Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2011 Planning Commission Minutes . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSISON MEETING , Monday,October 17,2011 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 Lizz Levang,Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver,and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jaclde Young. Council Member Rahn was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos.4 and 5 were added to the Consent Agenda. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for Item No.4 at 6:32 p.m. There were no public comments regarding that application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing for Item No. 5 at 6:32 p.m. Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #11-3527 JASON&JODY SMITH,2690 RAINEY ROAD,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.-7:02 P.M. Jason and Jody Smith,Applicants,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a variance to construct a garage addition to the home 38 feet from the side street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required from the side street. The applicants are proposing to construct a two-car garage addition on the east side of the property. A screen porch is also proposed. However,the porch is proposed to meet the required setback and is not part of this variance request. The east side lot line abuts a private road outlot,owned by the homeowners association,with underlying road easements to the City for possible future connection to Gander Road. The private road outlot has not yet been developed with a road. It is currently wooded land and visually appears merely as part of the applicants' property. However,this configuration makes the east lot line a side street lot line with a required side street yard of 50 feet in which structures are normally not allowed. Applicants are requesting a variance to allow the construction of a garage addition to be located 38 feet from the east lot line rather than the required 50 feet. Applicants'position, and apparently that of the neighborhood, is that the outlot is unlikely to ever be developed for road purposes, and therefore slxuctures that would be encroachments if it was to be a road,will have no negative impacts until or unless it becomes a road,if ever. Page 1 � � MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING � Monday,October 17,2011 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 Lizz Levang,Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver,and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Rahn was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos.4 and 5 were added to the Consent Agenda. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for Item No.4 at 6:32 p.m. There were no public comments regarding that application. � � Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing for Item No.f�at . 2 p.m. Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #11-3527 JASON&JODY SMITH,2690 RAINEY ROAD,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.-7:02 P.M. Jason and Jody Smith,Applicants,were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a variance to construct a garage addition to the home 38 feet from the side street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required from the side street. The applicants are proposing to construct a two-car garage addition on the east side of the property. A screen porch is also proposed. However,the porch is proposed to meet the required setback and is not part of this variance request. The east side lot line abuts a private road outlot,owned by the homeowners association,with underlying road easements to the City for possible future connection to Gander Road. The private road outlot has not yet been developed with a road. It is currently wooded land and visually appears merely as part of the applicants' property. However,this configuration makes the east lot line a side street lot line with a required side street yard of 50 feet in which structures are normally not allowe ��� Applicants are requesting a vaziance to allow the construction of a garage addition to be located� et� from the east lot line rather than the required 50 feet. Applicants' position,and appazently that of the neighborhood,is that the outlot is unlikely to ever be developed for road purposes,and therefore structures that would be encroachments if it was to be a road,will have no negative impacts until on unless it becomes a road,if ever. Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. A similar request by the previous owners was made in 2006. The owners at that time were requesting a setback variance to allow a 40-foot setback where a 50-foot setback is required in order to construct a garage addition. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. However,the City Council voted to approve the requested setback vaziance. The owners did not construct the addition and the variance has since expired. The applicants' property and the adjacent Outlot C are heavily vegetated. The proposed two-car garage addition would likely not be very visible from Outlot C nor Rainey Road. The property is currently confornung and has a three-car attached garage. It has been City practice to require platting of road corridors to adjacent parcels when properties are subdivided. This practice is a requirement of the Orono Subdivision Ordinance Municipal code Section 82-2839h)(11). The City has required the platting of connecting corridors to adjoining properties in many instances;to provide access to adjacent properties and to provide for the potential to create"through" roads which are preferable for maintenance,circulation,and emergency access purposes,as compared to cul-de-sacs. Circumstances that might warrant such interconnection at some future date include,but are not limited to, neighborhood associations requesting the City to take over road maintenance; establishment of an interconnected public trail system between neighborhoods,a conclusion by the City or by its neighborhoods that connection of cul-de-sac roads will provide a necessary increase in public safety or decrease