HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE ' IL0 ' 2o , I
❑ COUNCIL
[P -PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
El
COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
)
2. T.rry ���; .•k,e,t.� ,� /'f fi
f�,<<. t�',+-,�tvi 5� . � t'.' �we--1— CU *=-
J i
' J 3. 4(e)1 � �4 ' L I `,i� �'' r
4. ?VA ■.1 7)1
5. t•--11 \ i..c Vi2 tcJ /22-1-7
7
6. ia.1CX CC X_ 144-1Q,►� '`lt z "UV* Lailks St C 3 c
7. S'4Ck.4 (Ale 1) 1((-- ov OCc;� tc� gm ,
8. 1--koitgiA l ] IA al : t)4— 34t/7
0
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair David Rahn, Commissioners J.Marc Fritzler,Jim Leslie, Ralph Kempf,
Roland Jurgens,and Commissioner Cynthia Bremer arrived at 6:08 p.m. Representing staff were
Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and
Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:00 to 6:06 p.m.)
#1. #04-3039 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ORONO ZONING CODE,
SECTIONS 78-1101 THROUGH 78-1210,FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
Curtis indicated that due to recent interpretation of the regulations,the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has mandated changes in local floodplain ordinances. These changes are
required to go into effect within the City of Orono by September 2,2004. The draft ordinance was
approved by the DNR on July 15,2004.
Curtis stated Orono's current Floodplain and Wetlands Management Ordinance is serving as two
ordinances;however,new standards and regulations dictate that it is more appropriate to designate
separate ordinances for each of these overlay districts. Curtis noted a joint meeting between City
Staff and the Planning Commission was held on August 4, 2004, with the changes discussed
having been included in the revised draft before the Commission tonight.
Curtis stated the proposed changes to Orono's Floodplain Ordinance include the following:
1. Adoption of the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)map revisions.
2. Mandated changes in the definitions for lowest floor,manufactured homes,recreational
vehicles, substantial damage and substantial improvement, and general flood plain district.
3. Changes to the language regarding flood proofing Accessory Structures,which will be
requiring two automatic openings in the outside walls of accessory structures.
4. Changes to the language for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses concerning the automatic
openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique.
5. A change to the language to Commercial Uses under All Flood Fringe Uses regarding
the measurement of water velocity.
6. Changes in the Administration section regarding the following:
- Standards for requiring a permit
-Notification for watercourse alterations
-Notification to FEMA when physical changes increase or decrease the 100-year flood
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3039 Proposed Revisions to Orono Zoning Code, continued)
elevation
-Variances—additional variance criteria
7. Nonconforming Uses section regarding historic structures, substantial damage and
substantial improvement.
Curtis indicated the proposed changes to the Wetland Ordinance would apply in the following
situations:
1. New Development—A subdivision creating new lots or development of vacant land will be
subject to the requirements of this ordinance; or
2. Redevelopment—At any time when a property is redeveloped(i.e.new principal structure
built)the property will be expected to meet the requirements of this ordinance; or
3. At any time a land use application is determined by staff or the MCWD to have adverse
affects on a wetland; or
4. At any time a project consists of grading, fill or results in a disturbance area which exceeds
50 cubic yards or 5000 square feet on properties where wetlands are located.
Curtis explained one of the goals of this new ordinance is to incorporate existing MCWD regulations
regarding buffer strip requirements and size. In addition, the City is also establishing regulations
exceeding MCWD requirements as follows:
1. Establishment of an official City Wetland Map in an effort to streamline our regulation
and offer a concise map for staff and the public.
2. Establishment of a 20-foot setback from the buffer for structures.
3. Establishment of criteria for what defines an"acceptable"buffer such as aesthetics and
functionality.
4. Requirement for submittal of surveys and delineations in an electronic format,which will
enable the City to update the official City Wetland Map with each new delineation.
Staff recommends approval of both of the draft ordinances.
There were no public comments.
Rahn noted the Planning Commission and Staff were able to discuss a number of the revisions at the
joint work session.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3039 Proposed Revisions to Orono Zoning Code, continued)
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of the proposed revisions to Orono
Zoning Code, Sections 78-1101 through 78-1210,as outlined in the August 11,2004 Planner's
Report. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*2. 04-3034 APERFECT CONSTRUCTION,LLC,ON BEHALF OF ROBERT P.MACK,
1580 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow
an increase in the size of the berm at 1580 Sixth Avenue North, subject to the applicant
meeting all of the City Engineer's requirements. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*3 #04-3040 DEAN AND SHERRY LUNDBLAD, 1290 ARBOR STREET—VARIANCE
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of a side street setback variance for the
property located at 1290 Arbor Street, subject to the following condition: The existing
turn around driveway shall be removed concurrently with the construction of the proposed
garage and installation of the new proposed driveway. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
#4. #04-3010 THEODORE CAPRA,3534 IVY PLACE—VARIANCES(6:08—6:29 p.m.)
Theodore Capra,Applicant,was present.
Gundlach indicated the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to permit 30 percent hardcover
within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 49%currently exists and a
conditional use permit to allow land alterations within the 0-75' zone, in order to construct a new
residence on an existing lot.
Gundlach stated the City Engineer has not visited the site but has reviewed the proposed grading plan
and has concerns regarding whether restoration of the slope is necessary. Gundlach recommended the
CUP portion of the application be tabled to allow the City Engineer to visit the site. Gundlach
indicated the applicant is in agreement with tabling this portion of the application.
Gundlach noted the applicant and the applicant's architect have met with staff numerous times
since the June Planning Commission meeting to discuss alternative site plans in an attempt to
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3010 Theodore Capra, continued)
reduce hardcover. The applicant has submitted a number of plans that have included both an attached
garage and a detached garage as well as relocating the residence closer to the road but has been unable
to reduce the proposed hardcover to 25 percent.
The Planning Commission reviewed an overhead of the proposed footprint. Gundlach indicated the
applicant is proposing to construct a two and a half story residence consisting of a house footprint of
2288 square feet with an attached 720 square feet three-car garage and with the proposed hardcover at
30 percent. Gundlach noted the amount of proposed hardcover has been reduced slightly from the
previous plan. Gundlach stated the revised plan has the same basic footprint, smaller deck, smaller
garage, and no porch. The existing detached garage located by the road and the shed will be removed
as part of the construction.
