening impacts to that property owner. Kempf stated he would prefer to see a
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm,Continued)
poured wall with some type of texture. Kempf indicated he would prefer to see more information on the
proposal before moving it forward to the Council.
Gundlach noted Staff's recommendation and the City engineer's letter has stated the wall should be
located at least five feet off the property line. Gundlach inquired what conditions would be imposed if the
wall is located within five feet of the property line.
Palm stated they would prefer having the wall flare towards the property line.
Rahn noted the majority of the wall would be located more than five feet away from the property line.
Palm stated he would like crystal clear direction on exactly what the Planning Commission wants to see
on the retaining walls,noting that he has spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to comply with the
direction given by staff.
Rahn reiterated he would like to see detailed elevations depicting the wall from the lakeside and the north
as well as the screening of the wall and a letter from the city engineer approving the drainage for this lot.
Palm stated they are proposing a five to six foot two-tiered wall, which would consist of a poured wall
with some type of decorative texture.
Rahn stated in his opinion a poured wall with a textured finish would be a plus.
Fritzler stated he would not be in favor of extending the retaining wall within five feet of the property
line.
Rahn inquired whether there is another method of controlling the runoff from the neighboring property.
Kellogg stated the option of flaring the wall out to the property line creates a funnel, which is one
solution, and that a storm sewer might be another option.
Rahn stated he would like to see a drainage plan that handles all of the runoff.
Bremer indicated she would be supportive of tapering the wall towards the property line.
Palm stated he does not want to be told at next month's hearing that the retaining wall should not be
tapered towards the property line.
Erickson stated tapering of the retaining wall towards the property line would allow all of the water to be
caught and diverted and that she is not opposed to that proposal.
Bremer stated if it is determined that the best way to deal with the water runoff is to taper the retaining
wall within five feet of the property line,it appears likely that that proposal would be approved by the
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
Planning Commission. Bremer noted the Planning Commission is merely a recommending body and that
the City Council may not necessarily approve that proposal.
Rahn pointed out a berm may also be needed to handle some of the runoff to the south.
Fritzler inquired about the 20-foot sewer easement and whether that would be dedicated.
Gundlach stated there is no easement currently and that the City typically asks for a 20-foot easement at
the time of a subdivision request. Gundlach stated as part of the variance approval process a 20-foot
easement could be requested.
Bremer stated she would also like the landscaping and screening of the walls depicted on the elevation
views.
Jurgens moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3100,Larry and Sheryl Palm,
1146 Wildhurst Trail. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Recess taken at 8:25 p.m.—8:33 p.m.)
4. #05-3108 GARY AND LYNN CHRISTENSEN,3560 IVY PLACE,VARIANCES, 8:33
P.M.—8:38 P.M.
Gary Christensen,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission in February, with the applicant
requesting hardcover, side and lake setback variances in order to replace their existing low-pitched garage
roof with a steeper pitch.
Staff recommends approval of the variances in order to construct a steeper pitched roof on the existing
garage in the nonconforming location. Curtis stated the applicant is agreeable to removing hardcover that
is consistent with Exhibit G attached to the resolution approval.
Christensen had nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn inquired whether the dormers are only located on the overhead door side.
Christensen indicated that is correct.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3108 Gary and Lynn Christensen, Continued)
Fritzler noted there is an excessive amount of hardcover on this lot and that it would be difficult to
approve the application.
Curtis stated Exhibit G outlines the hardcover removals being proposed by the applicant.
Rahn noted the hardcover removals were addressed at the February Planning Commission meeting.
Christensen stated he has already removed the sidewalk, sold the swing set, and would be relocating the
shed off his property. Christensen stated a contractor has been hired to remove the cement slab and that
he would also be removing a portion of the deck.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3108, Gary and Lynn
Christensen,3560 Ivy Place,granting of hardcover,side yard and lake setback variances in order
to replace the existing low-pitched garage roof with a steeper pitched roof. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,
Fritzler Opposed.
Fritzler stated he would like to see additional hardcover removals on this lot.
5. #05-3109 NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,3655 TOGO
ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES,8:38 P.M.—8:50 P.M.
