Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE q - 2 c) Vic( °f ❑ COUNCIL G2/PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 1�/;ed1t•, .1.„Itc - to .ar\cld I k.K�S s-c1 10,/46 0f - 3o c / 2. 57L-ti" . i d4 dy n',C5/44) '3 1E (00-C 44 tit . l 3 Ott 3. u C!.---Jei.n.A..ii-t_ 3 Yo Liza) 4. INA4{ 4 ) (AACciUp &lc)1°\1l1-1 u . N6u til - 30so 5. , '1c. j17/Ale V 0/-..mac) .5% 6. V 1� 4,<Ctft z ,.F- a gipA Sfui (S c5.-i. .— (3 011 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\Adntinistrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 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 Cynthia Bremer. 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. CONSENT 2. #04-3050 MIKE McCLELLAND, 2170 MINNETONKA AVENUE —VARIANCE Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of the lot width and lot area variances for the property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 1. #04-3047 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY,3135 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:03 p.m.—6:06 p.m. Jurgens indicated he would like some clarification on the hardcover. Jurgens noted there is extensive hardcover located near the lake and inquired why that is not being reduced further. Gundlach stated the fire pit and the concrete sundial would be removed. Gundlach indicated the deck was allowed to stay because a large concrete wall that is holding up approximately six feet of dirt is located immediately behind the deck. Gundlach stated several engineers felt that if the wall were to be removed, the integrity of the slope would deteriorate. Gundlach indicated the decking is fastened into the concrete wall. Gundlach stated the City Council has reviewed this situation three times, along with several engineers, and they have determined since the wall is holding up the slope, they would recommend the deck remain. Rahn noted the deck would be removed once it needs to be replaced and the slope would be regraded. Fritzler requested that the Applicant be informed that the deck would need to be removed once the deck is in need of repair or replacement. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of the variance renewal for a lot area variance,lot width variance,hardcover variance in the 250'-500' zone, and a hardcover and lakeshore setback variance in the 0-75' zone for the property located at 3135 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Fritzler Opposed. Fritzler stated he is opposed to the approval since he does not feel the deck is an integral part of the wall. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS 3. #02-2830 CITY OF ORONO,BUILDING HEIGHTS, CODE AMENDMENTS, 6:06 p.m.—6:11 p.m. Gundlach noted this item was reviewed at the last Planning Commission work session. Gundlach indicated the City of Orono is requesting that the current building height code be amended to reflect the current policies which have been in place since 2001 or earlier and which have been written as a policy statement since November of 2002. Gundlach indicated it was the intention of the City in November of 2002 that the policy statement would eventually be incorporated into the code,which is the action that Staff is proposing at this time. Gundlach indicated the proposed new building height language has changed slightly since the last review by the Planning Commission, with Staff electing to amend every single height code in each zoning district rather than trying to clarify the 2-1/2 story limitation and the 30-foot limitation within the building height definition. Gundlach indicated Staff felt the amendment to each zoning district was a clearer clarification and that Staff has also defined the half-story separately rather than defining it in the building height definition. Gundlach noted the word median has replaced the word average in the definition of building height, which was discussed at the work session. In addition,the highest point for measuring was further clarified when dormers and windows exist in the upper story or half story, with the upper measuring point being the median point between the top of the window and the top of the peak. Staff is recommending approval of the language as outlined in the Planner's Report dated September 20, 2004. There were no public comments regarding this application. Bremer commented she prefers the new language. Leslie stated he concurs with Bremer, and commented that in his opinion the proposed language is more consistent with what the original intent was when 2-1/2 story or 30-foot was initially drafted. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of the Building Height Code Amendment for the City of Orono as outlined in the September 20,2004 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #04-3024 CITY OF ORONO, CUP FOR VEHICLE STORAGE—CODE AMENDMENT, 6:12 p.m.—6:45 p.m. Gaffron noted this is the latest version of the amendment to the City's large vehicle storage for vehicles exceeding 14,000 pounds gross weight. The Planning Commission at its August 31st work session reviewed the pros and cons of allowing large vehicle storage as a conditional use. Gaffron indicated he does not feel a conditional use permit is the best approach to this situation since a conditional use permit in a code generally means that that is a use that is allowed in a district provided certain conditions are met. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission at its work session did express some concern whether it is legal and advisable to limit the conditional use permit to just those existing users. The City Attorney PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment,Continued) has subsequently reviewed the amendment and has indicated that he believes the conditional use permit can be established for just the existing users. Gaffron indicated the City Attorney has recommended that language be included to allow existing users or people who currently store large vehicles be allowed to prove they have stored large vehicles for some prior period of time. Gaffron stated he has drafted a new version of the current exterior storage section of the code and also created language for a conditional use entry that would be incorporated into the two acre and five acre zones. The language relating to parking of vehicles in"R" districts in excess of 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight has been amended to include language that discusses the variety of potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood that the City is attempting to address with this amendment. Gaffron stated in order to address the existing situations in the City, the language in Condition A has been amended to read, "For any property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acres in area, where it can be showed that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after January 1, 2004, a Vehicle Storage conditional use permit may be granted subject to the conditions established for such conditional use permit if allowed in the respective zoning district in which the property is located." Gaffron stated a minor clarification was also made to Condition D, "Vehicle must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets...." Gaffron reviewed the draft language for a conditional use permit entry to be added to appropriate residential districts. Gaffron stated the proposed language to be added is as follows: Vehicle Storage. The storage or parking of one or more vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW) in excess of 14,000 pounds on a property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after January 1, 2004. Approval shall be conditioned on the following: a. No such use shall be allowed on a lot less than 2.0 acres in area. b. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. c. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission should consider whether the 50-foot standard is acceptable if large vehicle storage is allowed on a lot smaller than 5 acres. d. Vehicle must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. e. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and g. In a shared driveway situation,the City must have on file an agreement signed by all current driveway users. Gaffron noted this version is different from what was discussed at the last work session, and that the Planning Commission has the option to either table the application or make a recommendation to the Council based on what is before the Planning Commission tonight. There were no public comments regarding this application. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment,Continued) Fritzler inquired whether the gross vehicle weight would be considered the licensed vehicle weight. Gaffron stated it would be. Fritzler inquired whether equipment that is not licensed is also addressed, such as graders and bobcats. Gundlach stated if the vehicle or equipment is not licensed for transportation over a public roadway,by state statute it is defined as special mobile equipment,which is the definition that the City follows. Gundlach indicated the equipment would also need to be stored indoors. Leslie inquired what the City's definition of nuisance is in a situation such as this. Leslie inquired whether there were legal standards that constitute what a nuisance is. Gaffron stated under public nuisance, as defined in the Municipal Code, it includes"maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health,morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; or interfering with, obstructing, or rendering dangerous for passage any street,public right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or any other act or omission declared by law to be public nuisance." Gaffron stated to his recollection the code does not specifically define nuisance but only public nuisance. Leslie inquired whether it is redundant to have nuisance included within the CUP if there is already a provision for nuisance. Gaffron pointed out that if it were listed as a public nuisance,it would lessen the language because a greater number of people would need to be affected and complain about the situation. Gundlach stated in the City's code there is a provision regarding the maintenance of private property, junk, debris,refuge, litter. Gundlach stated that section also covers noxious weeds and other public health or safety hazards. Gundach noted that section calls any violation of this section a nuisance and a public and safety hazard,which also is not defined as a public nuisance. Gundlach stated the provision for storage of junk cars, furniture, inoperable motor vehicles, is also declared to be a nuisance by the environment chapter of the code. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission would like to use the word nuisance in the proposed language,he would suggest that language be included to say that a violation of this is by definition considered a nuisance. Gaffron stated another option could be to add to that section of the property maintenance vehicle storage that does not meet this proposed language. Leslie pointed out that section currently exists as a regulation for all property owners, and that in his view another reference to nuisance does not expand any of the expectations that the City would have on property owners. Leslie stated eliminating Subpoint f does not mean that a nuisance is allowed. It would simply mean that the City is not adding another interpretation to the word nuisance. Leslie inquired whether in the shared driveway situation there would be a new agreement that would be required if the conditional use permit is allowed. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment, Continued) Gaffron stated that is correct,but that it is likely there already are easements or cross-easements from one property owner to the other. Gaffron stated in the case of a large vehicle storage situation, it is likely that vehicle would be exiting the property from that shared driveway. Leslie inquired whether Subpoint g would allow a property owner who currently is storing a large vehicle to create a driveway if no agreement is reached with their neighbor. Gaffron stated that is right. Fritzler inquired whether a change in the property owner would also require a new agreement. Gaffron stated any time one of the owners of the property changes, a new agreement would be required unless the document is filed with the chain of title. Gaffron noted typically a conditional use continues with the property even after the property has been sold. Leslie questioned whether it would be possible to change Subpoint a to say that the current property owner has to establish that he or she was using this property to store 14,000 gross weight vehicles prior to January 1,2004,which means that effectively as soon as the property changed hands,the conditional use permit would be gone. Gaffron stated the intent,then, would be that the conditional use permit is to the owner and not to the property. Rahn noted one of the biggest issues the Planning Commission had with this issue was the fact that the conditional use permit would go with the property,which would be a logical method of eliminating that issue. Jurgens commented it is his understanding that conditional use permits go with the land and not the owner and that the new language restricting it to the owner may not be allowed. Gaffron indicated he does have some reservations about the use of what is intended to be a permanent approval in what the City would like to be a temporary situation. Gaffron inquired whether the term interim use would be a better way to deal with this,noting that state statutes do allow cities to adopt an interim use ordinance, which is defined as a temporary use of property until a particular date or until a particular event occurs or until the zoning regulations no longer allow it. Gaffron cited an example where the City considered giving property located along Highway 12 an interim use permit until the new highway corridor was constructed. Gaffron noted that the City never adopted the interim use ordinance since the need for it went away. Gaffron stated he is unsure at the present time whether an interim use ordinance is the best way to proceed in this situation. Gaffron indicated state statutes say the governing body may grant permission for an interim use of property if the use conforms to the zoning regulations, if they can determine that the use can be identified with certainty, and may grant permission for an interim use if permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future, or the city can grant permission for interim use if the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment, Continued) deems appropriate for permission of the use. It further says that any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations. Gaffron stated an interim use ordinance would need to be adopted either for specific properties or for certain classes of properties or certain districts. Gaffron suggested if an interim use is considered,that certain specific uses be identified that would be allowed for that group of properties. Bremer questioned whether the large vehicle storage situation in question fits this particular case. Leslie inquired what the City Attorney felt utilizing the conditional use permit process versus other methods. Gaffron stated it appears the City Attorney has not seen another method that is better than a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated in 1967 and 1975,the City adopted an ordinance that made certain properties nonconforming. Those existing users were allowed to apply within the first year for a nonconforming conditional use permit,but those are of record from 1965 and 1975 and still continue today. Gaffron stated the City Attorney may be looking at the situation as a nonconforming conditional use permit that allows the use to continue but would make it impossible for new situations to start. Jurgens inquired whether similar problems might occur as in the situation with the bowling alley where a larger truck is purchased and then the City could say that they are expanding their nonconforming use. Jurgens inquired whether this would be considered a nonconforming conditional use permit or just a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated one of his concerns is that a conditional use permit normally establishes a permanency that the City does not want. Gaffron stated the nonconforming conditional use permit would establish permanency for the use,not the user, which is not necessarily what the City would like to accomplish. Gaffron stated if the City would like these types of uses eventually eliminated,then certain rights should not be given to the property but rather the owner, and that adding the language that this approval is only given to the existing use would help to rectify that situation since the rights would go away once the use has gone away. Rahn stated Leslie's proposed change in the language makes it clear that this use is not transferable. Bremer inquires whether a sunset provision could be added saying that the conditional use expires at a certain point. Bremer noted the Planning Commission had allowed a third horse on a property that typically would only allow two but that the owners were told they could not replace the third horse. Gaffron stated that was more of a variance situation than a sunset provision and was accepted by the property owner. Gaffron noted the statutes have been changed over the past few years that have eliminated the City's amortization ability. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono, CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment, Continued) Leslie recommended that in addition to documenting how long the use has existed on a certain property, that the number of vehicles currently being used be documented. Leslie stated in his opinion the use could be expanded unless it is restricted. Rahn inquired whether a particular vehicle should be specified rather than a vehicle of a certain weight. Leslie stated in his view that would be difficult since the City is trying to accommodate people who live here and are in a business that requires a large vehicle. Fritzler noted that a 14,000-pound vehicle is not a dump truck and that a 14,000-pound vehicle is basically a one-ton dual pickup. Bremer suggested the number of vehicles be limited and that the number of vehicles that currently exist would be the maximum amount allowed on that property. Jurgens inquired whether the nonconforming use section in the code contains something relating to nonexpansion of the use. Gaffron stated there is a nonconforming use section that says expansion of a nonconforming use is not allowed,but noted that it is difficult to define what is considered an expansion. Gaffron stated in this case increasing the number of trucks could be written into the conditional use permit. Jurgens stated in his view language should be included that allows replacement with a similar vehicle. Bremer inquired whether there is a limit on the maximum weight of a vehicle that would be allowed. Gaffron stated this amendment applies to existing users only that can be over 14,000 pounds if they meet all the conditions. Gaffron stated with a vehicle over 14,000-pounds,the negative impacts on the neighborhood would have to be considered. Rahn noted these situations would be looked at individually. Rahn inquired whether that review would be done administratively. Gaffron stated since it is a conditional use permit process, each application would come before the Planning Commission and specific conditions could be recommended at that time. Leslie inquired what the best process would be to incorporate the recommendations made by the Planning Commission tonight. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this application to allow him time to draft the new language and to allow the City Attorney time to review the changes. Leslie inquired whether there was a way to speed up resolution of this amendment. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3024 City of Orono, CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment,Continued) Gaffron stated if there are only minor changes to be made, the Planning Commission could do that tonight. Bremer stated she would prefer not to rush through this process. Bremer indicated in her opinion the 50 feet may need to be reviewed. Gaffron inquired whether an inventory of the current situations should be completed in order for Staff to determine exactly what is out there. Bremer stated she would prefer there not be a requirement of 50 feet. Rahn commented in his opinion the language is imposing certain restrictions but that the Planning Commission has the ability to impose additional conditions. Gaffron stated the language could be revised to say the vehicle must be set back from the property lines a distance that will eliminate negative impacts on neighbors and review it on an individual basis. Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to table Application#04-3024, City of Orono Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendments. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Gaffron indicated he would draft new language reflecting tonight's discussion and bring the amendment back before the Planning Commission at their October work session. NEW BUSINESS 5. #04-3048 STEVEN PERSIAN, 1005 HUNT FARM ROAD,VARIANCES, 6:46 p.m.—7:20 p.m. Steven and Kathy Persian, Applicants,were present. Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 36' by 60' storage shed and is requesting the following variances: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15' from the lot line when 30' is normally required. 3. Oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure footprint area of 2,160 square feet when 1,200 square feet is normally allowed. Gundlach indicated the applicant is proposing to construct the storage shed in the upper northeast corner of the lot,which is located in front of the front lot line of the house. Staff finds that the following are a number of setback and location restrictions limiting the location of the building given its size: 1. Preservation of an alternate septic site location and 20' setback from it; PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) 2. Ability of the proposed structure to meet 20' septic setbacks from existing septic site; 3. Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75' setback requirements from wetlands; 4. Ability to meet 35' wetland setback on the south side of the property; 5. Access to building, which could potentially be over existing and alternate mound locations. Gundlach indicated one of the major issues influencing the location of the structure and whether or not a hardship exists is the alternate septic site. The applicant has had a septic inspector locate an alternate septic site. Staff believes there is a good potential that the alternate septic site location could instead be the location of the proposed building,with all the setbacks for the septic being met in that location. Gundlach requested that the City's septic inspector confirm that. Gundlach stated the Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so that the required setbacks could be met, should the location variances be granted. 2. Does the power line easement, wetlands and septic locations on the property provide a hardship in order to approve the location or area variances and to what extent. 3. Does the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense; i.e., should the City be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 square foot building on a lot which is somewhat secluded. 4. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess of 1,200 square feet. Gundlach stated it should be ruled out whether the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped. If they can be swapped,the setback variances should be denied. If the two cannot be swapped,a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the house should be granted based on the power easement, wetland, and septic constraints. Gundlach stated if a setback variance is granted, Staff would recommend denial of the building area variance and recommend that the applicant be held to the 1,200 square foot limitation. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant a building area variance based on the remote nature of the lot, Staff recommends that the building meet all setback requirements. Persian indicated one of the reasons for the proposed size of the structure is to limit having multiple buildings on the property. Persian stated they would prefer to have just one single structure on the property to serve their needs rather than multiple buildings and would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. In addition, the lot is so secluded that the structure would not be seen but also the home cannot be seen for about a third of a mile. Persian stated as far as the structure being proposed in front of the house,technically that is true but what is in between his residence and the house that is to the southeast of them is about a 75' swath of trees,which makes it impossible to see their house or the neighbor's house. Rahn inquired what the primary use would be for a building that size. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) Persian stated they would like to store personal items in there,noting at the present time he has two trailers sitting outside,personal ATV's in the garage, and other items sitting in the yard. Persian indicated he would like to have all those items stored inside. Rahn commented a number of residents within the City have the same type of items, and noted that the proposed structure is the size of four, four-car garages. Rahn inquired what the sidewall height is for this building. Persian stated the sidewalls are 12 feet. Rahn inquired whether the slope of the roof would be 4-12, which would make the peak of the roof 18 feet and the median height 15 feet. Persian indicated that is correct. Gundlach stated the height of the structure is restricted by the height of the principal structure and cannot exceed the principal structure. Jurgens inquired whether Xcel's easement states that no buildings can be constructed within the easement or whether there is a height restriction. Persian indicated he was informed that he could not construct any building within 75 feet of the center line. Persian noted their mound system is constructed within a portion of the easement. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of that size building on a lot that is 2.9 acres in size. Persian inquired what the thought process is behind allowing three or four smaller buildings rather than one larger building. Persian stated he is aware of a property on Orchard Park Road that exceeds the schedule for building size that is visible from County Road 6. Gaffron stated to his recollection that building was based on housing a vehicle and the minimum size and length for that vehicle was part of what drove the approval for that specific vehicle. Persian stated to his knowledge the vehicle does not fit within the building. Gaffron indicated that is also his understanding at the present time,but that the size of the building was approved so that the vehicle could fit within the structure. Kempf commented one of the reasons for limiting the size of the structure is the visual impact. Kempf stated in his view the visual impact does not apply here given the amount of trees on the property. Kempf stated it is difficult to functionally find anything wrong with the applicant's proposal and that it comes down to the issue of protecting the code. Persian stated he understands this type of structure would not be appropriate if he was living in a neighborhood where there were neighbors in close proximity,but that he believes it is more aesthetically pleasing to have one building rather than three. Persian stated in his opinion only the roof PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) of the proposed structure may be visible from his driveway,noting that the grade of the lot does slope down somewhat. Persian indicated the surrounding vegetation would remain. Persian stated their goal would be to construct one building for storage. Rahn inquired whether the applicant was willing to pursue whether the alternate septic site could be swapped with the building location. Persian stated he has submitted one perk test already and that another perk test may be necessary if the sites are swapped. Persian indicated the concern he has with swapping the sites is the location of a pressure line that he would prefer not to drive any motorized vehicles over. Rahn stated in his view the structure could be located in a conforming location without the need for a setback variance. Fritzler commented no hardship has been demonstrated for the variance. Persian stated he interprets the ordinance as trying to protect the integrity of the neighbors and that, despite the size,is not a nuisance to the neighbors. Fritzler stated the hardship has to validate the variance,and that he is not in favor of a variance for the setbacks or for the size. Jurgens noted the north line is the property line that abuts the railroad right-of-way. Jurgens inquired whether the setback is necessary due to the size of the building as well as the need to access the building and avoid the mound. Persian stated that is correct, and that the building was also pushed back because of the Xcel easement on the property. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the setback variance since there are other locations where the structure could be constructed on this lot,noting the building could possibly fit north of the driveway turnaround,which would eliminate the need for one of the setback variances. Jurgens stated simply because one location is not as desirable as another does not constitute a hardship. Jurgens indicated he also has a concern with the size. Jurgens inquired whether the setback requirements change with the size of a structure. Gundlach indicated if the building is 750 square feet,the setback is 10 feet from the side or rear; if it is between 750 and 1000, it has to be 15 feet; and if it is in excess of 1000 square feet, it has to meet principal structure setbacks. Jurgens stated two structures could be constructed rather than one large one,which would meet the setbacks and would not encroach upon the mound system. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. Gaffron noted there is a 50-foot separation between the lot line and the railroad easement. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) Kempf inquired whether there is any plan to construct a trail in that area. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any plans to construct a trail in this area by either the City or the homeowners association. Leslie stated in his opinion it is a dangerous precedent to judge properties based on how something looks when the code is very specific on what is allowed and what is not allowed. Leslie commented several options have been discussed that would allow the applicant to have the storage he is requesting. Bremer stated she is not opposed to the location of the structure,but that the size of the building is excessive. Bremer stated what the code is trying to prevent in part is to have a property that appears to have two houses on it. Bremer indicated the intent of the code is to maintain the rural integrity of the property, and that there may be other residents that would like to construct a similar size structure on lots that do not have the significant number of trees on it as this lot does. Bremer commented the proposed location makes the most sense for this lot but that the size should be reduced. Leslie stated two buildings would accommodate what the applicant is proposing to store in the shed and that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Leslie stated in his view the building can be reduced, which would reduce the setbacks and comply with the code. Bremer stated it might be better if the tests on the alternate septic site were available before a final decision is made on this application. Jeff Gori,Morton Buildings,noted that there is a vegetation buffer on three sides of the building and that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have one building rather than multiple buildings. Rahn inquired what the purpose is for having 12-foot sidewalls. Gori stated with 12-foot sidewalls,the overhead door would be 10 feet,noting that on a residential home the overhead door is seven or eight feet. Gori indicated the taller sidewalls would accommodate a larger item. Rahn stated he still has a concern regarding the size of the structure, and that if two buildings were constructed,the need for the variances would be eliminated. Leslie stated in his view two smaller buildings would be more attractive rather than one large industrial looking structure. Leslie noted that the appearance of something also tends to be in the eye of the beholder and can vary from person to person. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has to grant variances based on a hardship,which has not been demonstrated. Leslie stated even if the alternate septic site cannot be swapped with the structure, a number of the Planning Commission members have a concern regarding the size of the building. Leslie stated the viability of the alternate septic site should be determined before a final decision is made. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) Rahn indicated the applicant has the option of tabling his application until the results come back on his alternate septic site or have the Planning Commission vote on each of the variances. Rahn inquired what the setbacks would be if the building were reduced to 1200 square feet. Gundlach indicated any accessory structure over 1000 feet has to meet principal structure setbacks. Leslie noted the setback would be 15 feet if the structure were reduced to 1000 square feet. Jurgens indicated he would be willing to make a motion approving the variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line but denying the variance for the north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. Bremer indicated she would also be in favor of the variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front since that is in her view a more private location. Persian stated his concern with the smaller size structure is that the building would be full and that he would prefer to have all of his stuff stored inside. Jurgens commented the applicant would have the option to construct another building if he is still in need of additional storage. Jurgens moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of a variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building,and to recommend denial of a north side yard setback variance and oversized accessory structure area variance for the property located at 1005 Hunt Farm Road. Gundlach stated the applicant would be able to construct a 1200 square foot building but would have to meet the 30-foot setback on the north side. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Leslie and Fritzler Opposed. Leslie stated he would prefer to see the structure built in a location that meets the City's setback requirements. Fritzler indicated he would prefer to vote on the application as a whole rather than on the individual variances. 6. #04-3049 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB,200 WOODHILL ROAD—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:21 p.m.