HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2009 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Kim Kang, Commissioners Denise Leskinen,Loren Schoenzeit,Tess Rice, and Alternate David
Rahn. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike
Gaffron,Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie
Young. Council Member Cynthia Bremer was present.
Chair Kang called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 2 was added to the Consent Agenda.
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to add Item No.2 to the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing for Application No. OS-3164 at 6:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding Application No. OS-3164.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m.
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
Kang moved,Rahn seconded,to remove Item No. 2 from the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19,
2009
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
October 19,2009. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
- 2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE,6:37 P.M.—6:59
P.M.
Gaffron noted Draft#5 of the Conservation Design Ordinance was reviewed at the Planning Commission
work session on November 4�'. The following revisions were incorporated into the document:
1. The definition of"Negative Views"under"View Analysis"has been revised to qualify negative
views of residential structures as multi-family residential structures.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, CONTINUED)
2. On Page 3 of the ordinance,the term Ecological Quality Levels has been changed to Ecological
Management Categories,to distinguish it from the"MLCCS M-34X Natural Community Quality
Modifiers." The basis for this change is that the M-34X Modifiers are intended to categorize natural
communities as(A)highest quality—no disturbance and natural processes intact: (B) Good quality—
natural processes intact,but show signs of past human impacts; (C)Moderate condition—obvious past
disturbance but still clearly recognizable as a natural community; and(D)Poor condition—includes some
natives,but is dominated by non-natives and is widely disturbed and altered. The ordinance,on the other
hand, categorizes communities into 3 "management"levels: (1)Ecological"off limits"areas such as
wetlands,buffers,required drainage,etc.; (2)Ecological "opportunities,"including existing degraded
drainage ways and existing degraded ecosystem remnants; and(3)Ecological"possibilities,"i.e., areas so
degraded as to not be worth of preservation, and therefore suitable for converting to uses such as storm
water ireatment.
The problem with attempting to correlate these two systems of categorization is that,for instance,we may
look at a(D)Poor condition wetland that could be restored,so it would be categorized for management
purposes as a level(1)"off-limits"or as a level(2)ecological "opportunity." Trying to put the two
concepts together would be like comparing apples and oranges. Also,to distinguish between the two
systems,the Management Categories have been changed to 1-2-3 rather than A-B-C.
3. A definition of"significant tree stand"has been added to provide clarity as to what that term
might mean. The definition proposed contains some numerical parameters that should make it easier to
discern what is or is not a significant tree stand.
4. In Section 78-1635 Basic Conservation Design Master Plan Requirements and Evaluation
Criteria,Item 6 has been revised to require justification and mitigation of,rather than prohibition of,
negative impacts to ecological communities based on the four M-34X categories,with negative impact
being defined as a reduction in M-34X category level.
5. In the same section,Item 8 has been revised to require protection of positive views and mitigation
of existing or potential negative views.
Section 78-1635 was also revised to require that the Master Plan specifically include proposed methods of
storm water phosphorus reduction.
Kang noted the Planning Commission did review the draft ordinance at its work session recently.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Jennifer Haskamp stated she did meet with Mike Gaffron regarding their concerns that they had with the
first draft of the conservation ordinance and that they still have similar concerns with this draft of the
ordinance. Haskamp stated their concerns relate to some of the terms contained within the ordinance and
how an application under this ordinance would be approved.
As it relates to page three of the ordinance,the ecological management category,they have concerns as to
how a property would be classified,what level the property would receive, and who would deternune the
classification. They had recommended at the last hearing that MLCCS categories be incorporated into the
Page 2
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, CONTINUED)
ordinance,which is a scientific,regionally recognized way of categorizing the land. Haskamp asked why
that system of classification is not being utilized. The City's method of classification ties into how an
application moves through the process.
The second issue relates to the ordinance being an incentive based ordinance. On page seven,there is a
small section relating to density bonuses. Haskamp pointed out that section relates only to urban densities
greater than one unit per two acres and does not relate to rural densities,which they feel should also be
included. Haskamp asked what incentives there are for rural densities to use conservation principles,such
as allowing clustering, alternative wastewater management, etc.
Haskamp noted they only received the ordinance on Friday and that they would like the opportunity to
submit a more technical analysis of the ordinance.
Kang asked why the City decided not to use the MLCCS categories.
Gaffron indicated Staff felt that using the MLCCS categories was like comparing apples and oranges as it
relates to this ordinance. The original term was ecological quality levels,which was changed to
ecological management categories. Staff wanted to make a distinction between the process and the goals
of management strategy versus defining what a level of quality a property is. The M-34X modifiers are
intended to categorize natural communities under different categories,which are related to the condition
of the property or of a native community.
