Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006 Planning Commission Minutes f Y , MINUTES OF THE '�� ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL ' The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Ralph Kempf,Jim Leslie, Cynthia Bremer,Roland Jurgens,and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 6:00 P.M. 1. #06-3178 CITY OF ORONO,NONCONFORMING USES,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,6:00 P.M.—6:13 P.M. Gaffron addressed the Planning Commission regarding the draft zoning code amendment to Section 78- 71. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has periodically discussed this matter over the past two years and that the City Attorney has revised the draft ordinance to reflect the discussions had by the Planning Commissioners at its last work session and to be more in conformity with state statutes. Gaffron stated the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate nonconforming structures and uses. Gaffron noted the public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for this evening: �Gaffron indicated he has received very few requests for copies of the ordinance from the general public. . Cliair Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:03 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:03 p.m. Rahn noted this item was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting, and inquired whether Item 6 on page two should exclude the word nonstructural rather than read non-structural repairs. Rahn inquired whether nonstructural could be deleted from nonstructural repairs. Gaffron stated the language reads as follows: "Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful use is permitted,including necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alterations which do not specifically extend or intensify the nonconforming use." Gaffron recommended the City Attorney review the proposed change suggested by Rahn. Rahn stated a person is currently entitled to make structural repairs and that he is not clear what is meant by nonstructural repairs in that sentence. Rahn questioned Item 4 on page four. Rahn stated if a nonconfornung structure is relocated,there are a number of the requirements that must be met and not just this ordinance in particular. Gaffron stated Item 4 reads as follows: "No nonconforming structure shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed at the time of this ordinance adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance." Gaffron asked if language should be added that says other pertinent ordinances or other pertinent codes. PAGE 1 r. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3178 CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED) Rahn stated another option would be to include language that says to be in compliance with the Zoning Code or all city ordinances rather than just this specific ordinance. � Bremer stated under Item(b) 7 the text of the paragraph refers to dwelling but the word dwelling has been ' removed from the descriptor. Bremer inquired what the reasoning for that deletion was. Gaffron indicated the discussion related to units that might be rental spaces within a building,which may be the reason why the word dwelling was removed. Bremer inquired why the word dwelling remains towards the end of that language. Bremer stated in her opinion,based on the comments by Planner Gaffron,the word dwelling should be removed. Bremer further commented that on page three Item(c) (2)is not clear as it is currently drafted and she would like to get the opinion of Staff on whether this is a workable provision. Gaffron inquired what specific language Commissioner Bremer thought was unclear. _ Bremer stated the language relating to"whenever a lawful nonconforming shall be destroyed",that could be all or part of the structure. Gaffron stated when it is destroyed,the assumption is that the nonconforming structure is totally destroyed. Gaffron stated in the past the Planning Commission had discussed 75 percent,which was later removed based on further discussions and on the recommendation of the City Attorney?regarding that item. Bremer stated the language should have more continuity in her opinion. , Gaffron indicated he would bring that issue up with the City Attorney. Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3178, City of Orono, Nonconforming Uses,Zoning Code Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON,3165 NORTA SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 6:13 P.M.—6:57 P.M. Allen Munson,Applicant,Tim Nelson, and Bill Sjoholm,Attorney-at-law,were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a conditional use permit for importation of fill in excess of 500 cubic yards to allow for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the average setback line in question on the Munson and Wagener properties. This item was tabled at the January 17`�'Planning Commission meeting pending additional review, including a site visit by individual Planning Commission members to view the property from the Wagener property to the west. The applicant did erect a 30-foot high pole on his property to indicate the intended height of the house. PAGE 2 - MINUTES OF T� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) Gaffron noted the applicant has submitted a letter from his attorney,which is included in the materials before the Planning Commission tonight. The applicant has not submitted any new plans but has submitted a drainage map and drainage calculations,which have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider the following conditions: 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative impacts? Is there a basis to reduce the amount of filling because this is on a private driveway system:? Should the house be redesigned or relocated,either to reduce fill impacts or eliminate average setback concerns? 2. Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available to justify granting the average setback variance given the objection by the neighbor? Munson indicated the roofline at the sight line has been reduced from 30 feet to 27 feet,which was the height of the pole erected on his property. Rahn inquired if that was accomplished by reducing the height of the parapet or the ceiling height. Munson stated it was through a combination of things. Munson stated his lawyer is working on the drainage easement for the northeast side of the building and that the neighbor is in agreement with the easement. Munson stated they are willing to remain five feet from the retaining wall with the fill. Rahn inquired whether the City Engineer reviewed the plan that depicted the drainage five feet from the property line. . Gaffron stated the plan is included as Exhibit A and that it is not clear to him that there were any changes to the drainage plan along the south side of the house from what was previously submitted and that there were no changes on the north side. Gaffron stated the intent of the study is to indicate whether there is additional draining going to adjoining properties over and above what currently exists and the rate of runoff. The City Engineer has concluded that no water quality treatment is provided onsite and that some rainwater gardens or other