HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2008 Planning Commission Minutes ♦ ^
�..t t �-
r.�
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members
present: Chair Ralph Kempf, Commissioners Dick Kroeger,Jaye Ann Zullo,Kim Kang, and Tess Rice.
Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron,Planning
and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. City
Council Member Lili McMillan was present. Commissioner Michelle Winer arrived at 6:03 p.m.,
Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:04 p.m., and Commissioner Loren Schoenzeit arrived at 6:27
p.m.
Chair Kempf called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19,2007
Rice moved,Zullo seconded,to approve the minutes of the November 19,2007,Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*2. 08-3341 AMEND ZOIVING AND SUBDIVISION CODES: FEES AND ESCROWS
Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Kempf moved, Schwingler seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Kempf moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend adoption of the proposed Ordinance entitled
An Ordinance Amending the Orono Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 75 Entitled
"Reimbursement of Development Costs; Escrows"and Amending Orono Municipal Code
Sections 78-42 and 82-47 Regarding Zoning and Subdivision Application Fees and Expenses and
Amending Ordinance No.40,3r`' Series,the 2008 Fee Schedule. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
3. 07-3329 DAVID BERG ON BEHALF OF WARREN AND JERNICE BERG,3369
NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VAItiANCE,6:06 P.M.—6:17 P.M.
David Berg,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lake setback, structural coverage and hardcover variances in
order to construct a second story addition over the existing home. The Planning Commission tabled this
application at their November meeting and directed the applicant to redesign the second story to meet
setbacks and provide hardcover reductions,particularly within the 0-75 foot zone.
PAGE 1
1 �
i � ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3329 David Berg,Continued)
Staff finds that the applicant's revised plans generally meet the directions of the Planning Commission.
The second story addition meets the average lakeshore setback,the side yard setbacks, and the rear yard
setback requirements. The applicant is proposing structural additions consisting of some cantilevered
areas,which increase the structural level of the home by 107.9 square feet. Staff feels that these
cantilevered areas,in conjunction with the second story,may have a negative impact on the light, air,
and open space in the neighborhood.
Curtis recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues for consideration listed in Staff's
report. Staff recommends approval of the average lake shore setback, structural coverage, and
hardcover variances per the revised plans.
Curtis illustrated the proposal on the overhead and noted that the roof has been revised slightly and is
now lower towards the lake. Staff feels that is a minor change in that area.
Berg stated they did revise their plans to address Staff's concerns and that the hardcover in the 0-75 foot
zone has been reduced.
Kempf inquired whether the shed is proposed to remain. �
Berg indicated it is.
Kempf asked if the ramp would also remain.
Berg indicated it would.
Kempf noted the applicant has addressed many of the concerns raised previously by the Planning
Commission and that he appreciates the applicant's efforts. Kempf stated the addition of the second
story increases the nonconformance of the structure and that one of his main concerns is that the
structural coverage of the home is currently 30.06 percent and the proposed structure would raise it to
34.4 percent,which is a 107 square foot increase in structural coverage. Kempf asked whether the
additional 107 square feet consists of the cantilevers.
Curtis stated it does.
Berg stated in order for them to include an elevator,it limits them on their options for what can be done
to the rear of the house and that the cantilevers are necessary for the elevators. Berg stated in his
opinion the architect has done a good job of offsetting the house.
Kempf commented that there appears to be a large open space on the second space that would
accommodate bedrooms and an elevator on that floor. Kempf pointed out this is a small lot and that,in
turn,dictates the need for a smaller house. Kempf indicated he would not be in support of increasing
the structural coverage on the lot.
Kroeger indicated he also is struggling with the request to increase the structural coverage on the lot.
Kempf inquired whether the shed is also considered structural coverage as well as hardcover.
PAGE 2
, �! '�
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(##07-3329 David Berg, Continued) •
Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated the shed was not calculated in the first calculations but it has
been included in the revised calculations.
Berg stated the cantilevers on the rear of the house were not brought up in the discussions at the last
Planning Commission meeting,which is why they did not address it. Berg indicated he would be
willing to remove the shed if necessary.
Winer noted she did comment on the shed at the previous meeting and that she does feel the shed should
be removed. Winer noted the elevator is required to meet a certain height requirement,which does
make its inclusion in the plans more complex than what appears from the plans,but that she would
recommend removal of the shed
Rice stated she does not like to see the structural coverage on the lot increased but that a compromise
might be to remove the shed.