—7:30 p.m. Mark Albrecht appeared on behalf of the Woodhill Country Club. Gaffron stated the Woodhill Country Club is currently undergoing major remodeling of the main club facilities and is requesting approval for temporary placement of a trailer to be used as an office during PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3049 Woodhill Country Club,Continued) the construction. The trailer will be located along the west side of the tennis barn,which is approximately 450' from the nearest property boundary and more than 600' from the nearest residence. Gaffron indicated Woodhill Country Club is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the trailer to remain in place for a period not to exceed nine months. Gaffron stated the City's code does not allow for licensing or another method of approving a temporary use like this. Gaffron noted the Country Club has had a conditional use permit for a number of years. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment to allow the use of the proposed trailer office module to be located adjacent to the tennis barn for a period of nine months, with the condition that the trailer be removed following construction. In addition,the trailer would need to meet any accessibility codes or building codes applicable to temporary structures. There were no public comments regarding this application. Albrecht stated the main reason for the trailer is the fact that the main club house will be inaccessible during the remodeling and there needs to be an area for staff to answer phones, etc. Albrecht noted the deadline for occupancy is June 30th, and they would like to have the trailer removed as soon as the construction is completed. Albrecht indicated very little grading would be needed for placement of the trailer in this location. Kempf inquired whether there would be any plumbing in the trailer. Albrecht indicated there would not be. Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment for the Woodhill Country Club,200 Woodhill Avenue,to allow the use of the proposed trailer office module to be located adjacent to the tennis barn for a period not to exceed nine months,with the trailer to be removed by June 30,2005. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. #04-3051 KEVIN AND JULIE FITZPATRICK,356 WEST LAKE STREET— VARIANCES,7:30 p.m.—8:28 p.m. Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick,Applicants, were present. Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting three variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot. The first variance is a lot area variance in order to permit construction of a new residence on a lot that is .643 acres in size when two acres normally is required. The second variance being requested is a lot width variance to permit construction on a lot that is 50.50' in width at the shoreline and 75' setback when 200' is normally required. Lastly,north and south side yard setback variances are being requested to permit side yard setbacks of 10' when 30' is normally required. Staff recommends approval of the variances since a house has existed on the 50-foot wide lot since 1957; the applicants are not able to acquire any additional land; the lot was legally formed at the time it was platted; and if the 30' side yard setbacks were enforced,the lot would be deemed unbuildable. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick,Continued) Gundlach indicated the applicants have met all structure coverage, lake setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover requirements. The building inspector and city engineer have reviewed the proposed grading plan and recommended several changes,which the applicants have met. Gundlach noted the two neighbors to the south have submitted a letter objecting to the proposed variances. Staff has reviewed the letter in detail, and while staff agrees with the neighbors' position in theory, a property owner's right to develop clashes with this theory. Staff has included excerpts from the Community Management Plan regarding the City's policies on land development. Staff further finds that denial of the variances would be a significant change in policy as these types of requests are often made and approved. Gundlach indicated there are several neighborhoods where the City could have prevented rebuilding in hopes of land consolidation but never did. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the application. Kevin Fitzpatrick stated based on his review of Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes, it appears that the City has typically approved lot area, lot width, and side yard setback variances on 50-foot lots in the past, and if the variances are denied, it would be a significant change in policy and would negatively impact this lot as well as the two landowners to the north of this property who also own 50-foot lots and other similar landowners throughout the City. Fitzpatrick indicated they have also come to understand through working with staff the idea of preservation and other rationale used by the City for when new construction happens. Fitzpatrick noted the structure was sold as a knock-down because of its faulty electrical system, deteriorating structure, and water in the basement. Fitzpatrick stated he hopes their proposed improvements will help bring this property more into compliance with the City's code. Fitzpatrick noted the hardcover is being eliminated in the 0-75' zone and is being reduced in the 75'-250' zone from 35 percent down to 25 percent. In addition,restoration of the lakeshore is being proposed along with improved drainage in the neighborhood. Fitzpatrick stated the Community Management Plan outlines the rights of a property owner, with the plan stating that all landowners must have equal land use opportunities. No landowner should be denied the right to develop his or her land by any stage growth, land banking, or no-growth policy,provided the development can be done consistent with the Community Plan. Fitzpatrick stated in his opinion isolating these three lots on West Lake would constitute land banking that would significantly restrict their rights to develop the property as well as the rights of other owners of 50-foot parcels throughout the city. Fitzpatrick indicated the second principle that drew his attention contained in the Community Management Plan is the preservation of neighborhoods. Fitzpatrick stated they were drawn to Orono for its neighborhoods and schools and the diversity of housing located within those neighborhoods. Fitzpatrick stated they are in agreement with the statement contained in the Community Management Plan that says most of Orono's existing urban neighborhoods are homogenous consisting of newer and older homes, intermingled with an occasional vacant lot or a large municipal lot. There is no single neighborhood that is in need of complete renewal or rehabilitation. Fitzpatrick stated the dominant land ownership on one street or complete rehabilitation of West Lake is contrary to the City's intention. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick,Continued) Fitzpatrick stated he was unable to find any history requiring lots to be accumulated or combined in order to create a larger lot. Fitzpatrick stated the central character of West Lake consists of older homes, some large lake cottages and some small cottages, some rental homes, and some family homes, and that diversity should be preserved. Fitzpatrick indicated the character of the neighborhood has a lot to do with the people living there,which is an essential character worth preserving as well. Michael Cronan, 8809 West Bush Lake Road,Bloomington, indicated he is here on behalf of Michael and Janelle Shields and Robert and Lisa Erickson. Cronan stated the Shields and Ericksons are opposed to the construction of a new residence on this lot, and noted that it is difficult to oppose new neighbors coming into the neighborhood. Cronan indicated their opposition is based on two cases: First,the extreme aggressiveness of the proposal that the Fitzpatricks have brought forward to rebuild on this site; and secondly, the whole question of the future of West Lake. Cronan stated the current home that exists on that lot is a modest home with a flat roof. Cronan stated the proposed residence with a peaked roof is going to be a major change in the neighborhood as well as the lot coverage, the massing,the bulk and height of the residence. Secondly, Cronan noted there is no mitigation being offered at all. Cronan stated no landscaping is being proposed between the two residences and that the Fitzpatricks have not provided the City with elevations of the south or north sides of this property. Cronan stated the Planning Commission should also consider the planning future of West Lake. Cronan indicated there is a trend in Orono to consolidate small lots,particularly in this neighborhood. Cronan stated at the time West Lake was originally platted,there were 26 50-foot lots. Over time that vision of having 50-foot lots has changed more towards that of the LR-1A zoning district,which has two-acre lots with 100-foot frontage. Cronan stated Orono's code says it prefers two-acre lots,and that presently there only exist nine lots in this neighborhood,with all of them