HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2011 Planning Commission Minutes ,
r '
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners John Thiesse,Hue Alexander,Denise Leskinen,Jon Schwingler,
and Lizz Levang. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic
Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15,
2011
Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of August 15,2011, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #11-3524 ROGER AND MEGAN REMARK, 141 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
6:33 P.M.—6:46 P.M.
Roger and Megan Remark,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a wetland setback variance to allow construction of an attached
garage. The applicants are proposing to construct an approximate 900 square foot attached garage
addition,with additional living space,to replace their existing 400 square foot attached garage.
The adjacent property contains a large,Preserve classification wetland which extends on to the applicants'
property. Preserve wetlands are determined to be the highest quality wetlands. They also warrant the
highest level of protection which equates to the largest buffer: a 50-foot buffer plus a 20-foot structural
setback from the buffer is required. The applicants'property contains a small area of wetland on the
southeast corner. This wetland is part of a larger,Preserve classification wetland on the property to the
south.
Earlier this summer the applicants applied for a permit to construct a small dining room addition to the
north side of the home.This addition did not trigger the buffer requirements of the wetland ordinance.
Staffs estimation of the edge of the buffer placed the proposed dining room addition outside of the
required 70-foot total setback from the wetland.
Because the applicants are now requesting a permit to construct the garage addition,which is located
much closer to the wetland, a wetland delineation was necessary and required. The project,plus the
dining room project, does not move enough soil to trigger the requirement to implement the 50-foot wide
vegetative buffer and therefore a buffer plan is not required. City Code prohibits the creation of new
nonconfornuties,which requires that the garage must be constructed to meet the required 70-foot total
Page 1
• � NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
setback. The 70-foot setback extends into the middle of the existing home. It should be noted that the
new dining room addition partially encroaches into this setback as well.
The applicants are requesting a variance from the required 70-foot setback in order to construct the garage
addition. They have proposed the creation of a native planting area and rain garden in order to mitigate
the potential negative impacts from the proposed encroachment. The rain garden would be located along
the south property line to separate and treat storm water from the property before it reaches the wetland.
They are also proposing to create a 2,500 square foot native planting improvement along the eastern,rear
property line to offer additional buffer bene�ts. The proposed native planting area will include the
"lrnob" of wetland on their property where their existing sump pump discharges to offer additional
treahnent opportunity in this area.
Staff finds practical difficulties are present due to the location of the existing home and its proximity to
the adjacent wetland. The required 70-foot wetland and buffer setback extends into the middle of the
existing home making modifications to the home outside of the existing footprint impossible without
variances. An existing drainage swale area cuts from the east to the west across the northern portion of
the property and is an additional limiting factor on the buildable area of the property. If the property were
vacant today,the buildable envelope would have a high impact on the shape and location of the existing
home.
The applicants'request is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed addition will meet
the required side yard setback. The proposed addition will only add an additiona1425 square feet of
structural coverage to the property,resulting in a total of 7.6 percent structural coverage. The Planning
Commission should determine if the addition of a garage stall with living space above falls within the
definition of practical difficulty.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the properiy owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance,if granted,will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find the applicants'proposed mitigation methods sufficient or is it
necessary to impose additional conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting
of the requested variances?
4. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to require easements over the proposed rain
garden and wetland mitigation area to protect the areas in perpetuity?
Planning Staff recommends the applicants be required to comply with the City Engineer's
recommendations as well as requirements from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as part of any
approvals.
Thiesse asked if the sump pump would drain to the rain garden.
Page 2
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated it would not. The applicants are proposing to include some native plantings in the area of
the rain garden to improve filtration. �
Thiesse asked whether the City has any guidelines for rain gardens.
Curtis indicated the City Engineer has provided some guidance on the rain garden and that the applicants
have submitted a detailed plan that the City Engineer is in the process of reviewing.
Thiesse asked if the majority of the buffer exists on the adjacent property.
Curtis indicated it does.