biofiltration features are recommended to provide water quality treatment for this Tot. In addition,the City Engineer has found that the proposed site raises rates slightly into Lake Minnetonka but has not found that there were any negative impacts to adjoining properties that should be addressed. Sjoholm stated he does not believe there are any drainage issues remaining,but if there are any outstanding issues that need to be addressed,the applicant is willing to address those to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Sjoholm stated the only issue remaining is whether the variance for the average lakeshore setback should be granted. Sjoholm indicated he has not been given permission to visit the Wagener property to see how the house would impact the view. Sjoholm stated based on the photographs that are included in Mr. Gaffron's file, it is hard to imagine how this new residence could be seen from the Wagener property due to the trees. Sjoholm stated the trees appear to be two and a half times the height of a two and a half story structure. Sjoholm questioned if there is even an issue of a sight restriction, and if there were a restriction,the strict enforcement of the code would not serve the purpose of the ordinance. Sj oholm stated the applicant is attempting to enjoy a reasonable view of the lake. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANN7NG COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MiTNSON CONTINUED) Sjoholm pointed out the applicant could locate the house further back on the property and build a three- story structure,but that the applicant is attempting to maintain the structure in its present location due to the fact that the further back the residence is located,the more tunnel effect that is experienced. Sjoholm stated the elevation of the Wagener house is much higher than the location of the proposed construction. Sjoholm stated he seriously questions whether you can see the property from the Wagener residence. Nelson indicated where the pole was erected on the model. Kempf inquired whether the parapet is 27 feet high at that point. Nelson indicated it is. Sjoholm stated to deny the variance would be to deny Mr.Munson the reasonable and appropriate use of his property. Sjoholm indicated the proposed location of the residence is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and that this residence is located the furthest back from the lakeshore. Sjoholm indicated the applicant has recently purchased the property and would like to construct a residence that takes advantage of the current location. Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Peter Johnson,Attorney-at-Law, stated he began working with Mr.Wagener on this property back in June of 2005 and that they have been trying to be good neighbors. Johnson stated they do not want to see the encroachment intensified from what currently exists. Johnson stated the applicant was invited to see what he could do to reduce the encroachment and that as of last week Wednesday they had not heard from the applicant. Johnson indicated they finally received a call on Wednesday from the applicant's attorney. Johnson stated he inquired at that point whether there would be any changes to the plan to lessen the encroachment. Johnson indicated the applicant's attorney informed him that he did not lrnow whether there would be any changes. Johnson stated they would have preferred that their concerns were addressed and that they were unable to arrange a site visit. Johnson stated the average setback creates an expectation for every property owner that they can preserve some views of the lake. Johnson indicated the Wagener property currently has beautiful views of the lake and that the Wageners would like to preserve those views. Johnson noted the Wageners have resided on this property for the past 25 years and intend to reside in the dwelling as they grow old. Johnson stated their concern goes beyond their view from the living room and that he is stunned to find out that they have reduced the height down to 27 feet because he knows his clients would have been . happy to hear about that and that it should have been the subject of some discussion. Johnson stated the idea that a hardship exists on this site with this type of house is a bizarre twisting of the way the ordinance is intended to be applied. Johnson indicated the applicant could construct a spectacular house with incredible views of the lake without the variance. Johnson commented any hardship that might exist has been self-created by the previous owner. Johnson stated to request a variance now because they do not like the low-swung house or inadequate views of the lake is not appropriate since it was pre-existing and was a self-created hardship. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF TAE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) Johnson stated the house to the north is pushed as close to the lake as possible,which then pushed the sight line forward. Johnson stated the average lakeshore setback has been creeping forward over the years and that they would like that creeping forward stopped. Johnson stated they would like to see the residence restricted to one story. Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:37. Sjoholm stated his recollection of the conversation with Mr.Johnson is not consistent with what has been told by Mr.Johnson tonight. Sjoholm stated he called Mr. Johnson to discuss compromises with the plan and that he asked three times to visit the Wagener property. Sjoholm stated the Wageners did not accept that offer. Jurgens stated his struggle deals with whether there is a hardship on this lot. Jurgens stated he did visit the lot and that he is not sure what the guaranteed view of the lake should be. Jurgens inquired where the applicant plans to view the lake from the majority of the time. Nelson stated the great room/kitchen area would probably be the area that the applicants would spend the maj ority of tlieir time. Jurgens stated when he views the applicant's plan,it depicts a number of windows looking over the lake and that there would only be one small window that would have to be located behind the average lakeshore setback. Jurgens stated in his opinion that one small window should not dramatically impact the applicant's view of the lake if it is located behind the average lakeshore setback. Jurgens stated in his opinion this is a design issue and that there is not a hardship to grant a variance. Leslie inquired what the original grading and slope of that lot was and that there was some question whether it had been dug out previously. Leslie inquired whether this fill would represent a restoration or a new condition. Gaffron stated Staff has not attempted to determine whether this is a restoration. Gaffron noted the City files do not contain an old topography map of the property and that it may be difficult to determine whether it is a restoration. Leslie stated in his opinion this is a design issue and there is not a hardship to grant the variance. Leslie stated in his opinion a very fine home could be constructed without the encroachment. Kempf stated he did visit the applicant's properiy and the Wagener property and that the insignificance of the intrusion of the building into the Wagener's view of the lake and the fact that that lot is shaped with Wagener's trees on one side and the trees on the other side,there is a funnel effect to the view as you go further back on the lot. Kempf commented the Munsons have taken steps to reduce the impact to the Wagener property. Kempf stated in his opinion there is a hardship with having an adjoining property that is located 300 feet back from the lakeshore. Kempf stated the property to the north is probably the most extreme case that he has ever seen of a house impacting the views of the lake. Kempf pointed out the Wagener residence is located on top of a hill. Kempf indicated he does see a hardship and would support the variance. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) Bremer concurred with Commissioner Kemp£ Bremer stated she does not see the hardship as extreme but that the intrusion to the neighbors is very small. Bremer indicated she would vote in support of the variance. Jurgens stated he did visit the Wagener property and the Munson property and that he does agree that the pole is barely visible but that the pole is not a house. Jurgens commented a flat rooftop would be more visible than a pole from the Wagener property and that the further into the encroachment,the more visible it becomes. Rahn stated he also visited the site and that the model depicts the situation accurately. Rahn stated the plan would restore continuity to the grade and that his issue was with the height of the proposed residence. Rahn stated he does not have an issue with the height at 27 feet. Rahn stated the reasonableness of the request should be considered when determining whether a variance should be granted,particularly on L-shaped lots like these. Rahn stated in his opinion the proposal does restore the grade back to what it once was and that he would actually prefer the fill go all the way to the boulder wall,which would be the best for both properties and make for a more horizontal look. Rahn stated the hardship lies with the L-shaped lots in this area and that each lot is blocking a portion of the other lot's view. Rahn stated there is a minimal encroachment to the Wagener residence. Berg stated a house would remain while a tree can be removed and that she does not feel there is a hardship to grant the variance. Berg stated in her opinion the house could be relocated. Kempf moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3135,Allen and Deanna Munson,3135 North Shore Drive,granting of an average lakeshore variance and a conditional use permit for the importation of fdl in excess of 500 yards,not to exceed 2350 cubic yards,with the condition that additional rain gardens be added to the front yard in conjunction with the City Engineer's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 3,Berg,Jurgens,Leslie opposed. Rahn stated based on the comments made by the individual commissioners,it does not appear likely that any commissioner would change their mind regarding this application. Gaffron stated the application would go before the Council with a split vote. Leslie,Jurgens, and Berg indicated they are fine with the fill but not the variance. • Nelson illustrated on the overhead and the model how a portion of the roof outside of the average lakeshore setback could be constructed at 30 feet,which is three feet higher than what is being proposed. Nelson stated they would propose not to build the entire structure higher than 27 feet if they were granted a variance. Berg stated the issue is with the average lakeshore setback and that the Planning Commission would not have an issue with the height of the structure outside of the average lakeshore setback as long as it is in compliance with City codes. Rahn stated his assumption was that the 27-foot related to the entire structure. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) Kempf suggested that option be presented to the Council. Rahn recommended that a plan showing that area lower be prepared to present to the Council. Gaffron stated Staff would request that any additional changes that are proposed,plus the changes that have been proposed tonight,be documented on plans that could be presented to the Council. 3. #OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 6:57 P.M.—7:32 P.M. Troy Broitzman,Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant has submitted revised building and site plans after a number of discussions with Staff during the past few months. In October this application was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council. The applicant is now proposing a smaller house,relocated further forward on the lot in line with the neighboring home to the east. The applicant is also proposing to remove the existing driveway to Shoreline Drive and create a new driveway to Heritage Drive at the rear, similar to the layout of his two adjacent lakeshore neighbors. Gaffron stated the volume of fill and grading has been reduced to a net balance below 500 cubic yards,eliminating the need for a land alteration conditional use permit. In addition,the applicant has located the house to meet an average setback line defined by the immediately adjacent home to the east and the second adjacent home to the west. The basis for this is that the Coward residence at 1950 Heritage Drive is located approximately 200 feet further back from the lakeshore than the neighboring homes along Shoreline Drive,being the anomaly among lakeshore lots in the neighborhood. Gaffron stated the Cowards would prefer a location closer to the lake and recommended that an average lakeshore line be determined off the Charrier and Nelson homes. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has previously indicated approval of the lot width variance but denial of a conditional use permit for grading in excess of 500 cubic yards to create a walkout situation. Gaffron noted a number of letters from the neighbors have been received within the past day,which are in opposition to the proposal based on the design of the house,the size of the house,and other concerns. Gaffron distributed a table of previous hardcover approvals to the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated there have only been a small number of lots that have been developed along the lakeshore illustrated in this table. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has reviewed the latest drainage and grading plan submitted by the applicant. The City Engineer feels the stormwater issues have been adequately addressed but is recommending that a concrete curb rather than bituminous should be used along the southwest side of the driveway. Gaffron stated the site grading has been significantly reduced and does not have the negative impacts on the neighborhood that earlier plans created. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. The proposed driveway is 20 feet from the south lot line,leaving ample room for vegetative screening, although under the new plan the retaining walls and house are reduced to a PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN CONTINUED) magnitude where such screening may not need to be mandatory save for the average setback issue. 