Mark Warren,Rodney Gordon,Mike Damonson were present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to rebuild on the existing lot,which requires a conditional use
permit in order to construct a church or related structure within an area zoned for one-family residential.
In addition, a hardcover variance is required to permit 43.8 percent hardcover within the 500'-1000' zone
when 40.6 percent exists,43 percent was approved in 1994 by Resolution#3485, and 35 percent is
normally allowed. A sign variance is also required in order to permit a sign measuring 8' by 4' or 32
square feet where City code normally permits a 12 square foot sign.
Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations:
1. A hardcover reduction of 483 square feet so that the proposed hardcover conforms to the 43 percent
that was permitted by variance Resolution#3485 approved in 1994.
2. City Engineer approval of the final grading plan,which should incorporate the comments contained in
Exhibit J.
Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss landscaping as a condition of a hardcover
variance approval.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3109 Navarre Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Continued)
Warren stated they are agreeable with Staff's recommendations.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Rahn inquired whether there are any landscaping requirements for this property.
Gundlach stated Staff would like to see a minimum landscaping plan and lighting plan as part of the
conditional use permit.
Kempf concurred that the lighting issues should be addressed at the time this property is developed to
address security concerns. Kempf commented that the proposal in his opinion would improve the
property.
Warren stated the current light located in the parking lot is not adequate.
Gundlach recommended a downward casting light be considered and that a foot-candle measurement also
be included on the plan
Jurgens stated his biggest concern is the amount of lighting on this lot,noting that this property is located
in the residential area. Jurgens also expressed a concern regarding the sign variance and that the size of
the sign being proposed is probably not necessary.
Kempf stated he has the same concern regarding the size of the sign but that it is not a significant issue.
Warren stated the size of the sign is consistent with other signs for similar uses.
Jurgens inquired whether the sign could be reduced somewhat.
Warren indicated they are open to suggestions concerning the size of the sign.
Kempf moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3109, Navarre
Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,3655 Togo Road,granting of a conditional use permit,
hardcover variance, and sign variance, subject to a lighting and landscaping plan being submitted
to Staff for their review and approval, subject to the sign not being illuminated from within,and
further subject to Staff's recommendations outlined in the May 16,2005 Planner's Report. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
6. #05-3110 THOMAS AND SHEILA BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCE,
8:51 P.M.—9:18 P.M.
Sheila and Thomas Browne,Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated this property is located on Tanager Lake,which is classified as a recreational development
lake requiring a 100-foot structure setback. The applicants are requesting lake setback and hardcover
variances in order to construct a second floor dormer and an attached garage addition to the north of their
attached garage. Curtis noted the entire residence is located within the 100-foot structure and would
require a lake setback variance.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the lake setback variance in order to construct the second floor
dormer,but recommends denial of the lake setback and hardcover variances for the garage addition.
Curtis noted over half of the applicants' home is located within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level.
However, should the Planning Commission find that a hardship exists with respect to the garage addition,
appropriate hardcover removals should be discussed.
Thomas Browne stated they purchased this property in 1977 with the understanding that there is
approximately one acre of buildable land. Browne gave a brief history of the work undertaken on the
house,noting that they took the original 980 square foot house and remodeled the house to bring the
house up to code and make it livable. Browne stated their family grew over the years and they added on
to the residence.
Browne stated the approval in 1987 for the addition involved relocating the driveway from the south side
of the house to the north side due to city and county safety concerns. Browne noted the Council at that
time felt that the project was a great improvement to the property. Browne indicated hardcover was not
an issue at that time.
Browne stated in 1992 the government decided that wetlands would be considered part of Tanager Lake.
Browne indicated three acres of his property was changed to a lake status even though the only open
water is located at the farthest point from the house.
Browne stated a fourth variance in 1993 was approved based on the amount of buildable space available.
The City Council at that time found that conditions existed on the property that made this lot unique
compared to other properties located in the same zoning district.
Browne pointed out the existing hardcover was in existence in 1993. Browne stated the garage would be
constructed over existing hardcover and the small changes being proposed will have no major effect on
the character of the property.