Zullo commented it appears that the Planning Commission would like to see the shed removed.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application. ,
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
Winer moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application 07-3329,David Berg,
3669 North Shore Drive,granting of average lakeshore setback,structural coverage, and
hardcover variances per the revised plans,subject to the removal of the shed. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 1,Kempf Opposed.
Kempf indicated he is not in favor of the increased structural coverage even with the removal of the
shed.
NEW BUSINESS
4. 07-3335 DOUGLAS W.AND MARGARET S. FRANCHOT,2010 COLIN DRIVE,
VARIANCE,6:17 P.M.—6:46 P.M.
Douglas Franchot,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a variance to allow construction of an in-ground swimming
pool with a 40' x 14' pool building to be located closer to Colin Drive than the principal structure. The
existing home is located approximately 130 feet from Colin Drive. The required front yard setback is
50 feet. The applicants have requested a variance to allow construction of the poo185 feet from Colin
Drive and the pool building 59 feet from Colin Drive. Both locations meet the front yard setback but
would be located ahead of the principal structure.
PAGE 3
' 'f , �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot, Continued)
Staff feels there are alternative locations to consfruct the pool and pool building that would meet the
setbacks as shown in Exhibit D3. In addition,the applicants have current and future septic needs to
consider. Staff would argue that the applicants have reasonable use of the property and that providing
for sewage treatment must be considered above a pool amenity. If there is not an appropriate location
for a pool and septic treatment areas,the septic treatment areas must prevail.
Considering the limited schedule for Planning Commission review, Staff felt it was reasonable to bring
the variance request to the Planning Commission prior to receiving information regarding an alternate
septic treatment site provided that the application does not move forward for final approval to the City
Council until a secondary site is identified unless the recommendation from the Planning Commission is
for denial.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the five issues for consideration listed in the staff
report. Staff recommends denial of the setback variance for the pool and pool building as requested as
alternate locations are available. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposed location is
appropriate, a review of this application by the City Council should be delayed until an adequate
secondary septic site is identified.
Franchot stated their application lists the reasons why they feel the variance is justified. Franchot
indicated that during their application,they have found the septic system is noncompliant and that they
are agreeable to fixing their septic system as part of this process. The intent of the regulation to keep
accessory structures behind a principal structure is to maintain a streetscape,which does not apply to
their street since it is curvy. If the pool were located near the rear lot line, it would be more intrusive to
the neighbors.
Kempf asked whether the proposed septic site would allow the applicant to construct an in ground
swimming pool between the proposed septic site and the home.
Curtis stated it is possible depending on the location of the tanks. Currently the tanks are located near
the front of the home. Curtis pointed out the location of the existing septic site on the overhead.
Franchot indicated the tanks are to the right of the driveway.
Curtis stated the tanks may need to be relocated.
Franchot stated they are in the process of determining their options and that one contractor did indicate
the tanks could remain in their present location,but that they are looking at a possible compliant
location for the septic south of the driveway. At the present time they are unsure whether that site
would prove to be acceptable.
Kroeger noted an alternate septic site also needs to be established.
Zullo stated she would like to see a final decision on the location of the septic system prior to maldng a
decision on this application.
PAGE 4
� 1/ , �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued)
Kempf indicated he is in agreement with the comments of Commissioner Zullo and that he was
somewhat surprised this application came before the Planning Commission without that item being
addressed.
Franchot stated they originally thought their septic system was compliant,which later proved to be
inconect. Franchot stated he is unsure whether the required testing can be completed during the cold
weather but that they are willing to complete the septic testing prior to their application proceeding
forward to the City Council.
Kroeger stated he understands that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve or deny the
variance to allow the pool and building to be located closer to the road than the principal structure based
on the assumption that the septic issues will be resolved. Kroeger stated if that is the case, and given
that the road is a private roadway,he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbor with having a pool
located more towards the rear of the lot. Kroeger noted the rear location would also require the removal
of some trees.
Zullo commented having the pool located on the west side of the house would allow for more sunlight
but that she would also like to see the pool screened and fenced.
Franchot indicated they are planning on landscaping around the pool and building and that they would
be willing to consider erecting a fence even though it is not required.
Zullo stated she would prefer to see the pool landscaped,fenced and gated if it is located in the front.
Kempf commented in his view the proposed pool building helps to screen the pool but that the rear of
the pool building would face the street,which in his view is not an appropriate use of a building. Kempf
stated the structure should have as little of an impact as possible on the neighborhood and that the
proposed location of the pool and the building in his opinion does have a great impact on the
neighborhood.