The basis for this change is that the M-34X Modifiers are intended to categorize natural communities as
(A)highest quality—no disturbance and natural processes intact: (B)Good quality—natural processes
intact,but show signs of past human impacts; (C)Moderate condition—obvious past disturbance but still
clearly recognizable as a natural community; and(D)Poor condition—includes some natives,but is
dominated by non-natives and is widely disturbed and altered. The ordinance, on the other hand,
categorizes communities into 3 "management"levels: (1)Ecological"off limits"areas such as wetlands,
buffers,required drainage,etc.; (2)Ecological"opportunities,"including existing degraded drainage ways
and existing degraded ecosystem remnants; and(3)Ecological"possibilities,"i.e., areas so degraded as to
not be worth of preservation, and therefore suitable for converting to uses such as storm water treatment.
Gaffron stated as an example, a poor condition wetland would be categorized for management purposes
as off-limits. Putting the two concepts together would be difficult and would result in two different
classifications.
Gaffron stated as it relates to density bonuses for rural areas,the ordinance does not specifically prohibit
some of the things that may be viewed as an incentive by the developer, such as clustering. The City
Council decided a number of years ago as they were�rst considering this ordinance that they did not want
to encourage density in the rural areas or redefine their two-acre and five-acre minimum size densities.
The City does allow clustering in rural areas,which can be viewed as an incentive,but still allows the
City to maintain its overall density.
Kang asked if Orono is unique as compared to other cities by having these categories.
Gaffron commented that in his view this ordinance reflects the views that the City Councils have taken
over the past 30 to 40 years. This ordinance does not result in significant changes in how Orono will
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, CONTINUED)
develop in the future but does open up some opportunities and provides a mechanism to preserve some of
the items that the City feels are worth preserving.
Haskamp stated she understands the difference between wanting to improve something of a lower quality,
which is not something they are arguing,but that they have concerns on how the classifications of levels
one,two and three are applied on a property and who will determine what level the property is. The
reason for using the MLCCS is that it is a technical, scientific way to identify the natural resources on a
properiy and is a well accepted way of classification. Haskamp stated in her view there is a disconnect
between what the City is attempting to achieve with the levels. Haskamp asked whether there will be
guidelines established to determine what level should be applied to a property.
Gaffron stated the process requires the developer to have a consultant who is schooled in natural
resources to create a conservation master design plan,which would define for the City and the developer
what the categories should be and why. The conservation master design plan would then be reviewed by
the City's consultants and discussions would be had if there are disagreements. Gaffron noted the City
has had at least three or four developments go through the conservation master design process in the past
and the City was able to arrive at a mutual solution fairly easily. Gaffron stated he does not feel it is a
major issue but that he would be willing to look at the report that Ms.Haskamp submits.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has the option to either table the ordinance or move it forward to
the City Council.
Haskamp expressed concern that there will be some confusion with the ordinance. Haskamp stated the
MLCSS is an accepted way to classify properties and that in her view under this ordinance there are some
inconsistencies in how it all connects with each other. By requiring a natural resource consultant to
identify what level a property is further demonstrates the need to utilize the MLCCS,which would not
require additional monies to be spent by the developer since it is funded by tax dollars.
Kang requested Ms. Haskamp include other similar cities that have utilized the MLCCS in their
ordinances.
Haskamp indicated the City of Edina is in the process of looking at a similar process at the present time
and they are looking at using the MLCCS. There are also several cities located in Washington County
that are using the MLCCS.
Schoenzeit asked whether Ms.Haskamp's concerns relate more to the implementation of the ordinance
rather than the content of the ordinance.
Haskamp stated they are related to the process and objectivity of the ordinance.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m.
Kang indicated she is open to looking at a report submitted by Ms.Haskamp.
Schoenzeit stated he does not feel the additional time requested by Ms.Haskamp will negatively impact
the situation.
Page 4
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3164 CITY OF ORONO,CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, CONTINUED)
Rahn stated in his view it did not sound like Staff was surprised by the comments and that they have
taken them into consideration already. Rahn stated the City has approved numerous applications without
this ordinance but still took measures to protect the environment and that he would not be opposed to
. moving the application forward to the City Council.
Schoenzeit noted public comments would be allowed at the Council level.
Leskinen commented in her view the ordinance has been discussed thoroughly over the past few months
and that if the City Council feels it is necessary to send it back to the Planning Commission,that would be
another option.
Rice moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3164, City of Orono,
Conservation Design Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #09-3428 MICHAEL AND MARILYN HiJTHWAITE,3382 BAYSIDE ROAD,
VARIANCES,6:59 P.M.—7:35 P.M.
