HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE '0'—
❑ COUNCIL
CgPLANNING 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. —J 'r' Lt��5��%V j {;' 0 �tl .� ?tic (1. L <1 '_r f_'c
2. f ,�/'ti� z!�- = z is /1/6-,
3.
/11A1I1 R11i-u /Luc iJii/e J 4 k,,„ *
4. rnfrl t1 W1�:�- s .e c.)c, IA))L-t-L,L 11(" ' 1-?` O y 5
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
V:\Adntinistrative Support\(Fornts)\Pnbtic Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
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,
Cynthia Bremer, and Travis Winkey. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,
Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder
Jackie Young.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT
1. #04-3053 BART AND BETSY BUTZER,2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE—
VARIANCE
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of a lake setback variance to permit
structure within 75' of Lake Minnetonka for the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
OLD BUSINESS
2. #04-3024 CITY OF ORONO, CUP FOR VEHICLE STORAGE—CODE
AMENDMENTS,6:02 p.m.—6:16 p.m.
Gaffron addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed zoning code amendment to
Section 78-1577(c)to allow for a permit option to address large vehicle storage. Gaffron noted the
Planning Commission had reviewed this matter a number of times in the past in connection with the
granting of a conditional use permit to allow large vehicle storage on residential property and the
disadvantages associated with allowing this type of use under a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated
currently the proposed vehicle storage ordinance allows parking of vehicles in excess of 14,000
pounds when the following conditions are met: the property owner is the vehicle owner or operator of
the vehicle,the vehicle is set back 50 feet from property lines, the vehicle is not visible from
neighboring properties and public streets,vegetative screening is provided when necessary,
maintenance of the vehicle occurs within an enclosed building,the vehicle is not considered a
nuisance at any time, and a minimum lot size of five acres is met.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has looked at the ordinance in terms of ensuring that the
ordinance is clear on the intent of the ordinance and what the potential impacts are if this ordinance is
approved or not approved. Gaffron indicated language that has been added to the ordinance includes
the potential to create negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, such as noise from
operation as well as maintenance of large vehicles, vibration, glare, odors, salt or water contamination
from washing of the vehicle,hazards to pedestrians, especially on private roads,the wear and tear of
roads, the propensity to off-load cargo on the property, and the visual incompatibility with the
character of the neighborhood. Gaffron stated it is his understanding the Planning Commission has
concluded such uses might be acceptable under certain conditions where lot areas are two acres or
larger.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3024 City of Orono,Vehicle Storage,Continued)
The Planning Commission and Staff have also looked at the advantages and disadvantages of granting
a variance, a conditional use permit, a license, or permit to allow this type of use with the idea that no
new such conditions would occur but that the existing ones could continue as long as they meet the
permit conditions. Under Item f,minimum lot size of 5 acres,the following language has been added:
"For any 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, a Vehicle Storage Permit may be granted if the above conditions a.through f.
are met, subject also to the following limitations:
1. A Vehicle Storage Permit may only be issued for properties within the RR-1B, RR-1A, and
LR-1A zoning districts.
2. Such permit shall be granted only to the current property owner and only for the specific
vehicle applied for. The current owner may replace the vehicle in kind,but shall not add other
such vehicles. Any replacement vehicle must be registered with the City within 30 days to
transfer its permitted status.
3. This permit shall not apply to subsequent property owners. Subsequent property owners shall
not be considered as having a grandfathered permit by virtue of their predecessor's permit."
Rahn called for public comments.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Leslie inquired whether Staff would be going through a re-permitting process periodically to
determine whether the property owner still owns that vehicle and is complying with the conditions.
Gaffron stated it was the intent of Staff to have a one-time permit be issued without the need to have it
be renewed and to deal with any issues as complaints may arise.
Leslie asked whether it is Staff's preference not to have the permits renewed.
Gaffron stated he would prefer Staff not have to issue annual or three year permits. Gaffron stated
since there are very few instances where this ordinance would apply that it probably would not be an
issue unless a neighbor has complaints, which would then be covered under the nuisance section of the
ordinance.
Rahn noted this ordinance only applies to existing conditions.
Leslie inquired whether a person could discontinue this use and then re-apply for a permit after a
period of time.
Gaffron stated a clause could be added that says if the use is discontinued for a certain period of time
that they no longer qualify for this type of permit.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3024 City of Orono,Vehicle Storage, Continued)
Bremer suggested that type of language be included in g(2).
Leslie stated his comments were directed more at staff and whether they would like to see periodic
inspections.
Gaffron indicated he would prefer Staff not be required to conduct periodic inspections unless
absolutely necessary.
Bremer inquired whether the 50-foot setback could be revised slightly to take into account lots that are
not as wide.
Gaffron stated there might be a few lots that could not meet the 50-foot setback,but noted that the
minimum lot size is five acres in order to store large vehicles without a permit.
Leslie inquired whether there are any such lots that currently have large vehicles that would fall under
this ordinance.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any lots that would not be able to meet the 50-foot setback that
currently have large vehicles.
Jurgens inquired whether language could be incorporated into the ordinance that would address that
issue should the need arise.
Bremer indicated she personally is not aware of any lots that have large vehicles that could not meet
the 50-foot setback,but that there might be one or two that do exist.
Jurgens pointed out the intent behind the ordinance is to try to phase out storage of large vehicles on
residential lots. Jurgens stated that issue could be dealt with if it should occur and that it may not be
necessary to revise the 50-foot setback.
Kempf commented the person could also come before the Planning Commission and ask for a
variance to the 50-foot setback.
Rahn inquired whether it would be better to include language that lots less than 200 feet in width meet
a setback of 25 percent the width of the lot or 50 feet,whichever is more restrictive.
Gaffron stated in his opinion it should be left as is because you would basically end up with the same
result following that method and that the real issue is if there is a lot that is less than 100 feet.
Bremer inquired whether all the vehicles that Staff is aware of would be able to meet the 50-foot
setback.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3024 City of Orono,Vehicle Storage, Continued)
Gaffron stated Staff has not conducted a specific inventory to determine that,but in the few instances
they are aware of the lots are generally large enough that they should be able to meet a 50-foot
setback.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the 50-foot setback as is.
Bremer recommended the second"potential"in(c)(2)be eliminated and the ampersand between wear
and tear be changed to the word"and".
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section
78-1577(c) regarding exterior storage in R Districts, establishing a one-time permit for pre-
existing users to continue the storage of large vehicles under certain conditions.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
3. #04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM,2618 CASCO POINT ROAD—VARIANCES, 6:17 p.m.
—6:36 p.m.
Eric Vogstrom, Applicant,was present.
Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its September meeting and was
tabled to allow the applicant time to redesign his plan in an effort to reduce hardcover on the lot.
Since that time the applicant has submitted another plan and is now requesting a hardcover variance
for 38.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250' setback zone, a variance for 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 5 five nearer to the lake than the property to the south.
Curtis stated since the time of the last meeting the applicant has also removed a number of trees from
the property without city permit. Curtis noted the adjacent neighbor has submitted a letter regarding
his concerns with this proposal.
Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side street
setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance as proposed as there are no hardships to support
the variances as requested. In addition, Staff is recommending approval of any variances be made
contingent upon approval of a restoration plan to remedy the vegetation removal on the property.
Rahn asked for public comment concerning this application.
Jeff Essen, 2648 Casco Point Road, indicated he had met with the applicant prior to last month's
Planning Commission and discussed his original plan and the concerns he had regarding drainage,
trimming of trees,protection of established trees, and off street parking. Essen stated Vogstrom
indicated at that time that he was agreeable to installing gutters and downspouts, drain tile, and
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued)
construct a swale between the two properties. Essen stated he agreed to work with Vogstrom on
trimming his trees in an effort to improve Vogstrom's view of the lake.
Essen stated last week Vogstrom had a tree service come in who illegally took down two mature trees
on Essen's property as well as other trees and vegetation on Vogstrom's own property. Essen
indicated based on those actions,he no longer is in support of this proposal until such time as a
restoration plan is approved and the damage has been adequately addressed.
Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, stated he is the neighbor to the north and at the last meeting was
in favor of the variance to encroach on the fire lane. Kaster indicated since the applicant has now clear
cut his lot,he would like to withdraw his support of the variance. Kaster stated he now has concerns
regarding erosion since the vegetation has been totally removed.
Vogstrom stated he is in agreement with his two neighbors regarding their concerns and that the tree
company was hired to remove a couple of trees that were dead. Vogstrom apologized to the City and
his neighbors regarding the removal of the vegetation,noting that he was not aware the tree company
was going to remove as much vegetation as they did. Vogstrom indicated he did ask the tree removal
company to contact Staff regarding this incident,but that he accepts full responsibility for the mistake.
Rahn noted the applicant has made some hardcover reductions but that the proposed residence is still
10 feet from the right-of-way where 15 feet is required.
Vogstrom stated on one side he is 13.5 feet and that the residence can be slid over somewhat to the
south. Vogstrom indicated at the time the plan was drawn up he was trying to protect some trees in
that area and that it was his belief the trees enhanced the lot.
Jurgens noted the Planning Commission should act on this matter tonight given the 60-day time limit.
Jurgens stated in his opinion the hardcover still needs to be reduced further,noting that there are
drainage issues that also have to be dealt with on this lot.
Vogstrom noted the City Engineer had signed off on the drainage issues under his original proposal at
the 58 percent hardcover. Vogstrom stated Staff informed him that the City Engineer did not have any
issues with the drainage. Vogstrom indicated the property at 2800 Peasant Road was approved in mid
August 2002,which is a lot that had a very similar situation where two-thirds of that lot was in the 0-
75'. Vogstrom noted two-thirds of this lot is also in the 0-75'. Vogstrom stated the Planning
Commission at that time found that while the 25 percent standard is feasible, such a limitation would
result in construction of a residence that would not be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and surrounding homes. Vogstrom noted a hardcover variance was allowed in that
instance at 39.2 percent hardcover.