Browne stated one garage stall would not constitute massing on the lot and would not have a major
impact on the neighborhood. Browne stated they experienced a greater hardship following the change of
the wetland definition in 1993.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3110 Thomas and Sheila Browne, Continued)
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn inquired why additional structure was not allowed in 1993.
Browne stated at that point in time they were applying for a three-season porch over the existing deck and
that there was some discussion concerning a pool. Browne stated because of a concern regarding the need
for additional hardcover to construct a shed to house the pump and other items,they abandoned their
request for a pool.
Jurgens inquired whether a hardcover variance has ever been granted in any of the past applications.
Curtis stated the 1993 resolution calculates the hardcover at 14.5 percent but that it is not clear what was
used to calculate that number.
Gaffron stated he would need to review the file and is not able at this time to determine what constituted
the 14.5 percent hardcover.
Browne stated a survey was conducted back in 1993,but that he is not aware whether it contains any
hardcover calculations.
Jurgens indicated he would like a better understanding of the hardcover on this lot.
Fritzler inquired whether there was a permit issued for the patio.
Browne stated the patio was removed to construct the existing garage.
Browne noted in 1993 the amount of buildable land on his lot was determined to be .95 acres and today it
is being determined at .90.
Bremer indicated she would be in favor of the dormer and that the issue appears to be the garage.
Rahn indicated he also would be in favor of the dormer and inquired whether the garage would be
extending further into the setback.
Jurgens stated he also is not opposed to the dormer but would like clarification on the hardcover.
Bremer noted structural coverage would be increasing.
Browne stated the garage would be constructed over existing hardcover and that they would like to have
more storage. Browne noted the basement is not a full basement.
Curtis stated the Planning Report from 1993 states that the existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone was 17.5
percent or 4540 square feet and within the 75'-250' existing was 1216 square feet or 7.8 percent.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3110 Thomas and Sheila Browne,Continued)
Jurgens stated it appears that the hardcover has grown from the time of the original approvals. Jurgens
indicated he would like to see some reductions in the hardcover,noting that the hardcover in the 0-75'
zone is now 21 percent.
Rahn noted the building pad is relatively small given the size of the lot. Rahn indicated he is inclined to
follow Staff's recommendations. Rahn stated if the garage is constructed over existing driveway,there
would be no increase in hardcover.
Browne inquired whether rock is considered hardcover if there is no plastic underneath it.
Gaffron stated typically gravel that is compacted is considered hardcover and that decorative rock with no
plastic underneath is not considered hardcover.
Browne inquired what amount of hardcover would need to be removed.
Curtis pointed out credit is not given for removal of plastic.
Browne indicated there is a row of rocks on top of the ground that helps outline the drop-off that has been
depicted on the survey as hardcover.
Curtis stated if the rocks serve as a wall or a border,it would be considered hardcover.
Winkey stated the Planning Commission typically looks for ways to reduce excessive hardcover on lots
wherever possible and that if a variance is being requested,the amount of hardcover should be lowered.
Winkey commented there appears to be some areas that could be reduced.
Browne stated in his view he would not be able to reduce the hardcover down to the allowable limit.
Winkey concurred that it is not possible to reduce the hardcover on this lot to the allowable limit but
reiterated that some reduction in the hardcover is possible.
Kempf inquired how wide a one-stall garage typically is.
Rahn stated it is usually 12 to 14 feet.
Kempf stated in his opinion the massing on the lot does need to be considered. Kempf noted the edge of
the garage would be located on the edge of the cliff. Kempf indicated he is not opposed to the dormer but
that there are some areas of hardcover that could be reduced. Kempf suggested the garage addition be
reduced to 14 feet, which would help to reduce the massing.
Bremer inquired whether the amount of blacktop could be reduced.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3110 Thomas and Sheila Browne, Continued)
Browne indicated they are in need of the turnaround,noting they are unable to back out of their driveway
onto the road due to safety concerns.
Winkey noted a portion of the turnaround is located outside of the 0-75' zone.
Curtis stated the driveway is difficult to maneuver.
Jurgens concurred that the driveway is difficult to maneuver. Jurgens inquired whether the applicants
would like to still proceed with the garage.
Browne stated he would prefer to proceed forward with the dormer.
Rahn commented the building pad is limited and that the addition of the garage might be too much for
this lot.