Michael and Marilyn Huthwaite,Applicants, were present along with Jeremy Steiner,Attorney-at-Law,
and Rick Hendel,Builder.
Curtis noted this application was tabled at the October Planning Commission meeting. The applicant
originally was requesting a conditional use permit for grading within 75 feet of Stubbs Bay Creek as well
as lot area, creek setback, and hardcover within the 0-75 foot and 75-250 setback zone variances in order
to construct a replacement residence. At that time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to
address the following:
1. The footprint of the home should be reduced in order to better fit within the required street, side,
and creek setback. The creek setback was identified as a priority.
2. The attached garage could be reduced in order to alleviate a portion of the encroachment into the
creek setback.
In addition,the Planning Commission seemed to feel the CUP for stream bank stabilization and the
variances for the proposed crossing or footbridge over the creek were acceptable.
The applicants have reduced the overall size of the home footprint by only 167 square feet. However,
they have reduced the proposed patios,reoriented the driveway and vehicle courtyard and have proposed
a significant reduction in the portions of the home and hardcover to be located within the 75-foot creek
setback. Their initial proposal was for 2,322 square feet of hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone.
Their revision reflects a 965 square foot reduction within this zone. The revisions result in 365 additional
proposed square feet within the 75-250 foot zone.
The revision also proposes to meet the 50-foot setback on the western Bayside portion of the property and
will only be two feet short of the 50-foot setback on the Crestview side of the lot. Moving the home
farther from the creek results in a 60-foot setback where 75 feet is required,which is an improvement of
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3428 MICHAEL AND MARILYN HUTHWAITE,3382 BAYSIDE ROAD,CONTINUED)
ten feet from the previous plan. This shifting of the home to the north allows for only an 11-foot setback
from the side lot line and adjacent neighbor's property where a 30-foot setback is required. A 16-foot
setback was initially proposed.
The Planning Commission also indicated that the inclusion of hardcover mitigation measures such as
native vegetation buffers,rain gardens,pavers, etc.,was encouraged. The applicants continue to propose
to incorporate wetland buffers in the required areas as well as additional areas in order to attempt to
mitigate for the excesses in hardcover.
Staff still believes the design of the house does not fit the constraints of the property. The shape of the
house seems to be a desire of the applicants to re-recreate their existing residence rather than design a
home better suited to the property. Staff recommends the following:
1. Denial of the hardcover variance and structural setback variance to allow the foot bridge.
2. Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the MCWD requirements for the stream bank
stabilization and the City Engineer's recommendations.
3. Approval of the lot area variance conditioned upon the combination of the four lots into one tax
parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit and compliance with the wetland buffer
requirements.
4. Approval of the proposed side and street setback variances as revised. The creek setback
encroachment could be further improved upon; however, Staff feels the applicants have met the
direction of the Planning Commission.
5. Approval of some level of hardcover variances as the Planning Commission deems appropriate in
conjunction with the following:
a. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures consisting of native vegetation areas
between the home and the creek.
b. Patios, sidewalks, courtyard and driveway to be constructed using pavers.
Mr.Huthwaite stated they would like to purchase this property for their retirement home and that there
are a number of problems with the current house,which is the reason for their proposal to raze the
structure and construct a new residence. The creek is a Management III wetland,which is a minimum
type of wetland, and their plan helps to mitigate the erosion that is presently occurring.
As previously mentioned, a substantial amount of work has been done to their plans. The garage has been
reduced,the size of the living/dining room area has been reduced, and the patio areas have also been
reduced. As a result of that, the house has been re-angled and relocated further north. The hardcover area
in the 0-75 foot zone has been reduced by approximately 1,000 square feet. Given the changes,Mr.
Huthwaite requested the Planning Commission approve their application.
Rahn asked what the setback is for the existing home on the side with the proposed 11-foot setback.
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3428 NIICHAEL AND MARILYN HUTHWAITE,3382 BAYSIDE ROAD,CONTINUED)
Curtis stated it is 11 feet.
Huthwaite stated they were able to talk with 17 of the neighbors and that all 17 of them indicated they are
in favor of the project. The home to the north is in the process of selling their property and they have not
been contacted.
Rahn commented that in his view the property to the north,if he was not selling the property,would have
an issue with this project.
Huthwaite pointed out that there is a tall hedge located between the two properties and that they cannot
see into that residence.
Schoenzeit asked what the original proposed setback on that side of the house was.
Curtis indicated it was 16 feet.
Rahn asked if the dimension of the house has changed.
Huthwaite stated it has changed slightly. They have reduced the foyer area by 22 percent and they have
also reduced the garage, living room/dining room area,and patios,which allowed them to re-angle the
house out of the 0-75 foot zone.