Capra noted at the last Planning Commission meeting he had indicated in his opinion the small road
at the back of his property was a hardship. Capra indicated the road was in existence at the time he
purchased the property. Capra stated he has met all of the City's requirements except for the
hardcover and that in his opinion being required to reduce the size of the house is penalizing him.
Capra indicated he has revised his plans to the point where the proposed residence is not what he
would like to construct. Capra indicated he understands the need to limit hardcover along the lake in
an effort to reduce runoff,but he is unable to reduce the amount of hardcover being proposed.
Capra pointed out the property at 1740 Shadywood Road was allowed 38 or 39 percent hardcover,and
requested the Planning Commission reconsider his application. Capra suggested the City consider
increasing the amount of hardcover allowed within the City to 30 percent.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated he understands how the applicant feels.
Capra stated he does not feel the proposed residence is out of line for that lot and that the lot would be
improved with the new construction.
Bremer stated to her recollection the lot located on Shadywood is a very narrow lot.
Capra noted the lot is 82 feet. Capra stated that property owner was also aware of the road but yet the
Planning Commission determined a hardship existed.
Gundlach indicated that the property the applicant is referring to had over half of its acreage located in
the 0-75' zone,which was the primary basis for granting the variance.
Capra indicated he is aware that he is not comparing apples to apples.
Bremer commented there are many examples where the Planning Commission has required applicants
to reduce the amount of hardcover to 25 percent on lots that are similar to Mr. Capra's. Bremer
indicated the City Council is the final authority.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3010 Theodore Capra, continued)
Leslie stated it is difficult for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of an overage in the
amount of hardcover unless a hardship can be demonstrated.
Capra commented that the hardship in his case is having a conforming lot. Capra indicated he is
reluctant to construct a new residence on the property given the hardcover limitations.
Rahn stated in his opinion if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of hardcover in
excess of 25 percent on a conforming lot,that that would open the flood gates and the City would see
a number of people wishing to increase the hardcover on their properties.
Bremer commented that it appears the majority of the Planning Commission is against recommending
approval,but noted the applicant does have the option to appear before the City Council and explain
his situation.
Leslie indicated there have been instances where the City Council has approved an application even
though the Planning Commission had not recommended approval.
Kempf stated it was his understanding that one of the proposed plans had a detached garage,which
would move the garage closer to the road and eliminate some driveway.
Capra stated he has looked at a number of options but would prefer an attached garage.
Kempf stated the applicant does have some options to choose from and that he personally would pick
the detached garage and reducing the size of the driveway in order to comply with the 25 percent.
Capra inquired whether the City would consider raising the hardcover percentage in the near future.
Leslie stated he is not aware of the City possibly changing its hardcover percentage.
Jurgens noted the 25 percent hardcover restriction has been in place since 1975. Jurgens indicated that
in order to qualify for a hardship,the applicant has to demonstrate three requirements. Jurgens stated
one of the requirements is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use,which basically means
that you are unable to build on the lot. Jurgens stated in his opinion this application does not meet the
hardship requirements.
Capra inquired how much further the size of the house would need to be decreased in order to meet the
hardcover limit.
Gundlach stated the applicant would need to decrease the amount of hardcover by an additional
749 square feet.
Bremer inquired whether the garage would have underground parking.
Gundlach indicated the original plan called for an underground garage accessible from the lake side.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3010 Theodore Capra, continued)
Capra stated in order to have an underground garage area he would need to construct a retaining wall,
which would actually raise the amount of hardcover. Capra indicated he would like to go before the
City Council.
Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission table the conditional use permit in the event the
applicant wishes to do the grading within 75' feet of the lake in the future. Gundlach stated that
application can be withdrawn if the applicant does not decide to proceed forward.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend denial of the hardcover variance and to table
the conditional use permit to allow land alterations within the 0-75' zone for the property
located at 3534 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#5. #04-3037 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB,430 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD—
VARIANCE,(6:29—6:44 p.m.)
Bob Driscoll appeared on behalf of the Wayzata Country Club.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting to amend their conditional use permit to include a setback
variance in order to construct an addition to the existing maintenance building located just north of the
Luce Line Trail. The request also includes a variance to allow a single building to be larger than
3000 square feet.
The country club is located within the RR-1B one-family rural residential district and that all
accessory structures shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. The existing
maintenance building is located 45 feet from the Luce Line where 50 feet is normally required.
Gundlach noted the existing accessory structure was approved through the conditional use process,
with a 55-foot setback being shown on the plans. However,the building was not constructed in the
location depicted on the plans and is thus causing the need for a variance for the addition.
The applicant has proposed to construct an 18'by 60' addition to the eastern side of the existing
maintenance building,which would have a setback of 41 feet from the Luce Line Trail boundary.
Gundlach stated Staff finds no hardship exists inherent to the land to support approval of the Luce
Line setback variance. The addition could be shifted north to meet the setback or the addition could be
reduced in size. Gundlach stated because the structure is nonconforming, the City is under no
obligation to permit any expansion at all.
Gundlach indicated the Luce Line Trail property is owned and operated by the DNR,who has no
formal setback requirements. The DNR was notified of this request and no comments have been
received to date.
Staff is recommending denial of the Luce Line setback variance to allow an accessory building to be
constructed within 50 feet of the Luce Line boundary. Staff does recommend approval of the
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3037 Wayzata Country Club,continued)
accessory building area variance to allow an individual building to exceed 3000 square feet and for the
total amount of accessory buildings to exceed 6000 square feet based on the number of acres the
country club owns.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant had anything additional to add to Staff's report.
Driscoll stated he did not.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kempf commented he has visited this site and that the building is not quite parallel to the Luce
Line. Kempf stated in his opinion the building could have been constructed parallel to the Luce Line
without any change in the functionality. Kempf stated the building was originally constructed
inappropriately and that the applicant is now requesting that the building become even more
inappropriate.
Kempf stated he did notice that the buildings facing the country club were painted green and had
nice shrubs and trees planted around them,but that the side of the building facing the public is
white and stands out. Kempf stated he also noticed some dead golf carts and pallets in view of the
public and that in his opinion the Wayzata Country Club has not taken the stewardship of their
position on the trail seriously. Kempf indicated he would not be in support of the variance.
