Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 � 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,John Thiesse, and Jon Schwingler.Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Ben Gozola,and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Cynthia Bremer was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schwingler moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2012 Schwingler moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 17,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #11-3531 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF WOLVERTON PLACE,LLC,4550 WOLVERTON PLACE,SUBDIVISION,6:32 P.M.-6:40 P.M. Lori Gherardi,Applicant,was present. Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at the November and January meetings and was tabled at both meetings pending a complete submittal. The tabling at the January meeting was the result of an incomplete Conservation Design Plan. The applicant has now submitted a revised, completed Conservation Design Plan for review. The applicant's conservation design submittal indicates the existing tree stands on the northern portion of the property bordering the wetland area are to be protected and enhanced, and the grasslands/prairies on the north and south borders totaling approximately 190,000 square feet are also to be enhanced and protected. The prairie area along the southern properly boundary offers a positive long,open view into the property. These areas, in addition to the wetland and wetland buffers,are proposed to be protected by covenants and/or easements. The stormwater component of the conservation design planning requirement, at least for the vacant lot, is relatively premature. At the time of development of proposed Tract A, it will be required to comply with stormwater requirements as appropriate. The proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements outlined within the RR-lA zoning district standards as well as the subdivision requirements for the creation of a new, buildable lot. For recording purposes, separate easement documents are required to be submitted to convey the appropriate easements. Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff recommends establishment of an escrow or escrows to guarantee the completion of the proposed improvement plans(wetland,tree and prairie)in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. The Planning Commission should consider the submitted conservation design analysis and improvement plan. If the Commission agrees with the findings of the report,which seem to indicate few existing, pristine,quality natural features exist on site,yet offers opportunities and plans for enhancement and protection, a motion to approve the subdivision should be considered. Thiesse asked whether septic sites are allowed in the Conservation Design area. , Curtis indicated septic sites are allowed. Gherardi stated she does not plan on developing the second five acre lot initially and that it will remain vacant for the time being. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant is amenable to the covenants and escrows recommended by Staff. Gherardi indicated she is. Wayne Jacobson,Jacobson Environmental,stated his experience with wetlands goes back to 1993. Jacobson stated the north quarter section of the lot is good as is, but one of the things that he would encourage from a property owner standpoint is,when the lot is split,to perhaps be a little flexible with the width of the buffer. This type of situation could call for a 200 to 300 foot wildlife buffer. The property owners in the future may have a different plan and it would be nice to have a little flexibility with the south grassland area. Jacobson commented the Conservation Design Ordinance is a good idea. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Thiesse asked if this area is a delineated grassland. Curtis stated the area indicated on the overhead and in the Conservation Design Plan is the area that Staff would recommend be protected by easements. If there is some deviation from that in the future,the conservation easement would need to be amended. Landgraver moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3531,Lori Gherardi on behalf of Wolverton Place,LLC,4550 Wolverton Place,granting of subdivision approval,subject to Staff s recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 3. #12-3538 ROBERTS RESIDENTIAL REMODELING ON BEHALF OF COLIN AND ANNA PETERS,3520 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,6:41 P.M.-6: 53 P.M. John Paggen,Roberts Residential Remodeling,was present on behalf of the Applicants. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gozola stated the subject property is located in the southwestern corner of the community near Lakeshore Drive and south of Baldur Park Road. There are two portions of the properly that are located in the 0-75 foot zone,with the remainder of the property being located in the 75-250 foot zone. Gozola displayed an aerial photograph of the area depicting the location of the house and the driveway. Gozola noted the path that was shown on the survey has been removed. Gozola stated the area in red is the existing home and driveway. The applicant is proposing to place a major addition on the existing legal nonconforming home. The proposed addition would expand living area within the dwelling and would include an attached two-car garage. The existing driveway and entry point onto County Road 51 would be eliminated in favor of a new driveway with an entry point on Baldur Park Road. In addition,a small area of patio has been proposed. It could also serve as a deck provided it is under 30 inches. The applicant has addressed all issues raised by Staff and Staff is comfortable with the hardcover numbers presented. The applicant is requesting a 0-75 foot zone hardcover variance to allow 5.4 percent hardcover where 0 percent currently exists and 0 percent is normally allowed except for driveways, stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes; and a 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance to allow 36.4 percent hardcover where 27.4 percent currently exists and 25 percent is normally allowed. Both variances requested are to accommodate construction of additions to the existing home on the property and relocation of the driveway. Staff believes this proposal can meet all requirements for a variance as outlined in the code provided the conditions outlined in Staffs report are met. Gozola noted the second variance is required due to the driveway being wider than eight feet and also being located in the 0-75 foot zone. With regards to structural coverage,the applicants are currently conforming at 8.6 percent. With the proposed additions, structural coverage will