Jurgens moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of the lake setback variance in order to
construct a second floor dormer,but recommended denial of the lake setback and hardcover
variances in order to construct a garage addition for the property located at 760 Brown Road
South. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Bremer and Kempf Opposed.
Bremer stated she would be in favor of the garage addition if there were reductions in hardcover.
7. #05-3111 WATER STREET HOMES,LCC ON BEHALF OF RANDALL AND
SARA HOGAN,2260 FOX STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE,
9:18 P.M.— 10:06 P.M.
Rick Carlson,Water Street Homes,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting a variance for an accessory structure located nearer the front
or street lot line than the principal residence structure and a variance to the allowed footprint area for an
oversize accessory structure. Additionally, a conditional use permit is requested for plumbing in an
accessory structure that includes a toilet.
Gaffron indicated the oversize accessory structure section of the zoning code does not specifically address
whether the lot area for purposes of establishing the allowed footprint area of accessory buildings is to
include or exclude wetlands. Therefore,based on the definition of lot area in the zoning code,wetland is
excluded and the non-wetland area within the property,not including the separate outlot driveway
corridor, is about 2.7 acres,which would allow an accessory structure with a footprint of 1,200 square
feet. If the total area of the lot and outlot including wetland is used,the lot at 4.985 acres would allow a
2,000 square foot footprint.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3111 Water Street Homes,Continued)
Gaffron stated the buried portions should be considered structure from a building code standpoint but that
the visual impacts of the building are limited. Gaffron pointed out that the intent of the ordinance was not
only to limit visual impacts but also to address or limit the uses associated with large structures. Staff
concludes that the buried footprint of an accessory building should be considered as part of the footprint
for purposes of the oversize accessory structure ordinance. Gaffron noted the applicant is proposing a car
wash for the lower level and it is recommended that the car washing effluent not go to the septic site.
Gaffron stated the future use of this structure and what types of limits should be placed on its future use
should be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission.
Carlson stated the property owner would like to construct an accessory building to accommodate his
collectible cars. Carlson stated the goal in designing the accessory building was to come up with a plan
that complied with the intent of the code and work within a footprint of 1600 feet, including the outlot.
Carlson indicated the appearance of a garage with four stalls up and four stalls below was not acceptable
and that the building was designed to be partially constructed below ground,which would make the
structure less visible from the adjoining properties and would fit in with the rest of the community.
Carlson stated a two-story structure could be constructed but would be more visible.
Carlson pointed out the car wash is not intended to be a commercial car wash and is intended merely to
provide the owner with an area to wash a car off with a hose periodically.
Carlson stated the hardships relate to the location of the septic and the visual impact of an above-ground
structure to the neighbors. Carlson stated their proposal makes good sense and does not create any
hardcover issues. The property owner is aware that the accessory building is not intended for residential
use and they are agreeable to having a covenant on the property prohibiting future residential use of the
structure.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated he does have a concern regarding the future use of this structure and noted that covenants stay
with the property and not the owner. Rahn inquired whether the cars would be stored on the bottom level.
Carlson stated the intent is to store the prized cars in the upper level.
Gaffron stated a potential issue is the wetland moratorium that affects properties that are within 26 feet of
a wetland. Gaffron stated the City's proposed wetland ordinance would require a 20-foot setback in
addition to the 35-foot buffer for any structure. Gaffron inquired whether this structure could be set
further back.
Gaffron noted he would need to speak with the City Attorney on whether this structure and/or property
would fall under the wetland moratorium.
PAGE 23
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3111 Water Street Homes,Continued)
Carlson stated there are wetlands on both sides of the structure and that there would be issues if they are
required to add 20 feet on either side of the building.
Bremer suggested a condition of approval could be to insure that this structure does not fall under the
wetland moratorium.
Jurgens stated in his opinion it is important to know exactly where the wetland is located and suggested a
new delineation be completed. Jurgens inquired whether the survey is correct as it relates to the
elevations. Jurgens stated if the courtyard is at 950',a considerable amount of fill would be required
around the structure.
Carlson stated the survey is accurate and that the overhead is merely an artist's rendering. Carlson
pointed out they are constructing the structure into the grade.