Franchot stated the location of the pool building does help to screen the pool,which in his view is a
benefit to the neighborhood. Franchot commented they actually would prefer the location of the pool to
be in a somewhat shady area and that they intend to screen the entire back area with landscaping.
Zullo recommended the pool building incorporate some more aesthetically pleasing features on the side
that faces the street.
Franchot indicated they are willing to look at that as well.
Kempf stated the issue is the fact that the building is located considerably in front of the principal
structure and that the building should be located on the other side. Kempf noted a variance is required
for the pool regardless of its location and that he would like to see some screening required.
Franchot stated locating the building on the other side of the property may cause it to be raised up.
Kroeger noted there is a six-foot elevation difference from the south to the north.
PAGE 5
� '; ' ,
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot, Continued)
Kempf stated the water in the pool and the deck surrounding the pool are at exactly the same elevation
from one end to the other,with the entrance to the building being at that same elevation.
Curtis asked whether the building would be cut into the hill.
Franchot indicated it would be.
Rice stated she does not see a hardship for the variance. Rice indicated in her view the pool could be
located elsewhere.
Franchot asked whether Commissioner Rice visited the site.
Rice indicated she did drive by the property but did not go onto the property. Rice stated the applicant
has reasonable use of his property currently and that a hardship has not been demonstrated to locate the
pool in front of the principal structure.
Zullo noted the lot does consist of two acres and that property owners should have a right to construct a
pool for their recreation in light of the fact that lots along the lake are able to enjoy the water.
Winer indicated she does agree with the recommendations of Staff and that the applicants do have
reasonable use of the property without the pool. Winer concurred there should be screening of the pool
and building. Winer stated the Planning Commission would like to see verification of the septic sites
prior to the application proceeding forward to the Council. In addition to the issues identified by Staff,
another issue would be a fence with a locked gate.
Curtis requested the Planning Commission address Item No. 3listed in Staff's report in more depth.
Curtis stated the City's zoning code requiring the structure to be located behind the principal structure is
designed to protect the neighbors. Curtis stated the 15-foot setbacks are determined by code and are
dictated by the size of the pool.
Franchot stated the location proposed by Staff would require the removal of some mature irees and
would be crammed in there. Franchot noted Staff's location is also not desirable because it directly
abuts the house and they would have to look at the pool for six months out of the year when it is not in
use.
Schwingler stated he did speak with some of the applicanYs neighbors and that they did not raise a
concern with the proposed location. Schwingler indicated he is okay with the proposed location of the
pool.
Kroeger stated typically pools are not located on the north side of a house.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
PAGE 6
� '� ' ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m. �
(#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued)
Kempf indicated he is willing to make a motion to table the application until the primary and alternative
septic sites are identified and tested. Kempf recommended the pool be pulled back away from the street
as far as possible and to not use the building as screening for the pool. Kempf stated in his opinion there
is a reason why outbuildings are not located in front of a principal structure and that the applicant will
need to look at significant screening to minimize the impact of the pool and building on the
neighborhood if it is kept in its proposed location.
Franchot stated he is amenable to Chair Kempf's motion with the exception of relocating the pool and
asked what their options are if they do not move the pool.
Kempf stated the whole purpose of the City's ordinance is to prohibit buildings from being located
ahead of the principal residence, and that even if this application is recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission,the applicant can still proceed forward to the City Council.
Franchot stated he does understand Chair Kempf's comments regarding the location and that they would
be willing to have their application tabled at the present time.
Kroeger stated in consideration of the fact that Colin Drive is a private roadway,the proposed location
is the absolute farthest location from any neighbor's house, and that the variance is to the road and not
to setbacks,he would not be opposed to granting the variance. Kroeger stated the issue then becomes
one of aesthetics from the street and whether that is more desirable than having the pool located closer
to one of the neighbor's homes.
Schwingler indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Kroeger, and recommended that some
landscaping be incorporated into the applicant's plan prior to the application being brought back before
the Planning Commission.
Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to table Application#07-3335,Douglas and Margaret Franchot,
2010 Colin Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. 08-3338 THOMAS AND KATHERINE ZIEGLER,2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE,6:46 P.M.—7:35 P.M.
Thomas Ziegler,Applicant,was present.