Kang noted the building footprint has been reduced by 167 square feet.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the fact that the existing neighbor to the north is selling his property,there is no one that
is speaking for or against this project that might reside in that residence. Schoenzeit noted that that
residence is also close to the property line.
Rice commented the applicants have made significant changes to their plans,which is a definite
, improvement, and that the least desired change was relocating the house further into the setback. Rice
noted she does not have a problem with the bridge.
Kang commented she is sensitive to the cost of pavers,but recommended the applicants consider
installing impervious pavers in some of the smaller hardcover areas.
Leskinen stated the size of the house has not been reduced substantially and instead moved further back
into a different setback. Leskinen expressed concerns that the size of the residence is too large for the lot.
Kang noted the applicant did follow most of the direction given by the Planning Commission by reducing
the amount of hardcover near the creek,which was a maj or concern at the last meeting.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3428 MICHAEL AND MARILYN HUTHWAITE,3382 BAYSIDE ROAD, CONTINUED)
Leskinen stated she is in agreement with the reductions but that she has a concern with relocating the
house further back toward the creek.
Schoenzeit indicated he also does not have a problem with the bridge. Schoenzeit noted the residence to
the north is located 11.1 feet from the property line and that this one is proposed to be at 11 feet.
Rahn stated the intent of the 30-foot setbacks is to lessen crowding on the adjoining property and that the
house to the north is older than 10 or 15 years old. Rahn expressed concern with the considerable
encroachment into the setback.
Rick Hendel,Builder, stated they did look at the option of flipping the house,which would result in a
further encroachment toward the neighbor. Hendel noted a three-car garage does not fit given the
building envelope and the topography of the lot. Additional fill would also be required for the driveway
if the house were flipped.
Curtis noted this is 2-acre zoning but that one could argue that this neighborhood is more like a 1 to 1-1/2
acre zoning. Curtis indicated the 1-acre lots require a 10-foot side setback.
Huthwaite indicated the cost of the pavers is an issue but that he is not opposed to looking at putting more
pavers in. As it relates to the 11-foot setback,the neighbor also has an 11-foot setback,with a tall hedge
in between the two. The lot is approximately 3/4s of an acre rather than two acres.
� Schoenzeit asked what the Planning Commission feels about the argument that this is really a one acre lot
rather than two acres.
Kang commented that she would be willing to accept that argument and that she is not opposed to the
11-foot setback. The only other option would to reduce the size of the house even further.
Rahn stated in his opinion this is a design issue but that the options are limited.
Kang noted the concern at the last meeting was to keep the house away from the creek as much as
possible.
Schoenzeit asked whether the other houses in the neighborhood meet the 30-foot setback.
Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area on the overhead and pointed out the residence to the
north.
Rahn commented that the lots appear to be close together and asked whether there are any two-acre lots in
the area.
Curtis stated to her recollection there are not any two-acre lots in the immediate area.
Rahn asked what type of materials the bridge would be constructed out o£
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3428 MICHAEL AND MARILYN HUTHWAITE,3382 BAYSIDE ROAD, CONTINUED)
Huthwaite stated he is flexible on the materials and that he would like safe access to that portion of his
lot.
Rahn stated there are materials that allow a lot of water to pass through and other materials that would not
allow a lot of water to pass through.
Huthwaite stated he would like to utilize materials that would allow the water to pass through as much as
possible.
Kang stated it appears the outstanding issue relates to the setbacks.
Curtis noted the hashed line area is the proposed native planting area. The City's wetland consultant has
reviewed the plans and it does meet the City's criteria.
Schoenzeit moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application#09-3428,Michael and
Marilyn Huthwaite,3382 Bayside Road,granting of a lot area variance, an 11-foot side setback
variance as reflected on the revised plans, a street setback variance,hardcover variances, and
approval of the conditional use permit,subject to Staff s recommendations, and subject to the foot
bridge being constructed of appropriate architectural materials that will allow a 50 percent porous
surface. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #09-3433 RICHARD HANSON,340 BIG ISLAND,VARIANCE AND VACATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY,7:35 P.M.—S:O1 P.M.
Turner stated the applicant is requesting vacation of unimproved Meta Comet Avenue as well as a lot area
variance to clarify the status of the property.
The required notification of Big Island property owners was done in 1983. However,the lead staff person
left the City's employ that fall. In 1986, a second notification was done. George Hanson,then the owner
of the property,returned the lot area variance application and other paperwork at that time. Earlier this
year, Staff began to update the records of Big Island properties. Unprocessed applications for the
"automatic lot area variance"were found in the files of about seven record lots. Staff had intended to
bring all these applications for simultaneous consideration. Since Mr.Hanson made application for the
vacation, it seemed appropriate to also process the lot area variance.