Jim McNeil,Architect, indicated very little fill would be necessary.
Jurgens stated he would like to see that illustrated on the survey and a wetland delineation conducted.
Carlson stated the wetlands have not changed from the time the house was constructed.
Jurgens indicated he would also like some limitations placed on the car wash.
Carlson stated the car wash could drain into a holding tank to avoid runoff into the wetland or drainage to
the septic system.
Fritzler indicated he does not view this as a hardship given the size of the structure and that he has
concerns regarding the future use of this structure. Fritzler stated the property owner could store his
vehicles off site. Fritzler stated he has concerns with a portion of the structure being buried and that he
would prefer a structure that is not oversized. Fritzler inquired how the square footage of a lot is
determined.
Gaffron stated normally the square footage of the lot is calculated minus the outlot.
Winkey commented the structure does not appear obtrusive above the ground and that there is very little
visual impact to the neighbors.
Kempf agreed that the visual impact is minimal and that he does not have a problem with the appearance
of the structure, especially given the size of the lot. Kempf indicated he does have a concern with a car
sitting on the slab to the north side of the building and that he would like the garage door eliminated on
that side of the structure.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3111 Water Street Homes,Continued)
Carlson stated animals and lawn fertilizers are more detrimental to wetlands than the proposed use of this
structure. Carlson indicated they are agreeable to installing a holding tank to address the concerns about
the drainage into the septic system.
Carlson noted he had to design a building that would allow storage of the vehicles as well as access and
that there are not issues with hardcover.
Carlson stated given the wetlands and the location of the building pad, they are restricted to constructing
the structure in front of the principal residence.
Jurgens indicated he does not see a hardship for the oversized structure.
Bremer commented she views the topography of the lot a hardship.
Fritzler stated in his opinion if the statutory definition of hardship is used,there is not a hardship.
Winkey moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3111,Water Street
Homes,LLC,granting of a variance for an accessory structure located nearer the front or street lot
line than the principal residence structure, a variance to the allowed footprint for an oversize
accessory structure,and a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory structure for the
property located at 2260 Fox Street.
Bremer suggested amending the motion to include a covenant limiting the future use of this structure,
installation of a holding tank for the car wash, and confirmation that the wetland moratorium does not
apply to this property.
Winkey amended his motion,Kempf seconded,to include a covenant restricting the future use of
the accessory structure,the installation of a holding tank for the car wash,and confirmation that
the wetland moratorium does not apply to this property. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Fritzler and
Jurgens opposed.
8. #05-3112 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING,LOT
LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES, 10:07 P.M.— 10:58 P.M.
Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit, Applicants,were present.
Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting the following variances in order to construct additions onto
the existing footprint and to remodel the existing residence:
1. Lot line rearrangement with 1090 Wildhurst Trail whereby a land exchange would result in two
non-conforming area and width lots to remain non-conforming in area and width.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit, Continued)
2. Rear/street yard setback variance to permit a setback of approximately 10 feet when 30 feet is
normally required and 8 feet currently exists.
3. Hardcover variance to permit 26.7 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 is normally
allowed and 40.8 percent currently exists.
4. Hardcover variance to permit 60 percent hardcover within the 250'-500' zone where 30 percent is
normally allowed and 54.9 percent currently exists.
5. Structural coverage variance to permit 16.5 percent structural coverage where 15 percent is normally
allowed and 15 percent currently exists.
Gundlach indicated the applicant has met with staff regarding the desire to construct an attached garage to
the existing home. In conjunction with the garage addition,the applicant would like to remodel and add
onto the existing home. The applicant was advised that in order to construct the garage addition it would
be necessary to obtain additional property to avoid requesting a side yard setback variance. Staff advised
the applicant,with regard to the lot line rearrangement, that equal amounts of land should be swapped so
as not to make one lot more conforming in area while making the other lot less conforming in area.
Staff recommends denial of the application as submitted. Staff would recommend that the applicant
revise the plan to meet the following:
1. Eliminate the need for a structural coverage variance;
2. Eliminate existing and proposed retaining walls/curbs within the right-of-way;
3. Reduction of the proposed lake yard patio extending beyond the deck in an effort to reduce
hardcover further within the 75'-250' zone,preferably to 25 percent;
4. Eliminate the portions of proposed new structure(southeast corner of the house) coming within
10 feet of an existing sewer line;
5. Revise the lot line rearrangement request whereby lot areas and widths for both lots remain
unchanged.