Driscoll remarked that the debris has recently been moved there in preparation for the construction of
the addition and that the country club is in great need for additional storage. Driscoll stated the
building was painted white at the request of the neighbor adjacent to the Luce Line so it would be
less obtrusive in the wintertime. Driscoll stated the Wayzata Country Club works closely with the
DNR and with the Luce Line users.
Driscoll stated the main purpose of the addition is to add more storage room so that those items would
be out of sight from the general public. Driscoll indicated the country club has been the victim of
several vandalism episodes in the last couple of years and they are attempting to house all their
equipment indoors.
Driscoll stated he cannot comment on the location of the building since he was not involved with
that project.
Rahn commented that in his opinion there appears to be an alternate location for this building that
would not be encroaching into any setbacks. Rahn stated the issue appears to be the setback variance
and not the accessory building area variance.
Driscoll stated locating the building to the north is not possible due to the golf course layout and that
in his opinion the proposed location is really the only location for the addition.
Leslie inquired whether the golf course has considered constructing a separate structure rather than
expanding the existing structure.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3037 Wayzata Country Club, continued)
Driscoll indicated he is unsure where they could construct another building.
Jurgens stated he would like additional information on why this structure could not be located
elsewhere.
Kempf commented that the addition could be shifted back nine feet.
Driscoll remarked there is a 100 year-old oak tree that he is trying to avoid cutting down. Driscoll
stated he would need to look at the area closer to see whether the building would fit.
Jurgens stated he would like the applicant to consider redesigning the plan.
Kempf stated another option would be to reduce the size of the building by nine feet,which would still
give the country club significant storage.
Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission should discuss expansion of the current
nonconforming structure.
Rahn stated he would prefer a design that does not encroach further into the setback.
Bremer indicated she would be in favor of the variance to allow a single building to be larger than
3000 square feet but not in favor of increasing the encroachment into the setback.
Jurgens indicated he would also be in favor of that.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like the Planning Commission to proceed forward on that
basis or table the application.
Driscoll stated he would like the Planning Commission to proceed forward.
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend denial of the accessory building setback
variance and to recommend approval of the accessory building area variance to allow a single
building to be larger than 3000 square feet and to allow the total area of all accessory buildings
to be greater than 6000 square feet for the Wayzata Country Club,430 Long Lake Road,with
the understanding that any new addition will expand the nonconforming structure but not in a
nonconforming location. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Rahn recommended the applicant have the redesigned plans ready prior to the City Council meeting.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
#6. #04-3041 REBECCA HOLZEM,3407 EAST LAKE STREET—VARIANCES,
(6:45—6:54 p.m.)
Rebecca Holzem,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant has provided an updated survey which has been provided to the
Planning Commission prior to tonight's meeting. The applicant is applying for a number of
variances in order to construct a new 864 square foot single family residence. The property is
located in the LR-1A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District and consists of 4,180 square feet.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. Lot area and lot width variances for a lot 4,180 square feet in area and 44 feet in width where
two acres and 200 feet of width are normally required.
2. A creek setback of 37 feet where 75 feet is required and 15 feet(detached garage)currently
exists.
3. A setback of 50' from the 929.4 elevation where 75' is normally required.
4. A rear street setback of 15 feet where 50 feet is required and 18.8 feet currently exists.
5. Side setback variances for side setbacks of 10 feet where 30 feet is normally required and
where 8 feet(house) and 1.4 feet(detached garage)currently exists.
6. A hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback zone to allow 21.8 percent or 720 square
feet where 0 percent is normally allowed.
7. A hardcover variance within 75'-250' setback zone to allow 47.0 percent or 378 square feet
where 25 percent is normally allowed.
Curtis stated a neighboring property located at 3415 Eastlake Street applied for and received
variances in order to build a new residence on another substandard lot. 3415 Eastlake Street
received variances in order to construct a new home 13 feet from the rear street lot line,with a
lake setback of 50 feet, and side yard setback of 28 feet 2.5 inches where a 30-foot setback is
normally required. This property is 100 feet in width and 102 feet in depth.
Curtis indicated the existing hardcover is at 50.5 percent or 1,665 square feet and is located within the
75' setback,with the applicant proposing a significant reduction in hardcover to 21.8 percent or
720 square feet. With the reduction within the 0-75' setback,the applicant has proposed a slight
increase within the 75'-250' setback zone from 37.6 percent hardcover to 47 percent, a difference of
9.4 square feet.
Staff finds that due to the overlapping setbacks,the size of the lot and the proximity to the creek,
there are hardships to justify granting some degree of variances for this property.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3041 Rebecca Holzem, continued)
Rahn inquired whether the applicant had anything to add to staff's report.
Holzem stated the report was fairly concise and that she is well aware of what the restrictions for
this property are. Holzem noted the lot is very,very small and that she has attempted to conform
with the City's requirements but at the same time construct a livable residence.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendation.
Kempf noted it appears the applicant has attempted to conform to the requirements as much as
possible.
Fritzler noted the plans do not depict any decks on the residence.
Holzem stated since she is unable to construct anything closer to the creek than what is being
proposed, she has foregone the deck that was originally proposed. Holzem commented she would
love to have a deck if the Planning Commission would permit it.
Fritzler stated the Planning Commission in the past has granted a number of variances for
nonconforming lots only to find out later than a deck has been added which was not originally
depicted on the plans.
Holzem indicated she would conform with the requirements of the City,but that if the Planning
Commission would permit a deck, she would like to add it back in.
Fritzler stated it is not his place to add decks for applicants,but that he would like the record to reflect
that the plans do not currently depict a deck.
Rahn indicated that property owners are required to have a certain size landing or a deck outside of a
patio door,but noted the plans have been changed to depict a window in place of the patio door.
Holzem stated there may be a landing by the double doors.
Rahn commented that he preferred the old survey over the new survey because the old survey showed
the residence being almost 19 feet away from the street and with the new application it is
shown at 15 feet. Rahn stated he would prefer to have additional room for parked vehicles to avoid
encroaching into the street.
Holzem inquired whether he would prefer a single car driveway versus the double-wide driveway.
Rahn stated he was looking at the distance from the garage to the street.
Holzem inquired whether he would prefer the residence be located closer to the creek so that
driveway could be expanded.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3041 Rebecca Holzem,continued)
Rahn inquired whether a double car garage was being constructed.