Vogstrom indicated the proposed footprint of his house is approximately 1100 square feet, with a
three-car garage,which is not out of character for this neighborhood and does not constitute a large
house.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued)
Leslie inquired how many of the neighbors have three car garages versus two car garages.
Vogstrom stated it is approximately half and half,with the newer homes having the three car garages.
Vogstrom indicated he was attempting to address the off-street parking by constructing a three-car
garage. Vogstrom noted the current residence is also located on the property line,which makes it
nonconforming, and the amount of hardcover on the lot is also being reduced with his proposal from
what currently exists.
Winkey inquired what impact a reduction to 25 percent hardcover would have on the design of the
house.
Vogstrom stated he is better off going with the 1500 square foot footprint plus a small amount for a
driveway and a sidewalk,which would bring the hardcover to around 30 percent.
Fritzler commented that in his view the size of the lot should give the applicant an adequate building
pad and that he would be opposed to granting any variances. Fritzler stated he would like to see the
hardcover reduced to 25 percent.
Jurgens stated based on the time limits,he would like to make a motion denying the application.
Jurgens moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend denial of Application#04-3052,Eric Vogstrom,
2618 Casco Point Road.
Rahn noted the applicant does have the ability to sign an agreement extending the 60 days.
Bremer stated she does not feel the Planning Commission should make a motion based solely on the
fact that the 60-day time limit is about to expire.
Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover should be reduced to 25 percent and that there is no need to
grant any variances based on the size of the building pad.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2,Rahn and Bremer opposed.
Rahn stated he believes the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise his plans again but that
he is in agreement that the hardcover be reduced.
Vogstrom inquired whether he could utilize an end-loading garage.
Jurgens stated the applicant does have that option but that a new application would need to be
submitted.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom,Continued)
Rahn stated he would not be in favor of any encroachment into the right-of-way. Rahn commented the
Planning Commission does not have the time to discuss the applicant's various options concerning
design of the garage and residence but that the applicant needs to make those design decisions. Rahn
noted the Planning Commission has denied the application and that this matter would go before the
Council.
Bremer inquired whether denial of the average lakeshore setback variance was also included in the
motion.
Jurgens indicated the motion was to deny the entire application.
Bremer stated she would have been in favor of granting the average lakeshore setback variance but
that the hardcover needs to be reduced on this lot. Bremer indicated she would be willing to consider
hardcover in the higher 20's since there is a lot of lakeshore on this property and that there are some
circumstances where that could be considered a hardship. Bremer noted she is not in favor of the side
yard setback variance.
Vogstrom noted the existing 27 percent hardcover on this lot does not include a driveway.
Rahn noted this application would move forward to the Council, and suggested the applicant consider
revising his plans in an effort to further reduce the hardcover prior to the City Council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #04-3042 PILLAR HOMES ON BEHALF OF ROGER& CAROL ROVICK,1625
BOHNS POINT ROAD—AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:37—7:20 p.m.
K.C. Shermack, Pillar Homes, and David Tupper, Landscape Architect,were present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact conditional use permit to allow 3,940
cubic yards of fill when 1,650 cubic yards was approved at the issuance of the building permit. The
City currently requires a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 500 cubic yards. The property is
located at 1625 Bohn's Point Road.
Gundlach indicated a building permit for this site was issued approximately one year ago, with the
grading permit approved by Staff and the City Engineer at that time. The grading permit showed
1,650 cubic yards of fill would be used. Gundlach noted Staff did not realize, as the fill was spread
out over a large area, the need for a conditional use permit at the time the grading permit was applied
for. Near the end of the project additional fill was brought in beyond the approved grading plan and it
became apparent that the amount of fill exceeded what had been approved and Staff informed the
contractor that the fill would either need to be removed or an after-the-fact conditional use permit
applied for. Since the contractor had the home scheduled to be in the Parade of Homes and they were
ready to lay sod, Staff decided to allow them to place the sod for the parade and to apply for an after-
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
the-fact conditional use permit to seek approval if the excess fill was not going to be removed. The
home was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with the removal or approval of the fill as the
only outstanding issue.
Staff is requesting that any approval be contingent upon implementation of the City Engineer's
recommendations,which includes repair of the swales along the north and south property lines. Staff
is also requesting the Planning Commission discuss whether the additional fill creates a negative
visual situation for the directly impacted neighbors to the north and south and also on the
neighborhood as a whole.
Gundlach noted the City Engineer is available tonight to answer any questions.
Shermack,Pillar Homes, stated he oversaw this project from start to finish. Shermack indicated he
was not informed of the need for a conditional use permit in the fall when he applied for the grading
permit. Shermack acknowledged that the amount of fill brought onto this lot is over the limit allowed
by the City without a conditional use permit. Shermack stated his main concern at the time of
construction was the water level of Lake Minnetonka and that all of the fill was brought to the off-
lakeside and has nothing to do with the east side,the west side, and the lakeside. Subsequently the
home was constructed,with extra caution being taken to ensure that the home was being constructed
above the high water level of Lake Minnetonka. Shermack stated in his view the important factor in
constructing this home was the lakeside portion of the residence and not the front of the residence.
Shermack stated the fill was primarily brought in for the driveway. Shermack indicated the home was
constructed according to the survey,with periodic inspections being performed by City Staff on
different aspects of the house.
Shermack indicated the homeowner over the winter requested to meet with a landscape architect and
specified certain landscaping features be constructed as part of this project. Following that meeting
with the landscape architect, additional fill was brought in. Shermack pointed out this property is a
large parcel and there is plenty of room to grade the extra fill in. Shermack stated the fill was brought
in to help achieve access with Bohn's Point Road in accordance with the property owner's wishes.
Shermack stated during the off-season the homeowner also requested some very key trees be removed
because of dead growth towards the bottom of the trees. The removal of the trees affected the original
grading plan. In addition, the property owner asked that the grade be raised and that new pine trees be
planted. Shermack stated the fill was also requested by the homeowner in an effort to make the
driveway more acceptable in their opinion. As the end of the project neared,the landscaping plan was
submitted to the City.
Shermack noted there was no attempt to deceive the neighbors during this project or the City. A
number of open houses and social functions were held at this residence,with the neighbors being kept
apprised of the project. Shermack stated the one resident that has complained is a fairly new resident
to the neighborhood with the home being purchased in April. Shermack noted this particular resident
has not yet moved into the property at the present time.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
Shermack stated he did not apply for a conditional use permit for the excess fill because he was
unaware of the City's requirement. Shermack indicated he is now appearing before the Planning
Commission to request a grading permit based on the excess fill that was utilized on this site.
Shermack stated he would also like to address the City Engineer's comments. First,prior to the
landscaping plan being submitted to Staff, at least two site visits were had with members of Staff who
advised the landscape architect on what steps should be taken. Shermack pointed out there is a two-
foot trench with drain tile and rock on top. Shermack stated the surveyor was not instructed to dig
down to the drain tile and so the elevations depicted on the survey reflect the top of the stone placed in
the swale along the pool. Shermack stated they attempted to be very pro-active in their approach to
address the drainage on this property and met with staff a number of times to discuss issues relating to
drainage.
Leslie inquired where the drain tile discharges.
Tupper stated the drain tile discharges at about the 938', 937' contour to the west.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application.
There were no public comments.
Tupper stated the construction of the swale begins at the 941' elevation at the block retaining wall,
which is in the northeast corner. Tupper stated the 941' is the high point,with the swale being
constructed five feet from the center point of the swale to the property line and with the swale being
sloped towards the lake. In addition, a trench was dug about two feet wide and two feet deep with
drain tile on the bottom, which was then filled with rock to the top of the trench. Tupper stated the
rock on top is more of a cosmetic feature to make the swale appear like a creek bed. Tupper stated it is
their understanding some of the elevations were shot on top of the rock instead of where the soil line
was.
Leslie inquired whether there is also drain tile in the eastern portion of the swale as it approaches the
pond.
Shermack stated there is not.
Rahn inquired whether the home was constructed at the elevation approved.
Shermack stated the home was constructed at the proper elevation.
Jurgens inquired what the building permit specified for the elevation. Jurgens stated he would like to
see a copy of the building permit. Jurgens noted the top of foundation was proposed at 943.8'.
Jurgens inquired what type of joist was utilized.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
Shermack stated two-foot floor joists were used.
Jurgens noted the upper garage was proposed at 943.5' and it is clearly depicted at 945.5 and perhaps
946' according to the contours. Jurgens inquired why the garage is higher than what was proposed.
Shermack stated one of the things that was done differently on this residence that was not shown on
the first survey but was depicted on the submitted plan was on the three sides where the grade was
identical,the walls were poured at a nine-foot height and two-foot floor trusses were set on top.
Shermack indicated the portion facing the courtyard area was actually done with what's called a top
cord hanging truss,which means that the wall was poured 18 inches to two feet higher and the truss
hangs on top of it. Shermack stated he constructed this house identical to the plans that were
submitted to the City.
Shermack stated because of the top cord hanging trusses, the grade in the courtyard area is
automatically higher. Shermack stated his attention was again focused on the bottom walkout level to
ensure that there was no water seepage into the house.
Rahn stated if the house has been constructed at the approved elevations and per the approved plan,
water should not come into the basement. Rahn stated the main issue he has is the visual impact of the
neighbors and not the drainage. Rahn stated in his view it looks like there is excessive fill on the street
side and not a smooth transition to the home. Rahn stated in his opinion the drainage issues can be
resolved.
Kempf inquired whether some of the fill is to accommodate the parking circle.
Shermack stated that it is.
