Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes . , k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 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 Jim Leslie, Cynthia Bremer, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Lili McMillan was present. Commissioner J. Marc Fritzler arrived at 6:06 p.m. Commissioners Travis Winkey and Roland Jurgens were absent. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. #05-3156 SONYA GARNETT ON BEHALF OF KEVIN GARNETT,450 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, 6:02 P.M.—6:03 P.M. Leslie moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3156, Sonya Garnett on behalf of Kevin Garnett,450 Orono Orchard Road,granting of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT,INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:03 P.M.—6:50 P.M. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, appeared on behalf of Bohland Development. Gaffron noted this application was heard at the September Planning Commission meeting, with the applicant submitting a slightly revised plan for the property located at Glendale and Willow Drive.The revised plans exhibit the same lot dimensions but show more refined house layouts and more detailed wetland delineations. In addition,the water main from Long Lake has been added as well as a trail connection through the church parking lot out to Glendale Drive. Gaffron stated the revised grading plan indicates that virtually the entire site will be graded except for some perimeter areas. Gaffron indicated the developer is preparing a site revegetation and landscaping plan that will illustrate plantings on the berms at the rear of Lots 6 through 10. The applicant is also requesting wetland buffer setback variances for the homes on Lots 7 and 8,to be set back 10 feet from the buffer instead of the required 20 feet. Staff would recommend that John Smyth, the City's wetland consultant at Bonestroo &Associates,review the request and suggest what course of action should be followed in reviewing the proposal. The required buffer will be established and maintained on all lots; however,the primary issue is how close the homes on Lots 7 and 8 should be to the unmowable buffer area. Gaffron stated a question for the Planning Commission to consider is PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) whether the 20-foot setback requirement should be varied or whether the applicant should pursue having the wetland recategorized to potentially only require a 16-foot buffer. Gaffron indicated the stormwater ponding area in Lot 6 is apparently a detention pond only and can reasonably remain as part of Lot 6. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has not had an opportunity to review the newly submitted plans. Gaffron stated the following issues would need to be resolved: 1. The plans should be revised to show a 10-foot trail easement along the west boundary of the property. 2. Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans,tree preservation plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City's Conservation Design goals. Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing. The Planning Commission may want to consider recommending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape plans. 3. Should a 10-foot variance be granted to the new wetland ordinance 20 foot buffer setback requirement for Lots 7 and 8? Should the application be tabled until the City's wetland consultant has had a chance to review and comment on the variance request? 4. Does the Planning Commission accept Outlot B as meeting the RPUD "10%private recreation area"requirement? If not,what additional options should applicant consider for meeting that requirement? 5. Have all requirements of the RPUD ordinance been satisfied? Gaffron stated the options available to the Planning Commission include, one, tabling the application for further revisions and consideration; two,recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD; or three,recommend denial. Gronberg added that house plans have been submitted and that the developer is comfortable with the proposed layout of the houses depicted in the revised plan. Gronberg indicated there is an unnatural wetland on Lot 8 that was created by a swale that was constructed to divert the runoff from the church. Gronberg stated if a culvert were added,the wetland would disappear and that it was man-made. Gronberg stated they are requesting a ten-foot variance for this area, and inquired whether a reclassification of that wetland would be the appropriate way to deal with that. Gronberg commented that unnatural wetland and required buffer make it difficult to construct a home on Lot 8. Rahn inquired whether the ten-foot encroachment is certain at this time. PAGE 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) Gronberg stated it is possible to design the house to make the encroachment slightly less than that,but the developer would prefer to leave the size of the house on Lot 8 as is. Gronberg stated the 10-foot variance would be the maximum. Gronberg illustrated the proposed vegetation plan,noting a row of tall cottonwoods exist in that area, which are proposed to remain. Gronberg stated they are proposing some spruce trees in that area as well as some other vegetation on the site. Gronberg stated they are attempting to create a perimeter of trees around the development to decrease the visibility from Willow Drive. There were no public comments concerning this application. Rahn inquired whether the Park Commission has reviewed this application. Gaffron stated the Park Commission recommended a ten-foot trail easement along the western edge of the property. Gaffron stated he did not know whether the Park Commission looked at the topography of the entire site. Gronberg stated the developer would be willing to grant the easement. Bremer inquired whether the Park Commission would like the trail to continue down into the development. Gaffron stated to his belief they would be in support of that,but noted the Park Commission has not reviewed the latest revised plan. Rahn commented it appears that there is quite a bit of screening from Willow Drive. Gronberg stated there would be screening from Willow and screening for the subdivision. Leslie stated he would prefer to see 14-foot trees planted as a way of reducing the visual impact of the development. Fritzler inquired whether Commissioner Leslie would prefer evergreen trees. Leslie commented he would like to see evergreen trees. Gronberg concurred that it is important to get some type of evergreen in that area to help screen the development. Bremer inquired whether Staff would need additional landscape plans. Gaffron stated Staff has only seen the landscape plan tonight and that he has not had an opportunity to review it closely. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) Gronberg stated the developer is amenable to any recommendations Staff would have in the way of landscaping. Rahn stated in his opinion Staff should review the landscape plan and that he would also prefer that the Park Commission indicate whether they are in support of the trail extension into the development. Rahn stated the request for the variance for Lots 7 and 8 would need to be reviewed by the city's wetland consultant. Gronberg indicated he used to live across the street from this area and that he knows the history of that wetland. Kempf stated he is unsure whether the history would play a big part in determining whether that should be classified as wetland. Kempf inquired what process should be followed to get a wetland reclassified. Gaffron stated the City's wetland consultant would review the area and that he would complete a standardized review of the wetland,reviewing the characteristics of the wetland,and would then determine what preservation class it would fall into. Gaffron stated the code is set up to allow the developer's consultant to do an assessment and that the City's consultant could either reject or accept the applicant's proposal. Gaffron indicated to his understanding the process takes approximately one month. Kempf stated he would like to see whether the wetland should be reclassified, and that if it were not reclassified, due to the type of density the City is attempting to achieve in this area,he would not be opposed to a variance. Gronberg indicated a number of cities have an averaging feature to the setback for wetlands. Kempf stated that might not work with buffers. Leslie indicated he is in agreement of seeing whether this wetland should be reclassified, and if it is not reclassified, it would be necessary to look at whether there is a hardship to grant a variance. Rahn inquired whether the City's consultant could take a look at it prior to starting the process to reclassify it. Gaffron recommended that John Smythe take a look at the area this week and then speak with the developer's consultant to see what type of solution could be reached. Gaffron indicated he would prefer to use averaging when there are no other options and that in this case the developer could reduce the number of lots to avoid the need for a variance. Kempf stated in his opinion averaging the setbacks would be confusing to the various property owners. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) Bremer stated the quality of the wetland goes to the hardship in her opinion,and that if this is determined to be a true wetland, she would be hard pressed to approve a variance since there are other options. Gronberg noted the required wetland setbacks have increased quite a bit over the past few years. Rahn indicated he likes the proposed location of Outlot B. Rahn inquired whether any picnic tables or anything are being proposed for that area. Gronberg stated not that he knows of. Gaffron stated amenities could be added to that area if the developer chooses. Rahn stated the homeowners could also decide what they would like that area used for. Gaffron pointed out the outlot is only five percent of the property and not ten percent. Gronberg stated there is a natural divide in that area which was one reason why the outlot was not made bigger. Gaffron stated the location of the road is also a factor and that the road should be in its present location. Bremer commented the walkway could be considered as part of the land dedication. Fritzler inquired what the area of the park is. Gaffron stated it is approximately a quarter acre. Leslie noted there is a city park located across the street. Kempf inquired whether the developer could donate some land and/or park dedication fee. Gaffron stated the Park Commission typically makes a recommendation concerning the park dedication. Gaffron stated trail easements are typically not excluded from the park dedication fee. Gaffron stated the private recreation requirement is separate from the park dedication fee and is set at 10 percent of the total land area of the development. Gaffron stated functionally the trail would be considered private property if it is located within the development and that the public could be prohibited from using it. Gronberg indicated the trail easement is located on church property. Leslie inquired whether it would be part of Outlot B. Gaffron stated it necessarily might not be. PAGE 5 " MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) Bremer noted the configuration of Outlot B is long and narrow, which limits the type of amenities that could be placed in that area. Rahn inquired what the approximate dimensions are of the outlot. Gronberg stated it averages around 70 to 75 feet wide. Gaffron indicated it is 181 feet deep. Gronberg inquired whether any portion of the easement would be counted towards the 10%recreation area. Gaffron stated it could be. Fritzler inquired how credit would be given for the easement if it is not located on this site. Gaffron stated the developer is probably paying something for the easement from the church and that it could be included in the calculation if the Planning Commission determines that that is appropriate. Gronberg commented it does not necessarily have to be a private trail. Kempf stated he is unclear how it could become a private trail and that in all likelihood it would be used by the general public given the location of the public park. Leslie commented a gate limiting access by the public could be installed. Bremer stated it is likely that this development will be short on the 10 percent land donation and that the Planning Commission will need to decide whether that is acceptable. Gaffron inquired whether the street should be considered a public road or a private road. Gronberg stated the city would still receive easements over the road even if it is a private road. Leslie inquired whether there are any reasons why this road should be a public road versus a private road. Gaffron stated it becomes a matter of maintenance of the road. Gaffron stated Stone Bay has a number of private roads and that in his opinion it should be a private road in order to be consistent with what has been approved in the past for RPUD development. Leslie pointed out since there is a cul-de-sac at the end of the road and does not connect to Glendale, it would make sense to have it be a private road. PAGE 6 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) Fritzler inquired whether the residents would be assessed for maintenance of that road and whether the City could require them to maintain that to certain standards. Gaffron stated the property owners would need to enter into covenants and maintenance agreements with the City that would allow the City to maintain the private roadway if the residents elect not to. Bremer inquired whether the Planning Commission is agreeable that Outlot B and the trail would be sufficient for the 10 percent land dedication. Leslie indicated he finds it sufficient. Kempf stated he finds that there is no other area available without removing a lot. Rahn stated he does have a concern with a private trail, and inquired whether it could be defined as a public trail. Gaffron stated the trail could be classified as public as part of the approval. Fritzler stated the minutes could reflect that concern and that the Park Commission could make the final decision. Gronberg stated it was his understanding there would be a connection between Hackberry Park and Holbrook Park. Bremer recommended the church also be informed that that trail could be made public rather than private. Gronberg inquired whether the cost of the trail would be deducted from the park dedication fees. Gaffron stated a portion of the trail could possibly be deducted from the park dedication fees, and recommended the Park Commission decide exactly what they would like to see for this property. Leslie stated since the land dedication is less than 10 percent,he would prefer that the trail not be deducted from the park dedication fees. Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3131,Bohland Development,Inc., 177 Glendale Drive, 190 Willow Drive North. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 3. #05-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D.MACKINNON,ET AL.,"3500", 6:50 P.M.—7:17 P.M. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,was present. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this application previously. Gaffron noted that Staff has not received final septic testing and design reports on this application so it does not qualify as a complete preliminary plat application. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission at the last meeting had directed the applicant to explore clustering or eliminate the necessity of building a house down in the southeast corner of the property. Gaffron stated the applicant is still proposing six lots but instead has created a large outlot near Watertown Road,with all lots accessing a private road. Gaffron noted the lots have been reduced below the 2.0 acre area/200 feet width standards of the RR-1B District. However,the overall dry buildable area of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. Gaffron stated one positive revision is the possibility of tucking the house on Lot 3,Block 2, into the northwest corner,which reduces the need to do a substantial amount of grading. The applicant is also proposing to locate the stormwater pond partially within the existing delineated wetland and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location. Staff has preliminarily indicated support for this concept,based on the limitations of the site for other efficient ponding locations. Wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more acceptable. Gaffron noted there is an existing drainageway through the site that may need to be relocated. Gaffron recommended the following issues be considered: 1. Is the PRD concept acceptable for this site? 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? 3. Does the layout address the City's Conservation Design goals? 4. Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinement? Gaffron stated this application was published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move forward; however,because the application remains incomplete, the Planning Commission should review the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what issues are most critical to focus on,and receive public comments regarding the revised subdivision proposal. Staff would recommend that if Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed concept,the current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at this site. If so,then the applicant would be back before the Planning Commission in November for complete review of preliminary plat documents. Rahn stated in his opinion the revised plan is a major improvement over the last plan. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3152 Bohland Development, Continued) Gronberg stated they are exploring relocating the pond a little further southwest to avoid the trees. Gronberg stated five of the six lots have been tested for septic and those have passed. Gronberg stated it is his opinion that Lot 6 would also be approved for septic. Gronberg indicated they are looking at relocating the septic sites further to the west on Lots 1 and 2, which would leave more room behind the house to accommodate a back yard. Kempf stated in his opinion the revised plan is environmentally conscious and that he is pleased with the revisions thus far. Kempf concurred that there should be covenants documenting the limitations of the lots. Rahn noted the Park Commission would be reviewing this application as well. Rahn asked for public comments regarding this application. Gary Demele, 3400 Watertown Road, indicates he lives to the southeast and that the revised plans are a vast improvement from the original application. Demele stated most of the elements have been addressed. Demele indicated he does have a concern regarding the NURP pond. Gronberg stated in his opinion that NURP pond could be moved slightly. Demele concurred that the pond should be relocated slightly. Demele stated the woods create the backdrop for this development and serves two functions. Demele stated the woods create a backdrop to the development and provides preliminary screening to the houses and that he would not be opposed to the smaller lots in an effort to preserve more trees. Demele stated it appears likely that Lot 3 would be a three-story walkout, and inquired whether there is a design review process that would be gone through prior to construction. Demele stated that house would be quite visible from their property. Rahn stated the City does have height restrictions but does not have a design review committee. Leslie stated City codes would allow what visually would appear as a three-story house to be constructed on Lot 3. Gaffron stated the other lots could also have two stories plus a basement or two and a half stories above the basement. Gaffron stated the height of a residence is measured from the average of the highest gable and that the houses will look high to Demele based on the topography of this site. Gronberg inquired whether screening along the west lot line would be acceptable. Demele stated it would be,but that their house is also high up and that screening across Outlot B would be nice. PAGE 9 . MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3152 Bohland Development, Continued) Gronberg stated they would attempt to preserve as many trees as possible. Gronberg stated if the road were moved, it would likely result in the removal of even more trees. There were no further public comments. Fritzler inquired how this development differs from Luce Line Ridge. Gaffron stated in that development the lots were approximately three acres in a five-acre zone. Gaffron indicated at that time there was no attempt to do any buffering of the views. Gaffron stated if the house lots could be moved up further,that might be another option to help reduce the visual impact of the development. Gronberg stated in his opinion the lots might be getting too small to construct a reasonably sized house and that he would prefer the lot sizes not be reduced any further. Leslie indicated he would be inclined to keep the 30-foot setback. Leslie inquired whether Lot 3 has any covenants or restrictions on clearing the trees behind that house. Gronberg stated in his opinion there should be a covenant or a conservation easement for Lot 3 to prevent cutting of those trees. Kempf stated the clustering idea is a rather gray area,but when you weigh the view versus the amount of room, the developer should avoid the feeling of the houses being crowded. Rahn concurred that the setback should be kept at 30 feet. Bremer stated the property owners would not need to build up to their setback. Bremer stated she personally likes the idea of pushing the lots up a little bit and that she would like to see the trees on Lot 3 remain. Leslie inquired whether the cul-de-sac could be located more at the intersection of Lots 1 and 2 and whether that would help push the lots up further. Gronberg indicated that is just a temporary cul-de-sac. Rahn concurred the Council should review this application to see whether they would be agreeable to this type of clustering concept. Leslie stated he would like to see the Council support this application since it helps to preserve the rural oasis feel and still provide sufficient lot sizes. Gronberg stated in his view the development will not be very visible from Watertown Road. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3152 Bohland Development, Continued) Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission make a motion requesting that the Council review this application conceptually for PRD and clustering concept. Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#05-3152,Bohland Development on behalf of James D.Mackinnon,et al, "3500"Watertown Road,to allow for council review of the plan to determine if it meets the standards of the Rural Oasis Plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 4. #05-3142 CHRISTOPHER AND EMILY CHAPMAN,3775 BAYSIDE ROAD, VARIANCE,7:18 P.M.—7:39 P.M. Emily Chapman, Applicant, was present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting two variances in order to construct a 12' by 12' shed on the property east of the existing garage. A hardcover variance is being requested to permit hardcover within the 0-250' zone of 30 percent where 0 percent hardcover in the 0-75' zone and 25 percent in the 75'-250' zone are normally required and 30 percent in the 0-250' zone was approved by variance in June of 2004. In addition,the applicant is also requesting a street/rear yard setback variance to permit the proposed shed to be located 21 feet from the property line where 50 feet is normally required and the existing home was permitted to be set back 21 feet from the property line by variance. Gundlach noted the property had received variances for the required street(rear)yard setback,lake setback, and hardcover in June of 2004. The property is unique in that its area is quite large due to the length of shoreline;however, is very shallow where the required street or rear yard setback overlaps with the required 75-foot lake setback. At the time the 2004 variances were approved,the applicant, who was the builder and not the current owner,requested to rebuild on the existing footprint,which was approved as no compliant buildable area existed on the property. The applicant had indicated that they would like to remove non-structural hardcover, like the sidewalk and driveway, in an effort to obtain approval of the construction of a shed to store lawn equipment and other items. While no elevation views of the proposed shed have been submitted,the applicants have indicated the shed will be constructed of materials consistent with the architectural style of the home. The applicants have proposed to remove 147.5 square feet of non-structural hardcover in order to be permitted a shed. This would result in a net decrease in the hardcover of approximately 3.5 square feet. Staff finds that the property is unique due to the overlapping street and lake setback requirements with the additional wetland restrictions. Those hardships are documented in Resolution 5198 approved in 2004. The proposal meets the intent of the code,being that no increase in hardcover is proposed,the shed is not located closer to the street than the existing house, the lake setback is met, as well as wetland and side PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3142 Christopher and Emily Chapman,Continued) yard setbacks. However, a