Roger Remark,Applicant, stated he purchased the house in 1994 and the house was constructed in 1958.
They are looking to add a mud room in the garage and also a master bedroom and bath above the garage.
Remark indicated they installed drain tile in the house and installed the outlet in the grassy area along the
property line. A substantial number of plants that are typically present in a wetland are located in that
area. Prairie Restoration has been contacted to come in and remove the switch grass that exists,which is
a nonnative species, and also undertake a complete restoration of the buffer area and rain garden.
Remark stated it is not a huge addition but one that will improve their lifestyle.
Schoenzeit asked why they elected to have the drainage go in that direction.
Remark illustrated the drainage from the Wayzata Country Club. The neighbors have a settling pond in
their back yard. Remark indicated they are limited on the north side of the property to construct any kind
of garage addition. The proposed garage is located at the 10-foot setback. Remark indicated they utilized
Kathy Alexander to design a plan. With the setback as it currently exists,which goes through the middle
of the house,they do not have any other option but to seek a variance.
Schoenzeit commented it is fairly dry out there currently so it was difficult to see which direction the
drainage flowed.
Remark stated in the spring the area was a lot wetter.
Levang asked whether the applicant has obtained any further information on the sump pump draining into
the rain garden.
Remark indicated it would not be a problem to extend it to the rain garden if required.
Levang asked whether Mike Gaffron would be okay with that option.
Gaffron asked if the drain tile and sump pump are taking ground water and not surface water.
Remark stated it is all ground water.
Gaffron stated if that is the case,he is less concerned about treating it than if it was running through the
yard and picking up nutrients. Gaffron asked if the drain tile is gravity flowed from the basement level.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Remark indicated it is and that he can extend it out to the edge of his property if necessary.
Gaffron asked whether it could be run into the rain garden along the garage.
Remark stated it is possible to run it all the way to the rain garden and that it is approximately five to six
feet in length.
Levang asked whether that would be a recommendation of Staff.
Gaffron commented he would not be opposed to that recommendation if the City Engineer felt it was
appropriate.
Remark stated the rain garden could also be extended.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated as it relates to practical difficulty,it is clear from tonight's discussion that the other side
of the property is not suited for the addition. The applicants are well within their setback requirements
and structural coverage. Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicant has met the standard for a practical
difficulty.
Leskinen commented the applicant is also willing to do what is necessary to mitigate the runoff and that
the addition is conservative in size.
Schwingler commented the proposal is also consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Thiesse moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3524,Roger&
Megan Remark, 141 Chevy Chase Drive,granting of a wetland setback variance subject to the
recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #11-3525 BCD,INC., ON BEHALF OF STEVE AND SARA ZAWOYSHI,725
TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCE,6:46 P.M.—7:05 P.M.
Steve Zawoyski,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance within the 75-250 foot setback zone and a
rear street setback variance in order to construct a new home and detached garage on the property. The
applicant is proposing to locate the detached garage 15 feet from the rear street lot line where 30 feet is
normally required because the doors will face the street.The applicants are also requesting lot area and lot
width variances.
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 29.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone where
25 percent is normally allowed. Within the 0-75 foot zone,the existing lake access stair system is
proposed to remain,resulting in 2 percent hardcover.
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage with street facing doors 15 feet from Tonkawa
Road where a 30-foot setback is required. The plan was designed with a 15-foot setback to allow for
more open space between the home and garage,to reduce the proposed hardcover and to avoid importing
excessive amounts of dirt fill to the site to move the garage further from the road. The narrowness of the
lot makes it difficult to face the doors away from the street and have an adequate and functional driveway
to serve the property.
City Code requires that a turnaround be provided on site for a driveway with direct access to collector
roadways. Tonkawa Road is a collector road. The Code also provides direction for the minimum
dimensions of a turnaround to be eight feet wide by 12 feet deep. A portion of the existing off-site curb
cut is wider than normal,which may currently function as a turnaround. However,in the future at
Hennepin County's discretion,Tonkawa Road wilUmay be repaved and this existing paved area could be
eliminated.