2. Any other issues the Planning Commission may have with this application. Gaffron stated the only issue remaining on this application is the neighbors' concerns. Broitzman had nothing to add to Staffls report. Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated he is the neighbor to the southwest. Coward indicated they have a concern with the size of the proposed residence and the location of the residence,noting that all of the trees on this lot have been cut down,which has increased their concern. Coward stated there used to be approxiinately a dozen mature pine trees between their house and the current house. Coward stated due to the trees being removed,that screening is now gone for their lifetime. Coward stated the design criteria for this house appears to make it as large as possible. Coward indicated the new plan consists of 13,000 square feet,which is still a very large residence on the property. Coward stated they would like the house to be screened and hidden as much as possible given the size of the proposed residence. Coward stated the reduction in the amount of fill proposed has brought this home closer to approval and that they would like to see an attractive house built on this lot. � Morris Nelson, 1900 Shoreline Drive, stated he also is in opposition to the proposed residence given the size of the structure,especially in light of the removal of the trees. Nelson stated he does not feel this proposed residence will enhance his property and, in fact,will make it more difficult to sell his house. Nelson indicated the proposed house is four times the size of his residence and that with the removal of the trees,there is no hope that the house will be concealed in any way. Nelson encouraged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated this neighborhood consists of homes that are 3000 to 5000 square feet and that this would lead to a property tax increase. Dayton stated he is afraid of a de-valuation to the surrounding properties given the magnitude of the structure and how out of character with the rest of the neighborhood it is. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Broitzman stated he would like to address the size of the proposed residence,which appears to be the biggest issue at hand. Broitzman pointed out the size of his house and the size of Steve Charrier's house, his proposal is for a house that is only slightly bigger. Broitzman stated the square footage of his house is more due to the living space located under the garage,which does not change the footprint of the house. Broitzman stated the studio of the house above the garage also does not change the footprint of the house. Broitzman stated if you look at the above ground square footage, it is 4,400 square foot, excluding what is above and below the garage, and that the basement consists of 2,700 square feet. Broitzman commented he personally does not feel that the house is out of line for Lake Minnetonka given the price that he paid for the land. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN CONTINUED) Broitzman stated Mr. Coward suggested at the last City Council meeting that the average lakeshore setback be deternuned from the two other houses and that the City Council deternuned that that was reasonable and that the neighbors' views would not be negatively impacted by the new average lakeshore setback. Rahn reopened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Coward stated tonight is the�rst time he was made aware of the plan to construct another 1000 square foot garage area and that facing his property will be eight garage stalls. Coward stated in his opinion this is a big project and not a small one. Leslie inquired what position Mr. Coward has regarding the average lakeshore setback and whether he would prefer to have the structure located further forward. Coward stated the answer is dependent upon the style and size of the house. Leslie inquired if the proposal were to remain as is,whether Mr. Coward would prefer the neighbors' average lalceshore setback line be used or his line. • Coward indicated he would prefer the neighbors. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Leslie commented that the role of the Planning Commission and what they are being asked to comment on is not the architect, design, or size of the house since those are not the variances being requested. Leslie stated the variances before the Planning Commission consist of the average lakeshore setback and that he would be in support of the project even in light of the comments of the neighbors regarding the size and design of the structure. Jurgens stated in his view the Planning Commission does have some ability to mitigate the impact to the neighbors and that there have been concerns raised regarding the screening of this residence. Jurgens stated he would like to see a landscape plan that depicts how the applicant is going to mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbors. Jurgens stated it appears that the grading will be going all the way to the property line,and inquired whether in the general vicinity between the driveway and the four contour lines there are any trees that exist today. Curtis stated the neighbors have indicated there are not. Broitzman stated there are not to his recollection. Jurgens recommended that a retaining wall be considered for that area rather than grading it to preserve any trees in that area that may still be remaining. Broitzman stated he has made a commitment with Planner Gaffron that as soon as the house is done he will bring in as mature trees as he can purchase to alleviate the visual impact from the adjoining properties. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN CONTINUED) Jurgens stated he would like to see that commitment in writing or a landscape plan depicting that. Kempf stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Jurgens regarding the visual impact to the neighbors, and suggested that the applicant present a landscaping plan to the Council to replace some of the trees that have been removed. Kempf concurred that that commitment needs to be on paper and incorporated as part of the entire plan that is approved. Broitzman stated the largest mature pine tree that he can purchase is approximately 15 to 20 feet tall. Broitzman inquired how many trees would be necessary. Rahn recommended a professional landscape architect be consulted regarding that. Jurgens moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3136,Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive,granting of a lot width variance and average lakeshore setback variance contingent upon the recommendation that the grading be minimized as much as possible to preserve any trees that are existing on the site and further subject to the submittal of a landscape plan depicting the mitigation of the sight line views for the neighbors prior to this application going before the Council for their review. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Rahn noted the Planning Commission has to deal with the applicable zoning ordinances. Leslie stated the economic impact to the neighbors falls outside the consideration of the Planning . Commission. 4. #05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,SUBDIVISION,7:32 P.M.