remaining issue is the City policy that non-structural hardcover should not be traded for structural hardcover. This policy has been enforced in a manner consistent with the intent and provisions of Resolution No. 4006 and depending on the reasonableness of the request and the various constraints of the property,has on occasion been waived through the variance process. The Planning Commission should determine whether a trade of non-structural hardcover should be permitted for construction of the proposed shed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the policies of trading non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover and weigh that discussion against the reasonableness of the request in making a recommendation to the City Council. Chapman had nothing to add to Staff's report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Fritzler indicated he is opposed to trading non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover since non-structural hardcover has a tendency to reappear after a period of time. Rahn concurred that the Planning Commission typically does not trade non-structural hardcover for hardcover. Rahn inquired whether accessory structures have been allowed to be located in front of principal structures in the past. Rahn expressed a concern that the structure would be rather visible in the proposed location. Chapman stated the structure would be located behind a row of tall fir trees. Chapman stated they did consider an alternate position,which was in the view of a neighbor, so they elected to position it behind the fir trees. Chapman stated a person would be able to see the shed at an angle from the street. Chapman indicated the property also slopes quite a bit,which makes this spot more conducive. Rahn inquired whether the applicant currently has a two-car garage. Chapman stated they do have a two-car garage. Kempf stated in his view the proposed location is not an intrusion to the neighbors,but that he does have a problem with trading the non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. Kempf stated there is a piece of asphalt around the garage that should be removed,but that he has a concern regarding the removal of the concrete sidewalk that goes from the driveway to the front door and replacing it with mulch and some stepping-stones. Kempf stated the applicant is probably doing that in good faith but that in all likelihood a future owner will replace those stepping-stones with a concrete sidewalk. Kempf stated whenever something that enhances the usability of the house is removed, it tends to reappear in the future. Leslie stated he is in agreement with the comments already expressed. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3142 Christopher and Emily Chapman,Continued) Bremer stated to her recollection the Planning Commission was happy at the time the builder was originally before the Commission that the hardcover on this lot was being reduced. Bremer stated the fact that there is a two-car garage on this lot would help persuade her to allow a smaller shed, like a 10'by 10' shed,with all the other reductions proposed by the applicant. Bremer stated the Planning Commission has approved houses in the past without a front sidewalk and without concrete landings,which is the right of the property owner, and that the Planning Commission should assume that this property owner will remove the sidewalk and comply with what she is proposing. Bremer inquired whether Staff is opposed to swapping non-structural hardcover with structural coverage. Gaffron stated the City has adopted two resolutions in the past few years,with the Council finding it beneficial to make a distinction between the removal of plastic and landscape fabric as opposed to other hardcover. The Council found that plastic and landscape fabric was not to be used as a trade-off for a hardcover reduction. Gaffron stated sidewalks and concrete pads typically do not require a permit and that perhaps those items should have been included in the resolution. Bremer inquired whether there is anything that prevents a property owner from not having a concrete walkway leading to their front door. Chapman stated they currently have a relatively wide concrete walkway and that they would prefer a more natural looking walkway. Chapman stated there also is a concrete landing by the front door. Chapman indicated it was their intent from the time they purchased this lot to replace the concrete walkway with something more natural. Bremer noted the concrete landing would be required. Leslie inquired whether the hardcover excluded the steppingstones. Gundlach indicated the applicant has accounted for the stepping-stones in her hardcover numbers. Rahn stated a property owner is not specifically required to have a sidewalk,but that it is likely that a concrete front sidewalk would likely reappear at some point in the future. Rahn noted on some applications in the past the Planning Commission has included a front sidewalk in hardcover calculations even when it was not originally designed that way. Chapman stated the entrance they use to the house is typically not the front door. Rahn inquired whether there are any other areas where hardcover could be removed. Rahn noted the previous resolution required the removal of 80 square feet of patio. Rahn stated he would prefer a third stall on the garage rather than a shed. PAGE 13 ' MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3142 Christopher and Emily Chapman, Continued) Chapman inquired why a third stall would be preferred rather than a shed. Rahn noted there are no height restrictions on sheds and that the Planning Commission currently does not have a plan showing the design of the shed. Chapman indicated they would like to make the shed similar to the house and that they would like the shed to store various items. Chapman indicated she would be willing to submit plans of the shed. Kempf stated the applicant's husband also explained that the shed would be similar in appearance to the house. Chapman stated they would be agreeable to consider a third stall on the garage but that they had the understanding it would require a significant variance. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of trading the front sidewalk for a shed. Rahn stated he understands the need for storage,but that the Planning Commission typically does not trade non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. Chapman indicated the steppingstones were planned regardless of whether they build the shed or not. Rahn inquired what the size of the current garage is. Gundlach stated the garage is approximately 25' by 28'. Bremer stated given the length of the lot and the location of the shed behind the trees, she would be in favor of a 10' by 10' shed subject to plans being submitted. Fritzler stated the fact that there are trees there now does not guarantee that there will be trees there in the future. Leslie moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend denial of application#05-3142, Christopher and Emily Chapman,3775 Bayside Road. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Bremer Opposed. 5. #05-3146 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE,VARIANCES,7:40 P.M.— 8:07 P.M. Mark Palm,Applicant, and Tom Brennan,Friend,were present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to replace an existing detached garage: PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3146 Mark and Pamela Palm,Continued) 1. A hardcover variance to permit 36.58 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 37.08 percent currently exists; 2. A hardcover variance to permit 38.10 percent hardcover within the 250'-500' zone where 30 percent is normally allowed and 41.27 percent currently exists. 3. Side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of five feet where 15 feet is normally required for a detached building in excess of 750 square feet and a 1.5-foot setback currently exists. The applicant applied for similar variances in March of 2002 to replace the existing garage with a 24' by 35' garage with storage above. Ultimately, approval was granted for a 22'by 34' garage and that variance approval expired on July 22, 2003. The applicant then submitted to renew that variance in early September 2005; however,upon receipt of the necessary plans, it was determined that the proposed garage dimensions were changing, causing the hardcover numbers to vary slightly and thus requiring review of an entirely new application. No other variances have been applied for or approved for this property in the past. Staff finds the proposal as submitted does not meet the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,nor does it fit within recent approvals for detached garages on similarly substandard lots. White the lot is substandard in area and width and has considerable depth requiring extensive driveway hardcover,which may all be hardships in the desire to obtain a garage,the 32' by 25',two story garage set back five feet from the side lot line is not reasonable based on recent similarly approved variances. Staff would also argue that the variances approved in 2002 are out of character with the current goals of the Planning Commission and City Council, and the current proposal is for an even larger garage. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. As the property is extensively over on hardcover,it may be more reasonable to allow only a standard 24'by 24' one-story garage. 2. A second story garage would only be acceptable if all setback requirements could be met. 3. Would less hardcover be required if the garage were designed to front-load and be located right up to the 30 foot rear yard setback(rather than the 35' feet currently proposed)? 4. Would less hardcover be required if the garage remained side-loading but was pushed to the 15- foot setback from the street and 10 foot setback from the side lot line. Gundlach noted this neighborhood has experienced drainage problems recently, which have impacted the deterioration of the applicant's existing garage. Staff would recommend that the applicant's revised plan PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3146 Mark and Pamela Palm,Continued) include existing and proposed grading that the City Engineer can review and comment on prior to approval of any variance. Staff recommends denial of the request as submitted. The applicant should be directed to move the garage closer to the road to reduce driveway hardcover,reduce the garage to a standard 24' by 24' two car garage that would only require a 10 foot side yard setback,meet the required 10 foot setback, and provide a grading plan for City Engineer review and approval. The Planning Commission may also want to consider further hardcover reductions as deemed necessary. The applicant had nothing to add to Staff's report. Brennan indicated the applicant is willing to work within the recommendations of the Staff and that some of the concepts are workable. Brennan stated a reduction in the size of the structure would not be workable but that he would be willing to relocate the garage closer to the street,bring in some fill,and reduce the incline. Brennan stated he is unsure whether the 10-foot side yard setback would allow proper negotiation into the garage if the garage were located closer to the street. Brennan indicated relocation of the structure would eliminate the structure from the 250' setback and greatly reduce the amount of hardcover in that zone on the site. Brennan stated this would be beneficial especially in light of the runoff issues that have been raised. Brennan stated the applicant would like a functional garage for both vehicles and storage and is agreeable to working with the City to reducing hardcover on the lot. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would be revising his plans. Rahn noted the Planning Commission is only able to act on what is before them. Brennan stated the setback requirement would change if the garage is relocated but that they would be requesting a variance to the side yard setback. Brennan stated his comments tonight are in response to Staff's comments. Brennan indicated the area above the vehicles would be attic storage and not living space. Rahn noted the height of the building would only be eight feet. Brennan stated a drop-down staircase is more dangerous than a built-in staircase but that there is not enough room to construct an interior staircase. Rahn questioned whether the garage would still be side loading. Brennan stated it would be. Rahn questioned whether the turning radius would change if the garage were relocated. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3146 Mark and Pamela Palm,Continued) Brennan stated if the garage structure were located closer to the street,the actual dimensions would increase,which would allow the garage to remain at what was originally approved. Brennan indicated as the garage is moved closer to the street, it would increase the dimensions. Rahn stated it appears this application may need to be tabled for a redesign. Bremer inquired what size structure the applicant would like. Brennan stated he is not familiar with what happened in previous meetings since he only became involved in this application today. Brennan stated the applicant would like a functional garage. Brennan stated if the hardcover and side yard setback encroachments were required to be reduced,they would like a structure that is appropriate for this lot. Bremer suggested Brennan work with the applicant and table the application. Brennan stated they would like some feedback from the Planning Commission. Leslie noted 34 by 22 was approved previously,which equates to 748 feet and satisfies the setback requirement. Brennan indicated that size requires a setback of 10 feet. Bremer stated due to the topography, a front-loading garage was previously determined not to be appropriate for this lot and that was why it was allowed with that short of setback. Bremer questioned whether the Planning Commission would be okay with approving what was previously approved. Rahn inquired whether the structure would look like what is depicted in the plans. Brennan stated he would recommend the structure face the street. Brennan indicated it would still have the appearance of a single-story structure. Kempf noted the applicant's driveway is extremely steep and that in his view it could be a very dangerous situation in the winter. Kempf stated when he stood on the slope and was at the height of the street,his line of sight was at the roof of the current garage. Kempf suggested the applicant consider a lower level garage that loaded from the side of the house. Kempf stated a garage that you could drive directly from the street would make it a safer driveway and would allow for storage underneath the garage. Brennan stated the one disadvantage would be that you would have to exit from a stairway into the house. Kempf suggested the garage be made wide enough to construct a staircase inside the garage. Palm stated the previous neighbor had a similar situation and that the walk from the garage to the house was quite a distance. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3146 Mark and Pamela Palm,Continued) Rahn stated he also has a garage similar to what was proposed by Kempf and that the exterior stairway was dangerous and finally eliminated. Bremer stated she would like to see the side yard setback met and a smaller footprint. Palm stated the need to back out of the garage was the reason for the change. Brennan stated given the fact that it was approved at a 24' by 34',the smaller footprint would improve upon the impervious surface situation. Brennan stated the Palms are willing to work with the City in regard to Staff's recommendations. Bremer stated in her view the current plan probably would not receive a favorable recommendation and that it garage would need to be reduced. Bremer stated she would be agreeable to approve what was previously approved. Brennan stated the old application was approved with a five-foot setback,which did reduce the hardcover slightly. Brennan indicated the new proposal is to relocate the driveway further forward, which would reduce the hardcover more substantially but would require a five-foot setback to make the garage accessible and functional. Rahn suggested the applicant work with Staff to see if some of these issues could be resolved. Rahn recommended trying to eliminate the side yard setback variance completely. Leslie moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3146,Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive,to allow the applicant time to revise his plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:07 p.m.—8:17 p.m.) 6. #05-3157 MARTHA T.MASON ON BEHALF OF SARA MOOS,2160 WEBBER HILLS ROAD,VARIANCE, 8:17 P.M.