in emergency response time,or an area-wide rezoning that would allow for higher density and the need for addition access to property,on-street parking,etc. None of these circumstances are pending for Rainey Road or Gander Road,but they are all possibilities � for the future. The City would be shortsighted if it began to eliminate these connection potentials by . vacating the connecting corridors that the city required be created over the past 30 years. Likewise, allowing new construction to encroach on these future roadways could result in homes or structures perceived as too close to the street and not in character with the 50-foot standard for the two-acre zone. Planning Staff recommends denial of t he setback variance as requested. Thiesse asked if there are any legal lots still available in the neighborhood. Curtis indicated all the lots are developed. Jason Smith,Applicant,stated one of the reasons they are looking for a variance is that their existing garage looks like a three-car garage from the outside but the depth of the gazage is actually only 15 feet deep for one of the stalls due to the layout of the interior. Smith indicated currently they are required to park their vehicles at an angle if they want to fit both of them in there. There is an entrance to the house at the back of the garage and an entrance to the basement of the house also located at the back of the garage. Smith indicated they are looking to add some more space so we can fit two lazge cars in the garage as well as storage space. Smith noted in the report was a concept drawing that depicts a small room above the garage. Smith indicated they will not be constructing that and it will only be storage up there. Levang asked if the gable would be eliminated. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Smith indicated the dormer would be eliminated. They want to keep the garage similar to the architecture of the house. Levang indicated Commission Landgraver and herself were able to view the interior of the garage and that they were able to observe how the entrance to the basement cuts into the double doors in a significant way. Curtis displayed a picture of the interior of the garage. Smith explained the interior layout of the gazage. Curtis asked if that is the only access to the basement. Smith stated they can also access the basement from the house. Smith pointed out how they are unable to pull the car all the way up due to that entrance to the garage. Levang stated there is an illusion that there are two full garage stalls when in fact they are short stalls. Schoenzeit asked if there are three doors into the garage. Smith indicated there are. Schoenzeit asked how much he is looking to add on to the garage. ' Smith stated it would be 26 feet. Curtis stated there would be doors next to where the current doors are located. Schoenzeit commented the applicant could make the garage more usable by making it deeper. Smith pointed out there is a window for a room which would prevent them from going deeper. Schoenzeit asked whether he could lengthen the garage by extending it out the front. Smith indicated that would require a major change to the roofline. Levang asked if the interior door and the entrance to the basement could be changed. Smith stated the basement is poured concrete and it would be rather extensive to remove that. Thiesse asked if the angled entry has always been there or whether it was added at some point. � Smith pointed out the existing wall and the stairs and indicated it was there when he purchased the property. Leskinen asked whether the applicant has considered doing a one-stall addition,which would then meet the setback. Leskinen stated that would give them two full stalls. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Smith stated they would also like some additional space for future cars and/or storage. Landgraver asked if the practical difficulty is the inability to pazk a bigger vehicle and lack of storage. Smith indicated that is correct. Landgraver asked if there is anything that can be done about the entry into the house. Mrs. Smith stated that goes into the laundry room and that cunently the laundry room is already small. The room literally consists of a washer and dryer and a sink. A different entryway would take up approximately 30 percent of the laundry room. Smith indicated they did look at a number of options and that they were not able to come up with any other reasonable solution. Levang asked if there is a window above where the proposed patio is located. Smith stated there is. Levang commented essentially what they would be looking at through that window would be the back of the garage. Smith commented there will also be a courtyard that will be in that area. The garage will come back seven feet,which will still leave some view out the window. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Thiesse stated he initially had a concern regarding the practical difficulty for making the garage larger but that the applicant in his opinion has demonstrated practical difficulty. Thiesse stated in his opinion a practical difficulty is a lower standard to meet than a hardship. Curtis stated the Planning Commission should go through a very similar analysis in determining a hardship or a pracrical difficulty inherent to the property. Thiesse stated in his opinion Gander Road would be extended straight north/south and that the outlot is offset from that. Curtis pointed out the two outlots on the overhead. Gaffron stated the intent of the outlot was to connect Gander Road and Rainey Road. Levang stated in her view she is unsure whether there is a practical difficulty. Landgraver asked why the previous Planning Commission did not approve the earlier request. Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 dclock p.m. Curtis stated the prior Planning Commission and Staff did a similar analysis and that the City Council eventually did approve the application even though the Planning Commission recommended denial. One of the questions at the time initially was at the time the application came before the Planning Comxnission,septic systems were not identified on the site. By the time the application came before the Council,the septic systems had been identified. Curtis pointed out there is room on the property to locate a detached accessory building. The City Council took into consideration the location of the septic site and how that impacted some of their options. . ' Smith pointed out the area of the septic system. Landgraver stated in his mind there is a practical difficulty given the current configuration of the garage but that he is struggling with approving the side street setback variance at 38 feet. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission could approve the addition of one stall and require that it meet the 50-foot setback. Leskinen noted that would eliminate the need for any variance. Levang indicated she would be in favor of that. Levang moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application#11-3527,Jason and Jody Smith,2690 Rainey Road. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Thiesse Opposed. Schoenzeit recommended the applicants work with Staff on making some modifications to their plan before to going before the City Council. Smith asked where he could put the addition. Schoenzeit stated he would construct the additional garage on top of the current driveway. Smith stated his concern with that would be visibility from the neighbors' standpoint. Due to the trees, you would not be able to see the garage as it is proposed. Schoenzeit stated the applicant does have some other locations they can construct a garage. Schoenzeit noted Staff has indicated there is a place where a detached garage could be constructed. Curtis pointed out the detached building would need to be located behind the house. Smith commented at the previous meeting it was the general feeling that the road would never be constructed. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission has denied the application and suggested the applicant work with Staff on their options. Thiesse asked whether this would go before the City Council. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated it would,but that if significant changes are made to the plan,she would bring it back before the Planning Commission for their review. 3. #11-3528 TIMOTHY&DANIELLE KOEHLER,4205 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE,7:02 P.M.—7:56 P.M. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting 75-250 foot zone and 250-500 foot zone hardcover variances. In 2007,variances were granted for lot area,lot width,average lakeshore setback and hardcover in order to construct a new residence on the subject property. The house was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued in 2009. Since that time the applicants,the new owners,purchased the occupied the new home. At this time the applicants would like to make hardcover improvements to the property. They are proposing to remove an unapproved/illega173 square foot patio within the 0-75 foot zone. They would like to add 88 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone for a patio and add 590 square feet to the 250-500 foot zone for additional driveway and retaining walls. The 2007 variance approval limited the property to 152 square feet within the 0-75 foot zone and 3,512 square feet within the 75-250 foot � zone. Their variance also limited the property to 2,732 square feet within the 250-500 foot zone where normally 30 percent hardcover is permitted. Variances aze required in order to exceed those levels. The hardcover on this property is difficult to reconcile. Some of the hardcover shown as existing was added after the building pernut and has not been approved. Within the 75-250 foot zone,while the existing hardcover numbers reflect slightly less hardcover than was approved,the house appears to be generally consistent in size with the approved home yet there appears to be additional hardcover on the property. When comparing the building pernut survey to the existing,as built survey,the numbers do not seem to match what is shown. It is apparent the 250-500 foot zone exceeds the approved levels and the hazdcover shown on the survey appears to be as a result of overages in driveway and parking areas. For purposes of this application,Staff suggests reviewing what is being requested against the code and the 2007 approvals. The applicants are requesting a variance to add 88 square feet of hardcover to the 75-250 foot zone increasing that zone from the 3,512 square feet approved in 2007 to 3,600 square feet and requesting to add 217 additional square feet over the Code allowed 30 percent in the 250-500 foot zone which would exceed the approved level by 590 square feet. A practical difficulty has not been identified which supports the granting of hardcover variances to allow hardcover above the 28.4 percent allowed within the 75-250 foot zone in 2007 and a 26.39 percent limitation within the 250-500 foot zone imposed by the 2007 resolution. Additionally,it appears during construction that retaining walls were added which do not meet at the required 5-foot setback from property lines. The applicants should be required to remove the wall encroachments. Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested variances to increase hardcover above the 20071evels approved by Resolution NO 5601. As some of the proposed hardcover is actually existing hardcover,the . hardcover in excess of 2007 approved levels should be removed. Additionally,retaining wall encroachments should be removed and the required rain garden should be installed. Curtis noted the applicant has expressed concern about removing the retaining walls. Curtis pointed out the location of the retaining walls. Curtis noted a 5-foot setback is required for retaining Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 � 6:30 o'clock p.m. walls. The rain garden was installed but was not depicted on the survey. A new survey should be 'submitted for as-built verification of wall removals as well as a final hardcover record for the property. Thiesse asked if the existing patio will be replaced at the same size. Curtis indicated it will be the same