Leslie questioned the as-built retaining wall abutting the pool. Leslie noted the grading plan does not
depict a retaining wall. Leslie stated it appears that the drainage is being pushed towards the neighbor
to the north and creates an issue with runoff. Leslie commented he is more concerned about the
drainage issues than the visual impact.
Shermack stated the retaining wall is approximately two feet high and is constructed with interlocking
block to make it narrow and visibly unobtrusive as possible. Shermack indicated Staff suggested
building a retaining wall in this area as well as construction of a swale with the drain tile and rock
alongside the pool. Shermack stated the retaining wall is designed to help direct the water down the
wall and into the drain tile. Shermack noted Staff recommended the majority of work constructed in
the pool area.
Leslie inquired whether the purpose of the block wall is to catch drainage from the pool deck.
Shermack stated the block wall is a transition from the pool to another area.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
Leslie stated in Exhibit C there appears to be a six-foot or seven-foot gap between the pool deck and
the property line that allows for a swale to be constructed. Leslie stated with the block retaining wall,
it impacts the amount of room available for the drainage swale. Leslie inquired whether that is the
reason for the claim of water runoff into the neighbor's property currently.
Tupper concurred there is less space for the swale,but that the swale has been maintained at the point
required by the City and still functions exactly as it should.
Leslie inquired whether the landscape architect would contest the claim that there is incremental
runoff as a result of the construction.
Tupper stated he would.
Shermack pointed out that water seeks the lowest point, which would be the swale with the drain tile,
and can be verified by the engineer. Shermack stated it was his understanding they complied with
everything they were requested to do based on what they were told by the City Engineer and Staff.
Tupper stated they did ask Lyle Oman to visit the site prior to the sod being laid to have the swales
inspected. Tupper indicated he was informed by Oman that he had personally inspected the swales
and had approved them.
Rahn inquired how a building inspector is capable of determining whether a swale is constructed
properly. Rahn suggested the City consider requiring before and after surveys to avoid these types of
problems.
Tupper stated he personally spoke on a number of occasions with Bruce Vang and Lyle Oman about
these swales as well as the City Engineer, with the concept for this type of swale with the drain tile
and rock being arrived at between the four of them. Tupper indicated Staff informed him prior to
construction of the swale that this would be approved.
Rahn inquired whether the contractor is agreeable to make any changes recommended by the City
Engineer.
Tupper stated they are.
Tom Kellogg, City Engineer,noted he was on site one time only with Bruce Vang a day or two before
the Parade of Homes commenced. Kellogg stated one of the problems with the plan is that there is
nothing that identifies the drain tile, so without that information,his assumption was that it was a
walking path. Kellogg stated the plan that was submitted for approval clearly shows another defined
swale and some grading to divert the water. Kellogg indicated the as-built grading plan does not agree
with the building permit grading plan,particularly along the north lot line. Kellogg stated the
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
installation of the drain tile, along with the other additional information that has been provided,
appears to be an acceptable solution to the drainage for this property.
Tupper stated the position of the pool and the pool deck is not any different today than what is
depicted on the survey.
Jurgens inquired why 938' is shown around the front of the pool and now it is 942 and a 943',which is
four or five higher than what was shown on the original plan. Jurgens stated there is a substantial hill
in that area and it appears the pool is higher.
Tupper stated Exhibit C does not contain any elevations for the pool or the pool deck,but that it is
clear the pool could not be constructed without some type of a retaining wall around it because of the
contours of the surrounding ground.
Jurgens noted a retaining wall was not constructed and instead dirt was hauled in on three sides.
Jurgens stated the basement is higher by seven-tenths,with the house as constructed being one foot
higher than it should be,with considerably more fill in the front. Jurgens stated there also is a swale
that appears to have been constructed across someone else's property, which also was not proposed
originally. Jurgens inquired what the hardcover was at the time this application was approved.
Gundlach indicated they did not exceed the maximum allowed for hardcover.
Tupper stated according to his calculations the hardcover was at 24.86 percent.
Jurgens stated in his opinion it appears this lot is over the hardcover limit. Jurgens requested the
hardcover be verified as well as the building height.
Shermack stated the height of the roof did not increase.
Tupper stated the hardcover that is on record is exactly what has been built within the 75-250' zone.
Gundlach noted in the 250-500' zone they are at 14.5 percent.
Jurgens noted a letter has been submitted regarding the swale,which needs to be addressed.
Shermack indicated he would be willing to resolve that with the City Engineer and requested that it be
documented that the end grade of the swale was pre-existing grade. Shermack indicated the water
automatically went that direction prior to construction.
Jurgens inquired what should be done with the excess fill.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3042 Pillar Homes,Continued)
Shermack stated he had proceeded forward with the project based on good ethics and business
practices and was not informed of a requirement for a conditional use permit.
Rahn stated in his view the drainage issues can be resolved by working with the City Engineer and that
the visual impact needs to be considered.
Leslie commented the irony of the situation is if the contractor wants to lessen the impact of the hill,
more fill is needed.
Kempf inquired whether public comment had been requested.
Rahn indicated he did ask for public comment on this application and no one stepped forward.
Shermack stated he has had numerous meetings with the majority of the neighbors during the various
stages of the construction and that in his opinion they would be here if they were opposed to this
project in any way. Shermack stated it is his understanding that the majority of the neighbors are not
opposed to this project.
Fritzler stated in his opinion more and more fill was added in an attempt to improve the appearance of
the lot and that approval should have been obtained before the additional fill was brought in.
Jurgens stated in his opinion the Planning Commission needs to address this situation and send a
message to other residents that property owners are not allowed to do whatever they want on their lot
without checking to see whether they need approval. Jurgens noted he is a surveyor by profession and
that as part of his job he is required to verify that the requirements of the City are being met.
Shermack indicated he would be willing to make a contribution to the Park Fund,but that in his
opinion he was following what he was directed to do by City Staff. Shermack stated he attempted to
go far beyond what was expected in order to make everyone happy and that he simply was not told
about the need to obtain a conditional use permit.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of#04-3042,Pillar Homes on behalf of
Roger and Carol Rovick, 1625 Bohns Point Road,granting of an after-the-fact conditional use
permit to allow 3,940 cubic yards of fill,subject to the City Engineer approving any
modifications to current grade to ensure no excess or additional runoff occurs from this
property to the neighboring properties. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2,Jurgens and Fritzler opposed.
Jurgens indicated he feels that contractors need to be made accountable for what they do.
Fritzler stated due to the amount of excess fill that was brought in, it was not a small error and the
contractor should have known that approval by the City was required.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #04-3054 JON AND GAIL BLACKSTONE,4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING—
VARIANCES,7:20—7:36 p.m.
Jon Blackstone,Applicant,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicants are proposing to construct a new residence on an existing,vacant parcel
and are requesting a lot width variance to permit a lot width at the public roadway of 110 feet when
140 feet is normally required and a variance to permit the existing accessory building to remain on the
lot in a location closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house. The lot consists of.886
acres and lies within the LR-1B zoning district. Gundlach stated 112 feet is required to meet
administrative approval criteria for lot width. The applicants have met the administrative requirement
for lot area and also meet all setback,hardcover, and structural coverage requirements.
A variance to permit the existing accessory building to remain on the lot is required since City Code
does not permit detached garages or other accessory buildings to be located nearer the front or street
lot line than the principal building except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent
to a street. Gundlach noted any accessory building would need to be located behind the residence.
Gundlach stated although the accessory building has existed without a principal structure for quite
some time, which is prohibited, it should not be allowed to continue since the two lots are being
combined,the property is being redeveloped, and all nonconformances should be eliminated with the
new construction.
Staff finds that a hardship inherent to the land exists in order to grant a lot width variance. The lots
prior to combination were only 55 feet in width and a house existed on one. The new combined lot
width is more conforming at 110 feet and would be one of the most conforming lots in the
neighborhood.
Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land to support approval of a variance for the
accessory structure. Gundlach stated the grading of the lot is being substantially changed for
construction of the new house and the lot could potentially support an accessory building in a different
location.
Staff maintains that accessory structures do not have to be permitted at all if they cannot be
constructed in a conforming location. Gundlach noted City Engineer approval of the grading and
drainage is needed prior to approval by the City Council.
Blackstone stated the existing shed is located approximately 17 feet from the road and that he is
unsure of the distance from the neighbor's lot line. The shed itself is 16' by 12' and 11' high, with a
new roof and paint put on the shed last summer at a cost of over$2000. Blackstone noted the shed has
existed on this lot for over 20 years.
Blackstone stated the proposed location of the new residence and pool is designed to minimize runoff
and disruption of the topography, with the lot containing numerous mature trees, including some
maples that are over 100 years old. Blackstone stated the current use of the shed is to store
snowmobiles, snowblowers,riding lawn mowers and other items. The proposed location of the house
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3054 Jon and Gail Blackstone,Continued)
and the pool eliminates access from the back of the lot to the front of the lot. Blackstone stated they
have positioned the new residence further back on the lot to avoid removing fill and disturbing
existing trees and to improve the ability of the builder to make revisions to minimize runoff.
Blackstone stated because of the width of the lot and the position of the house and pool,the access
from the back of the lot to the front of the lot has been eliminated, which in his view constitutes a
hardship.
Tim Lembke,4445 Forest Lake Landing, stated he does not have a problem with the variances but he
would like the runoff in this area addressed. Lembke requested the Planning Commission address the
issues with runoff in this neighborhood,noting at times he has a river running through his yard and
that he has suffered property damage as a result. Lembke commented in his opinion there will be
some issues with erosion during construction that also need to be addressed.
Maggie Erikson,4455 Forest Lake Landing, stated every year they experience sand and silt and mud
runoff in their driveway and that the hardcover being proposed on the lot at 4475 will only increase
that runoff. Erikson noted their property also sits lower than this lot,and with the proposed house
being located further back on the property,that would mean any runoff that is not managed from that
house would head to her house. Erikson indicated it is her understanding the applicants do have plans
to deal with that.