The applicant has also provided an alternate plan which reflects the detached garage at the required 30-
foot setback to illustrate the level of hardcover necessary to meet the setback requirement. Within the 75-
250 foot zone and a conforming detached garage setback, a variance to allow 2,586 square feet or 33.7
percent hardcover would be required. This plan results in 287 square feet more than needed for the
garage at a 15-foot setback.
Staff finds practical difficulties exist which support the granting of hardcover variances for the property.
At 50 feet,the lot is narrow and the topography adds to the difficulty of locating a home and garage on
the lot. The steepness of the property from the road to the lake creates an issue with regard to storm water
drainage and the location of the existing homes on either side tend to bring the proposed home closer to
the lake requiring either a longer driveway or sidewalks to access the home. However, adequate space
should be provided on the subject property for the parking of vehicles as well as a safe turnaround so that
bacldng out on Tonkawa Road isn't the only option.
The request to locate the garage at 15 feet provides for neither the adequate turn around nor the space to
park additional vehicles on the property. The necessary increase in hardcover to allow the additional 15
feet of driveway and a small bump out in the driveway to function as a turnaround is supported by the
practice difficulties listed for the hardcover variance above and further supported by the property's need to
access off the county road.
Issues for consideration:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the hardcover and setback variances,if granted,will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission�nd it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested variances?
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Planning Staff recommends approval of lot area,lot width,and a hardcover variance within the 75-250
foot zone to allow the project as proposed with a 30-foot garage setback from the street lot line. Staff
recommends denial of the rear, street setback variance for the garage at a 15-foot setback. The hardcover
and plans should be revised to reflect a 30-foot long driveway and a small, adequate turnaround prior to
placement on a City Council agenda.
Curtis displayed the alternate site plan being proposed by the applicants. Curtis commented in her
opinion there would still be a bump-out required with this option.
Thiesse commented in his opinion the applicant should look at locating the bump-out to the north.
Thiesse noted the grade drops off drastically to the south of the driveway.
Curtis stated that is one option.
Thiesse asked if the other option is a 15-foot setback.
Curtis indicated it is.
Thiesse asked if it is a 15-foot setback and the City allows him to keep some of the existing driveway to
the north,whether that would serve a storage purpose.Thiesse stated the applicant could then bring the
garage forward to be closer to the neighbors.
Curtis stated if it accomplishes the function of a turn around and the Commission is comfortable with the
application,then the Planning Commission can discuss that in greater depth.
Steve Zawoyski,Applicant, stated they were attempting to balance hardcover with the ability to provide
adequate parking and additional house structure. Zawoyski stated in his opinion a 15-foot driveway
relative to the neighbors was going to be adequate and that he is in agreement with the turnaround area.
Zawoyski stated they were very conscious of hardcover when designing their plans, and that the further
you go back on the property,the topography drops off, and they are proposing to build the garage in a
location that would not require a substantial amount of fill.
Levang asked whether the patio would be built out.
Zawoyski stated he is considering brick pavers for the patio.
Schoenzeit asked whether he considered attaching the garage to the house.
Zawoyski stated they did look at a number of options and that the amount of hardcover was a top priority
when designing their plans. Due to the width of the lot,it would make it difficult for a side-loading
garage. It would also create a long driveway,which would act as a funnel for the runoff down to the lake.
Zawoyski indicated he would not be opposed to attaching the garage to the house but that in his view it
would increase the amount of hardcover on the property.
Schoenzeit stated a new owner might wonder why the garage was not attached.
Levang asked where the applicants currently park.
Page 6
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Zawoyski indicated he pulls in and backs out into the street.
Levang commented she found the situation to be dangerous with having to back out onto the street.