Turner stated the applicants are requesting a setback variance to construct an attached garage with a
11.2 foot setback from the right-of-way of Crystal Bay Road when a 15-foot setback is required, and a
setback variance to add an open porch with a 5-foot setback from the right-of-way of Crystal Bay Road
when a 15-foot setback is required. Also being requested are a lakeshore setback variance to create an
open porch over a portion of the enclosed porch and a hardcover variance to allow the steps on the lake
side of the house to be relocated to the Crystal Bay Road side of the enclosed porch.
The property currently consists of a house that was constructed in the 1930s,with some sheds and
outhouse also being located on the property. The existing house is nonconforming in regard to the
setbacks from the side property lines,the lake setback and the basement floor elevation. The applicants
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, Continued)
intend to remove the existing house and reconstruct an almost duplicate house under a City code
provision that allows replacement of a nonconforming structure without complying with zoning
ordinances other than floodplain regulations. The floodplain regulations require elimination of the
basement. Two open porches are proposed to be added to the house. The first floor of the replacement
house will be about two feet lower than that of the existing house to allow more ceiling height. The
grade adjacent to the existing structure would be raised about a foot to provide positive drainage. The
existing detached garage would be replaced with an attached garage with living space above it. The
sheds and outhouse on the property would also be removed.
Turner illustrated the proposed elevation of the new house and the existing elevations of the existing
house. There currently is a back porch that is an extension of the side wall of the house,which is also
nonconforming. The porch would be removed in conjunction with this project.
Issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include the following:
1. Would vehicles parked in the driveway interfere with Crystal Bay Road. The required street
side setback is 15 feet. On a standard street,there would be nine feet between the edge of the roadway
and the property line, creating a 24-foot parking space between the garage and the road. The right-of-
way of Crystal Bay Road at this location is 66 feet wide, 16 feet wider than standard. If Crystal Bay
Road were ever reconstructed to roadway standards,there would be 28 feet between the garage and the
road. Under the current configuration there would be 35 feet.
2. Portions of the proposal that are not part of this application deal with the width of the driveway
approach. The City's code limits the width of a driveway approach to 20 feet at the property line. This
provision is not part of the zoning code and is not a part of this application.The Public Works
Department indicates that the proposed 32-foot wide approach is not acceptable. If the request is not
granted to create a functional driveway,the garage doors would need to be shifted so the outer edges of
the two doors are no more than 20 feet apart if the two doors are combined into one. The proposed
evergreen trees within the right-of-way are also governed by regulations that are not part of the zoning
code.
3. Grading of the lot. It appears that the middle section of this property and the adjacent property
partially drain toward Crystal Bay Road. Unless the applicants can gain permission from the adjacent
property owner to create a swale to direct this runoff towards the lake, drainage will need to be directed
around the garage toward Crystal Bay Road.
Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the setback variance for the attached garage subject to the following:
A. No additional hardcover in the 75 to 250 foot zone.
B. Unless the wider driveway approach is approved by Council,the outer edges of the garage doors
being no more than 20 feet apart.
2. Denial of the lakeshore setback variance for the second floor open porch but approval f a deck.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, Continued)
3. Approval of the setback variance for the open entry porch, subject to the porch being partially
recessed into the structure and"wood"columns being submitted for the brick or stone columns.
4. Approval of the hardcover variance to allow the steps and grade-level deck within the 0-75 foot
setback.
5. A revised grading plan and corrected hardcover calculations would be required before City Council
consideration.
Ziegler stated in regards to the driveway,he was unaware of the requirement for a 20-foot driveway
approach. Ziegler asked whether he would be able to go to 26 feet on the doors and then 20 feet at the
road. Ziegler indicated he drives a truck and that with the doors open on the vehicle,it is almost 13 feet
in width.
Zullo commented she has a concern with vehicles having to back up onto Crystal Bay Road and that a
turnaround area should possibly be required.
Curtis stated this road does not require a turnaround. City Code requires turnarounds on county roads
and roads that experience higher levels of traffic.
Kempf noted this road experiences primarily local traffic and that the vehicles are not able to go that fast
due to the configuration of the roadway. Kempf stated it is also possible to see a vehicle backing out of
the driveway from the street.
Ziegler noted the hardcover numbers would also be reduced slightly with that change. In the 0-75 foot
zone,the roof over the second story deck is approximately one-third the size of the deck below it and
that the main reason for the roof over the deck is for drainage. The roofline has been changed to a hip
roof rather than a gable to help soften the appearance and the footprint of the house remains the same.