Blackstone stated he is unsure whether it is possible to relocate a shed that size and again noted that it
would not be accessible if the structure were located behind the new residence.
Fritzler noted the survey depicts the shed being located 8 feet from the property line in one corner and
8.6 feet in the other. Fritzler stated since the ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be
located closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house,he would not be in favor of the
variance and would follow Staff's recommendation for approval of the lot width variance. Fritzler
recommended the shed be relocated.
Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendations. Bremer encouraged the applicant
to see if the shed could be relocated.
Jurgens stated he also is in agreement with Staff's recommendations. Jurgens inquired whether
setback variances would also be required if the shed were allowed to remain in its present location.
Gundlach indicated setback variances would be required.
Jurgens stated in his view the shed could be moved.
Rahn noted this lot is long and narrow and slopes sideways somewhat. Rahn noted the residence is
being proposed for the flattest most portion of the lot, which is way to the rear of the property. Rahn
inquired whether there is a conforming location for the shed behind the proposed residence.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3054 Jon and Gail Blackstone, Continued)
Gundlach stated if the accessory structure were to be located behind the new residence,there would be
an issue with excessive hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Gundlach stated the design of the house
factors into whether there is a hardship and that the current design of the house does not allow the
accessory structure to be located behind the proposed residence.
Rahn stated in his opinion it would be difficult to meet current setbacks due to the sloping yard, and
inquired whether the Planning Commission would be receptive to 100 percent screening of the shed
and allowing the shed to remain for its usable life with no structural repairs.
Fritzler indicated he would not be in favor of allowing the shed to remain in light of the new
construction occurring on the lot.
Kempf stated in his opinion the shed cannot be screened given its close proximity to the street.
Kempf moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of a lot width variance to permit a lot
width at the public roadway of 110 feet when 140 feet is normally required, and to recommend
denial of the variance to permit the existing accessory building to remain on the lot in a location
closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house for the property located at 4475
Forest Lake Landing,with the understanding the shed must be removed if it cannot be relocated
in a conforming location. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
6. #04-3055 DR.MARTHA SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH—VARIANCE
Martha Spencer,Applicant, and Mark Ritter, Exterior Design Studio,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo within 150 feet of
the ordinary high water level on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within the 0-75'
setback zone in order to construct the gazebo and paved walkways. The property consists of 2.2 acres
and is located within the RR-1B district.
Curtis stated the proposed hardcover in the 0-75'setback zone is 11.7 percent where 7.7 percent
currently exists. In June 2004 the applicant was granted lake setback and 0-75' hardcover variances in
order to construct decks over existing patio hardcover resulting in a slight reduction in hardcover
within the 0-75' zone. The applicant has advised staff that the current request was intended to be part
of the previous variance application but the City did not receive any of the information regarding this
portion of the proposal.
The applicant is also requesting a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo setback of 22 feet where a
150 feet structure setback is required and 45 feet currently exist. The existing home is located
approximately 50 feet from the ordinary water high level and the newly constructed decks are set back
45 feet.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3055 Dr.Martha Spencer,Continued)
Staff is recommending denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship present to support
the request.
Ritter stated there are grade changes in the rear of the yard that they are attempting to accommodate in
order to allow the property owner access to her rear yard. Ritter stated the property is located on a
swamp,which makes the property almost unusable during the summertime due to the mosquitoes.
Ritter stated they are attempting to make the back yard functional and usable.
Rahn noted the property owner is allowed a pathway on a descending slope to the wetland. Rahn
inquired why one of the decks could not be screened in.
Spencer pointed out if the deck was screened in, it would obstruct her view from the house and cut
down on the amount of light that is allowed in.
Rahn stated according to the elevations, it appears the roof of the gazebo would be at about eye level.
Ritter pointed out the law requiring a 150-foot setback was not put into effect until 1994,with Mrs.
Spencer residing in this property for 20 years.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Kempf stated he has toured this property and also felt the deck could be screened in. Kempf stated he
understands that does limit the light into the residence somewhat,but that the applicant must make a
choice on what type of hardcover she would like in order to help protect French Lake.
Ritter reiterated that that law was not implemented until 1994,with his client residing in that residence
for ten years prior to that.
Curtis stated the 1994 law that Mr. Ritter is discussing is the adoption of the Shoreland Overlay
Ordinance that identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a 150-foot setback.
Curtis stated the amount of allowable hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone was not changed at that time
and has remained the same since the late 1970's.
Jurgens noted there currently is a variance for the hardcover on the property.
Spencer pointed out that the existing hardcover is less than what had existed previously on the
property.
Jurgens inquired whether the applicant would be willing to trade a deck for a gazebo. Jurgens stated
the applicant is allowed a certain amount of hardcover but that he would not be in favor of increasing
the hardcover that currently exists on the property since there does not appear to be a hardship.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3055 Dr.Martha Spencer,Continued)
Winkey questioned why the gazebo was not part of the original plan.
Spencer stated the gazebo was part of the original plan.
Ritter stated the plan for the gazebo for some reason was never submitted to the City and only the deck
was approved.
Curtis stated at the time of the previous application there was a phone conversation between the
applicant and staff concerning the gazebo but that no information was ever supplied to the City during
the original application.
Rahn pointed out one of the conditions for the hardcover variance was that the hardcover in the 0-75'
setback zone shall not be increased above 8 percent.
Curtis indicated the gazebo was discussed at the time of the application for the decks but that no
information was ever supplied to the City.
Bremer inquired whether any hardcover could be removed in the 0-75' zone.
Spencer stated there is a cement dog pen.
Jurgens noted the dog pen is not shown on the survey but is located closer to the shoreline.
Spencer commented they have removed as much hardcover as possible.
Fritzler stated he does not see a reason to increase the hardcover in this area and would not be in favor
of a gazebo at this time.
Ritter inquired whether the walkways would be permitted.
Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the hardcover increasing.
Curtis inquired whether the pathways are actual steps.
Ritter indicated they are a combination of walkways and steps to enable the property owner to access
her back yard. Ritter noted the walkway was shown on the original plan.
Curtis stated the stairway as proposed is to get around in the yard and not to access the lakeshore.
Rahn pointed out the only hardcover that is allowed to encroach in the 0-75' area would be a pathway
from the home down to the lake.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3055 Dr.Martha Spencer, Continued)
Spencer commented that would be more detrimental in her view than a gazebo located further away
from the lake.
Kempf stated the gazebo is located approximately 15 feet from the existing deck and that he does not
recall the area being that uneven.
Spencer indicated the ground in that area is uneven.
Ritter stated there is a hill on either side of the house that makes it difficult for his client to access the
back yard from the front.
Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be located is fairly flat.
Ritter stated that part of the yard is flat. Ritter indicated the patios were designed to be transition areas
so the property owner could access the back yard. Ritter stated it is his understanding a property
owner has the right to make their back yard functional.
Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and usable.
Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp.
Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the back yard but that the portion
where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is not needed to access that portion of the property.
Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the current design or the amount of hardcover being proposed.
Ritter reiterated that the reason for a variance is to make a back yard functional and usable.
Rahn indicated he is not aware of that language being contained in the code.
Gundlach indicated she also is not aware of that.
Leslie stated the two plateaus in the back yard do not prohibit the applicant from enjoying the back
yard. Leslie stated the property owner has access to the back yard through the lower level of the house
and access to the front yard from the upper level of the residence. Leslie stated the back yard is being
used today and is accessible. Leslie stated in his opinion the absence of a gazebo does not make the
back yard nonfunctional.
Ritter inquired what detriment there would be to the environment or to the property if a gazebo were
constructed as proposed.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3055 Dr.Martha Spencer,Continued)
Leslie stated the City has a community management plan that the applicant is welcome to take a look
at that addresses the intent of the ordinances. Leslie stated basically hardcover restrictions are
designed to preserve the water quality of the lakeshore in question.
Ritter commented that the residence is located quite a distance from the lakeshore.
Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend denial of Application#04-3055, 1005 Willow
Drive South,for a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo within 150' of the OHWL on a
natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback zone in order to
construct a gazebo and paved walkways. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
7. #04-3058 TIMOTHY ZWART,3970 NORTH SHORE DRIVE—VARIANCES,7:54—
8:12 p.m.
Timothy Zwart,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting variances to hardcover, lot area and lot width in order to
construct a new 1,350 square foot single family home on a lot consisting of 10,000 square feet in area
and 50 feet in width located in the LR-1C District. The applicant is requesting 36 percent hardcover in
the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed. The proposal is for a front yard setback of
112' from North Shore Drive for the new residence with a 10' by 12' shed. Curtis noted the shed is
conforming and the 250'-500' zone meets hardcover restrictions.
Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission finds
that there is a hardship present to grant a hardcover variance, the appropriate amount of hardcover
should be discussed. Curtis noted the main reason for the hardcover variance in the 75'-250' zone is
the length of the driveway.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application.
There were no public comments.
Zwart indicated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Rahn commented he basically is in agreement with Staff, with the issue being the driveway. Rahn
stated in his opinion the driveway could be reduced somewhat. Rahn suggested the applicant consider
widening the driveway for a short distance in order to achieve a turn-around.
Zwart stated in the southern spot there is a stairway that goes to the first level of the house and that the
driveway is wider in that area.
Leslie inquired whether this is a tuck-under garage being proposed.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3058 Timothy Zwart, Continued)
Zwart stated it is. Zwart stated there is a door underneath the stairway into the garage.
Curtis stated she attempted to redesign the driveway and include the stairway but was not very
successful due to the lack of elevations being provided.
Zwart stated the stairs go up to a deck.
Fritzler inquired why elevations were not included.
Zwart stated he did not realize he needed to submit elevations.