Holzem stated it is a single car garage with a double-wide driveway to give visitors room to park.
Holzem indicated the old survey was submitted to the City prior to her approval and has been
revised to a single car garage and a double-wide driveway.
Curtis inquired what the distance is from the roadway to the property line for this neighborhood.
Gaffron stated to his recollection the residence located down the street is located 13 feet from the lot
line and another six or eight feet to the actual pavement of the road. Gaffron stated a 15-foot setback
would give you approximately 20 feet from the garage door to the actual traveled road.
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3041,lot area and
lot width variances, a creek setback variance, a rear street setback, side setback variances,
a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback zone,and a hardcover variance within the
75'-250' zone in order to construct a new 864 square foot single-family residence at the property
located at 3407 Eastlake Street. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#7. #04-3043 JOHN C.HOLM AND SUSAN M.KERBER, 1485 BAY RIDGE ROAD—
VARIANCE,(6:54—7:04 p.m.)
John Holm,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicants have applied for an average lakeshore setback variance and a
75'-250' zone hardcover variance in order to replace an existing 13' by 24' deck on the east side of
their home. In addition, a 75'—250' zone hardcover variance and a side setback variance are needed
in order to construct a two-stall garage over existing hardcover. Curtis indicated the applicants are
also applying for a 75' —250' hardcover variance in order to construct a covered entrance over
existing hardcover.
Staff is recommending approval of the variances with the condition that the hardcover within the
75' —250' zone shall not increase above the existing level of 26 percent or 5056 square feet.
Holm indicated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated he does not have a problem with this application,noting the applicants are removing
existing driveway hardcover in order to construct a garage and there is no further encroachment into
the side yard setback.
Jurgens inquired whether the patio depicted on the plan would be constructed.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3043 John Holm and Susan Kerber,continued)
Holm indicated their architect drew in the patio but there would not be any changes to the existing
patio.
Jurgens inquired whether it was possible to reduce the hardcover by 1 percent in the 75'—250' zone
to reach 25 percent.
Curtis stated the proposed sidewalk indicated on the plan is no longer proposed,which would reduce
the hardcover.
Holm explained there are a few options to reduce the hardcover, such as reducing the sidewalk,
moving the turnaround off to the right, or reducing the size of the garage. Holm indicated he is not
opposed to reducing it to 25 percent.
Rahn suggested the applicant decide which option he would like to do.
Jurgens questioned whether the 75' —250' hardcover variance would still be required in order to
construct a covered entrance if the applicant reduces the hardcover elsewhere.
Curtis stated the applicant would still need a hardcover variance unless the Planning Commission
is requiring the applicant to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent.
Jurgens commented if the applicant is required to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent,then that would
eliminate the two hardcover variances in the 75' —250' zones.
Bremer inquired whether the applicant understood what the Planning Commission was recommending.
Kempf stated the applicant has the option of adding the sidewalk if he reduces the driveway.
Holm stated he would like some turnaround.
Jurgens noted approximately 150 square feet would need to be removed.
Gundlach stated one percent is approximately 147.5 square feet.
Jurgens moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3043,
approval of an average lakeshore setback variance and a 75'—250' zone hardcover
variance in order to replace an existing 13' by 24' deck on the east side of their home,
and a side setback variance in order to construct a two-stall garage 10 feet from the side lot line
where a 30 foot setback is required and a 9.9 foot setback is existing,for the property located at
1485 Bay Ridge Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#8. #04-3044 JENNIFER SIMON,3925 CHERRY AVENUE—VARIANCE
(7:05—7:27 p.m.)
Jennifer Simon, Applicant,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the
principal residence where the proposed setback is 20 feet from the rear property boundary when
30 feet is normally required and the existing house encroaches approximately 15 feet into the setback.
The property is located in the LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, and consists of
.39 acres or 17,195 square feet. The addition would be approximately 21.5' by 16'with a deck
adjacent to it. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang
located in the rear yard.
Staff finds that there are hardships inherent to the land, specifically the jogged rear property lot and the
sloping topography, that somewhat restrict the applicant from meeting the required 30 foot rear yard
setback. Gundlach stated the hardship analysis also references "reasonable use if used under the
conditions allowed by the official controls." Gundlach explained the official controls would be the
30 foot required rear yard setback and the City's Zoning Code. Staff feels the applicant can shift the
addition 10 feet to the east in order to meet that 30 foot setback and therefore does not meet the
hardship criteria.
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds
that the sloping topography alone constitutes a hardship and would not allow the applicant to relocate
the addition to meet the setback,then approval should be granted based upon a hardship.
Gundlach noted the adjacent neighbor did call this afternoon and stated she has no objections to the
addition.
Simon requested an explanation be given regarding the sloping.
Gundlach stated she took a city topography map and examined the slope of the land. Gundlach
explained if the Planning Commission does find the property slopes down enough to prevent the
addition from being relocated,then that would constitute a hardship.
Simon stated she has attempted to redesign the addition but was unable to do so because the
addition would then be located in front of a window and the upstairs would not flow properly.
Simon explained they were far into the process before the architect became aware that they would
have to comply with the side yard setback. Simon noted this is a corner lot and a wider setback is
required. Simon stated they did attempt to slide the addition over but in her opinion it does not
look very well.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kempf stated he did notice that the adjoining neighbor would not have any problems with the house
being located closer to the lot line given the distance, dense undergrowth and mature trees. Kempf
commented he did also try to visualize the addition in another location but saw the problem with a
design that would locate the addition in front of a rear bathroom.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3044 Jennifer Simon, Continued)
Kempf stated in his opinion the biggest issue is that Cherry is not the front of the lot, and that if
Cherry were the front of the lot, then the side yard setback would be 10 feet. Kempf stated in his view
the backyard is functionally a back yard and what the applicant is calling the side of the house is
functionally a side yard. Kempf stated he cannot see imposing the City's definition for front yard/side
yard on this application.
Fritzler inquired whether the applicant was unable to locate the addition because of conditions due to
the land. Fritzler stated the location of an existing window does not constitute a hardship and is a
design issue.
Simon concurred that it is a design issue,but reiterated they were unaware of the side yard setback
until they were well into this project. Simon stated the entire project would have to be redesigned if
the variances are not granted and that she has considerable expense already into the project. Simon
commented she may have to forego the project if the variances are not approved.