Zawoyski pointed out the location of the property line,and noted that the survey reflects that the majority
of the properties are similar to his. Zawoyski commented he likes the bump out idea. The further you
move the garage out,the more fill that is required. Zawoyski commented he is not sure if the length of
the driveway makes it easier to turn around versus the width.
Schwingler commented the other homes in the area have the same challenges.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Thiesse asked if the bump-out is shown on the drawing for the 15-foot setback.
Curtis indicated it is not.
Thiesse asked where the bump out would be located.
Zawoyski stated it likely would be located on the north side of the driveway.
Schoenzeit stated when you look at the rest of the neighborhood,the proposed location of the garage
makes sense.
Thiesse asked if there would be any ramifications if Hennepin County resurfaces the roadway.
Curtis stated if Hennepin County decides to go through with resurfacing the roadway,the City nor the
property owner would have any control over whether the existing curb cut width would be allowed to
remain.
Thiesse asked if the applicant were to place the turnaround in the northern area on his property,from
where his driveway is to the edge of the pavement,whether the curb cut could be 20 feet wide.
Curtis indicated the curb cut can be up to 20 feet wide.
Schoenzeit stated in looking at his elevations,it depicts that the dri�eway falls off by six feet as you move
closer to the house,which will require a foundation wall.
Leskinen commented the drop off was quite steep.
Levang asked whether anyone has any concerns about the water runoff.
Thiesse noted that would be eliminated with the new driveway.
Page 7
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented the garage proposal is consistent with the other neighbors' garages.
Thiesse stated the distance from the proposed garage to the edge of the bituminous roadway is almost 30
feet and that adding another 15 feet would be too much hardcover in his view.
Schoenzeit moved,Theisse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3525,BCD,Inc.,
on behalf of Steve and Sara Zawoyski,725 Tonkawa Road,granting of lot area and lot width
variances,granting of a hardcover variance within the 75-250 foot zone for the garage proposed to
be located 15 feet from the lot line,subject to the addition of a bump out area,subject to the
existing hardcover that extends past the garage being removed,and subject to any
recommendations of the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #11-3526 3515 CAPITAL PARTNERS,LCC,ON BEHALF OF KEVIN W.AND MARIE
R.LANDBERG,PID NOS. 08-117-23-33-0030; 08-117-23-33-0031; 08-117-23-33-0032; 08-117-23-
33-0033; 08-117-23-33-0034; and 08-117-23-33-0035,PRELIMINARY PLAT,7:05 P.M.—7:45 P.M.
Todd Holmers, Capital Partners,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to combine and plat the existing six individual vacant lots south of
1545 Maple Place into three lots. Each of the existing six lots is 50 feet wide and has 9,000 square feet in
area where 21,780 square feet and 100 feet of width is required within the LR-1C zoning district. The
applicant is requesting to create three lots with a conforming 100-foot width and 18,000 square feet in
area. The remaining 1545 Maple Place lot will be 50 feet in width and 9,000 square feet in area. The
remaining 1545 Maple Place lot will be 50 feet in width and 9,000 square feet in area. The properties
would be served by public sewer. Lots 1 and 2 would be served by private wells. The Lot 13 portion of
Lot 3 was assessed for city water in 1970 but it is unclear whether a water stub was extended to the
property. Lot 3 would have the option of constructing a private well or making the connection to city
water at their cost.
According to City Code, an existing lot of record which meets 80 percent of the area and width
requirement and is served by sanitary sewer is considered a buildable lot. If the 80 percent requirement is
not met,the lot should be combined with one or more abutting lots in order to create a conforming lot.
The individual lots as they exist today do not meet 80 percent of the area and/or width requirements
within the LR-1C zoning district.
City Code would require the combination of adjacent,abutting lots to create conforming lots. This could
be accomplished by the combination o the existing property at 1545 Maple Place with two of the abutting
lots (existing Lots 8 and 9)resulting in a new, conforming lot totaling 27,000 square feet where 21,780
square feet is required,as well as the combination of existing Lots 10-13 to create a conforming 36,000
square foot lot. The newly combined lots would exceed the lot area and width requirement but would
conform to the City's requirements within City Code Section 78-72. However,because the properties are
located within the Shoreland,the provisions of MN Statute 462357 regarding nonconforming Shoreland
properties take precedence over the City Code, and in this case the City is not allowed to be more
restrictive than the statutes.