Kempf commented that a pitched roof is more desirable in Minnesota,that it does not impede ay
lakeside views and would not really impact the massing of the structure from the lakeside.
Ziegler noted Staff recommends approval of the deck. Ziegler stated as it relates to the entry porch,
what seems to be a gable is actually the wall of the house. Ziegler asked why Staff is recommending
that the entry be recessed.
Turner stated it was Staff's recommendation to recess the entry porch slightly to help lessen the
variance. Turner indicated the recessed porch would not impact the functionality of the foyer.
Ziegler indicated he does not have a problem with downsizing the columns to wood and reducing it to
four feet,but that if the entry porch goes back into the house,he would need to construct a sidewalk to
the road side of it,which would add to the hardcover. Ziegler indicated he would prefer to not have a
sidewalk and have access from the driveway and plantings on the road side.
Zullo noted there is insuf�cient room on one side of the house to create a swale.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, Continued)
Ziegler stated according to the surveyor,they should be able to direct the drainage toward the road.
Turner stated due to the limited area between the house and the property line,it is difficult to drain
along that side of the house and would require the drainage to go around the house on the other side
rather than on both sides.
Ziegler stated he would be installing gutters on the entire house. Ziegler stated they are dropping the
elevation of the house slightly and that in his view he could accomplish the appropriate drainage with
drain tile and grading.
Zullo stated she would like to see a comprehensive drainage and grading plan for this property prior to
any work being done and that she has a concern with causing additional runoff problems for the
neighbor. Zullo stated she would like to see a drainage plan prior to this application proceeding forward
to the City Council.
Turner stated Staffls policy is to send the initial plans off to the City Engineer for his review and the
applicants are informed not to make further revisions until after the Planning Commission meeting.
Turner stated if the original plan was very inadequate,then it would be taken off the Planning
Commission agenda.
Curtis stated Staff attempts not to hold up an application simply for grading revisions, and that if Staff is
confident that all the other issues are addressed by the applicant,the application is put on the agenda.
Curtis noted the grading and drainage issues must be resolved prior to the application proceeding
forward to the City Council. If there are significant engineering changes, Staff would bring the
application back before the Planning Commission.
Zullo stated she is not comfortable making a recommendation on this application given the issues with
the drainage on the west side of the property.
Curtis stated Staff would not put the application on the City Council agenda until those items are
addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and that if major revisions are required,the
application would come back before the Planning Commission. Curtis noted the applicant is required to
make the necessary revisions on their plans prior to it going to the City Council.
Zullo commented if the drainage cannot be addressed adequately on the west side of the property,the
house should not be extended into that area.
Kempf stated in his view the Planning Commission can rely on the recommendations of the City
Engineer and that Staff has indicated the application will not proceed forward to the City Council until
those items are addressed.
Zullo recommended that the Planning Commission see those revisions prior to the application
proceeding forward.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission can make that recommendation,but that it is not appropriate to
bring an application back before the Planning Commission on an engineering issue.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
' 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#OS-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler,Continued)
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Kempf noted the existing structural coverage is over 15 percent,with the proposed structural coverage
under the new plan being reduced to less than 15 percent at 14.98. In addition,the hardcover in the 0-75
foot zone and the 75-250 foot zone has been reduced. Kempf asked whether the height of the structure
remains the same.
Turner stated it does.
Kempf stated in his view the deck on the second story does not have a negative impact. Kempf asked
whether a resident can utilize a private right-of-way for a parking space and plantings and what impact
that would have on the City's right to utilize that section of the property.
Turner stated with a 15-foot setback, a portion of the vehicle will be located in the right-of-way, and
there is a question whether the minimum setback should be increased to eliminate that.
Kempf stated another option would be to locate the garage door on the end of the garage but that it
would result in an increase in the hardcover.
Ziegler pointed out there is also a utility easement in that area.
Turner stated Public Works has indicated the sewer is shallow and perhaps it would be best if the
driveway were not located over it. The proposed trees to be planted would also be reviewed to ensure
that they are acceptable,but that they would help to buffer the front of the house and block headlights.
Turner stated the right-of-way is City property.
Ziegler stated they would like the trees to serve as a buffer for the deck area and the front of the house
and that they are completely aware that the City has the right to remove the trees if they feel it is
necessary.
Kempf commented in his view the trees help to improve the property and that he does not have an issue
with the application. Kempf stated the porch on the second floor would need to remain an open porch.
Ziegler stated neither porch would have any windows or screening.