Proposed to be vacated is a 33-foot wide street right-of-way that extends about 200 feet into Mr.Hanson's
property. This right-of-way was dedicated by the plat of Morse Island Park,which was recorded in 1887.
It dead ends about 38 feet from the lake. Formerly it connected to Massasoit Avenue,which was vacated
in 2002. All abutting property is owned by Mr.Hanson. Since there is an overhead electrical line that
serves both 340 and 350 within this right-of-way, a utility easement will be maintained over a portion of
the right-of-way. The telephone company indicates it has nothing within the right-of-way.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3433 RICHARD HANSON,340 BIG ISLAND, CONTINUED)
The existing cabin was constructed in 1977 to replace a cabin that burned a short time previously. It
received a lakeshore setback variance. The septic system was replaced in 2007. If approved, a new tax
parcel combination request would be filed before the resolution is recorded.
Staff recommends the following:
1. If the Commission determines it to be appropriate, approval of the requested vacation of Meta
Comet Avenue subject to retention of a utility easement for the existing electrical line.
2. Approval of the lot area variance subject to the tax parcels and vacated right(s)of way being
combined into one tax parcel.
Schoenzeit asked whether the lots could be separated again and developed.
Turner stated they are considered to be one record lot and are supposed to be kept together. A condition
of the lot area variance requires that the lots be combined.
Rahn asked if it is private property between the end of the avenue and the lake.
Turner indicated it is.
Jeff Lambert,Attorney-at-Law,noted that Mr.Hanson is presently recuperating from surgery and is
unable to attend tonight's meeting. The reason for the vacation is for the same reason as for the vacation
of Massasant Avenue that was approved in 2002. Mr.Hanson's property totally surrounds the vacated
portion of Meta Comet and ends approximately 40 feet from the lake. Meta Comet does not lead to any
other property except Mr.Hanson's. Lambert noted that in 1986,the applicant was George Hanson,who
is the father of Richard Hanson, and that they have always treated the parcels as one lot.
Kang noted one of the reasons for requesting the vacation is that Mr. Hanson is experiencing some people
parking on his property.
Lambert stated they do experience boaters coming to the island and partying on his property. One of the
concerns that Mr.Hanson has is the lack of enforcement on the island.
Schoenzeit asked if the easement is unimproved.
Lambert stated it is unimproved except for the electrical line.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
John Eiden, 330 Big Island, stated if Meta Comet is vacated,he would like to have his street vacated as
well since there is a historic building(his guest cottage)on the right-of-way. Eiden indicated he is
opposed to closing the street since it is used by a number of the residents in order to access the lake.
There are a number of people who do party in this area and that it has been part of the culture of the
neighborhood to go down to the beach. It is currently not differentiated between what is public property
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3433 RICHARD HANSON,340 BIG ISLAND, CONTINUED)
and what is private property,which could lead to liability issues for Mr.Hanson. Eiden stated even if the
street is vacated,people will still utilize the road to access the beach.
Eiden pointed out on the overhead how the 36 feet could be flip-flopped,which would take it away from
Mr.Hanson's property,and that there are other options that could be pursued rather than vacating the
street.
Rahn asked where the beach is located.
Eiden pointed out the location of the beach on the overhead.
Rahn asked if that is private property since the road stops short of the lakeshore.
Curtis indicated the road does stop short of the lakeshore.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Kang stated she understands the concerns of Mr. Eiden but that the piece of property located beyond the
road is private property.
Eiden stated he would like to see the vacated road flip-flopped and commented that everybody believes it
is public land and will probably continue to use it for access to the lake.
Rahn stated it would be a different situation if the road did go down to the lake but the fact that it is
private property makes the request by the applicant a legitimate one.
Eiden stated there is a 1944 court decision regarding a vacation on St. Oliver's Bay where a homeowner
attempted to close off an access,but that he does not have the money to pursue this matter in court. Eiden
indicated he probably will continue to use that area for access even if the road is vacated.
Rice stated in her view it is private property and that the road leads no where except to Mr. Hanson's
property.
Kang indicated in her view the deciding factor is the fact that it is private property.
Kang moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application#09-3433,Richard Hanson,
340 Big Island,granting of a lot area variance and vacation of unimproved Meta Comet Avenue
subject to the recommendations of Staff. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(Loren Schoenzeit recuzed himself from the following application)
5. #09-3435 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING,
VARIANCE,8:02 P.M.—8:35 P.M.
Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,Applicants,were present.
Page
11
MINUTES OF T�IE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3435 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING,CONT.)