Fritzler indicated he tends to agree with Staff's recommendation.
Rahn stated he also is in agreement with Staff's recommendation, and explained that there is some
rationale for determining a corner lot. Rahn stated the longer setbacks are on the front and rear of the
property and narrower on the sides, so it would make sense to have your larger setbacks go with the
length of the lot.
Simon stated she is limited in what she can do with the house given the location of it on the lot.
Rahn noted the lot is somewhat rectangular.
Simon noted she is also reducing the amount of hardcover by removing the patio and porch,which
makes the lot well over its hardcover limit. Simon stated this addition would actually bring the lot
more into compliance with the hardcover requirements.
Rahn commented in his view the addition could be relocated 10 feet over,but that it would be up to
the applicant to decide whether she wants to move the addition.
Gundlach stated even if Cherry were considered the front, a variance would still be required to do the
covered entryway and the tuck-under garage addition. Gundlach stated the existing house does not
meet the 30 foot required setback if Cherry is considered the front.
Simon commented in her view the side of the house with the covered entryway is the front of the
house.
Gundlach explained the City's code considers Minnie Avenue the front because it is the shortest
length.
Simon stated in her opinion a variance would be required no matter where she builds onto the house
given the fact that the house was originally constructed in the corner of the lot.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3044 Jennifer Simon,continued)
Leslie inquired how the topography of this lot could be used as a hardship.
Gundlach stated when she reviewed the application, it appeared possible to relocate the addition 10
feet to the east. Gundlach stated a hardship inherent to the land that would prevent the addition from
being relocated could be the topography of the lot,but that in her opinion the lot slopes very gradually
and would allow for relocation of the addition. Gundlach noted she is unaware of the amount of
grading that would be necessary if the addition were relocated and whether that would constitute a
hardship.
Leslie commented the fact that it might cost more to relocate the addition or is not architecturally
pleasing does not constitute a hardship.
Kempf inquired whether the ordinance that defines what the front and back yard of a lot is written in
stone and if it is reviewed in every situation.
Rahn stated since it is a city ordinance, it would require a variance to deviate from it.
Gaffron stated it is in the definition section of the ordinance where it defines on a corner lot what the
front yard is and what the side yard is. Gaffron stated the short side of a corner lot is the front
according to the definition.
Kempf inquired whether a variance could be applied for to make Cherry the front of the lot.
Gaffron stated he is unaware of any application during his tenure that specifically requested a
redefinition of the ordinance. Gaffron stated the opportunity to define a front yard and a side yard
exists when someone requests a new subdivision,but to his recollection he is not aware of any
variances to the ordinance in a situation similar to this.
Leslie concurred that functionally the front of the house is located on Cherry.
Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would grant the variances if the front of the lot
were considered Cherry.
Leslie stated in his view the proposed addition could then be shifted back but does not really solve
anything.
Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission is interested in looking at making Cherry the front, the
code may need to be amended rather than a variance granted.
Bremer inquired whether the applicant is even interested in looking at redesigning her plans if
Cherry would be considered the front of the property. Bremer stated the addition would merely be on
a different side of the house.
Simon stated her goals in this project are to add onto the house in a way that the house does not appear
to be piece-mealed and to increase the amount of living space. Simon stated her in view redesigning
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3044 Jennifer Simon, continued)
the addition would not be as aesthetically pleasing, and noted that the amount of hardcover on this lot
would be reduced with this project. Simon stated in her opinion the slope is more than just gradual,
noting that they do sled down it in the wintertime. Simon stated given the location of the house on the
lot,her options are very limited.
Rahn stated it appears to him that the architect designed the addition not knowing the parameters of
the design and the problem is an architectural thing. Rahn stated if the applicant determines that the
addition cannot be relocated in a conforming location,he would not be able to understand that. Rahn
commented in his opinion the architect designed the addition for a nonconforming portion of the lot
and that there are other locations where the addition could be constructed.
Simon stated they also considered turning the existing porch into a kitchen and inquired whether she
would be allowed to remodel that and keep the same existing hardcover.
Rahn stated if it is an existing closed-in space, she probably could,but that he would have to defer to
the building inspector.
Gaffron stated one of the things the City would need to do would be to look at the permit history of the
property to determine whether that porch was actually permitted at some time in the past,but that he
would also defer to the building inspector.
Rahn suggested it might be a viable option to have the building inspector look at the porch to
determine whether it could be converted into a kitchen.
Gaffron inquired whether there is a foundation and basement under the porch.
Simon stated it does not have a basement under it.
Jurgens commented it appears to be a slab on grade.
Simon stated that porch is actually located closer to the neighbor's house.
Jurgens commented in his opinion it would be a design issue to relocate the addition. Jurgens inquired
whether the addition could be located on the front and the deck on the back and clear the setback.
Gundlach stated the deck is a second story deck and would have the same setbacks as the house.
Gaffron stated if the deck is high enough to require a railing,it would be considered structural and
would need to meet the setback.
Jurgens stated at this time he is unable to support approving this addition since it appears to be more of
a design issue than a hardship.
Simon reiterated that given the current location of the house,it is difficult to design something that is
aesthetically pleasing.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3044 Jennifer Simon,continued)
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like her application tabled.
Simon stated she would prefer not to table the application. Simon commented if the addition is
constructed on the front of the yard, the front yard is basically ruined.
Kempf noted the southwest corner of the lot is the nicest part of the lot, and that if the addition is
moved forward and the deck is away from the street,the view from the house is turned towards the
more private part of the lot.
Rahn stated the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council and that she could
plead her case before them.
Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend denial of Application#04-3044, denial of a
rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence located at
3925 Cherry Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Kempf opposed.
9. #04-3046 ROBERT W.AND BRENDA ZOE MACDONALD,2480 OLD BEACH
ROAD—AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:28—8:12 p.m.)
Robert MacDonald, Applicant, and Tim Kelley,Attorney-at-Law,appeared on behalf of the
Applicants.
Gundlach noted a letter from Mr. Kelley has been distributed to the Planning Commission
concerning this application.
Gundlach indicated the applicants are requesting an after-the-fact side yard setback variance to permit
the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required. The
new garage originated by pouring a new slab over the old slab,reusing the mechanical systems, and
constructing new walls and a new roof. The new garage is located in the same location as the old
garage.