Schoenzeit asked whether the foundation would be replaced and why the house cannot be pushed
further back.
Ziegler stated the foundation would be replaced and the basement would be eliminated. Ziegler
indicated he is unable to relocate the house further back due to a utility easement and that they are only
� allowed under state statute to reconstruct in the same location as the existing house. Ziegler commented
his original intent was to just remodel the structure but Staff had suggested that they consider replacing
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, Continued)
the structure. Ziegler stated the exterior of the structure would remain basically the same but that the
interior layout of the residence would be changed.
Kroeger stated in his opinion the new house is an improvement.
Winer moved to recommend approval of Application#08-3338,Thomas and Katherine Ziegler,
2264 Shadywood Road,subject to,one, no additional hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone; two,the
outer edges of the garage doors being no more than 20 feet apart,unless Council approves a wider
driveway; three, approving the lakeshore setback variance for the second floor open porch subject
to the roofline remaining the same; four, approval of the setback for the open entry porch,subject
to the porch being reduced to four feet and wood columns being substituted for the brick or stone
columns,with the applicant being allowed two to three feet of stone or brick; five,approval of the
hardcover variance to allow the steps and grade-level deck within the 0-75 foot setback.
Zullo requested the motion include a requirement that a complete drainage plan be submitted prior to the
application moving forward to the city council,with special attention being paid to ensure that the water
issues on the west side of the property are adequately addressed.
Curtis stated Staff would verify that the drainage complies with all the recommendations of the City
Engineer prior to the application moving forward to the City Council.
Schwingler asked whether the motion included approval of the lakeshore setback variance for the open
porch and the roofline.
Winer indicated it did.
Ziegler asked if it is acceptable to do a couple foot stone base.
Winer stated the majority of the column needs to be constructed out of wood but that a two or three foot
stone or brick base would be allowed.
Schwingler seconded. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
6. 08-3340 MARK AND JENNIFER PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
VARIANCE,7:35 P.M.—8:10 P.M.
Mark and Jennifer Prueter,Applicants,were present.
Turner stated the applicants are requesting average lakeshore setback and structural coverage variances
to construct an entry addition as well as revisions to the average lakeshore setback variance for the
lakeside deck to add a pergola or trellis over the front deck and a side setback variance to add a fireplace
and cabinetry to the east wall of the house. Turner noted the entryway does increase the structural lot
coverage,with the property currently being over the 15 percent limit.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3340 Mark and Jennifer Prueter,Continued)
The 1993 variance dealt with a lot of the same issues relating to hardcover and structural coverage.
With regard to structural coverage, a specific variance was not granted in 1993,but that by building
what was approved, effectively they were granted a structural coverage to go to 16.05 percent. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission not consider that the overage in structural coverage was
not created by the applicants.
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the average lakeshore setback and structural
coverage variances for the entry. The Commission should deternune the appropriate size and height of
the entry. In addition, Staff recommends approval of the addition of the box bay to the house but not the
setback variance, and denial of the revision of the average lakeshore setback to allow the addition of the
trellis or pergola.
Prueter stated their current entryway is rather tight and that the new addition will allow easier access
into the residence. Prueter indicated the box bay for the fireplace and adjoining cabinetry could slide
down further north six inches to a foot to accommodate the side setback.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Kroeger noted he did speak with the applicant regarding the pergola being brought flush with the deck.
Prueter stated they are open to incorporating the trellis into the existing structure. Prueter stated based
on the comments of Commissioner Kroeger,he did sketch what the pergola would look like and that he
is willing to bring the pergola further into the deck. Prueter indicated they love the design that has been
done by the designer and that the trellis helps to balance out the structure. Prueter stated he also has
some photographs taken from the neighbors' properties to help give the Planning Commission a sense
of the impact the pergola would have.
Kempf commented in his view the pergola is another intrusion into the neighbors' views.
Zullo stated the narrow width of the lot is also a factor.
Prueter distributed photographs to the Planning Commission of the view of the neighbor to the west,
which would be the properly most impacted by the pergola. Prueter noted the height of the trellis would
be out of the neighbor's view of the lake. The neighbors to the east would not have a large view of the
pergola and do not have any windows that face the pergola square on.
Schwingler stated in regards to the pergola,the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the
City Council and that the Council could approve the pergola even if the Planning Commission
recommends denial.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3340 Mark and Jennifer Prueter, Continued)
Prueter stated they have demonstrated hardships on the variances that have been granted in the past and
that the value of the extra shade is tremendous in light of the fact that his wife is currently suffering
from slcin cancer and needs to avoid exposure to the sun.