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to construct a new residence on
the property:
1. A lot width variance for a lot 56 feet in width at the OHWL and 45 feet in width at the 75 feet
setback where 140 feet is normally required;
2. A lot area variance to allow redevelopment of a lot 0.34 acre in area where 1.0 acre is required;
3. A side yard setback variance to allow a 9.7 foot side setback on the south side where a 10-foot
setback is normally required;
4. A rear yard setback variance to allow an 8-foot rear setback where a 30-foot setback is normally
required;
5. Hardcover variances to allow 66.1 percent hardcover within the 250-500 foot zone where 30
percent is normally allowed and 62.8 percent currently exists.
The applicants' property has a very challenging building envelope. The city sewer line crosses through
the property and the slope of the property offer very little flexibility. The applicants have owned the
subject property for nearly 19 years. For the past 10 years,they have been researching and designing a
new home to build on the property.
In 2005,the applicants received approval for a lot line rearrangement in order to allow for a more
reasonable building envelope. That lot line rearrangement was not finalized. The applicants are now
requesting variances in order to build a new residence on the property. They have designed a home which
conforms to the setbacks of the existing home.
The applicants are requesting a variance to allow 66 percent hardcover within the 250-500 foot zone.This
is an increase of 88 square feet from what currently exists. Their proposal,however, offers a significant
1,144 square foot reduction within the 75-250 foot zone.
In addition,the applicants are proposing to maintain the level of encroachment on the south side lot line
but in a different location than what currently exists. One corner of the proposed home will encroach into
the 10-foot side yard setback by 0.3 feet. The proposed rear or street setback variance would be
essentially the same setback as the existing home in a similar location. The setback is measured from the
street property line; however, due to an unusually wide right-of-way,the actual paved roadway would be
39 feet at the closest point to the new home.
Staff finds that the applicants' property offers a number of challenges which make development difficult.
The distance between the applicants' proposed home and the adjacent neighbor to the south offers
adequate opportunity for light, air, and open space due to the orientation of the homes on lots: Staff feels
it may be reasonable to allow the rear yard setback variance as the wide right-of-way provides for a buffer
between the home and the street. Finally, the hardcover variance as proposed does not seem unreasonable
considering the other limitations on the property.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
Page
12
MINUTES OF TI�E
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3435 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING, CONT.)
1. Is the applicants' proposed driveway turn-around within the right-of-way appropriate?
2. Is the applicants' proposal consistent with the level of development within the surrounding
neighborhood?
3. Are there opportunities on the property to mitigate the proposed hardcover within the 250-500
foot zone?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the application as proposed. In order to address the location of
the existing sewer line through the property,the applicants should be asked to provide an easement to the
City ten feet wide centering on the pipe location within their property as shown on the survey.
Rahn asked what the existing setbacks are.
Curtis stated the location of the existing home is in the same spot as the proposed residence.
Rahn noted the existing survey shows 7.8 feet.
Schoenzeit indicated they have worked hard to use the existing footprint.
Rahn noted the parking area that is located fairly close to the lake will be removed.
Loren Schoenzeit stated in designing their residence,they have attempted to design a house that both
meets their needs and fits within the rules of the City of Orono. The proposed house is located
completely within the footprint of the existing house. The parking area that is located within the 0-75
foot zone is being removed. The closest piece of hardcover is located approximately 195 feet from the
lake. In the 75-250 foot zone, 1145 square feet of hardcover is being removed, and in the 250-500 foot
zone,they are adding approximately 86 square feet.
The property has some topographical issues due to the slopes,which has resulted in some water issues
with the driveway and garage. One of their proposals is to locate the garage on the right side of the
property,which will help with the runoff from the road and will improve the grading situation. The
proposed garage is approximately 20' x 20' and extends approximately three inches over the setback but
is located approximately 70 feet from the neighboring residence.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Brad Larson, 1090 Wildhurst Trail, stated they are the property that would be most affected by this
proposal. Larson noted the card they received stated 62 percent but that tonight 66 percent is being
discussed.
Schoenzeit stated they had utilized the architecYs numbers on their application and that the surveyor's
numbers were slightly different. The architect's numbers did not include the retaining walls and planters
as well as the thickness of the walls. Schoenzeit noted the plans are identical to what was originally
submitted.
Page
13
1VIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3435 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING, CONT.)
Larson stated one of his biggest concerns is the runoff from the road and that he would request the
drainage be maintained both during construction and after. Larson requested some privacy planting be
required between the applicant's property and his property.
Schoenzeit indicated he is planning to put some screening in that area.
Judy Larson, 1090 Wildhurst Trail, stated she would like to have 15-foot trees planted rather than smaller
trees. Larson asked if the house would be located closer to the lake.