Gundlach explained the changes from the old garage to the new garage consist of a steeper pitched
roof, a turning of the roof line, and two dormers added to the conforming side of the garage. Gundlach
indicated the City has consistently granted variances to property owners in order to maintain their
nonconforming structures to match exactly the old structure and also in some cases to make slight
modifications.
Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission review this application in one of the two following
ways: One, if the Planning Commission determines the improvements to the garage consist of
improvements to the nonconforming structure,the after-the-fact variance should be approved; or two,
if the Planning Commission determines the structure has been completely rebuilt,the
after-the-fact variance should be denied since the structure could have been relocated to meet the
10-foot setback.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda Zoe MacDonald,continued)
Gundlach noted there are photographs depicting the old garage and the new garage in the packets
before the Planning Commission tonight.
Kelley distributed some newer pictures of the existing structure to the Planning Commission.
Kelley stated it is his understanding that Commissioners Jurgens and Leslie have viewed the structure.
Kelley pointed out that only one corner of the structure is encroaching and the adjacent property
located behind the garage is heavily wooded and cannot view this structure.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn noted he also has viewed the property. Rahn inquired whether the roof has also been made
taller.
MacDonald stated he believes the height of the roof is exactly the same but that the pitch has been
changed to a steeper pitch.
Gundlach commented the steeper pitch could have increased the height of the roof but that City Staff
does not have any building plans to confirm that.
Rahn stated in his view the roof does appear to be a little bit taller. Rahn inquired whether the new
garage is wider than it is deep.
Gundlach stated the dimensions have remained the same. Gundlach stated in her opinion when the
roof was turned, the pitch was made steeper in order to allow the dormers on the front of the structure.
Jurgens stated there is some attic space in the garage but the only access to it is a small trapdoor.
Rahn inquired whether new studs, sheathing and stucco were utilized to construct the new walls.
Kelley stated the old garage was damaged from water so the walls were replaced as well as the slab.
Kelley indicated all the mechanical features of the old garage were incorporated into the new garage,
such as the sprinkler system, electrical panel, and heating system.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant replaced the slab,the walls, and the roof.
Kelley stated they poured over the existing slab.
MacDonald stated the existing slab was raised because of flooding in the garage. MacDonald
indicated every spring they would experience two to three inches of water in the garage.
Rahn inquired why the applicant's contractor did not apply for a permit given the amount of
construction being done.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continued)
Kelley acknowledged that it is better for a builder to obtain a building permit at the appropriate time
and that he is not going to dispute the fact that no permit was obtained. Kelley stated the City has the
right to impose double the normal building permit fees whenever a building permit is not obtained
prior to construction.
Rahn noted that is correct,but that residents cannot come into the City and buy a variance. Rahn
indicated the property owners should go through the variance process and that paying double permit
fees does not negate the fact that a variance was required for the construction.
MacDonald stated originally he had approached the City and attempted to make the garage larger
and install bathroom facilities because the pool is adjacent to the garage. MacDonald indicated
because it was not convenient to do that,he elected not to go ahead with that project and to simply
remodel the existing garage. MacDonald stated he instructed his caretaker to take care of the project,
left for Florida, and when he came back, found that the garage had been completed.
Kempf stated in his opinion the reason why a permit was not applied for was to avoid having the
property come under a hardcover review. Kempf stated if this garage had been determined to be a
rebuild,the City would have reviewed the hardcover. Kempf noted this lot has an excessive amount
of hardcover.
MacDonald stated the amount of hardcover on this lot has existed since he purchased the property and
that he has not changed it.
Kempf stated in his view this project was done the way it was done to avoid a hardcover review.
Kempf indicated one option is to cut off that one corner of the building and make it a 45-degree angle
so the structure does not encroach into the setback.
Rahn stated he does not have a problem with the location of the garage but that it is irritating that there
are contractors out there who do not pull permits. Rahn indicated in his view,in light of the water
problems and the small encroachment,the City probably would not have had an issue with rebuilding
the garage in its present location but that the City in all likelihood would have requested the hardcover
be reduced. Rahn stated in his opinion the issue is the excessive amount of hardcover.
Kelley commented he did not mean to suggest that a resident could come into the City and buy a
variance,but that the City does have methods in place to deal with a situation where no building
permit is obtained prior to construction. Kelley noted the City's codes do not define what a repair is.
Kelley indicated the Minnesota State Legislature did recently amend the laws concerning
nonconforming structures and provides that people can restore and replace nonconforming structures.
Kelley stated even if the Planning Commission finds that this went beyond repair and maintenance,the
current law allows property owners to replace or restore a nonconforming structure.
Fritzler noted the property owner needs to go about it in the proper manner,which is to obtain a
building permit and a demolition permit.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continued)
Kelley acknowledged it is not proper to build without a building permit,but that the building code has
penalties provided for in the code to deal with a situation where a building permit has not been
obtained. Kelley stated if a project is constructed without going through the proper hoops,the
property owner is penalized by having to pay double the permit fees.
Kempf stated it essentially sounds like if you pay a double penalty for a building permit,you have
achieved avoiding a hardcover study.
Kelley stated that is not what he is saying and apologized for not being clear. Kelley indicated it is his
opinion under the nonconforming statute that governs,a person now has the right to replace or restore
a nonconforming structure. Kelley stated he is not aware of the code requiring hardcover reviews
because you are simply replacing a nonconforming structure.
Rahn inquired how nonconforming structures would be gotten rid of if the person is always allowed to
restore or replace them.
Kelley noted that was a recent change in the law.
Gundlach stated it is her understanding the new statute did not go into effective until August 1st and
this project was completed prior to that time. Gundlach stated even if the new statute would apply, it
does not allow for any expansion. Gundlach noted the new garage was not constructed exactly the
same as the old garage,with more height existing at the 8.4 foot non-conforming setback.
Rahn noted there were also dormers constructed on the conforming side.
Kelley indicated that he did discuss this issue with Gundlach prior to the meeting and concurred that
the statute did not go into effective until August 1St. Kelley submitted that he believed the statute
should be applied in this case. Kelley stated as far as the expansion,in his view it would be expansion
of the nonconforming setback, and that was not changed. Kelley stated the location of the garage was
not changed.
Fritzler commented that it appears to be easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission in this
particular case.