Each lot must meet 66 percent of the dimensional standards for width and area for the Shoreland
classification in Minnesota Rule 6120. Section 6120.3300 establishes a minimum width of 75 feet and
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
minimum area of 10,000 square feet. The 66 percent would translate to a minimum of 6,600 square feet
and a minimum width of 49.5 feet. Each of the applicants'seven lots meets the minimum criteria.
In addition, each lot must be connected to public sewer if available. There are existing sewer stubs to
serve each of the three proposed building sites, and the entire property was assessed for sewer in 1965.
The impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 percent of each lot. While this is feasible,it is not
particularly practical for individua150-foot lots. The lots must also be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. This proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the City for this
particular zoning area.
The required setbacks of 30 feet front and rear, 10 feet interior side and 15 feet side street setback will
result in a reasonable buildable envelope for each property. The applicant has provided a preliminary plat
survey which reflects each of the proposed lots with a 75-foot by 120-foot buildable area. According to
Code and as proposed,each 18,000 square foot lot would be permitted up to 2,700 square feet or 15
percent of structural coverage.
The lots are located within the 250-500 foot setback from Lake Minnetonka,which permits up to 30
percent hardcover. However,the combination of the lots pursuant to MN Statute 462.357 would limit
each newly combined property to 25 percent hardcover. Under City Code the allowed hardcover level for
each of the proposed lots would be approximately 5,400 square feet. Following the statute,4,500 square
feet of hardcover would be permitted for 1545 Maple Place and each of Lots 1,2,and 3.
The applicant's property is identified in Orono's Surface Water Management Plan as being located within
a drainage area,which is a sub-part of the North Arm drainage area. Because this property is at the low
point of the neighborhood drainage area storm water facilities would be appropriately located within these
properties to serve the neighborhood and the subject properties. Ideally, a storm water pond would be
constructed that would then be piped to the north where it would discharge near the right-of-way upon
which Sandy Beach is located. Sizing of a pond will require engineering work to analyze the drainage
area needs and the potential impact,if any, on development of these properties. It is unknown at this time
if that pond could be linear and located along the western boundary of the properties in the existing
depression or whether some other configuration is appropriate. Given that this study has not been
completed,it is difficult to assess the impact a pond would have on these properties. From the
information identified by the City Engineer,it is evident that more time is needed to discuss with the
applicant and their engineer the potential impacts of storm water management on this plat.
This afternoon Staff discussed the storm water requirements this afternoon with the applicant and the
applicant is agreeable to working with the City Engineer to determine an appropriate storm water
solution. Following that discussion, City Staff is now willing to recommend approval of the application
subject to those issues being resolved prior to the application going before the City Council.
Thiesse asked if the City Engineer has given any indication as to the size of the pond.
Curtis indicated he has not but that the applicant will need to accommodate the pond. Curtis stated she
has spoken with the applicant and that it is her belief a solution can be reached.
Todd Holmers,Applicant, stated he is willing to work with the City Engineer to arrive at a plan to address
the storm water issue,which is the only outstanding issue remaining at this time.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted these lots do take the drainage from the surrounding area and that drainage in addition to
their lots must also be accommodated by the pond.
Schoenzeit noted the plan could require an area that could consume a large portion of their plan.
Holmers indicated the engineers will continue to discuss the issue and that in his opinion a reasonable
solution can be reached.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Paul Taylor, 3883 Cherry Avenue, indicated he lives directly across the street from the lots. Taylor asked
what would happen with the existing house.
Curtis stated it is her belief that the existing house would be removed and a new residence would be
constructed.
Taylor asked if that lot would become unbuildable.