Schoenzeit stated the proposed house is in the exact location as the existing structure. Schoenzeit
illustrated the location of the proposed garage and house.
Rahn asked if the house is compliant with the setbacks on that side.
Schoenzeit noted they are approximately 80 feet back from that setback.
Curtis indicated it is. Curtis noted the bump out is a fireplace,which is an allowed encroachment.
Schoenzeit pointed out that there is also a six-foot privacy fence currently on the property.
Jackson Line,4415,4440 and 4445 Forest Lake Landing, stated he is here on behalf of his parents. Line
asked whether there is a formalized landscape plan that has been submitted and would be executed on this
property. Line indicated they would like the curb appeal improved.
Line stated his second question is who the contractor is and what his experience is. Line also asked what
the timeline is for the start of consiruction and whether the property markings will be removed. Line
indicated they are not in favor of having pod units in the front yard. Three cars have been parked in the
front driveway of this property for the past few years and they are wondering if the plans will
accommodate inside storage of these cars. Line also asked whether there are plans to enclose the garbage
cans that are currently in the front driveway.
Curtis stated the property owner will be required to sod the lot to prevent erosion and that the City does
not require anything further than that. The name of the contractor is not germane to approval of the
application and she is not sure whether the applicant has a contractor retained at this point.
As far as removal of the property line markings, Curtis indicated she is unaware of whether there is a plan
to remove those at the present time and that they were probably needed to assist with the survey. As it
relates to storage of the personal property, she is unaware of what the applicant's plans are. During .
consh-uction, a pod is allowed as long as there is an open building permit. The City does not have a
requirement that all vehicles be parked inside a garage but there are requirements for current licensing and
operability of vehicles and parking on improved surfaces. The City does not have a code that addresses
inside storage of garbage cans on residential lots.
Schoenzeit stated they are working with Bachman's and that they have provided some detail to the City as
it relates to their landscaping plans. Schoenzeit indicated they are intending to landscape the property as
part of this project.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#09-3435 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING,CONT.)
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Kang stated she is in agreement with the applicant and encouraged the applicant to be sensitive to the
privacy concerns of the neighbors.
Rahn stated it is in everyone's best interests to provide some privacy screening but that in his view it is
not necessary to make that a condition of approval as part of this application since the residence does not
encroach into the setbacks.
Schoenzeit stated he would like to negotiate with the City on the location of the easement. If that piece of
land is given up,they will need to work with the City to find a suitable location for the geothermal wells
that they would like to utilize.
Curtis stated it can be a recommendation by the Planning Commission and that the City Engineer will
need to look at it as well as the City Council.
ScHoenzeit stated they would like to work with the City on a suitable alternate location.
Rahn noted the sewer line does not only service the Schoenzeit property.
Schoenzeit indicated it should be noted that the sewer is located on their property today without an
easement. They would like to make sure that they can completely utilize the property the way they have
designed their project.
Rahn moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#09-3435,Loren and Stacey
Schoenzeit,4480 Forest Lake Landing,granting of a lot width variance,a lot area variance,a side
yard setback variance,a rear yard setback variance, and hardcover variances,with the
understanding the applicants will work with the City in coming up with an equitable easement
across this property. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. #2009-00730 THOMAS AND VIRGINIA SMITH,2105 SUGARWOOD DRIVE,
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUGAR WOODS COVENANTS,8:35 P.M.—8:48 P.M.
David Steingas, Steiner&Koppelman,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting the requirements or standards of the covenants of the Sugar
Woods development be waived. The first involves removal of trees greater than 2 inches diameter within
the required yards. The second involves grading within the required yards.
A special review procedure was established by the City in dealing with requests of owners who are unable
to meet the special standards agreed upon by both the City and developer Sid Rebers in the early 1990s
for the Planned Residential Development of the Sugar Woods subdivision. The Smith application is a
request to allow grading within the protected area,to help solve the drainage problems on the site,within
the"no grading zone/woodlands protection area,"i.e.,in the setback areas defined within each lot.
Page
15
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009 �
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2009-00730 THOMAS AND VIRGINIA SMITH,2105 SUGARWOOD DRIVE,CONTINUED)
The City has received a letter today from the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association Board indicating
they are not opposed to the project.
The current plan continues to involve some grading within protected zones as well as the installation of
retaining walls. The proposed retaining walls, although not individually greater than four feet in height,
may appear to be 9-10 feet tall due to the tiered configuration.