Rahn noted if the stairway is located over the driveway, it would automatically be a part of the
hardcover calculation.
Jurgens inquired whether there is a deck on the back of the building.
Zwart stated there is not.
Rahn stated in his view the driveway could be reduced somewhat.
Jurgens concurred that the driveway could be reduced somewhat.
Leslie inquired whether the location of the house is due to a setback requirement.
Curtis stated the location of the house was because of the 25 percent hardcover in the one zone.
Kempf stated if the driveway were diminished in size, it would be nice to have space to park near the
residence to avoid cars having to be moved when someone wants to leave.
Rahn pointed out the width of the driveway by the residence is almost the width of the building,which
is 30 feet,with a stairway in the middle. Rahn stated the stairway is going to project 12, 14 feet,with
sufficient driveway on either side of the stairway to allow for a built-in turnaround. Rahn commented
he does not believe a separate turning or parking area would be needed.
Fritzler recommended the applicant consider his options for reducing hardcover. Fritzler stated it is
difficult to visualize the stairway without a plan. Fritzler noted if the footprint of the residence is
approved at 1,350 square feet,the applicant would need to stay within that when designing the house.
Zwart stated the footprint would not change.
Rahn inquired whether language could be included in the motion basically approving the application
but with the condition that the hardcover be reduced.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3058 Timothy Zwart, Continued)
Bremer suggested hardcover be reduced by a percent or two. Bremer suggested 35 percent hardcover.
Rahn stated in his opinion it would be difficult to reduce the hardcover by a half a percent.
Gaffron noted one percent in the 75'-250' zone would equal 62 square feet.
Gundlach stated a reduction of 200 square feet would equal three percent or just under.
Leslie stated he is inclined to table this application to allow the applicant time to reduce the hardcover.
Bremer indicated she would be willing to approve 33 percent.
Kempf inquired whether the applicant would be agreeable to tabling his application.
Zwart stated he would like to start construction in the near future,noting the house is approximately
100 years old and is beginning to show its age.
Fritzler pointed out that the applicant would probably be restricted from adding any further hardcover
on this property given the fact that it is currently over the amount allowed in this zone.
Fritzler moved to recommend approval of Application#04-3058,3970 North Shore Drive,
granting of lot area and lot width variances and the granting of a hardcover variance not to
exceed 33 percent.
Winkey inquired whether the applicant would need to come back if he is unable to reduce it to 33
percent.
Fritzler stated no,but that he would like it reduced.
Winkey inquired if the hardcover is not reduced to 33 percent,whether the applicant would need to
come back before the Planning Commission for a hardcover variance.
Curtis noted the applicant would need to reduce it to 33 percent if that is what is approved in the
motion.
Fritzer amended his motion,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3058,
3970 North Shore Drive,granting of lot area and lot width variances, and granting of a
hardcover variance,with the condition the hardcover not exceed 36 percent. NO VOTE
TAKEN.
Rahn stated the motion does not allow the hardcover to exceed 36 percent.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3058 Timothy Zwart, Continued)
Fritzler stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to whatever works out but less than 36
percent.
Rahn noted the motion basically approves the hardcover percentage that the applicant was requesting,
and inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the driveway reconfigured.
Fritzler stated in his view the driveway should be reconfigured,which would result in a reduction in
the hardcover. Fritzler stated whatever amount the hardcover is reduced to is what would be allowed.
Fritzler noted a reduction in the driveway of 300 square feet would reduce the hardcover to 33 percent.
Curtis inquired whether Staff could approve the redesign of the driveway at less than 36 percent.
Rahn stated yes.
Curtis inquired whether Staff could approve it at 35.9 percent.
Fritzler stated he would like to see the driveway reduced to less than 36 percent.
Bremer suggested the applicant bring his drawings and hardcover numbers at the time he appears
before the City Council.
Rahn inquired whether Fritzler's motion is basically to approve the hardcover variance not to exceed
36 percent with a driveway redesign that would still service the property.
Fritzler stated in his opinion the redesigned driveway for the property will reduce the hardcover
somewhat and that he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 33 percent if at all possible.
Jurgens inquired whether the applicant would be approved if he came back with the same driveway.
Fritzler stated he would like to see a reduction in the hardcover.
Fritzler amended his motion to recommend approval of Application#04-3058,3970 North Shore
Drive,granting of lot area and lot width variances,and granting of a hardcover variance,with
the condition the hardcover not exceed 33 percent. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3058,3970 North
Shore Drive,granting of hardcover,lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new
1,350 square foot single family home,with the condition that the hardcover not exceed 36
percent within the 75'-250' setback zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Fritzler opposed
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3058 Timothy Zwart, Continued)
Fritzler stated he is opposed because there is no incentive to reduce the hardcover below the 36 percent
to come closer to the 25 percent standard.
8. #04-3059 JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONKAWA ROAD—CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,8:13—8:26 p.m.
James Render,Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the
easterly roof peak of the residence. The proposed cupola will have a peak elevation of just under 983'.
The bulk of the proposed house will have a peak at 966'-967', or 3' below that of the existing house
just to the east. The other adjacent residence to the immediate west and slightly uphill from this
property has a continuous peak elevation of 978'.
The City Council recently reviewed this application as an appeal of the administrative decision
regarding the applicant's original roof proposal at their September 20`h meeting. The Council
concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest window and the peak
was valid and appropriate. The Council also concluded that the lower measuring point for this lot
should be established at 940',which matched the original grade at the west side of the current lot
before the adjoining home was razed. Further, Council had suggested that the proposed design could
be revised to meet the height code and applicant could make revisions to the peak feature and apply
for a conditional use permit for a cupola.
Gaffron explained Section 78-1366 does not contain any specific standards for approval of a
conditional use permit,but does reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards which states:
(a) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use
permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the basis of the application
and the evidence submitted,the City makes the following findings:
(1) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this
Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive
Municipal Plan;
(2) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and,
(3) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this
Chapter.
Gaffron indicated the comprehensive plan states building heights will be limited to less than the
typical tree height. Staff estimates that typical tree height in the neighborhood ranges from 40' to 70',
with a few mature trees probably in the 80' range. The canopy elevation as viewed from a distance
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3059 James Render,Continued)
probably is in the 970'-990' range. The lot itself is somewhat open, such that from certain angles the
peak may be more visible than from others. Gaffron indicated the visual impact of the height of the
cupola will be somewhat softened by the higher natural topography of the surrounding neighborhood
and by the higher trees in the immediate neighborhood. Staff concludes that from a distance, from
most angles,the cupola peak will not extend higher than the general canopy of the area, although from
certain angles it may be visible through openings in the canopy.
Gaffron noted the majority of the proposed residence is below the 30' height restriction.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a cupola extending
6.7 feet above the peak of the house per the submitted plans.
Render commented Gaffron in his opinion has done a great job.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application.
James Erler, 3448 North Shore Drive, indicated he is here tonight to try to understand the applicant's
proposal and asked if he could withhold any comments until later.
Rahn indicated that would be fine.
Kempf inquired what material the cupola would be constructed out of.
Render indicated there would be cedar shingles on the roof with some copper flashing.
Fritzler inquired whether there is an actual roof underneath the cupola.
Render indicated there is.
Leslie commented in his view it would be difficult to imagine this house without the cupola and that
the sole purpose of the cupola appears to be to continue the roof line. Leslie stated in his mind the
reason a conditional use permit exists for a cupola is to allow a small structure relative to the entire
peak of a roofline and that this is clearly a continuation of a roofline. Leslie stated the cupola serves
the purpose of finishing the roof and is against the purpose or reason a cupola exists as a conditional
use permit.
Jurgens noted he was in attendance at the Council meeting when this matter was discussed and that in
his opinion the cupola is a reasonable compromise based on the issues involved with this application.
Jurgens indicated the applicant's architect did not have the benefit of staff's policy used in
determining height of a structure and that they relied solely on their interpretation of the code that they
found on the City's web site. Jurgens noted the policy,which further defines the code,is not found on
the City's web site. Jurgens stated the option of incorporating a cupola into the design was arrived at
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3059 James Render,Continued)
as a mutual compromise. Jurgens indicated there were also some issues involving the grading and
elevation on this site.
Fritzler stated in his view this still constitutes an extension of the roofline and that he is not in favor of
the conditional use permit.
Rahn commented that he also had the impression that it was an extension of the roofline but that it
appears to be an in between method to achieve the design that the applicant is looking for. Rahn stated
in his opinion the Planning Commission also has the option of calling this a cupola.
Render indicated it was his understanding the Council had directed him to pursue a conditional use
permit.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommended Application#04-3059, 1335 Tonkawa
Road,granting of a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the easterly rook peak of
the residence. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Fritzler,Winkey and Leslie opposed.
Winkey stated in his view it is an extension of the roofline.
9. GARY HANSEN ON BEHALF OF BILL AND ROBIN GRIERSON, 1989
FAGERNESS POINT ROAD—VARIANCES,8:27 p.m.—8:47 p.m.
Gary Hansen,Hansen Home Tech, and Robin Grierson, Applicant, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a 75'-250' hardcover variance in order to construct a 35' by
14' addition to the existing home. The lot consists of 21,217 square feet and is located in the LR-1C
district. Curits stated due to the location on the point, only 4,762 square feet are located outside of the
75' setback.
Curtis stated the proposal is for a corner of the proposed addition to be constructed within the 0-75'
setback resulting in 52 square feet of additional hardcover in that zone, and a hardcover variance
within the 75'-250' setback for 52 percent hardcover after subtracting all of the plastic-lined landscape
areas. Curtis noted 43 percent currently exists in the 75'-250' setback zone.