size. Thiesse asked if the egress exit on the side of the house would still be accessible if the wall is moved over. , Curtis�stated based on the survey,she is not able to deternune that,but she did speak with the ciTy's building inspector and that it is his opinion a wall can be constructed to meet the 5-foot setback. Curtis noted that the building inspector did not visit the site.In 2007,at the time the house was originally constructed,the as-built building survey was not required by the City. � Levang asked if Staff is okay with the retaining wall. Curtis stated to her knowledge it is all located five feet off the property line. Landgraver asked if the shed is staying. Curtis stated the shed was part of a subsequent agreement and the shed is allowed to stay. The rain garden and the removal of the adjacent hardcover around the shed was required as part of that agreement. Levang asked if there is fabric or plastic under that garden in the corner. Curtis indicated Staff has not been out to inspect the property. Eric Robinson,4107 Maple Wood Road,St.Bonifacious,indicated it is just mulch over dirt. Timothy Koehler stated when they moved into the property,they moved in during the wintertime and that if he had been aware of some of the challenges of the property,they likely would have purchased a different property. Koehler pointed out the turnaround located on the slope of the driveway and noted that during the winter they are unable to utilize the turnaround due to its icy condition. Delivery and service vehicles refuse to come up their driveway because they are unable to turn around. At times they have to back out on to Highway 19. In the winter it is not possible to make the turn,which requires them to back up on to the road. Koehler stated in the summer they tried to address the driveway issue. They knew they were close on hardcover and he has informed his builder it would need to be within their hardcover requirements. Robinson indicated he did speak with Staff on permeable pavers and was told that it would still be counted as hardcover. Koehler stated someone from the City came out and stopped the work in July and that since that time they have been attempting to resolve the issues without increasing hardcover. Koehler indicated they were not Page 7 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. aware that crushed gravel was considered hazdcover. They had already constructed the retaining walls when they found out there was a problem. Koehler noted the patio was already existing when the house was constructed and that there is an outdoor grill that is also in that area. The patio was heaving and needed replacement. Koehler stated they asked the builder to replace the patio and fix the grill area. It was supposed to be the exact same size. It was his understanding that the crushed stone was okay for the little walkway. Koehler stated they later found out from Staff that the other patio was supposed to be removed as part of the agreement with the City,so they are now proposing to remove that. The retaining wall was also constructed with the house and they later found out that it was not approved. Their goal is to address the access issues. Koehler stated the driveway does not need to be the full length of the garage but that it seemed to be a logical and aesthetically pleasing way to do it. Koehler stated in his view the driveway could be shortened,which would reduce the hardcover by 336 square feet from what they are requesting. The hazdcover in the 250-500 foot zone would then be reduced to 2,986 square feet. In addition,there would be 73 square feet removed at the bottom. Koehler stated the retaining wall cost approximately$100,000 to construct and consists of a 10-foot wall that basically holds up the entire side of the property. Koehler indicated he is not sure whether they can get equipment in there to remove it and that he did not expect that to be a problem. Leskinen asked if the retaining wall was there when he purchased the property. Koehler indicated it was. Levang asked what Staff would like to see happen with the retaining wall. Curtis stated a vaziance would need to be approved for the retaining wall,the retaining wall removed,or brought into compliance. Currently it appears there may be portions that can be brought into compliance. Levang stated the piece that goes directly to the lot line would probably need to be removed. Curtis indicated that is correct and that the rest of the retaining wall appears to meet the 5-foot setback based on the survey. ~ Landgraver commented the wall is fairly tall. Koehler indicated it is nine feet high. Schoenzeit stated removal of the wall does not seem practical given the cost. Gaffron asked how the drainage works on the property. Koehler indicated the drainage from his lot and the neighbor's runs down a swale that goes the entire ,_ length of the lot down to the lake. Gaffron asked if it is a shared drainage way. Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Koehler indicated it is. Schoenzeit asked if the City has any engineering reports on the retaining wall. Curtis stated Staff does not have any engineering specific to the wall. Schoenzeit asked if they can request an opinion from an engineer on the wa11. Curtis stated the wall would likely need to be taken apart to find out what is underneath it and that it would be difficult to obtain an engineering opinion. Koehler stated he would have expected someone to have pulled pernuts on the retaining wall and evaluated at the time it was constructed. Curtis stated it was probably pernutted at the time the foundation of the house was constructed. Robinson stated it likely was engineered given the size of the stones. Koehler commented it is a massive structure and gets larger as it goes towards the back of the house. Gaffron stated he is not personally familiar with property but that on the original approved plan it shows the top of the wall at 948'. It was also depicted as a 6-foot high wall proposed which ended up being nine feet. Leskinen commented additional problems with the drainage could be created by removing a portion of the