Zullo commented she does not see an open trellis as providing much shade.
Prueter distributed some sketches depicting the trellis and the path of the sun. Given the angle of the
sun,the trellis will help block the sun.
Kroeger asked what the width of the vertical boards are on the trellis.
Prueter indicated to his understanding they are 2 x 6.
Kempf commented in his view the applicants have done a good job in improving the appearance of the
property. Kempf asked whether the fireplace would be an issue if it were moved further north on the
wall.
Turner stated the fireplace was not included in the 1993 plan and that the Planning Commission would
need to approve it.
Kempf stated the issue relates to the proposed structural coverage of 16.94 percent, and that one of the
options would be to remove a portion of the structure,which appears to be very dif�cult in this case.
Winer stated it appears the applicant's number one priority is the entry and their number two priority is
the fireplace. Winer asked if the fireplace is already included in the hardcover.
Turner stated it is included in the hardcover but would not be considered structural coverage.
Schoenzeit asked if the footings on the deck are being replaced.
Prueter stated to his understanding the footings are not being replaced and would accommodate what is
being proposed.
Schoenzeit noted the drawing says replace posts.
Prueter stated that is a mistake and the posts will not be removed.
Schoenzeit stated in his opinion they would have to be replaced given the fact that the trellis is being
added,which would impact the setback.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission could require the use of the existing footings if they so desire.
Prueter stated the intent is to leave the current footings.
Schwingler stated the size and height of the entry should be discussed.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3340 Mark and Jennifer Prueter, Continued)
Kempf stated the size of the entry would affect the siructural coverage and that as proposed it is two
stories.
Turner stated the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is eight feet.
Prueter asked if the existing deck gives the premise for the existing setback.
Kempf stated in his opinion any intrusion into the average lakeshore setback does not entitle a property
owner to intrude further into the average lakeshore setback and that each intrusion into the setback
would need to be discussed on its own merits. Kempf noted there is some hardship with this lot but that
the existing structural coverage is already over the limit.
Kroeger stated in his opinion the current entryway is too tight and does constitute a hardship,which
should be alleviated in some fashion.
Schoenzeit stated the proposed entryway does look nice and the pergola also enhances the residence.
Schoenzeit stated if the existing deck is going to be removed and a new deck constructed,then he would
like to know that. Schoenzeit indicated he would be in favor of the deck and pergola as depicted on the
drawing. If an awning is added to the deck,that also would be fine,but if the deck is removed and there
are new footings constructed,he would not be in favor of that.
Curtis asked whether Commissioner Schoenzeit is worried about the deck or the footings.
Schoenzeit stated the deck is fine but that it appears an additional footing is being added on the side.
Prueter indicated that is a railing post that is depicted and not a footing.
Curtis noted the applicants do have the right to replace the existing deck. Curtis asked whether the
Planning Commission is okay with the size of the deck if the footings have to be replaced.
Schoenzeit stated in general he is in favor of utilizing the existing footings.
Curtis stated the applicants are not allowed to construct a deck that is larger than what currently exists.
Kempf stated the issue in his mind is the two-story, 60 square foot addition that increases the structural
coverage and intrudes into the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis noted there is also a pergola being proposed above the deck.
Kempf stated one option would be pulling the expanded entry into the house and out of the average
lakeshore setback.
Zullo stated there may be other options that could be considered but that the architectural appearance of
the structure should also be considered.
Prueter stated they are limited by an exterior block wall and an existing bathroom wall,which prohibits
widening of the entryway. Relocating the stairway backwards would also take up a considerable
PAGE 15
� � ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3340 Mark and Jennifer Prueter, Continued)
amount of living space in an already small house. Prueter stated in his opinion modifications on the
interior are not practical and would not accomplish their objective of improving their access. The 63
square feet as built and finished will not be extremely large but will add some much needed space to
allow easier access into the house.
Kempf asked why the entryway needs to be two stories.
Prueter indicated the two-story entry allows some openness and roominess to that portion of the house.
The initial thought process was whether the structure should be brought out 12 feet,which was decided
would be too intrusive and was subsequently scaled back. Prueter stated in his opinion the view of the
neighbors is preserved by what they are proposing. Prueter noted they do have a small lot and that they
are attempting to limit the amount of structure on the lot.