Staff would also recommend that the City Engineer review the proposed grading plan prior to Planning
Commission approval. Staff would also recommend that any retaining walls located within the
right-of-way be eliminated.
In addition, Staff would recommend a 20-foot utility easement be given to the City over the existing
sewer line.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,Continued)
Rahn inquired whether the applicants are willing to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Loren Schoenzeit stated they are agreeable to reducing their proposal to comply with the 15 percent
structural coverage limit. Schoenzeit noted they were not aware of all of Staff's recommendations until
Friday.
Mrs. Schoenzeit stated they would be willing to eliminate the deck to comply with the structural
coverage. Schoenzeit commented their lot is unique given the layout and the location of the sewer line
system.
Mr. Schoenzeit stated there are retaining walls proposed within the lot but that there is no intention to
construct retaining walls within the right-of-way. Schoenzeit indicated they would like to do some
landscaping and that the existing curbing would be removed. Schoenzeit stated they are willing to reduce
the hardcover to 25 percent in the 75'-250' zone.
Schoenzeit stated the foundation in the southeast corner of the house is shown as 12 feet from the existing
sewer line and that the bay window may extend a couple of feet closer to the sewer line.
Gaffron inquired whether there is an overhang above the bay window. Gaffron stated the issue relating to
the 12-foot setback is the ability to accommodate a backhoe if some work on the sewer line is necessary
and to avoid hitting the window or the overhang.
Rahn inquired whether they could comply with the 10-foot setback.
Schoenzeit stated they could. Schoenzeit indicated the city does not have an easement for the sewer
currently and that the location of the sewer line does have a negative impact on their ability to construct
on this lot.
Rahn stated the easement is required because of the lot line rearrangement request.
Gundlach stated to her knowledge the City is not obligated to relocate the sewer line.
Schoenzeit stated according to his understanding of state law,the city would be required to relocate that
sewer line if they are unable to construct on this lot.
Rahn indicated he was looking for options to avoid the need to do a lot line rearrangement.
Schoenzeit stated they are proposing the lot line rearrangement to accommodate the garage.
Rahn inquired whether they would be agreeable to granting the city an easement.
Schoenzeit stated they are not agreeable to the easement at this time unless the City is willing to allow the
deck. Schoenzeit stated one of the intentions of the structure coverage limit is to restrict massing on the
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit, Continued)
lot,but that the large boulevard negates the massing appearance on the lot. Schoenzeit stated they are
proposing to eliminate the circular driveway,which would help with the drainage and add green space.
Gundlach noted the City Engineer has not reviewed the drainage plan.
Bremer noted the Planning Commission is not able to approve the lot line rearrangement without the
easement.
Gaffron stated the location of the sewer has value in terms of where the house is located because it limits
the location of the residence but that it has no other trading value.
Kempf stated in his view the location of the sewer line does not negatively impact the value of the
property.
Schoenzeit stated without the lot line rearrangement, the building pad of the lot is restricted.
Rahn inquired how close the garage is to the side yard setback.
Schoenzeit stated the garage is located ten feet from the side yard setback at its closest point and that the
proposed house is located closer to the side yard setback due to the location of the sewer line. Schoenzeit
stated they would like to proceed forward to the Council.
Rahn noted a hardcover variance might be required for the neighboring property if there is a lot line
rearrangement.
Gundlach stated there are no past hardcover approval resolutions on file for the neighboring property
involved in the lot line rearrangement request.
Schoenzeit noted the neighbor is compliant in the 0-75' zone and remains compliant in the 250'-500'
zone. Schoenzeit stated the hardcover itself would not change.
Gundlach noted the neighbor's structural coverage remains the same,but given the reduction in lot area,
they would need to make a request for a hardcover variance.
Winkey inquired whether there have been other instances where a lot line rearrangement has required one
party to reduce hardcover.
Schoenzeit noted the change in that area is negligible.