—7:42 P.M. Loren Fritz,Applicant; Jarod Andrews,Loucks Associates;Mike St.Martin,Loucks Associates,were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting preliminary plat approval in order to create five lots on one block to be lrnown as Sherri Lakeview Estates. The preliminary plat includes creation of three conventional one-half acre lots and two back lots,consisting of a minimum of.75 acres each,with both back lots served by 30 foot access outlots. The property abuts North Shore Drive to the north and Shadywood Road to the east. This item was tabled on November 215�and the applicant was directed to submit revised plans incorporating the recommendations in the City Engineer's letter dated 11-9-05. The applicant was also directed to address landscaping and screening of the proposed retaining wall within Outlot B. The applicant has worked with Staff and the City Engineer to develop plans which address the previously noted issues. The City Engineer's comments dated January 17`�'were reviewed with the applicant on January 24"', and the plans dated 2-2-06 are under review by the City Engineer. Gaffron stated it appears that all past issues have been suitably addressed. Gaffron noted the Park Commission has not reviewed this plan but that Staff does not feel that they will be requesting anything other than the standard park fee. Land dedication,if required,would likely be a 10-foot easement along the Shadywood and North Shore Drive frontages. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ CONTINUED) Staff recommends granting preliminary plat approval. Andrews stated he would be happy to address any concerns that the Planning Commission may have. Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Rahn inquired whether the ivy plantings would creep up the stone. Andrews stated that is correct. Andrews stated due to the amount of trees in the area,this area is rather shaded and they chose ivy to grow up the wall. Rahn stated he likes the choice of the ivy. Jurgens inquired what the City's position is on the maintenance of the ivy screening. Gaffron stated language could be included in the resolution that the ivy has to be maintained on a permanent basis and could also be incorporated into covenants on the properties. Jurgens inquired what material the wall is made out of. St.Martin stated the material is precast concrete block and that the wall is a gravity wall,with the blocks being bigger on the bottom and smaller as they go up. Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3161,Loren Fritz, 3845 North Shore Drive,subject to the screening of the retaining wall with ivy. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 5. #06-3169 CHRISTOPHER HAROLD DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD,SUBDIVISION 7:42 P.M.—7:50 P.M. _ Christopher Diesen,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a Class III preliminary plat approval to create two lots on one block at 1100 Townline Road. The property is located on the east side of Townline Road between Watertown Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad. The current zoning for the property is RR-lA, one Family Rural Residential District,which requires five-acre minimum lot sizes. The property is guided for Rural Residential in 2000—2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of five acres. The total lot width of the subject property is 490 feet,not allowing for the required 300 feet of width for each lot. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the 300 feet required lot width as part of this application. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3169 CHRISTOPHER HAROLD DIESEN CONTINUED) Curtis stated this site does contain two wetlands and areas of challenging topography. Lot 1 consists of 6.14 acres with 5.98 acres of dry buildable,and Lot 2 consists of 7.65 acres,with 7.58 acres of dry buildable. With the exception of the request for the lot width variances,this proposal meets RR-lA standards. The applicant is proposing a side-by-side lot division due to the topography of the eastern portion of the property. Staff finds the proposed lot widths satisfactory and reasonable building envelopes have been determined and meet all required setbacks within the reduced lot widths. Feasible preliminary and alternate septic sites have been identified and approved by the City's septic inspector,with the requirement that a new mound system be installed on proposed Lot 2 where the existing farm is prior to final plat approval. Planning Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined on page five of the report. Diesen noted he did appear before the Planning Commission approximately one year ago but that he ran into some legal issues with the property owner,which has delayed this application. Diesen noted he would be constructing a new mound system on the property but requested that they be allowed to get final plat approval so they could construct the mound system for the old place and the new place at the same time. Rahn inquired whether the applicant has any other issues with the recommendations of the Planning Staff. Diesen stated he does not and that he does not have a problem with putting something in writing concerning the mound systems. Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Kempf inquired whether the Planning Commission has the ability to allow construction of both mound systems at the same time. Gaffron stated the City has allowed other property owners to construct a mound system later with the City requiring a letter to that effect from the applicant and a letter of credit or other form of escrow to be on file with the City. Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3169, Christopher Harold Diesen, 1100 Townline Road,subject to the applicant complying with Staff s recommendations regarding the two mound systems. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PAGE 12 NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #06-3172 LEMMERMAN CONSTRUCTION FOR TIMOTFIY RUSSELL AND LYNN ANN BRADY,3555 FREDERICK STREET,VARIANCE,7:50 P.M.—8:43 P.M. Tim Brady and Lynn Brady,Applicants,and Tom Lemmerman, Contractor,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance for 38.2 percent hardcover within the 75- 250' zone where 20 percent is normally allowed and 30.9 percent currently exists in order to construct a new attached garage and relocate the driveway from its current location on the undeveloped right-of-way of Carman Avenue directly to Frederick Street. Grading is also required in order to restore the side street yard to Carman. The alternate plan requires grading along the eastern property line due to the removal of the garage and restoration of the side street yard to match the grades of Carman Street. The applicants are also requesting a side yard setback variance to maintain the existing 5.5 foot setback for their second story and constructing the new garage to meet a 10-foot setback. Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance for the garage addition and street yard grading as proposed, in conjunction with the removal of the retaining wall within 75 feet of the OHWL. If the Planning Commission feels that there is a hardship with respect to the lot width and the existing side yard setback, Staff would support the second story at a reduced setback. Additionally, Staff would not support an increase in structural coverage resulting in more than 15 percent. Staff would also request that the applications address all of the city engineer's concerns. Brady stated they are agreeable to addressing the Planning Commission's concerns. Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Rahn inquired whether they are agreeable to reducing the structural coverage to 15 percent. Brady indicated they are. Rahn inquired whether there was any thought given to setting back the second story to meet the side yard setback. Lemmerman stated they did look at that option and that the issue that they faced was the concentration of loads on the foundation and that the expanded second story helps to spread those loads on the foundation. Rahn inquired whether the applicants had given any consideration to constructing a half an addition rather than a full story. Brady stated they have three young children and they have outgrown the space that they have. Mrs.Brady indicated the size of the house is approximately 1300 square feet. Rahn stated that typically the Planning Commission has not allowed encroachments in the side yard setback with a second story and that he would be receptive to adding a half-story. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3172 LEAUVVIEERMAN CONSTRUCTION/TIMOTAY RUSSELL/LYNN ANN BRADY CONTINUED) . Kempf stated he is sensitive to setback issues when it is that close,noting that the topography between this house and the neighbor rises approximately four feet and mitigates the impact of being located so close to the property line. Kempf pointed out the adjoining property owner's residence is also located closer to the lake. Kempf stated given the closeness of the current residence to the property line, a half story would make sense and recommended that consideration be given to a five-foot lrnee wall rather than an eight-foot knee wall. Kempf stated between that knee wall and the rise between the two lots,it would help alleviate the impact to the neighbor. Lemmerman inquired whether the knee wall would need to also be set in five feet. Kempf stated he would be agreeable to allowing the lrnee wall to be located in the proposed location, which would lower the peak of the roof three feet. Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the location of the knee wall. Lemmerman stated if the wall is lowered to five feet that would preclude any windows on the western side, and inquired whether a dormer would be allowed on the western side. Kempf stated his lrnee wall does have a dormer on one side and that he also made up for it by having a window on both ends. Bremer stated her biggest issue is that there are not current plans before them,but that she understands the applicant is requesting some direction from the Planning Commission before they revise their plans. Bremer inquired whether it is the applicants' preference to go forward with their original plan or with the recommendation of the Planning Staff. Brady indicated they prefer the recommendation of the Staff. Jurgens inquired whether the gravel on Carman be removed. Curtis stated it is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the gravel remain. Mrs. Brady stated they would like to remove the gravel since it tends to wash down to the lake and create a mess. Jurgens inquired what the rationale is for leaving the gravel. Curtis stated the City puts in and removes a deck twice a year and utilizes that gravel road. Jurgens stated he would prefer to see the gravel removed. Rahn noted that is an issue for the City and not the applicants. Lemmerman stated that is a request that they would like to make. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3172 LEMMERMAN CONSTRUCTION/TIMOTAY RUSSELL/LYNN ANN BRADY CONTINUED) Jurgens inquired what the definition is of a story and a half. Curtis stated a half-story means the uppermost floor of a building in width. One,intersection of the exterior wall and the roof is not more than three feet above the floor elevation; and two,not more than 60 percent of the floor area within the exterior walls of the uppermost floor exceeds five feet in height as measured from the floor to the rafters. Floors exceeding these parameters shall be deemed a full story. Gaffron stated that would mean there would be a three-foot minimum exterior wall Jurgens stated in his view in that situation there should be dormers. Jurgens stated he personally is leaning towards the half-story. Lemmerman stated if only 60 percent is used,they would be reduced to 16 or17 feet of living space and that the three feet from the outside wall causes a problem by significantly reducing the amount of living space. Rahn stated that the Planning Commission has typically gone with a peaked roof and that the Planning Commission is looking to reduce the mass of the structure. Lemmerman inquired whether that one wall on that one side could be three feet and that the wall on the other side be a different height. Jurgens encouraged the applicants to look at their options,but stated the Planning Corrunission needs to have a definite plan before them and recommended that the application be tabled to allow the applicants time to revise their plans. Lemmerman inquired if the other side of the house needs to be reduced to three feet if it is not encroaching into the setback. Lemmerman indicated they would be willing to comply with the three feet on the side that requires the variance. Lemmerman indicated they would like more than the 60 percent. Rahn stated he understands what the applicants are proposing. Jurgens stated he personally would like to see a plan depicting what the applicants are proposing. Rahn stated it is possible to construct what Mr.Lemmerman is proposing without raising the peak of the house. , Bremer stated in her view the bigger issue is the hardcover on this lot and that the applicants are over what other people have in this same area. Bremer stated this lot is somewhat unique in that the applicants are allowed to use the city right-of-way as their driveway. Bremer stated the 38.2 percent hardcover might be justified by the right-of-way. Lemmerman pointed out they have downsized the garage somewhat and that they are also willing to remove the retaining wall and accomplish the drainage through grading. Lemmerman stated that would reduce the hardcover by around 200 square feet. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3172 LEMMERMAN CONSTRUCTION/TIMOTHY RUSSELL/LYNN ANN BRADY CONTINUED) Jurgens pointed out the deck is four feet wide and wraps around the house. Jurgens stated in his view the deck could be reduced in size. Brady stated the deck allows people to access the front of their home. Rahn inquired whether they are proposing a 10-foot deck on the lakeside. Lemmerman stated they are. Rahn stated reducing the size of the garage will just make the driveway longer and that changing the location of the driveway allows the applicant to have 480 square feet of additional living space downstairs. Lemmerman stated that area is less than seven foot high,which is almost nonlivable storage. Brady stated the garage has been reduced so that the only room is for vehicles,with storage being under the tuck-under portion. Leslie pointed out that the applicants are not proposing to increase hardcover on this lot. Rahn noted the proposed garage is minimal and that there are not a lot of places on this lot where the hardcover can be reduced. Lemmerman stated the tuck-under garage would be used for storage. Bremer stated she would like the hardcover on the lot reduced to around 35 percent. Curtis stated removal of the retaining wall would reduce the hardcover to 36.6 percent but does not include the reduction in the size of the garage. Gaffron stated 80 square feet is equal to one percent. The deck consists of 300 square feet or four percent. Gaffron stated the only place he sees where hardcover can be reduced is the deck. Brady stated he also does not see any place to reduce hardcover other than the deck. Rahn inquired whether the stoop and walkway would be reduced given the change in the grade. Lemmerman stated that is going to be removed. Curtis stated that has already been included in the hardcover calculations. Kempf stated under the circumstances,if the gravel in front of the house is returned to grass,it would create a better situation for the neighbors. Kempf stated this is a unique situation and that he would be willing to let the applicant retain the existing hardcover simply because of the unique situation with the city's right-of-way. Berg noted the applicants are willing to reduce the encroachment down to three feet. . PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3172 LEMMERMAN CONSTRUCTION/TIMOTHY RUSSELL/LYNN ANN BRADY CONTINUED) Leslie stated in his opinion the 35 percent hardcover is not unattainable. Jurgens stated if the gravel could be eliminated,he would view this as a win/win situation and that there would be justification for allowing the 38 percent hardcover given the right-of-way. Rahn inquired what the width of the main body of the house is. Lemmerman stated the peak height would be 15. Rahn recommended restricting the peak height not to exceed 16 feet. Leslie commented there appears to be a lot of changes that have been discussed tonight and that perhaps it would be wise to review a plan reflecting tonight's discussion. Bremer stated she would not be opposed to allowing the application to proceed to the council without the Planning Commission seeing a revised plan. Jurgens stated there is merit for bringing this application back before the Planning Commission and that he would like to see this application tabled. Brady stated they would like to take the recommendations of the Planning Commission and incorporate them into their plan and bring it to the City Council. • Kempf stated it might not be necessary to bring the plan back before the Planning Commission since the hardcover is not going to be reduced to 35 percent. Rahn stated in his view the Planning Commission should review the revised plan. Leslie moved,Rahn seconded,to table Application#06-3172,Lemmerman Construction for Timothy Russell and Lynn Ann Brady,3555 Frederick Street,to allow the applicants time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Berg and Bremer Opposed. Rahn stated he would be receptive to a couple of four-foot dormers for light. Brady inquired whether the applicants would need to meet the 35 percent hardcover. Berg recommended the applicants be as close to the 35 percent hardcover as possible. (Recess taken from(8:35 p.m.-8:43 p.m.) PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING ' Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 7. #06-3175 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,RENEWAL LOT LINE ARRANGEMENT,8:43 P.M.—8:50 P.M. James and Judith Pierpont,Applicants,were present. Gaffron stated this application was originally approved in September 2003 but the approvals were not to take effect until the Pierponts obtained a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory structure and removal of the kitchen from the existing guesthouse at 1801 West Farm Road. The applicants are proposing to relocate the common boundary between Lots 14 and 15/16,Farm at Long Lake. The current request is for renewal of approvals originally granted in December 2003. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement and vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants provide a title opinion for the properties confirming ownership and encumbrances. 2. Applicants dedicate to dedicate to the public appropriate drainage and utility easements along the new property line. 3. Lot line rearrangement shall not take effect,and the resolution not be released for filing until the conditions eStablished in the conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory structure have been fulfilled. Staff will be making the necessary confirmative inspection on the removal of the accessory building plumbing. Gaffron stated it is his understanding that the inspector did not conduct an inspection of the plumbing: Mrs.Pierpont indicated to her knowledge there is only electricity that runs across the property but that the utility has been so busy that it has not been done. Pierpont stated the electricity is probably run along the property line. Mr.Pierpont stated they would get it done. Gaffron stated the four condition would be that the vacation approval will not become effective and the resolution not be released for filing until such time that the applicants provide written confirmation from Xcel/NSP that their interests in the existing easement have been abandoned and until such time that all conditions of the lot line rearrangement approval have been satisfied. Mr.Pierpont stated he does not have a problem with that condition. Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Jurgens inquired whether this was platted property. Gaffron stated it was and that there would be a rededication along the new lot line. Gaffron stated the Cerny letter is a result of a conversation that he had with Mr. Cerny and that the issues relating to Item No. 3 have been resolved. Berg inquired whether he has commenced construction. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3175 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT CONTINUED) Gaffron stated he has. Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3175,James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road,granting of a renewal lot line rearrangement subject to the four conditions outlined in Staff s report dated February 14,2006. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 8. #06-3176 MARK GAYLORD AND LORI ANDERSON,3251 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCES,8:50 P.M.— 9:18 P.M. Mark Gaylord and Lori Anderson,Applicants, and Julie McCloud,Architect,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting lot width and lot area variances in order to build a new single- family residence on a property consisting of 16,615 square foot in area and 60 feet in width where 21,780 square feet and 100 feet is required. A hardcover variance is requested within the 75-250' zone for 3,577 square feet or 31.8 percent is proposed and 25 percent is normally allowed. Staff finds the lot area and width are inherent to the property and that no additional land is available to increase the lot size. It would not be unreasonable to grant some level of hardcover variance to support the proposed house,which meets the lot coverage standards as it would be difficult to achieve the 25 percent. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances and some level of hardcover Gaylord indicated it was their intention to create a family-oriented home and that they feel there is a hardship inherent to the land that requires the excess hardcover. Gaylord stated the excess hardcover is a result of the driveway. Gaylorcl stated they tried to uphold the spirit and intent of the Rural Oasis Study and that the house fits within the character of the neighborhood. Gaylord stated their final design does require a hardcover variance. " Anderson indicated they have four children and that they have attempted to design a house that is comfortable but still offers enough room for their family. Rahn stated he likes the design of the house. Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. . There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Bremer inquired who compiled the graph. Gaffron stated Staff put the graph together for the Ted Capra proposal a year or two ago to document the history of what has been approved in the past and to give Staff an idea of the direction that the City is heading. Gaffron stated back in the 1980s,lots on the Casco Point area hardcover was in the 40 and 50's arid in the 1990s the City Council decided to restrict hardcover to the 25 percent and to only grant PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3176 MARK GAYLORD AND LORI ANDERSON CONTINUED) variances where the lot has been substandard. Gaffron stated in the past couple of years there have been some applications that have fallen outside of the norm and that Staff is attempting to document what has happened. Bremer inquired whether the hardcover limit approved on the Capra application was 30 percent. Gaffron indicated to his recollection it was approximately 30 percent. Bremer stated in her opinion this lot has more hardships than the Capra lot,which is located in the area. Bremer noted the City Council approved 30 percent for that lot with new construction. Bremer noted this lot is approximately 40 feet less in width than the Capra lot and that the applicants are within the amount allowed on the sh-uctural coverage. Bremer noted the garage has been streamlined and that there are only a few items that could be changed that would reduce the hardcover only slightly. Bremer stated there are also some topographical issues with this lot. Anderson indicated they are attempting to save some mature trees,which is the reason why they have not set the house back further. Anderson stated there is also a mound in the back corner which helps to act as a screen from the road,which is consistent with the City's Rural Oasis Study. Bremer stated the shape of the lot does justify the location of the residence. Jurgens stated these applications should be looked at individually and that there might be some places to trim some of the hardcover. Rahn agreed that there are areas for reduction and that the garage could be reduced a little further. Rahn noted there is also a screen porch being proposed. Rahn inquired whether it is a story and a half design. Anderson stated it is. Leslie stated one way to reduce the hardcover is to go up in height but indicated he likes this design. Bremer inquired what the depth of the lot is. Gaylorcl indicated it is 270 feet. Jurgens stated he would rather have the house appear as a story and a half than a three-story structure. Jurgens stated if the City is going to adhere to the Rural Oasis,he would like to see the trees remain and that he would like to see that as a condition. Gaylord stated their neighbor is a retired landscape architect and that he expressed his concerns about protecting the lakefront from erosion and protecting the trees. Gaylord indicated they are sensitive to those concerns. Jurgens stated one of the reasons for limiting hardcover is to reduce water runoff and that an option could be to look at adding a rain garden or other similar type of landscape feature that would help with the runoff. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 . 6:00�o'clock p.m. (#06-3176 MARK GAYLORD AND LORI ANDERSON CONTINUED) Rahn stated he feels some credit should be given for not going up in height but that there are areas where the hardcover could be reduced. Berg inquired whether Chair Rahn was considering 30 percent. Rahn stated 30 percent would be a good number and that the applicants should look at places where the hardcover could be reduced. Bremer stated in her view the same hardships exist on this lot as the Capra lot. Bremer stated a 30 percent hardcover limit would be reasonable. Jurgens indicated he would be agreeable to hardcover in the range of 30 to 31 percent. Rahn inquired whether the applicants are okay with the City Engineer's recommendations. Gaylord stated they are. Leslie indicated he would also be in support of the 30 percent hardcover. Leslie suggested basing approving on the condition that hardcover not exceed 30 percent in the 75-250' zone. Leslie moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3176, granting of lot width,lot area,and hardcover variance,with the condition that the hardcover not exceed 30 percent in the 75-250' zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS � 9. REPORT OF PLANIVING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS JANUARY 23,2006 AND FEBRUARY 13,2006 Kempf indicated he attended the February 13`�'City Council and reported that the two applications by Bohland Development were approved unanimously. Kempf stated the Hill School application is being sent back to the Planning Commission because the applicant has redesigned their plans. Kempf noted that approval was given to the Palm application with a five-foot setback and that the Sundby application was also approved. Kempf noted the City Council would be discussing a revision to the code to allow for covered entries. Kempf stated the Brooks' application was approved. 10. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Jurgens stated he has a concern that some of these new residences that have been approved have become spec homes. Leslie stated he attempts to distinguish between the reasons why a property owner wants a variance and the structure itself. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION CONTINUED) Rahn recommended a topic of discussion for a future work session could be the use of rain gardens and whether there should be a policy on this topic. Rahn noted a flow calculation was done on the Munson property but not on the Casco Hill project. Curtis stated the flow calculation was done because of the fill being brought in. Rahn stated in his mind the applications should be treated the same. 11. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 17,2006 Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to approve the minutes of the January 17,2006 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 12. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 27,2006,AND MARCH 13,2006 February 27—Jurgens March 13 -Bremer ADJOURNMENT Berg moved,Leslie seconded,to adjourn t nning Commission meeting at 9:40 p.m. �J David Rahn, Chair PAGE 22