Kroeger stated building the entryway as proposed would not relocate the average lakeshore setback line.
Zullo moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#08-3340,Mark and
Jennifer Prueter,3215 Crystal Bay Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and
structural coverage variance for the entryway as per the plan,to recommend approval of the
revision of the average lakeshore setback to allow the addition of a trellis on the deck, and to
recommend approval of the addition of a box bay to the house but not changing the setback
variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Kempf opposed.
Kempf stated due to the number of issues with this proposal,he does not feel this application should
proceed forward to the City Council unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
7. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 26,2007; DECEMBER 10,2007; AND JANUARY 14,
2008
Curtis stated at the November 26u'meeting,the Council reviewed and approved the Ryan Company
application, approved the Hessburg application for after-the-fact variances, and approved the application
on Willow. The Dunkley application was approved for reconstruction of the sea wall and the Council
tabled Stone Bay Outlot A.
Kroeger noted there was a rather lengthy discussion regarding the payment of certain fees up front on
the Stone Bay application.
Curtis noted the Stone Bay application was subsequently approved in December and that Central Bank
is seeking a buyer for the second lot at the present time and that he cannot close on the property until a
buyer is found.
Curtis stated at the December 10`�'meeting the Structures Unlimited application was approved along
with the subdivision on Wear Lane. The Stonegate application was tabled at the December meeting due
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Report of Planning Commission,Continued)
to issues with the county requesting some additional right-of-way along Sixth Avenue and Homestead
Trail.
Kempf reported on the January 14"'meeting,noting that the City's five year plan for street
replacemenbimprovements was approved. Kempf asked whether the City's web site contains
information on when each street would be improved.
City Council Member McMillan indicated there is a spread sheet available detailing the anticipated
costs of the construction but to her knowledge there is not a time table on the web site of when each
road would be worked on. McMillan noted the subbases for Casco Point Road and Orono Orchard
Road would need to be totally redone,which accounts for a substantial portion of the expenses.
Kempf noted the Maxfield application,the Riley application, and MacNaughton applications were on
the consent agenda for the January 14°i meeting. Kempf noted the Stonegate development was
approved at the January 14`�'meeting,with the City Attorney determining that the City does not need to
provide for the additional right-of-way if the Council does not feel that the development will generate
higher traffic levels that would require the widening of the roadway. It was the feeling of the City
Council that the additional six houses would not require the widening of the roadway at some point in
the future.
8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Kroeger commented that the amount of environmental work that has been completed along Leaf Street
has really enhanced the area. .
Kempf stated on the City Council agenda it explains what the Consent Agenda is and that the public has
to speak up at that time on the applications. Kempf requested that same language be placed on the
Planning Commission agenda.
The Planning Commission discussed the need to give clearer direction to the applicants on all issues
raised by Staff.
McMillan stated it is important that septic sites are identified and that it is appropriate for the Planning
Commission to stress the need for septic sites to be compliant and the need to protect both the primary
and the alternate septic sites. McMillan commented there are some applicants who are not that familiar
with septic systems and that the Planning Commission should stress those types of issues.
Kempf commented that perhaps that application should not have been brought before the Planning
Commission.
Curtis stated that each application has to be heard within a certain time period and that Staff likes to get
the input of the Planning Commission on the applications. Curtis noted if an applicant does not have an
acceptable septic site,they will not be issued a building pernut. The Planning Commission also has the
option in their motion to require that certain items are completed to the satisfaction of Staff or have Staff
bring the application back before the Planning Commission.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 22,2008
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Other Issues for Discussion, Continued)
Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission prefers an alternate date and time for work sessions.
Curtis indicated the City Council would like to schedule a joint work session with the Planning
Commission.
Curtis noted Staff does pay particular attention to the grading and drainage issues on every application
and that the application will not be forwarded to the City Council until those issues have been resolved
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Unless there are major changes to the plans, it is not necessary
to bring the application back to the Planning Commission.
Curtis stated Staff would also like to discuss zoning code amendments at work sessions and hopefully
include those on the Consent Agenda unless there is public opposition to them.
Curtis introduced Christine Mattson,the City's new planning assistant,to the Planning Commissioners.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the work sessions scheduled as is.
9. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON JANUARY 28,2008,AND FEBRUARY 11,2008
January 28—Dick Kroeger
February 11 —Tess Rice
ADJOURNMENT
Kroeger moved, Schwingler seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,
Nays 0. "
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
� /
al Kempf, r
PAGE 18