Gundlach stated Staff has a concern granting a hardcover variance on the neighboring lot.
Kempf suggested language could be added to the variance stating why the hardcover variance was
granted.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,Continued)
Fritzler stated he would be in favor of following Staff's recommendations.
Bremer noted some of the issues have been resolved and questioned if this application should still be
tabled.
Jurgens stated it might be beneficial to have the adjoining property owner present.
Gundlach stated if Staff's recommendation number five is required,that would impact the proposal.
Gundlach inquired whether the Planning Commission would require recommendation number five.
Schoenzeit stated the neighbor's mortgage company suggested a land swap and avoiding the lot lines
becoming convoluted. Schoenzeit stated he is giving up part of his shoreline in order to construct this
residence,which is considered more valuable.
Gundlach stated Staff's recommendation is equal lot area and lot width.
Rahn inquired what side yard setback variance would be required if a lot line rearrangement were not
given. Rahn inquired whether it would be possible to locate the garage five feet from the property line.
Schoenzeit stated the garage would be on the property line. Schoenzeit indicated they would like to do
the project in stages.
Fritzler inquired whether this would turn in a rebuild and how long the project is anticipated to take.
Schoenzeit stated they are reusing the majority of the existing structure and keeping the existing footprint.
Fritzler inquired whether the sidewalls and ceilings are staying in the same place.
Schoenzeit indicated they are adding a level on top but that everything else would remain the same.
Fritzler inquired whether the value of the improvements would exceed 50 percent of the value of the
residence.
Schoenzeit stated they have included a sheet that illustrates the costs of the project,noting that the
anticipated costs of the project are less than 50 percent of the value of the residence. Schoenzeit pointed
out one of the garages is not useable given the location of a fence constructed by the neighbor and that
they would like to remove that garage and driveway.
Bremer commented she does have a concern regarding the neighbor and the lot line rearrangement and
that it may be necessary for the neighbor to appear before the Planning Commission. Bremer inquired
what the process would be concerning the lot line rearrangement.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit, Continued)
Gaffron stated the neighbor needs to become part of the lot line rearrangement application and that they
would need to apply for a hardcover variance given the change in lot area.
Schoenzeit noted he does have a letter from his neighboring indicating that he is in support of the line line
rearrangement. Schoenzeit inquired whether the issue is the fact that the amount of hardcover on that lot
has never been documented.
Bremer indicated the concern also deals with the increase in hardcover given the reduction in lot area.
Bremer stated the applicants would need to address the hardcover on the lot.
Gundlach indicated the hardcover numbers included in her report are post-lot line rearrangement.
Gaffron stated there probably should be a formalized variance request by the neighboring property owner.
Jurgens moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3112,Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,
4480 Forest Lake Landing. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Schoenzeit inquired whether the Planning Commission considers this a remodel.
Bremer stated on a rebuild they would be required to comply with the 25 percent hardcover limit and 15
percent structural coverage limit.
Rahn recommended Staff give the applicant guidance on what issues need to be addressed.
9. #05-3114 PETER J. BOYER ON BEHALF OF SEVER AND SHARON PETERSON,3145
NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES, 10:58 P.M.- 11:28 P.M.
Peter Boyer,Developer; Sharon and Sever Peterson,property owners, and Jim McNeil, Architect, were
present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a lot width variance, a hardcover variance for the 75'-250'
zone, and an average lake setback variance in order to construct a new single-family residence. The
applicants' property has a 0-75' setback on two sides due to a lagoon located to the north of the property.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and average lakeshore setback variances but denial
of the hardcover variance.
McNeil stated the lagoon is a big issue and creates a hardship. McNeil stated the integrity of the existing
building is questionable and that they are looking to construct the same size structure as what currently
exists. McNeil noted the new residence would decrease the amount of hardcover within the 75'-250'
zone by six percent.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3114 Sever and Sharon Peterson,Continued)
Boyer indicated the proposed house is essentially the same size,with the amount of driveway being
reduced.
Rahn noted the hardcover in the 75'-250' is 24.8 percent and that the applicants are proposing 28.4
percent.
Curtis stated there is some question whether the easement was calculated correctly for the driveway in
determining the hardcover.