—8:37 P.M. Martha Mason, Architect, and Sara Moos, Applicant,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance in order to construct an addition to the home resulting in additional home and garage square footage maintaining the existing substandard front setback line of the home as well as construct an open pergola near the front entrance within the 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant has proposed a 12' by 32.3' addition to the east portion of the existing home,resulting in additional living space and a second story expansion above a portion of the existing garage to accommodate a new master bath. The home is currently set back 44.4 feet from the front property line and the proposed additions would continue along the same front line of the house resulting in a setback of 43.9 feet due to the slight angle of the home. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3157 Martha Mason,Continued) The applicant is also proposing an open pergola addition to the front of the home to serve as a front entry piece. This pergola would extend seven feet closer to the street than the home in this area resulting in a setback of 41.5 feet from the front lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. Curtis stated due to the angle of the existing home to the front lot line only the western corner of the home meets the required 50-foot setback. The applicant is proposing a 12-foot addition to the eastern end of the home resulting in more space within the home and moving the garage space to the east. Additionally,the applicant is proposing a 12' by 30.5' second story addition over the existing home stepped back two feet from the front of the home resulting in a 46-foot setback for the second story where a 44-foot setback currently exists for the first story. Staff finds that the orientation of the existing home with respect to the front lot line may serve as a hardship and it may be true that the existing setbacks are not inconsistent with the neighborhood; however,the additions could be redesigned to meet the required 50-foot setback. The open pergola, although not an enclosed addition,is structure and does add to the bulk and massing. Staff finds that the additions could be redesigned to step back to the required 50-foot setback and that there is no hardship for the encroachment of the pergola. Planning Staff recommends denial of the front yard setback variances and recommends that the additions be redesigned to meet the 50-foot front yard setback. Mason distributed photographs of the property to the Planning Commission. Mason stated they do meet all the conditions of Staff's report except for the front yard setback, which Staff acknowledges that there may be a hardship inherent to the land because the property was platted prior to the current zoning regulations. Mason stated it is also her understanding that Staff finds that there may be a hardship due to the existing slant of the house on the property. Mason indicated the addition versus the existing structure would be a difference of.5 feet from the front yard setback. Mason stated in order to keep within the current foundation footprint,the applicant is requesting a six-inch variance based on prior zoning. The proposal has a minimal impact on the property and the character of the neighborhood and that they feel the scope of the project is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the rules. There were no public comments relating to this application. Rahn inquired whether the front entry roof is a legal encroachment. Gaffron stated the City's code does not have an allowance for a front entry roof,which means that it is an encroachment. Mason stated the structure is more like a trellis and is a detached structure. Mason stated they view it as more of a landscape feature and that the pergola would not have any footings. Mason stated the trellis would help to define the entry to the residence. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3157 Martha Mason,Continued) Fritzler inquired whether it would be attached to the house in any way, shape, or form. Mason stated it would not be attached. Rahn stated the plan appears to depict it as being attached. Rahn inquired if the floor plan has changed. Mason stated the floor plan has changed. Gaffron stated in the past the City has treated freestanding pergolas as an accessory structure that cannot be any closer to the street than the existing house. Gaffron stated in his opinion the Planning Commission should deal with the trellis as well. Rahn commented in his view the pergola,if it exceeded six feet in height,would also be considered structural coverage. Bremer inquired whether a trellis purchased from Home Depot would be considered structure. Rahn stated it would be. Gaffron stated if it is not attached,then it is considered an accessory structure. Rahn stated typically the Planning Commission requests that any additions to the house meet the required setbacks. Leslie stated the last time this type of issue was before the Planning Commission the Commission was looking for the addition to be no further encroaching than the house but noted the Council passed the addition further encroaching into the front yard setback but keeping the same line as the existing structure. Leslie stated based on that,he would be inclined to accept the addition but not the pergola. Mason stated they are prepared to forego the pergola and that they are in agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Leslie. Fritzler stated the applicant is adding more massing than just six inches because it is six inches at two stories. Mason stated when you speak of massing,you look at the 12-foot addition being ten percent of the length of the entire house and that they are proposing to add something that is restrained and modest. Fritzler stated his view is only focused on the area of the 50-foot setback and that the rest of the house is not an issue. Mason stated the design constraints relate to function,practicality and design. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3157 Martha Mason, Continued) Rahn stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Fritzler and pointed out that the example cited by Commissioner Leslie was a one-story garage addition. Rahn stated if the second story were set back, it is likely it would be approved. Mason stated the plans and elevations show a minimal change in character and function,with the functions of the infrastructure, such as mechanical plumbing and the interior stairway,being kept intact. Mason stated to set the second story back would be a hardship that would compromise both the practicality and function of the house. Kempf stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leslie,noting in that similar application the contractor constructed the house slightly crooked on the lot and that the Planning Commission does not necessary need to restrict the project because of that fact. Kempf stated the encroachment is insignificant and that he would be willing to approve the application. Bremer stated it is important in her opinion that this project does not have a huge visual impact,noting that there is not a house located directly across the street from this residence. Bremer commented the neighbor to the west appears to have a deck that is closer than the 50 feet to the road. Bremer indicated she would not approve the pergola. Fritzler commented that this might be the easiest way to do what the applicant would like to do but that he has not been convinced that there is a hardship for the variance. Mason stated in addition to the functional hardships and practical hardships, if the addition is required to be stepped back to meet the front yard setback, the screen porch would be compromised in terms of light and ventilation. Mason stated the screen porch is an existing structure. Fritzler stated light,ventilation and view do not constitute a hardship. Bremer stated hardships typically are considered inherent to the land. Bremer stated the other application was less of a visible encroachment and was only one story but that Commissioner Leslie has made a good point. Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3157,Martha T. Mason on behalf of Sara Moos,2160 Webber Hills Road,granting of a front yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the home, and to recommend denial of the pergola. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Fritzler Opposed. Bremer suggested updating the plan to show the removal of the pergola. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 7. #05-3160 JUDSON M.DAYTON,825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 8:38 P.M.