Kelley indicated the fact that a building permit was not obtained in and of itself is not proper grounds
to deny a variance. Kelley commented in cases where a building permit is not obtained prior to
construction,the City does have the right to impose a penalty.
Rahn stated the double fee allows the applicant to ask for a variance. Rahn inquired whether the
MacDonalds would be opposed to reducing any hardcover on this lot. Rahn commented he would like
to see some hardcover reductions.
Kelley indicated he has not spoken with the city planner regarding hardcover reductions.
MacDonald stated when they originally came in wanting to rebuild the garage, one of the issues was
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continued)
the hardcover,but it was not the sole issue. MacDonald indicated other issues, such as sewer and
water hookups, in his mind made the project not worth pursuing and he decided to remodel the garage
instead. MacDonald stated he elected to remodel the garage because it looked awful and was
falling down.
MacDonald indicated he is willing to discuss the hardcover,but indicated he does not feel it is the
issue at the present time. MacDonald stated the issue in his mind is whether the structure is
conforming to allow him to obtain a variance for the 18 inches. MacDonald commented he would
prefer to be able to retain the parking lot in order to accommodate guests and not have them park in
mud or in the grass.
Fritzler inquired who was responsible for the remodeling of the garage.
MacDonald stated his caretaker was in charge of the project while he was in Florida,but that he
ultimately takes responsibility for the project. MacDonald stated his intention was to be within what
the City was asking for when he wanted to originally rebuild the garage.
Kempf inquired what the large expanse of hardcover leading to a gate is used for.
MacDonald stated that area is utilized by guests for parking. MacDonald noted that area was also
discussed as a possibility for loss of hardcover when the larger garage was being considered.
Kempf commented the turnaround appears to be large enough to allow for some parking of cars.
MacDonald indicated there are some options regarding a reduction in hardcover,but noted that the
main issue in his other application was the sewer and electrical hookups and not the excessive
hardcover. MacDonald indicated a considerable amount of grading would need to be done in order to
provide bathroom facilities in the garage, and combined with the other issues,he decided not to pursue
that project. MacDonald stated reducing the width of the driveway by one foot was discussed at that
time,but it was just one small piece that was discussed during his previous application.
Bremer inquired if there is a retroactive date in the statute.
Kelley stated it went into effective August 1S`.
Bremer inquired whether the statute applies to construction that occurs prior to the date of
construction.
Kelley stated it is his opinion the City has the discretion to decide whether to analyze it under the old
law or the new law.
Bremer inquired whether at the time of construction the applicant was in compliance with city
ordinances.
Kelley stated at the time this garage was constructed,city code and state statute provided that a person
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continued)
could repair or maintain a nonconforming structure. Kelley stated he is submitting to the Planning
Commission that by incorporating the old slab and all the electrical controls,the structure has not been
completely rebuilt. Kelley stated the Planning Commission has the discretion to apply the new statute
if they so choose.
Kelley stated in his view how the City should interpret its code is to first see whether the applicant has
the right to do this nonconforming, and if they do have that right,the person gets a variance. Kelley
stated if the Planning Commission decides the new statute does not apply and deems the project to
have gone beyond repair or remodeling,then the applicant still has the right to ask for a variance.
Bremer stated in her opinion the statute would not be effective for unlawful activity prior to the
effective date of the statute because at the time the construction occurred, it did not comply with the
Minnesota statute. Bremer indicated in her view the Planning Commission does not have the
discretionary authority to apply the new statute but would have the right in terms of their variance
process. Bremer stated in her opinion the Planning Commission is not bound by the new statute and is
not in any way violating the new statute.
Bremer indicated in her view tearing down and rebuilding a structure is not considered a repair or a
remodel,noting that the Planning Commission has deemed some projects to be complete rebuilds
when only half of the structure has been removed. Bremer stated if the applicant had come before the
Planning Commission prior to starting this project,he would have had to follow the normal process
and apply for a variance. Bremer stated the Planning Commission needs to look at this application the
same as it would any application,which would mean that the property should undergo a hardship
analysis.
Bremer commented it does not appear that a hardship exists in this case and that the garage could have
been relocated in a conforming location.
Bremer stated if the Planning Commission had decided to allow reconstruction of the garage in the
same location, it would then have conducted a hardcover analysis. Bremer stated the
Planning Commission should discard the argument concerning whether this is a complete rebuild or a
remodel since it is apparent that it was a rebuild, as well as disregard the state statute since it does not
apply, and then decide whether the Planning Commission would have allowed this,and if so, if a
reduction in hardcover would be appropriate.
Bremer indicated she probably would have approved the garage if an application had been submitted,
but that they then would be undergoing a hardcover analysis. Bremer inquired whether Staff has the
hardcover calculations on this property.
Gundlach indicated they do have the hardcover calculations available.
Rahn stated in his view the excessive hardcover is the issue.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald,
Leslie questioned if it was assumed that the applicant was not interested in reducing hardcover and it
was also assumed that this garage had collapsed or had deteriorated to the point where it needed to be
destroyed,Leslie inquired whether that would have been a valid remedy. Leslie inquired whether
another alternative remedy if the applicant does not wish to reduce hardcover elsewhere would be to
remove the garage.
Kelley stated if the Planning Commission would like to discuss the hardcover,he would suggest
tabling it until the next meeting to give him an opportunity to speak with city staff and his client.
Bremer stated the applicant could also relocate the garage.
Fritzler inquired when the existing garage was removed,whether the electrical service in the walls was
removed.
MacDonald indicated the new garage has the same electrical panel and the same wiring.
Fritzler inquired whether new wiring exists in the walls or the old wiring and whether the old light
switches and outlets were replaced.
MacDonald stated the old panel was utilized in the new garage and probably the wire running to the
garage is still there. MacDonald stated he is unsure about the switches.
Fritzler suggested the applicant check the panel to see if there is a sticker in there for the new
electrical to show that it has been inspected. Fritzler commented in his view the new wiring points to
a rebuild rather than a remodel, and that in his opinion this is a tear-down and a rebuild.
MacDonald inquired what would happen if the garage were relocated so it no longer encroached.
Bremer stated in her view a hardcover analysis would still be done.
Rahn stated if a foot and a half were cut off the garage, a variance would no longer be required.