McNeil stated if the easement is calculated for both,the proposed would be 28 percent, and without the
easement is 24 percent.
Curtis stated she is unsure whether the previous hardcover calculations included a portion of the lot in the
0-75' setback.
Bremer noted on new construction the Planning Commission requires compliance with 25 percent
hardcover.
McNeil stated the drainage on the lot would also be improved and a retaining pond constructed to handle
runoff. McNeil stated the driveway would also be reduced. McNeil indicated the existing hardcover is
34 percent and that they are proposing 28 percent.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
McNeil inquired whether the lagoon has been classified as lakeshore.
Gaffron stated the issue of whether or not is it part of the lake depends on the time of the year and
whether the channel has silted in or not. Gaffron stated the City has been granting variances for 10 to 15
years based on the lagoon being considered a part of the lake.
McNeil said this lot is unique given the fact that the lakeshore is located in the front and the location of
the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis noted she has spoken with the adjoining neighbor who has indicated he is supportive of the
proposal and that he would encourage the Planning Commission to be sympathetic regarding the amount
of hardcover on the lot,noting that a portion of the amount of hardcover consists of a shared driveway.
Rahn inquired what the footprint of the proposed house is.
McNeil indicated it is 4,000 square feet.
Rahn stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced,noting that the City Council typically allows a
maximum of 25 percent hardcover on new construction.
PAGE 31
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3114 Sever and Sharon Peterson,Continued)
McNeil indicated they are reducing the amount of hardcover on the lot.
Winkey noted the Planning Commission has typically required a 25 percent limit on the hardcover for
new construction.
McNeil inquired whether the Planning Commission would allow the use of 100 percent permeable pavers,
which would decrease the hardcover by approximately three percent.
Boyer stated the pavers absorb the water wonderfully and allow the water to drain into the ground. Boyer
stated the hardship is the amount of hardcover that is included within the easement, which is counted
against this lot. Boyer stated if that hardcover is discounted,they would be below the 25 percent
hardcover limit.
Jurgens stated this property has to have a driveway to access the home and that the amount of hardcover
in the easement is not necessarily a burden. Jurgens inquired whether the city engineer's comments have
been addressed.
Curtis stated the information has been provided to the applicants and that she has not received any revised
plans.
McNeil inquired whether the Planning Commission would discount the amount of driveway that is not
utilized by the property owner.
Jurgens indicated he might be receptive to that concept.
McNeil stated he could also relocate the driveway and garage somewhat.
Jurgens stated if changes are going to be made to the plan,he would like to see a revised plan prior to
approval.
Rahn inquired whether reorientation of the driveway would allow them to reduce the hardcover to below
25 percent.
McNeil indicated he is unsure of that at this time.
Curtis noted the hardcover would need to be reduced by approximately 1,009 square feet, which probably
could not be accomplished by relocating the driveway.
Gaffron stated an outlot could be created for the driveway rather than an easement,but that the outlot may
impact the hardcover in the 75'-250' zone.
Jurgens stated he would also like to see the city engineer's recommendations addressed.
PAGE 32
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3114 Sever and Sharon Peterson,Continued)
Winkey reiterated the Planning Commission would like to see the hardcover reduced to 25 percent and
suggested the application be tabled to allow the applicants time to review their options. Winkey noted if
the hardcover is reduced to 25 percent,they would not have to reappear before the Planning Commission.
Bremer moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of the lot width and average lakeshore
setback variances for the property located at 3145 North Shore Drive, and to recommend denial of
the hardcover variance for the 75'-250'zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 25 AND MAY 9,2005
Jurgens reported on the April 25th Council meeting,noting that a number of items were put on the
Consent Agenda. Jurgens stated a section of the retaining wall was allowed to remain on the Wambold
application.
Jurgens stated at the May 9th meeting the Council approved the Olson application for a garage and
required on the Sallas application that 142 square feet of hardcover be removed.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
12. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 18,2005
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the April 18,2005 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
13. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
MAY 23 AND JUNE 13,2005
May 23 —Kempf
June 13 -Winkey
PAGE 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 16,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Winkey seconded,to adjourn the meting at 11:38 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
" ,
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 34