Curtis stated it would be considered a buildable lot.
Schoenzeit noted that lots in this area can have less than the required lot width and area.
Curtis noted the state statute supersedes the Orono ordinance.
Taylor commented he is not sure why they would not take all seven lots together and make three lots.
Curtis stated a 50-foot lot is considered a buildable lot by state statute,which means that there are
essentially seven buildable lots on the property. Curtis noted the City is not allowed to be more resirictive
than the state statute and that there are seven buildable lots on that property per the statute.
Taylor stated at the time he constructed his house,he was not allowed to have less than half an acre.
Taylor noted he constructed his home in 1987.
Curtis stated she cannot speak to when the state statute was originally enacted but that the property owner
must meet 66 percent of the dimensional standards for lot width and lot area.
Gaffron stated the state statute was enacted significantly later than 1987 and that it was created
specifically for this type of situation. Prior to the enactment of the statute,lakeshore property owners
were being subject to local rules. They subsequently lobbied the legislature to the point where the
legislature said if you have certain lots and they meet individual standards,they should be buildable
individually. �
Curtis noted the lot area requirement is 10,000 square feet under the state statute.
Schoenzeit noted that would be under a quarter acre and that an acre is 44,000 square feet. •
Curtis stated the state statute requirement is less than the City's requirement.
Page
10
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Cheryl Granning, 3898 North Shore Drive, asked for clarification on the location of the pond and whether
it would be within the proposed lots.
Curtis indicated the pond would need to be located on the applicant's property and that the City Engineer
will be determining whether a pond is necessary.
Granning asked which direction the driveways are designed to face.
Curtis indicated it is her understanding they will access on to Maple Place.
Granning asked why they will access Maple Place.
Curtis stated that is the applicant's preference and that accommodating storm water would be more
feasible on the west side.
Gaffron stated one of the potential options for a pond would be a lineal pond along the applicant's west lot
line. The City will not allow two accesses and that it is most likely the pond will be to the west and
driveway access on to Maple rather than Minnie Avenue.
Granning commented that given the amount of traffic on Maple, she thought it would be better that it
would be located off of Minnie Avenue.
Paul Taylor stated that what he has seen over the 18 years he has resided in the area is that the flooding
typically floods in two areas. Taylor pointed out the areas of the.flooding on the overhead.
Curtis stated those details will be worked out between the City Engineer and the applicant's engineer. It is
Staff's recommendation that drainage issues be addressed and resolved prior to the application going
before the City Council.
Schoenzeit pointed out that once the ponding requirements are determined,there will be another hearing
before the City Council where the residents can comment on the plan.
Thiesse asked whether the application should come back before the Planning Commission.
Curtis stated if the requirement of the pond resulted in a substantial change in the development or a new
restraint to construction, Staff would bring the application back before the Planning Commission. Curtis
noted there is a 30-foot setback requirement in this area.
Schoenzeit commented it might make sense to bring it back before the Planning Commission to allow
opportunity for the public to comment on the plan rather than doing it at the City Council level.
Levang stated the other alternative is to table the application so it comes back before the Planning
Commission.
Schoenzeit stated given the neighbors' concerns,it might be prudent to have the Planning Commission
review the application again.
Page
11
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated she would be comfortable with having the application go forward to the City Council as
long as the City Engineer and Staff feels the issues are resolved.
Schoenzeit noted the application will not have the feedback of the neighbors if the application does not
reappear before the Planning Commission.
Leskinen asked if Staff is interested in getting public comment on the location of the pond.
Curtis stated neighbor feedback is helpful as it relates to historical information concerning flooding,but
that the City Engineer and the applicant's engineer will be performing a technical evaluation to determine
where the pond should go. The pond will need to be accommodated on the applicant's property.
Schoenzeit stated the neighbors are not going to dictate the location of the pond but that there needs to be
a public hearing on the proposal. Schoenzeit indicated the Planning Commission has seen other
applications where the discussion at the council level was more extensive than it should have been. The
proposal will be approved based on the practical difficulty standard.