Staff feels that the current plan could be redesigned to meet the 75' setback. Additionally, the survey
shows a patio located within the 75' setback,which could potentially be removed or reduced if the
Planning Commission feels that would be appropriate. If the Planning Commission feels that the
nature of this property on a point is a significant hardship,there may be some justification for some
level of hardcover variance within the 75'-250' setback.
Curtis stated she did a calculation showing the request for the 0-75' setback on the west side, which is
currently at 7.3 percent. Curtis indicated if the addition is removed and the entire patio is removed
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Bill and Robin Grierson, Continued)
except for a four by four foot landing,there would be 4.1 percent in the 0-75' zone. Curtis stated the
applicant is aware that Staff is recommending this change.
Leslie inquired whether the 7.3 percent excludes the patio.
Curtis stated the patio is included in the 7.3 percent. Curtis explained she subtracted the patio and the
addition and added in a small landing for the door,which reduced it to 4.1 percent. Curtis stated she is
recommending that option rather than the 7.8 percent hardcover being proposed by the applicant on
the west side of the residence.
Hansen stated on the side of the proposed addition there is a jog there that ideally would work out
aesthetically for the addition. Hansen stated the applicant is more than happy to remove all the rock
and sacrifice the patio pavers in order to accomplish the addition.
Bremer noted this would reduce the hardcover amount to a number other than the 4.1 percent and the
7.8 percent.
Curtis stated it would be 4.5 percent.
Hansen stated originally in the 0-75' setback the hardcover was at 16 percent.
Bremer inquired what the hardcover would be in the 75'-250' setback and what the hardship is for
granting a variance.
Hansen stated the current garage is not very deep and is barely able to fit two cars. Hansen pointed out
they are not requesting a three-car garage.
Grierson stated the previous owners at the time the addition was constructed located the furnace in the
garage. Grierson stated there currently is no place to put the furnace in the house. Grierson indicated
the house is approximately 100 years old and has very little closet space. Grierson stated if they are
able to extend into the 0-75' setback, they could possibly use a portion of that for a utility room.
Grierson indicated she would prefer having the furnace located in the house.
Rahn inquired whether any hardcover is being added to the front.
Grierson indicated they are not increasing the hardcover in the front.
Rahn commented his first inclination is to recommend the patio pavers be removed, which would give
the applicant 347 square feet. Rahn suggested the applicants consider reducing the size of the rear
addition. Rahn noted the garage is less than 20 feet deep and the applicants do have some issues with
storage. Rahn stated he feels there is somewhat of a hardship but that the proposed hardcover
exceeding 50 percent is too excessive. Rahn indicated he would prefer a redesign of the addition.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Bill and Robin Grierson, Continued)
Leslie stated one of the questions in Staff's report is whether there is a hardship associated with the
fact that this property has lakeshore on two sides. Leslie stated if it is assumed that the lake was not
on the front side of the house and that this was a single lakeshore property,what effectively would
happen is the 0-75' west would stay as is and the 0-75' east would become a part of the 75'-250' zone.
Leslie pointed out under that scenario the allowed hardcover would be 0 percent in the 0-75' west,
1,346 feet in the 0-75 east now reclassified as 75-250', and 1,190 in the 75'-250',which allows for a
total of 2,536. Leslie noted the current hardcover is 4,232, which is substantially over the amount that
would be allowed.
Leslie inquired if this property was any other lakeshore property, whether an expansion of the
footprint would be allowed.
Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover does seem to be excessive, and inquired whether the
applicants have explored the option of adding onto the front of the house.
Hansen indicated the client would prefer not to add onto the front of the house to minimize the impact
on the neighbors.
Curtis stated an addition off the front would also encroach on the side yard setback, which is currently
conforming at ten feet.
Grierson indicated she is not interested in adding to the front of the house due to the impact on the
neighbors. Grierson stated if the addition were constructed in the back, it would not impact any of the
neighbors.
Fritzler stated the proposed 51 percent is excessive in his view and that he would like to see the size of
the addition reduced along with removal of the patio pavers.
Grierson stated the home is unique given the fact that it is 100 years old,but that there are also a
number of inadequacies with the structure. Grierson indicated they have spoken to a number of
builders who have suggested tearing down the structure and constructing new. Grierson stated she
would like to retain the character of the current residence but make it more efficient for today's world.
Fritzler inquired whether the height of the garage would be raised.
Grierson indicated she does not believe so.
Hansen stated some bigger floor trusses would be installed in the garage.
Fritzler noted currently the garage does not have an 8-foot door.
Hansen stated it is a 7-foot garage door.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Bill and Robin Grierson, Continued)
Rahn noted there is currently living space also above the garage.
Fritzler stated if the wing that goes to the north from the front door to the edge of the garage is raised
in elevation, torn down or rebuilt,almost half of the house would be under construction.
Grierson stated they are not planning on tearing that portion of the house down.
Gaffron inquired whether that portion would be raised or elevated.
Hanson stated the north wall is going to be kept,the front wall is going to be kept as far as location,
but that there would be an extension out the front and a beam at the 33.9' that will carry the existing
load so that cars can continue on through there without any wall.
Rahn moved to recommend approval of Application#04-3061, 1989 Fagerness Point Road,for a
hardcover variance to allow the front entry addition as proposed and to allow the rear addition,
with the condition the hardcover not exceed the removal of 347 square feet of patio pavers in the
0-75' setback and with the further condition that the addition be in a conforming location within
the 75'-250' setback.
Jurgens noted there already is hardcover in the area where they are proposing the addition,which
consists of a deck.
Hansen stated there is an 81 square foot deck.
Jurgens suggested adding the 81 square feet to the 347 square feet for the hardcover being removed.
Rahn amended his motion to recommend approval of Application#04-3061, 1989 Fagerness
Point Road,for a hardcover variance to allow the front entry addition as proposed and to allow
the rear addition,with the condition the hardcover not exceed the removal of 428 square feet of
patio pavers and deck, and with the further condition that the addition be constructed in a
conforming location,i.e.,behind the 0-75' line.
Curtis inquired what size landing would be allowed.
Rahn stated they typically are allowed a four by four foot landing.
Hansen stated the 428 square feet is in the 75'-250' zone,with the entire addition being 490'.
Bremer stated the motion also requires the addition to be constructed behind the 0-75' line.
Bremer seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
11. #04-3063 WJM PROPERTIES LLC,2605 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD—
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 8:48 p.m.—9:20 p.m.
Peter Johnson,Monies Automotive,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant has had a number of discussions with Staff over the summer regarding
drainage issues,with the option of redesigning the parking lot discussed. It was determined that a
central drainage way was needed to accommodate site drainage, and Staff has approved this
reconfiguration.
Gaffron stated issues relating to lighting still remain. The applicant had originally proposed replacing
the four existing 45' high light standards with 25' poles, and is now requesting the plan be modified to
allow for 12 twin head poles, 25' in height, using 1000 watt bulbs. Gaffron stated the additional
lighting is being requested from the applicant's insurance company,but no written information has
been provided regarding the extent of the need or the insurance company's minimum requirements.
Staff feels the lighting study is incomplete and additional information is needed before approval can
be given.
Gaffron noted the applicant has been working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District related to
wetland buffer and easement requirements. Based on their discussions with the MCWD,the applicant
was granted an extension of the prior approvals and was allowed to temporarily place a fence in place
of the berms and plantings at the north end of the east parking lot. Staff does not have a problem with
extending the approvals to December 31, 2005.
Gaffron stated Staff would like, one, a detailed request from the applicant's insurance company
specifying in detail what minimum level of lighting is required; two, detailed specifications on the
type of lighting fixtures proposed,including style and shielding; three, an analysis by the applicant's
lighting company of other options for lighting, including but not limited to varying the wattage of the
fixtures,varying the height and/or number of fixtures, and varying the placement of fixtures; and four,
information on whether any building mounted lighting is proposed. Gaffron noted a cross-section of
the parking lot elevations as viewed from Highway 12 to the back of the parking lot has been
provided.
Johnson noted Staff was provided some detail on the light fixtures a couple of years ago,which has
not changed. Johnson stated he was unable to locate that information in his files. Johnson indicated
he was only able to locate information that states that the fixture is a downcast fixture, which to his
understanding was approved for the north lot and for four lights on the east lot. Johnson stated they
are not proposing to change that type of fixture at this time,but that the fixture would be mounted on
25' foot poles rather than 45' poles.
Johnson stated at the time this project was commenced,they were not contemplating changing the
eastern face of the building,but as the project progressed, the architect recommended refacing that
entire side. As a result, instead of the outcast lighting being mounted on the building,the lighting has
been changed to downcast lighting. Johnson stated some parking lot lighting has been lost as a result
of that change.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3063 WJM Properties,Continued)
Johnson noted the lumen study shows that the amount of lumens on the ground with 1000-watt
fixtures drops to below .2 in almost every case with the downcast lighting versus the outcast lighting.
Johnson indicated in essence what that means is that the outer edges of the parking lot now have a lot
of shadows and very little light. Johnson stated their conditional use permit allows for 250 new
vehicles to be stored in the parking lot and their insurance company has expressed a concern that the
site should be better lit to protect the vehicles on the lot and the personnel that would be on site after
the sun has set,particularly in the wintertime.
Johnson stated the lighting that is being proposed is situated between the building and a seven-acre
drainage pond and the golf dome on the other side. Johnson stated in his opinion the additional
lighting would not affect other property owners in the area. Johnson indicated he is willing to provide
a letter from the insurance company concerning the lighting.
Johnson stated they also explored the possibility of installing more fixtures at a lower elevation,but
concluded that there would be too many interruptions in traffic flow and more obstacles for cars to
avoid as they drive around the parking lot. Johnson stated the 25' poles in his opinion is a good
compromise to achieve the additional lighting as well as reduce the number of obstacles in the parking
lot itself. Johnson pointed out the approved lighting is located along the second row of parking away
from the building and that the new lighting is situated between that lighting and the building and not
along the perimeter of the lot.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
There were no public comments.