The intent of Mr.Rebers in establishing"no grading/no tree removal zones"in each lot and within the
common outlot areas was to protect the natural woodland he had nurtured for a number of decades and to
provide Sugar Woods with a unique character all its own. To a great extent his goals have been met, as
Sugar Woods remains a heavily wooded neighborhood with homes in close proximity yet largely hidden
from each other and from the passerby.
To some extent the proposed grading is necessary to resolve drainage issues and minor tree removals are
necessary to do the grading. However,the fact that the proposed residence is proposed to extend the full
width of the building envelope makes it difficult to accommodate drainage without doing some grading
within the setback areas. A smaller footprint and/or a different configuration may better suit the site.
The new home is so close to the side setback lines that any attempt to minimize grading encroachment by
adding retaining walls would place the walls in the protected zone. There is no immediate residence to
the north, as there is a common outlot corridor north of the property.
The woods behind this property are fairly dense and the next home is quite distant, so the impacts in the
rear yard are minimized. The new home will have no flat back yard, and is proposed to be graded toward
the rear of the home and then directed to the east.
In order to construct an adequate driveway access to the site, grading must be conducted within the front
setback area. Grading to access the site is acceptable; however,what is acceptable is the minimum
grading necessary to construct the maximum 20 feet wide, straight driveway as allowed within the
covenants. The driveway as proposed curves into the site and a significant portion of the driveway
parking pad area is located within the front setback area. The covenants do not allow for the parking area
to extend into the setback area.
From Staff's perspective,the grading outside the building areas will most negatively affect some
significant and mostly small diameter trees. Only the significant trees have been shown on the plans. It is
critical that consideration is given to the tree removals and the proposed planting plan in terms of
maintaining the privacy and wooded feel of Sugar Woods.
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the replanting plan in
determining whether it will suitably re-establish the intended natural barriers. Curtis noted the applicant
does have the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
Steingas stated he is willing to work with Staff to correct the drainage issues and to re-establish the
plantings. The natural grade to this neighborhood is above the drainage on this property and that the
runoff currently goes across their building pad,which is what they are attempting to correct with this
Page
16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2009-00730 THOMAS AND VIRGINIA SMITH,2105 SUGARWOOD DRIVE,CONTINUED)
proposal. Steingas stated he did address the Sugarwood's architectural review committee and they are
aware of the situation.
Schoenzeit asked whether a variance will be required.
Curtis indicated a variance is not required but that this is merely a request for a waiver from the
Sugarwood covenants.
Schoenzeit asked whether the City has the authority to waive the covenants.
Curtis stated the City does have the power to waive or change those covenants as it relates to this
development. The City Engineer is currently working with the applicant's engineer to determine the most
appropriate drainage and grading.
Schoenzeit asked whether the grading plan would go before the City Council.
Curtis stated if the Planning Commission approves the request,the application would not need to go
before the City Council for final approval,but that if the Planning Commission denies the request,the
applicant does have the ability to go before the City Council to appeal their decision.
Rahn asked who originally created the covenants.
Steingas indicated it would be the developer, Sid Rebers. Steingas noted the neighbors do not want a
drainage easement through their property and that he needs to work with Bonestroo on that issue.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Schoenzeit moved,Rahn seconded,to approve Application#2009-00730,Thomas and Virginia
Smith,2105 Sugarwood Drive,Request for Waiver of Sugar Woods Covenants. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
PLANNING CONIMISSION COMMENTS
7. REPORT OF PLANIVING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 26,2009,AND NOVEMBER 9,2009
Schoenzeit reported on the October 26`�'City Council, and noted that a major topic of discussion was
parking for the Dakota Trail in the Bayview neighborhood. The City Council requested that Three Rivers
study the situation further and develop an overall parking plan for the Dakota Trail in Orono. Schoenzeit
Page
17
�
MINUTES OF THE ' •
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 16,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(REPORT OF PLAN1vING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES,CONTINUED)
stated the Council also requested that Three Rivers look at the pedestrian crossings and signage in the
County Road 19 and County Road 15 area.
Rahn stated it was his understanding that those are trail crossings and not pedestrian crossings. '
Kang reported on the November 9`"City Council meeting, and noted that the church application was
approved along with the Harvest Moon applicotion. One of the issues with the Harvest Moon application �
was who would bear the cost of reconstructing the access into the Otten property, and tfie Council
determined that it would delay requiring a study of that area until it becomes an issue,but that the costs
would need to be borne by the property owner.
8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
9. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
NOVEMBER 23,2009,DECEMBER 14,2009,AND JANUARY 11,2010
November 23,2009—Kang
December 14,2009—Rice
January 11, 2010—Kang
ADJOURNMENT �
.
Rice moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:02 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. �
,
�'L, �-
Kim Kang, Chair
' .
Page,. '
18