being larger than 50' lots. Cronan pointed out a new home in that neighborhood has not been constructed for over 50 years and that there has been a trend in the past years to move towards complying with the code. Cronan stated the issue is redevelopment,not first development. Cronan stated although the existing home is very modest and may not fit the Fitzpatricks' needs, it does have a reasonable use that can continue to be used if it is maintained. Cronan explained they are not asking the Fitzpatricks to land bank this lot. Cronan stated in his opinion staff's discussion concerning policies deals more with expansion of the MUSA line and first development type issues rather than the redevelopment of substandard lots within the city. Cronan stated in his opinion there is a difference between redevelopment and development and someone waiting for expansion of the MUSA line. Cronan noted the Shields and Ericksons have more than twice the money as the Fitzpatricks invested in their lots and that a million dollar price tag is not a bad price for a lakeshore lot in Orono. Cronan stated PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick, Continued) the history of the neighborhood is that those small lots have been acquired and combined slowly in order to create the larger lots. Cronan stated it is not out of the ordinary to request the Fitzpatricks to try to comply with the LR-1A standards, and that redevelopment should not happen in a significant way unless a larger lot is combined and 30-foot side yard setbacks can be provided. Cronan stated the combination of the history of redevelopment along West Lake and the aggressive nature of this proposal should give the Shields and Ericksons some confidence that this application will be denied. Cronan pointed out there are three findings that are required by the Planning Commission; and that is, that there is something very unique about this property,that this uniqueness creates a substantial hardship, and that there will be no harm to the neighbors. Cronan stated these same conditions have been shared by others, are enforced by the LR-1A zoning standards, and have been upheld by the last four decisions on West Lake by the City. Cronan stated the required severity findings deal with the fact that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Cronan stated in his opinion the existing home is a reasonable use that can continue. In addition, it is not a substantial right to be able to construct a dream home on a 50-foot lot. Cronan pointed out the shed being proposed now spans the property and is a two-story building with a peaked roof. The longest continuous wall on the north side currently is 30 feet and on the south side is 50 feet, with the proposed structure being 76 feet in that required setback. The current structure is 11 feet tall,with a 38-foot structure being proposed for the residence and a 20-foot tall structure for the garage, with the bottoms of the eaves being proposed 20 feet off the ground for the residence. Cronan stated in his opinion this is a substantial change from what currently exists and constitutes a rezoning. Cronan stated by approving these variances,the two lots to the north of this property would also be entitled to those same variances and that the Shields and Ericksons are in opposition to that rezoning. Tim Harrer, 340 West Lake Street, indicated he is the owner of the property located two houses to the north of the Fitzpatricks' property. Harrer stated in his opinion the current house has met its useful life and that the proposed structure by the Fitzpatricks is a good improvement to the neighborhood. Hamer indicated he has seen the plans for the proposed structure and he is not opposed to the project. Harrer stated the redevelopment that has occurred within the recent past along West Lake has been largely the efforts of one individual, and that this individual also had the opportunity to acquire this property. Hamer stated in his opinion the Fitzpatricks have a right to develop this property, and that a policy of development based upon the ability of one person to acquire additional property to create larger lots is not good public policy. Hamer stated the rights of a property owner to redevelop a property should stand, and if the variances are denied in this situation,his rights to redevelop his property would also be restricted. Bob Olson, 348 West Lake Street, indicated he is the owner of the property to the north of the Fitzpatricks and has resided in this area for the past 11 years. Olson stated the trend to consolidate smaller lots along West Lake is basically the trend of one person, and that a person has the right to own a small lot and develop it just as a person with a larger lot has a right to develop that property. Olson PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick, Continued) indicated he enjoys the closeness of the lots in this neighborhood and would like to maintain the smaller lots. Olson noted he does not intend to sell his property in the near future. Mike Shields, 364 West Lake Street, indicated he has met with Kevin Fitzpatrick and tried to reach an agreement a while back but was unsuccessful. Shields stated over the past 12 years he has invested money into acquiring several small lots along West Lake and creating larger lots. Shields stated at the time he purchased his property he was aware of the restrictions of the lot and that other owners of small lots should learn to live within those restrictions. Shields indicated he does not have a problem with 50-foot lots,but that he is opposed to having a larger structure closer to his residence. Shields stated he is not opposed to remodeling the existing structure but that he would prefer not to have to have a two-story building so close to his lot. Bob Erickson, 372 West Lake Street, indicated he also is the owner of the lots at 341 and 365 West Lake Street,which are the two rental properties located on West Lake. Erickson recounted his past experience in real estate,noting that he has dealt with properties in various cities close to Orono. Erickson stated the cities located in the western part of the suburbs tend to have larger lots and that the standard lot in Orono tends to be two acres,which allows for bigger houses and more space between the houses. Erickson commented Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan have influenced the type of lifestyle and housing in this city and that he is happy with the two-acre zoning and the vision that Orono has for low-density housing. Erickson noted the lot at 341 is made up of three 50-foot lots,with one house connected to sewer at that location. Erickson stated by combining those three lots it has allowed him to come closer to the two-acre zoning that is preferred by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Erickson indicated he is not the only person that has combined lots in this neighborhood and that it happened extensively prior to him relocating to this area. Erickson noted that he also does not have the money or intent to acquire the three remaining 50-foot lots in this neighborhood. Erickson stated his concern with the Fitzpatricks' proposal is that the structure is much larger and higher than what currently exists,with the lot coverage increasing from 1800 to 2600 square feet, which is approximately three times what is there at the present time. Erickson stated what currently exists on that lot is a nonconforming use, and that by approving these variances,the nonconforming use would be expanded. Erickson stated the proposed size of the structure affects his view and open space. Erickson stated in his opinion this proposal does not meet any of the 12 criteria for a hardship and that the applicant could have acquired a larger piece of property on which to construct this residence. Erickson noted economic factors are not a factor in determining hardship. Erickson indicated the proposed residence on this 50-foot lot is close to the size of his residence on his lot, a lot which is twice as big and six times as wide, and is totally out of character with the neighborhood. Erickson requested the Planning Commission follow the vision and direction given in Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. Rahn inquired whether a lookout facing the lake is still part of this proposal. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick, Continued) Fitzpatrick stated it is still a lookout but that the grading has been shortened up so it will not encroach into the 75' setback. Rahn inquired whether the issue dealing with the top of the foundation as outlined in the City Engineer's letter dated August 30, 2004,has also been resolved. Gundlach indicated those issues have been worked out. Jurgens stated the Planning Commission should look at the unreasonable use of the property. Jurgens pointed out that although the existing house is in disrepair, it could be made livable. Jurgens stated the applicants purchased the property knowing the lot was narrow,which does not constitute a hardship in his opinion. Jurgens indicated if this were a remodel versus a rebuild,he may feel differently. Bremer stated in the last three years since she has been on the Planning Commission she has not seen a denial of the footprint that the applicants are requesting on this size of lot. Bremer noted similar applications have been approved on Crystal Bay and on Tonkawa. Bremer indicated she prefers the larger lots,but given the increase in the cost of land nowadays, larger lots are not always possible. Bremer noted the applicants also have the option of remodeling the existing structure and adding a second story to it,which more than likely would be approved. Bremer commented the neighbors are getting a new home versus a renovated house and that,in her opinion, improves the neighborhood. Bremer stated in her opinion 50-foot lots are hardship lots since it is impossible to comply with the 30-foot setback requirements. Bremer indicated the City cannot force people to acquire additional land in order to create larger lots, and that the reality for this neighborhood is that there likely will be 50-foot lots into the future. Bremer noted the applicants have complied with the structural coverage requirement and have worked with staff extensively to develop a plan that is suitable for this lot. Leslie noted the hardcover calculations are within all the allowances and that in his opinion the Fitzpatricks have designed a residence that complies as much as possible. Jurgens inquired whether the City rewards people that purchase small lots by granting variances to construct when in other cases property owners with larger lots are required to comply with all the setbacks and other requirements. Jurgens reiterated he does not see a hardship to grant the variances. Jurgens stated the property is a lot of record and has a use currently, which does not change because the property has been sold. Bremer stated the lot area and lot width of this lot are hardships. Rahn commented he does not have an issue with this proposal provided all the recommendations of the City Engineer have been met. Leslie inquired why the stairway down to the lake has not been included in the hardcover calculation. PAGE 19 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick,Continued) Gundlach indicated people are allowed a stairway to the lake. Jurgens stated he also is persuaded somewhat by the fact that this neighborhood is gradually going towards the larger lots,which is changing the character of the area. Fritzler stated just because someone buys a lot on a lake,they should not be expected to sit on that lot for a period of time until additional property can be acquired in order to create a larger lot. Fritzler stated he would prefer to see the residence a little bit smaller and a little bit lower just to reduce the appearance that it is a big structure on a small lot,but that he generally does not have much disagreement with the proposal. Kempf stated if a purchaser is not allowed to build a decent home to live in on these small lots,it removes this type of lot from the market. Kempf stated he is in favor of the proposal. Leslie thanked the neighbors for their comments on this proposal. Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of a lot area variance,lot width variance, and north and south side yard setback variances to permit construction of a residence located at 356 West Lake Street. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed. Jurgens stated he is opposed to the approval because he does not see a hardship for the variances. 8. #04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM,2618 CASCO POINT ROAD—VARIANCE Eric Vogstrom,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The variances being requested are a hardcover variance for 57.9 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' setback zone where 25 percent is normally allowed; a variance for a side street setback of 10 feet where a 15-foot setback from the adjacent right-of-way is normally required; and an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 10' nearer to the lake than the property to the south. Curtis stated the current home on the property is set back approximately 86 feet from the ordinary high water level,with the applicant's proposal showing a 75-foot setback. Curtis indicated the view of the lake from the property to the south should not be impacted by the applicant's proposal. Curtis stated bordering the applicant's property to the north is an undeveloped public right-of-way. The applicant's property is approximately 80 feet in width. Allowing for a 10-foot setback on the south and a 15-foot side street setback on the north leaves a 55-foot wide buildable area. It is Staff's opinion a reasonable home can be constructed within this area. The applicant is proposing 57.9 percent hardcover for this lot, with a 3,002 square foot footprint to essentially max out the 15 percent structural coverage amount based on the total dry land area. The total property area is 20,561 square feet;however,this includes approximately 4,000 square feet separated PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued) from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The contiguous land area is approximately 16,400 square feet. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total noncontiguous parcel above the 929.4' elevation. Neither the lot coverage ordinance nor the Zoning Code definition of "lot area"clarify whether the lot coverage percentage should be based on contiguous area. The definition of minimum lot area found in the Subdivision Code would disallow noncontiguous land to be credited toward lot area. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing a 3,002 square foot footprint, 1,225 square feet of driveway, and 215 square feet of sidewalk to make up the 57.9 percent hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18' by 11' deck on the lakeside of the home. Curtis noted the driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the hardcover down to a reasonable level. Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land that would justify the side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed. Staff believes that the 55-foot wide building envelope is very reasonable and that a setback variance to the side street is not justified. If the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant should get credit toward the structural coverage for the dry land on the noncontiguous portion of the property, there may be some appropriate level of hardcover variance to support some reasonable level of development of the site. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and recommends denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance. Staff also recommends removal of the existing gravel driveway within the city right-of-way and restoration of the area back to vegetation as part of the redevelopment of this lot. Curtis noted the grading and drainage plans have been revised since the issuance of the letter by the City Engineer,and that the applicant has addressed the grading and drainage concerns that have been raised. Vogstrom noted the road is unimproved to the north and requested the Planning Commission allow the encroachment in the right-of-way. Vogstrom stated the existing structure encroaches into the right-of-way by 14 feet. Vogstrom explained the existing hardcover calculation does not include anything for a pad and driveway,which exists on the north side. Vogstrom indicated at the present time there is no way to access the garage without going over the right-of-way. Vogstrom noted the current structure is located 21.8 feet away from the street and is nonconforming. Vogstrom indicated he would be willing to restore the right-of-way at his expense if the city is willing to work with him on the hardcover. Vogstrom stated in his opinion he has a hardship due to the amount of water on his property and the fact that his land is not contiguous. Vogstrom stated in his opinion the proposed residence conforms more with the rest of the neighborhood than what currently exists. Vogstrom noted the property at 2601 Lafayette Road was granted hardcover in excess of 25 percent. Vogstrom stated the current structure is 1184 square feet and is figured at 26.4 percent hardcover. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued) Barbara Essen, 2648 Casco Point Road, stated they have spoken with the applicant regarding the issue of drainage and that the applicant has indicated he is more than willing to ensure that drainage from this lot will not affect their lot. Jeff Essen stated the first plan did not show a swale,with the recent plan showing a swale. Essen stated the applicant has also indicated he would be installing gutters and downspouts, which would also help to alleviate their concerns regarding runoff. Barbara Essen stated they are not opposed to the larger driveway since parking along Casco Point Road is a problem at times. Essen indicated the applicant has also expressed a willingness to preserve the nicer trees on this lot,noting that a number of larger trees were lost as a result of a storm in 1997. Vogstrom stated the preservation of the trees is also one reason why he would like to have approval of the 10-foot encroachment into the right-of-way. Vogstrom stated the majority of the trees are located on the south side of the lot. Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point Road, stated he is located across the street from this lot, and that in his opinion the proposed hardcover for this lot is excessive. Greene stated his residence is approximately 1200 square feet on a lot that is approximately the same size and that the lot in question is being overbuilt. Vogstrom stated Greene's footprint is 1374 square feet and his garage is 695, for a total footprint of over 2,000 square feet. Fritzler stated he does not see the need for the 57.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed and 26.4 percent currently exists. Fritzler stated he does not see the hardship for the increase in the hardcover. Fritzler stated he is also opposed to the 10-foot setback. Bremer inquired what number Fritzler would like to see for this lot given its restrictions. Fritzler stated he would be willing to approve 27 percent hardcover for this lot,but that he does not see any justification for the additional hardcover or encroachment. Kempf stated he is in agreement with Fritzler and that the plan appears to have been laid out without any consideration for the hardcover restrictions. Kempf inquired whether the applicant would be adding a deck or patio in the future. Vogstrom stated a deck is included in his current plans and that he does not intend to add a patio in the future. Bremer indicated she feels the 27 percent is low given the restrictions of this lot. Rahn commented he also feels this is a hardship lot but that it does not justify the 57.9 percent hardcover being proposed. Rahn stated in his view more effort needs to be made to reduce the hardcover and that the structure could also be reduced to eliminate the need for the side street setback variance. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued) Leslie stated the encroachment would be reduced if the size of the structure is reduced. Vogstrom inquired whether he would be better off remodeling the existing structure. Rahn stated that decision would be up to the applicant,but that the Planning Commission appears to be opposed to the proposed amount of hardcover. Leslie pointed out that a remodel is considered to be less than 50 percent of value. Rahn inquired whether the driveway could be reduced. Vogstrom noted there is no driveway figured into the existing hardcover calculation, and if a driveway was added into the hardcover, that would increase it to 34 or 35 percent. Curtis stated the property currently is accessed from the right-of-way. Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, indicates he owns the property on the other side of the fire lane. Kaster stated the fire lane has been filled in over many years and that encroachment on the fire lane in his opinion should be granted because it would alleviate some of the construction problems the applicant is facing on this lot. Kaster stated the fire lane currently is not very passable given the vegetation and that allowing the fire lane to be used would have very little impact on the neighborhood. Vogstrom stated the house would also be angled and would only encroach in a couple of spots. Leslie stated in his view the hardcover could be reduced, which may in turn resolve the side street setback. Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission could offer some suggestions on what they would like to see the hardcover reduced to. Fritzler stated he believes the hardcover could be reduced to 27 percent. Leslie stated in his opinion some of the hardcover for the fire lane should be applied to this property. Jurgens stated the fire lane is a public right-of-way and that the applicant has a right to use that fire lane. Jurgens suggested the applicant consider a side-loading garage if the City allows the fire lane to be used. Gaffron stated as far as the driveway is concerned, Staff has not looked at sight lines and other issues relating to safety, which need to be considered. Gaffron noted there is a slight curve on Casco Point Road that may dictate where the driveway is located. Rahn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like to see the proposed hardcover reduced and that the Planning Commission at this time is not prepared to set a definite percentage. Rahn suggested the applicant consider tabling his application to allow him time to redesign his plans. Rahn stated another option would be for the applicant to decide whether he would like to remodel the existing structure. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom, Continued) Vogstrom inquired whether the Planning Commission would allow the 10-foot side street setback given the fact that the fire lane is heavily wooded and not used. Jurgens requested the property markers near the street be delineated. Leslie stated the applicant will need to make the decision on how to reduce the hardcover,and that the encroachment may be reduced once the hardcover is reduced. Leslie indicated it is impossible to say definitely whether the encroachment would be allowed given the fact that the plans need to be revised. Rahn stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the plans overall, and recommended the applicant continue working with staff to reduce the amount of proposed hardcover. Leslie indicated it appears likely that there may be some variance granted for hardcover given the restrictions of the lot,but that the applicant needs to take steps to reduce the hardcover down to something that is more reasonable for the lot. Kempf stated he generally is in favor of setback variances that have no negative impact on the neighbors. Rahn reiterated the Planning Commission needs to look at the plans as a whole, and inquired whether the applicant would like to table his application. Vogstrom requested his application be tabled. Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to table Application#04-3052,Eric Vogstrom,2618 Casco Point Road,to allow the applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 9. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS AUGUST 23 AND SEPTEMBER 13,2004 Leslie indicated he attended the August 23rd Council meeting where a member of the public had inquired about the steps being taken to address the coyote problem. The resident had indicated that an increasing number of domestic animals have been disappearing. Leslie noted this matter has been referred to the police depai tment. Leslie stated one of the Council members had thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts at addressing the issues coming before the City. Leslie noted the Council does limit public comment to five minutes at their meetings, which may help people in attendance at Planning Commission meetings streamline their comments. Gaffron stated that language could be added to the Planning Commission agendas. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Planning Commission Comments, Continued) Jurgens indicated some other cities require a card to be filled out, which contains language that they are allowed five minutes for comment,but that additional time may be granted if requested. Rahn concurred that a time limit for public comment may be helpful. Bremer commented that people could be asked to limit their comments to five minutes at the beginning of the meeting. Jurgens indicated he attended the September 13th Council meeting,noting that the variances for the property on Cherry Lane were denied. Jurgens stated the Council also discussed issues relating to determination of building height. Gaffron noted the Council did abide by the integrity of the policy and that steps are being taken to incorporate the City's policy into the ordinance. Jurgens stated he did inquire of the Council what direction the Planning Commission should take regarding the storage of large vehicles, with one council member suggesting that a grandfather clause be considered. Leslie noted he did receive a phone call concerning this item and that the caller indicated they are attempting to sell the truck at the present time. 10. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 11. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,2004 Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 16,2004, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 12. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 27 AND OCTOBER 11,2004 September 27—Kempf October 11 —Rahn ADJOURNMENT Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:26 p.m. There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. David Rahn, Chair PAGE 25