Rahn noted car dealerships are not allowed in Orono, and that his greatest concern with this
application is that it started out as a conditional use permit and that the lighting has increased from
four to 12. Rahn stated he does not want this property to slowly turn into a car dealership. Rahn
stated if the lighting is shielded,the lighting might be a non-issue.
Johnson stated the berm has been constructed,with the existing trees between the highway and the
parking lot being preserved. Johnson stated a five-foot high opaque fence has also been added.
Rahn inquired whether the change in lighting is being driven by the insurance company.
Johnson stated it is driven by the concern for the property that will remain in the lot all night and the
personnel that will be on the site.
Bremer suggested the list of items outlined on page three be gone through by the applicant.
PAGE 31
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3063 WJM Properties,Continued)
Johnson stated he is confident he can obtain a letter from the insurance agent that would basically say
the insurance company would like lighting in the parking lot to preserve the value of the property and
to protect the personnel coming in and out. Johnson stated they have submitted information
concerning the style and shielding of the type of light being proposed,which was approved with 25'
posts two years ago.
Johnson stated an analysis of the lighting options was conducted, with a study of the 1000-watt being
submitted to Staff. Johnson stated they did not submit the study on the 400-watt lighting but that he
does have that information available.
Bremer inquired whether any lighting on the building is being proposed.
Johnson stated the only lighting on the building that they are proposing is what currently exists on the
building, which essentially lights the side of the building and is downcast.
Fritzler inquired whether any security people could be brought onto the site.
Johnson stated the primary security is the fact that it is a well-lit lot. Johnson stated there would be
employees on the site who will also keep on eye on the property.
Fritzler noted the front driveway is secure.
Johnson stated the front driveway has a gate that closes across the front of the entrance.
Fritzler inquired whether there would be employees on site at 2:00 a.m.
Johnson stated the potential exists that no one would be on site in the early morning hours and also the
potential that truck drivers would be on the lot in the early morning hours.
Fritzler stated one option is to have a private security force patrol the property at periodic times.
Fritzler inquired whether the whole perimeter of this property would be fenced in.
Johnson stated the whole perimeter of the property is not fenced in, with the fence going from the
corner of the building on the north side out to the end of the parking lot and down the eastern
boundary about 75 or 80 feet.
Bremer indicated she has a concern that there is not enough information concerning the lighting before
the Planning Commission tonight. Bremer stated she would like to see the letter from the insurance
company requesting the additional lighting. Bremer commented Orono has a rural character that they
would like to maintain, and one way to do that is by limiting the amount of lighting.
Johnson pointed out that this facility is different from a private residence and will contain
approximately 250 new cars that are attractive to thieves.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3063 WJM Properties, Continued)
Leslie inquired why the entire perimeter of the property would not be fenced in.
Johnson stated the perimeter is 1,200 feet on the side and 900 feet on the backside. Johnson indicated
MN DOT might be fencing in the backside of the property with a 25-foot high retaining wall. On the
west side a seven-acre pond is being constructed, with an open drainage ditch on the east side.
Kempf stated in his view lighting is essential when there is a substantial amount of property sitting out
and is a good deterrent to crime. Kempf pointed out this property is not located in rural Orono.
Jurgens stated the property might not be located in rural Orono but that the lighting could possibly be
visible for a number of miles. Jurgens stated he resides in rural Orono but still has a clear view of the
golf dome and all the lights that are currently there. Jurgens stated with the addition of more lights,
that area will be even more lit up and will impact the rural character of Orono in other geographical
locations. Jurgens stated he would also like to know what the impact would be on the other side of
new Highway 12. Jurgens pointed out that in addition to the downcast lighting,there will also be
reflective light coming from this property. Jurgens stated he would like to have more information than
what has been submitted.
Johnson stated a lumen study has been submitted, and to his knowledge the lighting near the perimeter
would be .1 or .2.
Jurgens stated that lighting could still impact areas further away.
Gaffron commented Orono's lighting code specifies that a person should not be able to see the source
of the light from outside the property lines. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether this plan meets that
code,noting that the code does not address reflective lighting and does not include lumen limits or
requirements. Gaffron stated he would prefer the City Engineers review the plan to allow them to
make some recommendations. Gaffron stated the minimal amount of commercial development in
Orono has not required Staff to review and revise the code,but that this is a situation that could
potentially have a huge impact on the neighboring properties if not handled appropriately.
Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Staff.
Johnson noted their site plan only depicts the north side of the site because the south side of the site is
10 acres of grass and trees. Johnson pointed out Highway 394 and the railroad are in close proximity
to this site and that the residents would probably be impacted greater by those two items than by the
lighting on this property. Johnson stated he would like the Planning Commission to work with him
and to move the application forward. Johnson noted they are delaying moving the inventory onto the
property until the lighting has been installed.
PAGE 33
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3063 WJM Properties,Continued)
Leslie noted a lengthy period of time has been spent trying to address the issues on this site,but that he
personally does not feel that enough information has been supplied. Leslie stated if the true intent of
the lighting is security, a fence coupled by perimeter lighting,leaving the center darker,might be a
way of preventing intrusion but would still restrict the total ambient light from being as great as it is
under the proposed plan. Leslie stated he would be willing to discuss this in detail at the next Planning
Commission work session so the applicant can move forward.
Gaffron noted the next work session is scheduled for November 3rd
Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Leslie and that a more detailed study needs to be submitted.
Winkey inquired whether other options for security have been discussed for this property outside of
lighting.
Johnson stated the primary reason for the fence is not for security but is there to help screen the
parking lot. Johnson stated the primary reason for the additional lighting is to provide protection for
the property as well as the personnel that will be on the site. Johnson stated he is not prepared at this
time to discuss other possible security measures that could be taken.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#04-3063,WJM Properties,LLC, 2605
West Wayzata Boulevard,for a conditional use permit amendment,but to recommend granting
of the extension of the deadlines for construction of the approved site to December 31, 2005.
Gaffron inquired whether this matter was being tabled to the work session.
Bremer stated it is.
Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission would be able to approve it at the work session.
Gaffron indicated because it has been publicly noted at tonight's meeting and this matter is basically
being adjourned to the work session,that they could approve it at that time if the issues are resolved.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
(Recess taken from 9:20 to 9:28 p.m.)
10. #04-3062 JOHN TERRANCE HOMES,LLC,26XX KELLEY PARKWAY(OUTLOT
E, STONEBAY)—FINAL PLAT AND PUD SITE PLAN AMENDMENT,9:28—10:32 p.m.
Steve Johnston,John Terrance Homes; Pete Villard,Architect; and John Hassler,John Terrance
Homes,were present.
PAGE 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes,Continued)
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting an amendment of the Stonebay RPUD for changes to the
condominium("Lofts")building and site plan, final site plan and building plan approvals as well as
final plat approval for Outlot E as a single 2.5 acre lot for the condominium building.
Gaffron noted a couple of years ago the entire Stonebay project was granted general development plan
approval with some clauses in the development agreement requiring that a certain process had to be
followed in the event of modifications. Gaffron noted some areas of the project have never been
finalized. The primary changes to the Lofts building include:
1. Main building peak height is higher than originally proposed and is currently proposed
somewhere between four feet and potentially as much as seven feet above the approved peak
elevation.
2. The two buildings previously connected only by the underground parking level have been
connected above ground by a central core which provides space for a variety of facilities and
amenities for the residents. The applicants are now proposing a single L-shaped building.
The central core includes a tower with peak height of 1084.4' or 10' above the peak of the
main roofline.
3. The originally approved building was 80 feet from the west lot line with porches 72' from that
line. The new plan has the building and porches at 74'.
4. The elevation plans have been revised significantly to incorporate different amounts and
locations for the usage of cultured stone,horizontal lap siding and other facade elements.
Gaffron stated although the plan has been modified,the same number of units are being proposed and
the shape of the building remains essentially the same except for the connection of the two buildings.
While the Lofts remain at a total of 62 owner-occupied units,the building now will have a visual front
(south) facade of 370' and an east façade of about 236'. The southeast corner will include a tower
feature extending 10 feet above the main roof system peak. The building will also have essentially flat
facades with three-level deck bump-outs,providing some visual relief.
Gaffron indicated the central core area provides space for a number of amenities not provided in the
original concept. The site circulation has not changed, with access to the garages and the exterior
parking layout remaining as originally approved. Retaining walls are still being proposed along the
north wall of the west wing and the northerly three sides of the north wing. Gaffron indicated these
walls are necessary to accommodate walkout access and an exterior perimeter sidewalk.
Gaffron stated the Lofts building was originally granted a variance to the 30' RPUD height limit,
allowing a 38' defined height. The new proposal has a majority of the overall roof peak at an
elevation of 1074.4' or about 7.6 feet higher than what was originally approval. This is due in part to
the increase in ceiling heights from 8' to 9' on all three levels of the building and the need to have a
minimum garage floor elevation of 1020' as a result of final grading/stormwater system overflow
parameters for the development. The applicants have suggested grading three feet higher against the
south facade. Gaffron stated he has concerns regarding the area between the parking lot and the
PAGE 35
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes, Continued)
building and what happens between the parking lot and the street with this grading change. The
Planning Commission should determine whether the visual appearance of the building as a result of
the added height is positively or negatively affected by the increased length of the building.
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission ensure that the building materials and windows
depicted on the plans be utilized in this plan. Gaffron stated he is very satisfied with the landscape
plan for this development,but noted the City's landscape consultant will need to review the plan.
Gaffron noted the developer would need to submit a lighting plan for this development as well as a
signage plan. Gaffron stated the developer is one parking stall short and will need to define where the
additional stall will be located.