—9:20 P.M. Judson Dayton,Applicant, and John Winston,Attorney-at-Law,were present. Gaffron stated the Applicant is proposing to combine and re-arrange the lot lines among three existing tax parcels to result in just two tax parcels. Gaffron stated the smaller property at one time was one parcel but was later split into two parcels. The 21-acre parcel contains an existing residence structure, guesthouse,barn and various outbuildings. The easterly of the existing smaller parcels contains a cabin and the westerly of the smaller parcels contains a variety of small outbuildings near the lakeshore. Gaffron stated the applicant would like to,one,combine the two smaller parcels into one five-acre building site; two,then rearrange the lot line between this combination and the 21-acre parcel to straighten out that common lot line; and three, formalize a driveway easement through the 21-acre parcel out to Old Crystal Bay Road to serve the five-acre parcel. Staff has reviewed this application with the City Attorney and the applicants, and it was concluded that this could not be done administratively. Gaffron stated although both resulting lots are compliant with LR-1A minimum width and area requirements, a variety of other zoning and subdivision standards come into play. Gaffron indicated this reconfiguration of existing tax parcel boundaries essentially creates a new lot. The five-acre parcel is considered as a back lot, and this triggers the need to create a formal 30-foot wide outlot corridor for access in order to be in compliance with the zoning standards. Creation of the driveway easement is by definition a Class I subdivision and therefore could not be handled administratively. Further, on the basis that the resulting five acre lot is in fact a `back lot' by definition, the back lot ordinance requires access to be established via an"access outlot". Creation of an outlot, as opposed to merely an easement,requires that this two-lot proposal should technically be a plat subdivision,not merely a lot line rearrangement as proposed. In Staff's opinion and that of the City Attorney,the zoning code suggests that this proposal requires platting. However,platting brings into play a variety of other factors, including park dedication, storm water and drainage,trunk fees, septic testing,wetland delineation, all of which add complexity,time, and costs to the review/approval process,which the applicant wishes to avoid. The applicant's position is that he is merely combining two existing buildable lots into one. Gaffron stated Mr. Winston has indicated that Minnesota Statutes have a provision that allows the platting authority to waive such requirements in a case where compliance with the platting requirements will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations. Gaffron stated issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include the following: 1. Does the Planning Commission conclude that a plat is required? Or,would the Planning Commission recommend waiving the platting requirement because of the various implications, such as creating substandard setbacks for existing accessory buildings, subjecting the applicant to PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3160 Judson Dayton,Continued) park and stormwater fees,requiring septic testing, etc. 2. Does the reduction in area of the large parcel to 21 acres affect how the Planning Commission would view the prior variance for the horse barn as an oversize accessory structure exceeding the allowable size limit? 3. Resolution No. 3072 states that if the property is subdivided at a future date,the barn caretaker apartment conditional use permit automatically expires and the owner must apply for a new guesthouse conditional use permit. The Planning Commission should consider whether this application triggers this condition or whether it was the intent to only require such a conditional use permit renewal if the property on which the barn sits gets significantly smaller. 4. What should happen with the structures on the five-acre parcel that are less than 75 feet from the lake? It is Staff's opinion that this should be a plat based on a strict interpretation of the zoning and subdivision codes. If the conclusion is that this must be a plat,then the application should be tabled to allow the applicant to bring back a preliminary plat drawing. There were no public comments regarding this application. Dayton stated they would like to create two lots rather than three and that it is their hope that one person purchase the larger lot and not subdivide it. Dayton stated he is attempting to carve off five and a half acres from the parcel to allow him to construct a future house on that lot once the larger parcel is sold. Winston stated they are asking to go from three lots to two lots rather than asking to create more lots. Winston stated they are attempting to rectify the small lots and have larger lots to allow the applicant to stay in the neighborhood in the future once the larger lot is sold. Winston stated the two lots would remain status quo until the larger parcel is sold. Winston stated the other requirements should be imposed at the time the larger lot is subdivided. Winston stated under the statute the City can waive those requirements. Winston indicated they are not challenging Staff's assertion that the subdivision regulations are applicable,but that this is a case where it is not necessary to apply those regulations at this time. Winston stated imposition of the other regulations at the present time would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and that failure of the applicant to do a formal plat does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations. Under those circumstances,the platting authority may waive such compliance to the regulations. Winston agreed that they are requesting a lot line rearrangement but that they are looking for waiver by the Planning Commission and City Council of the subdivision regulations until such time as the larger lot is subdivided. Bremer inquired what statute citation Mr.Winston was referring to. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3160 Judson Dayton,Continued) Winston indicated it is Statute 462.358. Bremer stated that is how the statute reads,but that she would have expected this exception to be a part of City ordinances. Bremer indicated she would like to read the entire statute. Winston provided the entire statute to Commissioner Bremer. Bremer inquired whether there is a way to make it possible that the subdivision regulations are waived until one of the lots is sold or until such time that Mr.Dayton no longer owns either parcel. Leslie noted the applicant is not planning to move until the larger parcel is sold. Winston stated they would still like to sell Parcel 1 without a subdivision and keep the lot intact. Winston stated in the future it might not be practical to keep Parcel 1 intact in the future given economic reasons. Winston stated no development is being proposed for either lot at the present time and that it would be more appropriate to apply the subdivision regulations at the time a subdivision is proposed for Parcel 1. Leslie stated he has a concern that access to Parcel 2 would need to change and that the easement may not be how access to proposed Parcel 2 is given. Leslie commented he could envision a cul-de-sac in the center of Parcel 1. Leslie inquired what would happen to that easement if a different access is proposed and whether the easement would preclude any other reasonable subdivision of proposed Parcel 1. Winston stated the property owner would not be obligated to do anything with the driveway and it could remain as is or another driveway could be constructed. Leslie inquired whether that would be a negotiation with the future buyer. Winston stated that is probably what would happen and that in his view it is a logical way for the property to be developed. Leslie commented that it is likely that the two accesses would change in the future. Leslie stated he had a concern that Parcel 1 would be limited in some way if the easement were in place,but that it sounds like the future owner would not be precluded from doing something different with the access if he so chooses. Winston stated it is his opinion that the buyer of Parcel 1 could negotiate a different access with the applicant. Rahn questioned why these steps are being taken now prior to the land being sold. Rahn stated in his view the easement would affect a number of things and that there is the possibility that the easement will change in the future. PAGE 24 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3160 