Curtis noted there is no variance being requested with this application.
Thiesse stated if Staff does not`feel it is necessary for the Planning Commission to see the application
again,then it is probably okay for the application to go forward to the City Council.
Schwingler indicated he is in agreement that the application can go forward to the City Council if the
ponding requirements are resolved.
Curtis commented the City Council often allows public comment on an application but that it would not
be an official public hearing. Curtis stated she would bring the application back before the Planning
Commission if she felt that was necessary. The City Engineer has indicated that drainage in addition to
the immediate site runoff will need to be directed towards this property and that he has outlined some
issues for the applicant to address.
Schoenzeit asked what recourse the neighbors have if the pond as designed does not work adequately.
Curtis stated she is not aware of a pond that has been designed that has not worked and that they are
normally designed to handle a 100-year event.
Gaffron commented it is normal to get storms that a pond will not be able to handle but that does not
mean the pond was improperly designed.
Schwinger stated the Planning Commission can address any other questions or concerns from the
neighbors outside of the drainage.
Schoenzeit noted the recommendation of City Staff and City Engineer is that the pond be located
completely on the applicant's property and sized sufficiently to handle the 100-year storm event.
There were no additional public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.
Page
12
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schwingler moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3526,3515
Capital Partners,LLC,granting of plat approval for the six lots south of 1545 Maple Place,subject
to the City Engineer and Staff s recommendations being resolved prior to the application
proceeding to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANI�TING COMMISSION COIVIMENTS
5. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 22,211,AND SEPTEMBER 12,2011
Schoenzeit stated at the September 12,2011,meeting,the City Council had a fairly lengthy discussion
regarding the Helmer application on Casco Circle. The Planning Commission took the position that the
sight line was not changing but the City Council felt that the sight lines were negatively impacted,
particularly in light of the neighbor's opposition to the project. The application was tabled to allow them
to redesign their project.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission was well aware of the average setback line but that it was on a
curve and they were looking at it from a different perspective.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicant and the neighbor incorrectly used the words sight line to
describe a panoramic view when it really was just the view of the lake. Schoenzeit stated in his view the
applicant had done a good job locating the structure away from the lake.
Curtis�stated in planning their deck,the applicant took into account what the homeowner's current sight
line was. They took into account that the neighbor had views out of his window and placed their
proposed improvements out of that line of sight and behind the furthest point of their encroachment into
the average setback. While the neighbor to the west would see the deck,it did not encroach further into
the average lakeshore setback and it did not block any existing view of the lake. The sight line was taken
into account in designing the project but they were still ahead of the average lakeshore setback with their
improvements.
Schoenzeit stated given the fact that the rest of the property was nonconforming and the neighbor was
opposed to the proposal,the majority of the City Council felt that it should be denied.
Levang stated in her view the issue was the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis stated the deck was legally nonconforming and was granted a hardcover variance. Curtis indicated
she is not sure when the house was constructed,but if it received variances in order for the house to be
located in the spot where it was, the variance approval would make it conforming. The hardcover on the
lot was confornung. The applicant was changing from flat,nonstructural hardcover to structural
coverage. While code allows Staff in the nonconforming section to approve hardcover, Staff cannot
change nonconforming hardcover into a structure.
Levang commented there was also an issue with the dormers and the fact that they extended into the
averagelakeshore setback.
Page
13
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m. .
McMillan stated the major issue for the Council was that it intensified the encroachment and that the
intent of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view. Given the fact that the structure was being
relocated,it was felt that that intensified the encroachment and the dormers were another component of
that.
Gaffron stated from Staff's perspective it was a surprise that the City Council felt that relocating an
encroachment had that big of an impact when the sight lines to the side were not being affected. It was
putting activity closer to the neighbor's house,but that is not what the average lakeshore setback
regulation is about.