Gundlach indicated typically in new construction where there is excessive hardcover,the City requires
the property owner to remove hardcover in the amount of what they are adding. Gundlach noted this
garage was rebuilt over existing hardcover and that the City, in cases where the hardcover is well over
the amount allowed,have required additional hardcover to be removed.
Rahn concurred it may be a good idea to table this application to give the applicant some time to
consider his options for reducing hardcover on the lot.
Bremer stated she would prefer a target number be given to the applicant.
Gundlach indicated the original request was for the 30 percent hardcover to continue with a bigger
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald,continued)
building. Gundlach noted the Planning Commission did review the application and had recommended
that an additional 860 square feet of hardcover be removed because of the excessive amount of
hardcover on the property.
Rahn noted the applicant is not asking for the size of the garage to be increased now. Rahn suggested
the applicant consider reducing or removing the extra parking area.
Kempf commented in his view there is adequate parking elsewhere.
Jurgens inquired what the applicant had originally applied for.
Gundlach indicated the original application was for two conditional use permits and a variance to one
of the conditional use permits for the utility work previously referenced,but that a larger building was
proposed to be constructed in a location that would not be encroaching on the side yard.
Jurgens noted the 250' setback line runs basically through the center of the driveway.
Gundlach stated the hardcover is over in the 75' —250' zone. Gundlach indicated it is her
understanding the Planning Commission in the original application was willing to allow for a
reduction of hardcover in a zone other than the 75' —250' zone.
Kempf stated he would prefer to see a hardcover reduction in the 75'—250' zone.
Jurgens commented the location of the garage in his view is not a problem, especially since no
neighbors have shown any opposition to this project,but had a variance been requested, it would have
triggered a hardcover review. Jurgens indicated he would like some agreement reached on the
hardcover.
MacDonald stated he would like a target number.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#3046,approval of
an after-the-fact side yard setback variance to permit the detached garage to remain at
8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required,subject to the condition that
the driveway pad south of the attached garage as defined in previous Exhibit G be
removed.
Jurgens inquired whether that would bring this lot into compliance with the hardcover.
Gundlach indicated the hardcover would still be out of compliance.
MacDonald inquired whether it is the amount of hardcover or the location.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would prefer to decide where the hardcover should be removed if
an amount was specified by the Planning Commission.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald,continued)
MacDonald stated he would prefer to have an amount that the hardcover should be reduced by and that
he would like to decide where he could reduce it.
Bremer stated this lot encompasses a number of different zones given the size of the lot and that she
would prefer reducing the hardcover in the 75' -250' zone.
Gundlach illustrated on the overhead the 75' —250' zone where the hardcover should be removed.
MacDonald inquired whether he could look at his options for reducing the hardcover and come back
before the Planning Commission.
Rahn amended his previous motion,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#04-3046,approval of an after-the-fact side yard setback variance to permit the
detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required,with
the condition that 800 square feet of hardcover be removed in the 75'—250' zone for the
property located at 2480 Old Beach Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
#10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS JULY 26,2004 AND AUGUST 9,2004.
Fritzler indicated he attended the July 26 meeting and noted that the bowling alley application was
approved with a larger garage.
Gundlach indicated the Planning Commission had recommended ten feet and the Council allowed
12' with a 22' wide garage.
Jurgens stated he attended the August 9 meeting,noting that the James Brooks application was put on
the consent agenda. Jurgens indicated that approval for a sign for the medical building at the corner of
Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway was before the City Council,which did not appear before the
Planning Commission.
Jurgens noted he also requested a joint work session with the Council.
White indicated the Council met with Shardlow,who had given them a synopsis of the issues to be
discussed in defining the future of a city.
Jurgens requested the Planning Commission be included in those discussions.
Jurgens indicated the Council at the August 9th meeting did discuss the appearance of the roof on the
monument sign for the new medical building as well.
Leslie inquired whether that was the sign that actually brought on the new sign ordinance.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Planning Commission Comments,continued)
Gaffron stated that sign itself did not,but the applications for commercial development along
Highway 12 helped push the ordinance to the forefront. Gaffron indicated the Council did raise a
concern regarding the possibility of having too many signs around the building. Gaffron stated Staff
does have a sign ordinance update that is more extensive.
Curtis noted any future signs at that site would need to be approved as part of the PUD. Curtis
commented the sign ordinance probably does need to be addressed in the future and that an outline of
the update could be given to the Planning Commission for their review. Curtis indicated Staff at the
present time has to complete work on the Wetland Ordinance.
Kempf inquired whether the Planning Commission should look at the ordinance that defines what a
front yard and a side yard are.
Gundlach indicated to her knowledge the language in that ordinance is fairly common among cities.
Rahn stated that ordinance deals primarily with lots that are long and that the Simon lot was probably
a unique situation since the lot was squarer than most corner lots.
Gaffron commented one option the Planning Commission could look at would be to include language
in the ordinance that gives the property owner a one-time opportunity to designate what they would
like to be considered the front of the lot. Gaffron indicated he has seen that type of language included
in other ordinances but that he is not sure whether that is the best route.
Jurgens indicated he does deal with that type of situation a lot as a surveyor,noting that surveyors
prefer not to draw in the setbacks but rather indicate on the survey what the setbacks are supposed to
be. Jurgens stated if they are required to draw the setbacks in,they request a letter from the city
declaring what the front and the side lot lines are. Jurgens stated in his opinion the surveyor or the
architect should have contacted the city earlier to find out where the front of the lot was.
Kempf inquired whether there were any disadvantages to giving the property owner the ability to
make that determination.
Gaffron stated it would be one more thing that staff would need to verify and could easily be missed
since it does not match the language in the code.
Bremer commented it should only apply in very unique situations such as a very square corner lot.
Jurgens stated if it is such a unique situation, it might constitute a hardship,but in his view the Simon
property did not constitute a hardship since the slope was not very steep.
Leslie suggested delaying action on possibly revising the ordinance unless another similar situation
occurs.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 16, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron noted the next Planning Commission work session is scheduled for September 1st
Curtis indicated Staff has their annual picnic that day.
Gaffron stated he would attempt to reschedule the work session.
#12. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 19,2004
Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
July 19,2004,as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#13. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 23,2004 AND SEPTEMBER 13,2004
August 23—Jim Leslie
September 13—Roland Jurgens
ADJOURNMENT
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Davi' ' n,Chair
PAGE 27