Judson Dayton,Continued) Winston stated it allows Mr. Dayton to retain one lot,remain on the property, and have access to the lot once Parcel 1 is sold. Gaffron stated there are also issues with the barn and guesthouse being located less than 50 feet from the property line. Winston stated those issues would not be relevant until the one parcel were sold. Winston stated access could also be gained through the northern part of the site. Winston reiterated they would like to have two tax parcels rather than three, and that if a willing buyer were not found,they would come back in for a subdivision at that time. Fritzler stated if the easement for proposed Parcel 2 were granted and then the rest of the property were divided out, it is possible that the easement would need to be changed. Winston displayed a map depicting a possible roadway off of Old Crystal Bay to provide access to the parcels. Winston stated they are not asking for a subdivision at this time but they would like to create two lots rather than three. Winston stated in his opinion access to a possible future subdivision is really not an issue tonight. Leslie stated that part of the proposal is removing one of the tax parcels from the City's tax base. Leslie inquired whether the fees and taxes would be reduced by this lot line rearrangement. Winston indicated that was not one of the motivating factors. Leslie inquired whether that could be acknowledged in an easement. Gaffron stated one of the things that triggers whether certain fees are assessed is if the applicant were to sell the entire property,all three tax parcels, and if the property were to be subdivided, the City would collect park dedication fees from whatever number of lots were created. Gaffron stated stormwater trunk fees would also be assessed for every lot that is created, as well as sewer connection fees if the development is sewered. Dayton stated he would like to carve that piece of property off from the other parcel so that he is able to remain on that piece of property and sell off the larger parcel to one or possibly two buyers. Leslie indicated he is inclined to approve the easement but that he is looking for reasons why this easement might not work. Winston stated it would be logical for the property to tie into existing stormwater and sanitary sewer and that those lots would be assessed at the time houses were constructed on the sites. Winston stated it would make sense for Parcel 2 to join in that application for the infrastructure improvements. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3160 Judson Dayton,Continued) Dayton stated there is the possibility of sewer from Little Orchard sometime in the future but that at this time he is contemplating a septic system for Parcel 2. Fritzler commented it makes sense to do it the way the applicant is proposing. Fritzler moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3160,Judson M. Dayton,825 Old Crystal Bay Road South,to allow,one, a combination of the two smaller parcels into one 5-acre building site; two,a rearrangement of the lot line between this combination and the 21-acre parcel to straighten out that common lot line; and three,formalization of a driveway easement through the 21-acre parcel out to Old Crystal Bay Road to serve the 5-acre parcel. Gaffron inquired whether a plat would be required. Fritzler indicated a plat would not be required. Gaffron inquired whether the motion is approving the lot line rearrangement,which includes Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, and whether the fees associated with development of Parcel 1 at this point are being waived until the time the parcel is subdivided. Fritzler stated that is correct. Fritzler stated the fees would be calculated at the time there is a further subdivision. Gaffron noted the park dedication fee is based on each individual lot that would be created. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 26 AND OCTOBER 10,2005 Gaffron reported the Interspace application was approved at the October 10th City Council meeting and the Narrows application was denied based on the parking situation,the possibility of drawing in customers from outside the community and the potential impact to the neighborhood Leslie stated his impression was that the Council did not take that action because of the public comments received but that the Council's considerations were very different from the considerations of the Planning Commission. Leslie stated the application was discussed in terms of noise and parking and violations of the current operation,but that it was apparent to him that the Council had already decided that the application would be denied even before it was heard. Leslie stated he was discouraged by the action of PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Report of Planning Commission, Continued) the Council and that he had the impression the Planning Commission's considerations were not relevant in this application. McMillan stated a lot of times when the City is dealing with an establishment that is beyond just code and zoning issues, they tend to take on a whole different life at the council level and that in her view the Planning Commission did a good job as far as what they need to do for planning. McMillan stated there were some council members who had concerns with parking and operational issues. Gaffron noted the police chief did speak at the council meeting and had distributed a history of police activity associated with the Narrows Saloon since taken over by Anderst,which was not part of the zoning review process. Bremer commented other similar establishments probably have the same level of police activity and experience similar complaints. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission performs the public review process based on zoning merits and that in his view the current process serves the applicants better than if the input of the Council is given on every application prior to the Planning Commission voting on it. Bremer stated the applicants could also contact individual council members to get their input prior to proceeding forward. Bremer stated in her view the Planning Commission did the right thing in recommending approval of the application. Rahn stated it is frustrating for the Planning Commission to listen to a particular application a number of times and to have the applicant make considerable changes to their proposal only to have that application denied by the council. Gaffron stated the public review process allows the council to see how the public reacts to a particular proposal. McMillan stated she normally does not have a preconceived idea on applications and noted that this application has been tabled. McMillan commented the music and the likelihood that people from outside the Navarre area would visit the Narrows Saloon because of the music compounded the situation. Leslie noted Troy Broitzman's application was referred back to the Planning Commission largely because of aesthetics. Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission has the latitude to consider aesthetics as part of an application. Curtis indicated there were a number of comments expressed regarding how this residence would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. PAGE 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Report of Planning Commission, Continued) Gaffron stated the only basis the City has to look at the impact on the character of the neighborhood is with a request for a variance, and that if there is not a need for any variances,the City is not able to control the design of the house. Kempf inquired whether there was any discussion regarding the location of the driveway. Curtis stated the driveway has been relocated to Heritage. Curtis stated Staff is in the process of receiving the engineering on the house and driveway. Curtis noted the amount of dirt the applicant is proposing to move on this site has been reduced considerably. McMillan stated there were no hardcover calculations and that the applicant needs to fine-tune his plans. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 10. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 19,2005 Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to approve the minutes of the September 19,2005 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 11. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 14,2005 October 24—Bremer November 14 -Fritzler ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:34 p.m. David Rahn, Chair PAGE 28