•
Gaffron stated the impervious surface coverage in the RPUD District is limited to 50 percent. While
the Lofts site has 52.7 percent impervious area,the Stonebay project in its entirety has an impervious
area well below the 50 percent limit.
Gaffron noted this approval process is basically approval of Phase 2 of the Stonebay residential
development. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the acceptability of building
expansion and its visual impacts, the increased building height,the proposed building materials and
building design,the acceptability of the location in relation to the west lot line, and issues relating to
signage,lighting,parking and landscaping.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Johnston pointed out that in a lot of ways the loft or condominium building was basically an unknown
at the time original approval was granted. Johnston indicated they had a basic concept of what they
wanted to build at the time of original approval but have since modified the plans to include some
amenities that will help make the product more marketable. Johnston noted at the time of original
proposal assumptions were also made concerning the size of the units and other items.
Johnston stated they are addressing the Planning Commission tonight regarding a better-defined
product, with a new architect being brought in on the project who deals with residential developments.
Johnston indicated the architect made recommendations dealing with the mix of the units and the
marketability of the units. Johnston stated guest rooms, a hobby room, a business center, a family
dining room, community room, car wash, library and exercise room are some of the amenities that
have been added to help increase the marketability of the units. Johnston stated the two buildings
were connected to accommodate the proposed amenities and to address the waterproofing issues they
would encounter with a portion of the underground parking garage being located below turf.
Johnston stated in his view the proposed building is a more attractive building,but acknowledged that
it is a change in the visual appearance of the site. Johnston stated the biggest difference between the
two plans is the elimination of the gap between the two buildings,with the visual impact being most
apparent along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated the view of the proposed building from other angles
PAGE 36
MINUTES OF THE
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes, Continued)
remains basically the same, with the L-shaped building being screened somewhat by the other
buildings in the area.
Johnston stated there have been a number of discussions regarding the height of the building,with the
original concept being a height of 1016.5' and with the approved height being 1020'. Johnston stated
due to drainage issues,the height of the basement needs to be at 1020' based on recommendations
from the City Engineer. The original plan also called for front porches,which has been modified to
allow for the grade of the parking lot to essentially come up to the patio grade. Johnston indicated the
building should have a very similar height-appearance from the sidewalk level, with the peak of the
building being increased mainly due to the ceiling heights being increased and the need to raise the
building to address water issues on the lot.
Johnston noted he does not have any concerns with the recommendations of the City Engineer and that
those changes will be incorporated into the plan.
Peter Villard,Architect, addressed the Planning Commission concerning the steps he took in
redesigning this building. Villard noted he was faced with designing a building on an existing pad,
which presented a number of challenges as well as issues relating to subsurface water issues that
required the building to be raised.
Villard stated the two buildings were combined essentially to improve the marketability of the units
and to allow for more amenity choices and flexibility in price. Villard indicated the size of the units
was increased to accommodate some of the amenities that were not included in the original proposal.
Villard pointed out each unit will have their own laundry room, underground parking stalls, a storage
area, and without these types of amenities,the marketability of the unit would be greatly diminished.
In addition,a number of community amenities have been added, including a business center, family
dining room, activities and craft rooms, a library and an exercise room. Villard noted these amenities
were largely added to the central core proposed between the two buildings, and as a result of the
central core,the two buildings became one building.
Villard stated in an effort to minimize the visual impact of the building, different color textures and
siding were incorporated as well as the addition of dormers and balconies to break up the building
somewhat. Villard noted the main entry is clearly defined by the cupola,with the rest of the building
having its own identity.
Villard displayed the building materials that are being proposed for the building. Villard noted the
shingles for the building have been changed to a neutral gray color, with different styles of siding and
color shades being utilized on various elements of the building to make the building more attractive.
Villard indicated he recommended eliminating the plaza due to the maintenance issues associated with
that type of structure.
Rahn inquired whether any consideration was given to reducing the number of units in an effort to
avoid the need for one long building. Rahn noted the west end of the building was originally stepped
down one floor to reduce the massing and this plan is now increasing the mass.
PAGE 37
MINUTES OF THE
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes,Continued)
Rahn suggested addressing the seven bullet points contained in staff's report. Rahn noted Item No. 1
deal with the acceptability of the building expansion and the attachment of the central core. Rahn
stated he understands the visual impact from the different angles but that he has a concern about
increasing the size of the structure.
Jurgens noted the bulk of what is being filled in within the units is not amenities but rather just an
increase in the size of the units. Jurgens stated he would like a breakdown of the amenities being
added and the increase in the size of the units.
Johnston stated there is a letter to Gaffron dated September 21st that addresses the amenities and the
size of the units. Johnston stated some of the units were increased but there were also a number of
mid-size units that were added. Johnston pointed out the width of the hallway has also been
increased.
Jurgens reiterated he would like to see a breakdown between the amenities added and the increased
size of the units.
Villard stated in his opinion the breakdown between the two is probably 50/50.
Jurgens stated another comment he would like to make regarding this application is that the west end
of the building was originally proposed at two stories, and that he would prefer to see the west end of
the building again reduced to two stories, which would help to balance the building.
Villard stated once you start reducing things in one section of the building,the rest of the building
would also be impacted. Villard stated issues regarding egress and ingress would have to be re-
evaluated. Villard indicated the number of units was not decreased due to financial considerations.
Leslie inquired whether the increased value of the units and added amenities would allow for a
reduction in the number of units.
Johnston stated the cost to construct the units has increased with the amenities being added.
Leslie stated in his opinion if economics are the driving force for the amenities,the economics would
become more favorable with fewer units.
Villard stated the size of the units help offset the cost of the amenities that are being added and not as
many amenities could be added if the number of units is decreased. Villard stated they also do not
want to compete with the ramblers and the two-story residential structures constructed within the same
development.
Bremer commented in her view the amenities will help to sell the units,but she has a concern with the
visual impact of the proposed building. Bremer indicated she was not aware of the underground
parking being connected between the two buildings and the potential issues associated with having the
area above the underground parking being open space. Bremer noted the stepping down of the
PAGE 38
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes, Continued)
building to two stories was discussed in depth as a way to reduce the visual impact and that she would
like to see that with this proposal to avoid this building being out of character with the other structures
on the property. Bremer stated in her opinion the drainage issues can be resolved but that the massing
needs to be addressed.
Bremer inquired whether the underground parking could be separated into two garages as well as
going back with the concept of two separate buildings.
Villard stated he is unsure whether this site will allow the appropriate ingress and egress for two
separate parking garages due to the wetlands and other topographical features.
Rahn inquired whether the majority of the amenities could be included in a separate building.
Villard stated that design is typically used more in the south where there is not severe weather.
Rahn suggested an enclosed walkway linking the buildings could perhaps be included to help offset
those issues as well as the massing.
Winkey noted the size of the building was increased to accommodate the amenities as well as allow
for an increase in the size of the units.
Bremer stated the only way she would be in favor of the L-shaped building would be if the drainage
issues related to the open space above the underground garage dictated a structure in that area and if
there were no other design options available for two separate underground parking garages. Bremer
commented she would prefer the nine-foot ceilings and that the higher ceilings in her opinion would
make the units more marketable. Bremer commented she still has concerns regarding the amount of
massing and the visual impact with this building.
Kempf commented tall trees in front of the structure would also help to diminish the impact.
Rahn stated he would like to see an elevation side view showing the building in relation to Kelley
Parkway.
Villard noted there is not a lot of residential in this area and that in his view the sight lines would be
diminished by the other buildings in this area. Villard noted the original RPUD approved 62 units.
Rahn inquired what the ceiling height of the garage is.
Villard stated from floor to floor it is 11 feet and that there are codes that require a 98-inch clearance
into the door to allow for access by a van.
Kempf commented he personally prefers the building being proposed tonight based on the
consideration given to vary the facade of the building. Kempf suggested the applicant look at
PAGE 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-3062 John Terrance Homes, Continued)
dropping the roofline as it approaches the common area, which would help to soften the impact of the
building. Kempf stated he likes the drop in roofline on the left side of the proposed building and
would like to see that on the other side of the building.
Rahn commented a drop in the roofline might also accent the corner facade.
Fritzler stated he would like to see the size of the building reduced.
Johnston requested the application be tabled to allow for some modifications to the proposal.
Rahn stated he would like the building to meet the 80-foot setback.
Fritzler commented he would like to see the same building materials used on this project that have
been presented tonight and not replaced with something else.
Villard inquired whether the color could be changed somewhat if they become aware of a new
product.
Fritzler stated he would like to see the products varied as has been discussed tonight.
Bremer commented the Planning Commission would also like to see the same type of quality used on
this building as has been presented tonight.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to table Application#04-3062,John Terrance Homes,LLC,26XX
Kelley Parkway(Outlot E,Stonebay)Final Plat and PUD Site Plan Amendment,until revised
plans are submitted by the Applicant.
Gaffron inquired whether this item would be discussed at the November 3rd work session.
Rahn indicated he is not opposed to discussing this item at the upcoming work session if all the
materials have been submitted.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
12. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings September
27 and October 11,2004
Kempf stated he attended the September 27th Council meeting and noted a recap was already given at
the previous work session.
Rahn stated he attended the October 1 Council meeting, with the only zoning item being the Persian
PAGE 40
MINUTES OF THE
t ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 18,2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Report of Planning Commission Representatives,Continued)
application. Rahn indicated Persian agreed to reduce the size of the building to meet the
recommendation of 1200 square feet by the Planning Commission but that he also needs to obtain the
approval of the homeowners architectural committee.
Gaffron noted the housing moratorium was extended for another six months.
13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
14. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,2004
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to approve the minutes of the September 20,2004 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Winkey abstained.
15. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 25 AND NOVEMBER 8,2004
October 25—Kempf
November 8—Fritzler
ADJOURNMENT
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to adjourn the planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 41