retaining wall. Landgraver asked as it relates to the turnaround,given the angle of the driveway,if the applicant has considered putting the turnaround in front of the existing garage. Koehler indicated that would be an option but that he is not sure how that would impact the hardcover. Schoenzeit noted he would be pushing the hardcover further out into another zone. Koehler stated he does not need all of the proposed turnaround and that he originally included it for aesthetic reasons. Koehler state the turnazound could be shortened and relocated. Landgraver stated given the hardcover restrictions,the applicant may want to relocate the turnaround. Levang asked whether portions of the driveway could be heated. � Robinson indicated the driveway would then need to be torn out and replaced. Thiesse commented the current turnaround is difficult to use with a larger vehicle. Koehler indicated they have gotten stuck in the driveway a couple of times this past winter. According to Code,they are required to have a turnaround. Koehler indicated they have to back the car straight back Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. and then turn,which works in a small car but not in a lazger vehicle. They are attempting to make a new turnaround area. Levang asked what the calculations would be if the turnaround were relocated. Koehler stated the crushed stone was put on the survey as existing and was considered hardcover at that time. Curtis indicated that would not be considered hardcover. �Koehler commented that would be another 51 square feet they could use if that is not considered hardcoverN Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Bill Tittler,4209 North Shore Drive,Mound,stated his main comment is the idea that the Planning Commission is discussing the retaining wall shows the absurdity of removing or changing the wall. People from the building department were acutely aware of what was going on with the property while it was being constructed and that he has the e-mails documenting that. The walls are massive and took two and a half months to construct. Tittler indicated he has no other comments on the rest of the application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Schoenzeit stated in order to make the retaining walls legal,a variance will need to be granted and he is comfortable granting that. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with that. Schoenzeit stated all other hardcover would need to be brought into compliance. Thiesse asked if there is an agreed amount of hardcover that would need to be removed. Curtis indicated there is not,and that the shed,dock and stairs are allowed hardcover. Koehler pointed out the stairs go to the dock. Curtis noted the stairs would be allowed hardcover. Thiesse noted there is a rain garden. Schoenzeit asked if the rain garden is maintained and remaining. Koehler indicated it is. • Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to allow repair of the patio at its current size. Levang asked about the crushed rock. . Page 10 c 1 - � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING � Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. , . Curtis stated if it is unlined and is not driven on,it would not be considered hardcover. Thiesse stated it is not driven on,has a wood barrier around it,and it goes from the patio steps to the house. Koehler indicated the crushed rock is not currently existing and it is being proposed. The proposed crushed rock would be a pathway from the door to the steps.There is some crushed rock underneath the deck. Landgraver asked where the existing patio is located. Koehler stated the photo depicts the grill area and that those pavers have been removed. The builder was preparing the base at the time the City shut down the work. They put crushed stone in this summer so they could use that space. The pavers would go back in where the crushed stone is. Leskinen asked if the existing paver patio was constructed without a permit. Curtis indicated that was not part of the approved plan. Leskinen asked if the applicant would be willing to leave the crushed stone where the grill is located. Koehler indicated that would not be his preference. Thiesse indicated he has difficulty with a person coming in and then finding out that items on the property , are illegal. The applicant purchased the property with the patio and that he would have difficulty asking the applicant to remove it. Koehler commented the grill area is very small. � Schoenzeit stated he would recommend repairing and replacing the patio at a size no greater than what currently exists and allowing the retaining wall to remain. Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to grant a variance to ensure that the retaining wall is legal. � Curtis noted the Planning Commission would only be approving the location of the wall and not the actual construction or engineering of the wall. - , Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicant needs a legitimate turnaround and that he would encourage the applicant to make a proposal for a functional turnaround. , Curtis requested the Planning Commission provide direction to Staff and the applicant on the level of hardcover that would be allowed. Levang stated an 8'x 10'turnaround would be the minimum. Page 11 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Koehler stated it is almost necessary to have two turnarounds and that he would propose leaving the driveway as is and removing the existing turnaround. The 250-500 foot zone would then be brought within code and the only variance required would be in the 75-250 foot zone. , Levang asked if crushed rock is considered hardcover,why the applicant would not make it concrete. Schoenzeit stated the applicant can deternune what type of material he would like to use. Schoenzeit stated the hardcover in the 250-500 zone would be at the maximum allowed by code and the hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone and the retaining wall will remain. Koehler noted he would be removing 336 square feet. Schoenzeit stated the applicant would need to remove the turnaround by