Gaffron stated another topic of the discussion was what views of the lake a neighbor has the right to have
preserved. This particular neighbor has views of the lake from two sides. In a normal situation, Staff
would normally not consider the side window views of a neighboring property in establishing whether or
not an average lakeshore setback variance is appropriate. This was an unique situation,especially to have
a neighbor that was very vocally opposed to the project. It also raises the question as to whether or not
everybody was viewing it as though they are changing the nature of the encroachment past the average
setback.
Schoenzeit stated where the house is located and where the proposed improvements are does not change
the sight line. The fact that the neighbor will see the water skier at exactly the same time with the
improvements as he did before the improvements does not impact the average lakeshore setback.
Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view and the view did not
change technically.
McMillan stated they can rebuild the house exactly as it currently exists but that the applicant was asking
to shift a nonconforming encroachment. The applicant was not proposing to construct the structure in
exactly the same spot but they are relocating it to a place where it would have a greater impact on the
neighbor. McMillan stated in her view this gives the Planning Commission and City Council the right to
look at whether it will create a greater impact.
McMillan noted there was a property on Crystal Bay Road that had proposed a screen porch in place of an
existing deck and the Council had a number of issues with that blocking the view.
Gaffron stated that was an instance where the neighbor's view was looking out over the deck and the
applicant was proposing a screen porch to be located in the same location as the deck,which would have
impacted the view.
Thiesse stated the neighbor's view was not being cut off in this situation.
McMillan stated if you add in an umbrella and the other items that are typically placed on a deck, it would
have impacted the view.
Curtis stated the neighbor could not see through the house where the deck was going.
McMillan noted that vegetation is not permanent and the idea of putting vegetative screening in to
mitigate something is not an end-all to everything. McMillan commented she understands that he might
not see any of the new deck,but that when you look out from his dining room,it appeared that you would
Page
14
- . , .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
see that part of the deck. McMillan stated the applicant perhaps should have done a better job of
illustrating the sight lines.
Schoenzeit stated the neighbor will not lose any view of the lake with the project. While the structure
might be in his peripheral vision,the overall view of the lake does not change.
McMillan stated the idea of switching hardcover around in an average lakeshore setback was an issue for
the Council.
Levang noted another application that was discussed at length was the Koch application on Casco Circle.
Schoenzeit stated the Koch application dealt with a stairway down to the lake and a new driveway. In
addition,the applicant wanted to use some of the hardcover to construct a patio.
Levang stated there was a prior variance for a patio.
Curtis stated the patio that was approved did not get built but a larger patio was constructed. The
applicant thought he would be able to construct a patio at the time he purchased the property. The City
Council indicated he could construct the 142 square foot patio that was originally approved. The as-built
survey revealed that it did not conform to what was approved.
Schoenzeit stated one factor was that the hardcover numbers in each of the zones moved around.
Curtis stated the previous owner had provided hardcover calculations for the 75-250 and the 250-500 and
it appears that the 250-500 foot area was included in the 75-250 foot zone.
McMillan commented in the past the City Council allowed the applicants to use their hardcover however
they deemed appropriate but over the years have found that a new owner would come in and say,I have
29 percent hardcover but I don't have a garage. McMillan stated they are now finding this same situation
with patios where the hardcover designated for the patio was instead incorporated into the house.
Curtis stated on the Zawoyski application she requested the plans depict a patio in the event the property
owner desires one at some point in the future.
Schoenzeit noted the Wingerd application was approved and that the neighbor was not in attendance at
the meeting.
6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis noted the boat tour is scheduled for October 5`"from noon to 4:00.
Thiesse,Alexander, and Levang indicated they would not be available on the 5`�'.
Curtis requested that Commissioner Schwingler get back to her on some alternate dates for the tour.
Page
15
. , . �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 19,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
SEPTEMBER 26,2011,AND OCTOBER 10,2011
September 26,2011 -Leslcinen
October 10,2011 —Alexander
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:03
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
��.'�,,,� � [ � ���- 2�o �}
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page
16