the driveway and construct a different turnaround by the second garage. The hardcover would be capped at 30 percent in the 250-500 foot zone and the applicant would be allowed one full turnaround,the repaired patio,and the retaining wall. , Koehler indicated they would also remove the 73 square feet in the 0-75 foot zone. Landgraver asked whether that would alleviate the safety concerns of the applicant. Koehler commented the turnaround on the lower end would be easier to utilize. Schoenzeit noted another requirement would be to maintain the rain garden. Thiesse asked if the turnaround depth is maximized by the property line. Koehler indicated that would be a problem. Curtis stated he would need to be five feet from the property line. Thiesse stated to his recollection it is around eight feet wide and that it is difficult to maneuver with a larger vehicle. Landgraver asked if there is a utility easement in that area. Curtis pointed out the location of the easement. Thiesse commented he does not want to grant a variance and not solve the problem. Schoenzeit asked the turnaround stops five feet from the property line. � Curtis indicated she is not sure how far it is from the property line. Thiesse stated to his recollection it is eight feet wide and that it is difficult to back up with a larger vehicle. Page 12 . . ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 � 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the survey depicts it approximately four to five feet from the lot line. The depth of it across the driveway is approximately 26 feet,which is functional for a small car. Schoenzeit asked whether Commissioner Thiesse would like to see the turnaround extended. Thiesse pointed out the applicant is unable to do that since he is almost four feet from the property line already. Gaffron asked whether the backup apron could be flipped to the other side of the driveway. Koehler indicated if he goes the other direction,it would have to go up the hill. Gaffron commented that would then be a practical difficulty since he does not have adequate space on the other side of the driveway. Koehler stated he was suggesting removal of the narrow piece and leaving the lower turnaround. Landgraver asked if that would solve his safety concerns. Koehler indicated it would with the added piece. Levang asked what the width is. ' Koehler indicated it is just barely eight feet. .. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3528, Timothy and Danielle Koehler,4205 North Shore Drive,granting of variances,subject to the removal of all hardcover recommended by Staff within the 0-75,with the understanding the shed and the steps to the lake will be allowed to remain; allowing the repair of the existing patio with no increase in hardcover or footprint; approving a variance for the existing retaining wall,consisting of both the tailing end that touches the property line and the one that is used for egress along the side of the house; granting of a variance for hardcover to add the turnaround closest to the house with the addition of a bump out per Exhibit D; removal of the second turnaround that was - constructed for aesthetics; and reducing the larger turnaround by the detached garage to the maximum amount of hardcover allowed in the 250-500 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *4. #11-3529 ESTATE OF ARTHUR J.NELSON,400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,AND RANDY AND SARA HOGAN,2260 FOX STREET,L OT LINE REARRANGEMENT Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3529,400 Willow Drive South and 2260 Fox Street,granting of a lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. MEMO—COUNCIL MEETING LIAISON SCHEDULE � Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the Council meeting liaison schedule as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 13 • ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING Monday,October 17,2011 6:30 dclock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 6. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2011,AND OCTOBER 10,2011 Leskinen reported at the September 26th Council meeting the Planning Commission items were placed on the Consent Agenda and the primary discussion of the Council related to Old Crystal Bay Road and the Orono Orchard project. Levang noted at the October l Oth meeting the Helmer application was placed on the Consent Agenda. Curtis noted they removed the proposed deck and they were allowed the dormers. Rahn stated on the Helmer application,they agreed not to relocate the hardcover and reduced the deck. Curtis noted the Chevy Chase application was placed on Consent Agenda. The preliminary plat application on Maple Place was approved. 7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Curtis noted Hue Alexander resigned from the Planning commission. The City Council will be setting a date for a joint Planning Commission/City Council session so they can receive an update from the hardcover task force. The Council will decide Monday night whether November 2°d will be the date for the update,which is a normal work session date for the Planning Commission. Levang noted there is no regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for December. Schoenzeit asked if Staff has any idea on the number of pending applications. Curtis stated they meet with a number of people but they don't always come back for a couple of months. There might be a small subdivision application submitted in the near future. Gaffron commented at any given time they talk to 10 to 15 people that are contemplating doing something on their property. Rahn asked who reviews an application to make sure that the zoning requirements are all met. Thiesse stated someone needs to come in and update the survey to keep Staff informed of what is on the property. ADJOURNMENT Thiesse moved,Leskinen seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission Meeting at 8:18 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. � �� � � . �!�'ti,� �/•;� '`LI '�/`"� Z--.. � _� G L�'��-f� Loren Schoenzeit, Chair __. _....._..___--—-------.._....---...-- ------�__.....__. _._. Page 14