be at 13.85 percent. Staff's analysis of the requests is outlined on Pages 4 through 8 of Staff's report. Staff believes that each request is reasonable since the overall structure size is well within the City's requirements and the garage is logically placed given the constraints of the lot. The driveway is now accessing Baldur Park Road rather than the county road. As part of Staffs approval recommendation,there was some potential hardcover identified that could be reduced. The driveway apron could be reduced from 18 feet down to 15 feet,which is the minimum required by code. The second option to reduce hardcover would be to consider removal of the turnaround. The third option would be to reduce the overall width of this driveway from 12 feet down to 8 feet. The final option is the Planning Commission could require realignment of the driveway to meander around the 0-75 foot zone. Gozola stated if the Planning Commission requires removal of the turnaround,he would not recommend implementing options three or four since you would be requiring a driver to back up in the driveway approximately 100 feet to access Baldur Park Road. If the turnaround should remain,options three and four are reasonable. Implementing option four raises some concerns. Due to the area being very flat, if the driveway is reduced to eight feet,and because there is no parking on North Shore Drive,people will stack up in the driveway and will need to go in reverse to access the road. With a meandering driveway, they will likely drive off the driveway,and if that occurs often enough,a compacted path would develop in the grassy area. Gozola stated that is a good argument to make that the straight driveway configuration is sensible. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gozola noted the City has not received any comments from the adjoining property owners. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and did not have any recommended changes. Staffs recommended conditions are contained on Pages 9 and 10 of the report. Thiesse asked if the turnaround is eight feet wide. Gozola indicated it is eight feet wide. Levang asked why the apron is as wide as it is. Gozola stated it is that width to accommodate the garage doors. Schoenzeit commented the elimination of the curb cut on the county road is a positive. Paggen stated he does not have anything to add to Staffs report. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Levang and Schwingler indicated they are not in favor of removing the turnaround. Schoenzeit stated it appears the hardcover numbers have been clarified. Landgraver asked whether there was an issue with the patio that was raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. Schoenzeit asked whether the patio would remain. Gozola indicated the patio would remain. Schoenzeit asked if the dotted line depicts the average lakeshore setback. Gozola indicated it does, and in order for that to be a deck, it would need to be 30 inches or lower. Leskinen asked what the applicant is proposing for that area. Gozola stated they have not made that determination yet, and if it is above the 30 inches,they would need to come back before the Planning Commission. Landgraver commented he also feels the elimination of the driveway accessing onto the county road is a positive. Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNIlVG COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3538,Roberts Residential Remodeling on Behalf of Colin and Anna Peters,3520 North Shore Drive,granting of a 0-75 foot zone hardcover variance and a 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance,subject to Conditions 1 through 9 outlined in Staff s report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 4. #12-3544 CHARLES CUDD DeNOVO ON BEHALF OF MARY J.BOWMAN TRUST, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:53 P.M.— 7:23 P.M. Anna and Colin Peters,Applicants,were present along with John Sonnek, Charles Cudd representative. Curtis stated the applicant,on behalf of the owners, is requesting the following approvals in order to construct a new residence on the properly and maintain the existing stone structure: 1. A lakeshore setback variance to allow a 47-foot setback from the lake for the proposed home where a 75-foot setback is required; 2. Hardcover variances within the 0-75 foot zone to allow 10 percent hardcover where 0 percent is allowed and within the 75-250 foot zone to allow 28 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed; 3. An average lakeshore setback variance to permit portions of the proposed home to encroach closer to the lake than the adjacent residential home; 4. A wetland buffer setback variance for a portion of the proposed home; 5. A rear/street setback variance to allow an existing, stone building to remain 0 feet from the property line and allow the new home to be constructed 33 feet from the property line where a 50- foot setback is normally required; and 6. A conditional use permit to conduct grading activity within the 75-foot setback and within the floodplain in conjunction with removal of the existing home and construction of the new home. The existing home was constructed in approximately 1940. It is a one-story home with a partial2nd story. A small,fieldstone structure also exists on the property. This stone structure once served as the well house for Woodhill Country Club. The applicant is requesting variance approvals in order to construct a new 2-story home on the properly as well as continue to maintain the stone structure. The applicant is proposing to remove the circle configuration of the driveway,which is shared with the neighbor to the west,and is proposing one access off of Ferndale Road. The existing home encroaches 20 feet into the side setback and 28 feet into the 75-foot lalce setback. The structural coverage being proposed is 13 percent,which is below the maximum 15 percent level. If the entire property is included in the calculation,the structural coverage would be closer to 2.6 percent. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The proposed house will be located as close as 33.1 feet from the Ferndale Road property line,which is approximately five feet closer than the existing home. The LR-lA zoning district requires a 50-foot rear or street yard setback. The proposed house is to be set back 47 feet from the lake at its closest point, which is a covered patio with deck above extending 7.1 feet from the home. The shoreland regulations require a 75-foot setback from the OHWL of the lake. As it is proposed,a 60-foot wide portion of the home will encroach between 1 and 28 feet into the 75-foot setback. This includes the lakeside deck. The average lakeshore setback in this case is determined by the distance between the home to the west and the lake. The neighbor to the west is set back 76 feet from the OHWL. The proposed home on the subject property is as close as 47 feet to the lake. Hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone is currently at 15.3 percent.The applicant is requesting 10 percent hardcover in this zone. The entire 1,299 square feet of hardcover proposed within the 0-75 foot zone will be structural hardcover. Within the 75-250 foot zone the applicant is proposing 28 percent,with 18 percent of this amount consisting of structural hardcover. The remaining hardcover is driveway and walkways. According to the MCWD map,there are two Preserve classification wetlands present on the home site portion of the property. The portions of the property across Ferndale Road are impacted by the larger Ferndale Marsh,which is also a Preserve wetland. A 50-foot buffer and 20-foot structural setback from the buffer are required from Preserve wetlands. The survey incorrectly represents Wetland 1 as a Manage 1 wetland;therefore,the relative buffer width shown is not accurate. The wetland is acfually a Preserve wetland and requires a 15-foot buffer. It appears portion of the proposed garage will encroach into the required buffer setback from the western wetland. It appears the garage encroaches approximately 14 feet into the required buffer setback. Additionally, existing and proposed structures and hardcover which encroach into the required buffer will require mitigation of buffer area square footage as impacted. Due to the removal of the existing home and to create a flattened yard area for the proposed home,the applicant is proposing grading within the 0-75 foot zone which exceeds 10 cubic yards requiring a conditional use permit from the City. A portion of this grading is below the 931.5 foot 100-year floodplain elevation and thus requires a permit from the MCWD. Wherever floodplain filling is proposed,the DNR and MCWD regulations require the floodplain be expanded elsewhere so there is no decrease in flood storage capacity. It also appears the applicant will be conducting grading below the , 931.5 foot elevation at the rear of the property. However, as this also appears to be in conflict with the existing driveway access for the neighboring property at 1185 Ferndale Road, Staff questions the accuracy of this representation. The lot was legally created prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and the current home already existed when the current standards were adopted. The size, location and other nonconforming circumstances are unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The applicant is proposing to encroach 5 feet closer to the road than the existing home. However,the proposed home will correct the existing nonconforming setback from the neighboring property resulting in less crowding and more open space between homes.The new home is proposed to be set back at the same distance from the lake as the existing home. The proposed home has been designed and oriented to have minimal massing within the 75-foot area. The shape of the lot and the required setbacks from the rear/street,wetlands,and lake result in a very small buildable envelope. It is Staffs opinion the limited size of the applicant's legal buildable envelope falls under practical difficulty. Page 6 . � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the owners propose to use the subject property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts , created by the granting of the requested variances,the Vegetative shoreline buffering along the lakeshore,the wetland buffer mitigation or the vegetative screening from the lake or from Ferndale road, etc? 4. Are the hardcover levels and setbacks proposed supported by practical difficulties? Is there room to reduce driveway or sidewalk hardcover without reducing functionality or creating additional practical difficulties? Staff recommends approval of the rear setback variance,the average lakeshore setback variance,the wetland buffer setback variance,and hardcover variances for the construction of the new home. The Commission should discuss and determine the appropriate hardcover levels. Staff also supports a recommendation to approve the CUP for the proposed land alterations with MCWD permitting approval. However,because there are inconsistencies shown on the survey which must be clarified relating to hardcover,floodplain alterations,wetland delineations,and buffer locations which should be accurately represented in order to fully analyze the request, Staff recommends tabling the application until revised information is submitted. Schoenzeit asked if the main deviation being proposed is the house setback from 33.1 to 38 feet. Curtis indicated the applicants are asking for a greater setback variance from the street setback and the rest of the requests are consistent with what exists today. John Sonnek, Charles Cudd, stated during the process of designing a home for this property,they found the property is quite constrained and have done the best they can to make this conform to the City's regulations. The proposed house is slightly higher than the house next to it but there are some homes further down the road that are larger than what is being proposed. Sonnek noted that while they have a parcel that is 3.5 acres in size, if all the rules are followed,the building pad would be limited to 350 feet. The survey shows the new footprint compared to the existing house. The house has been situated further back in a location that will give the adjoining property owner a view across the bay and across Ferndale Road. The house has also been moved out of the 0-75 foot zone as much as possible. Sonnek indicated they can lower the elevation of the house further down,which will minimize the grading necessary on the lot as well as hopefully avoiding the floodplain in the front. The existing building they would like to retain is the original well house for the golf house and is approximately 100 years old. The property owners would like to maintain the historic building. Sonnek indicated they will be using some of the same type of stone on the house to help blend the two structures together. Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The trees along the roadway should not be impacted by the construction. The driveway that is in the rear of the property will need to remain because it allows access by the neighbor to his property. Since this property owner will not be using that piece of driveway anymore, it can be narrowed down. Sonneck noted the wetland was created when Ferndale and County Road 15 was constructed to accommodate the runoff from the road. It is called a Preserve wetland now but it is actually to accommodate road runoff,which is why Svoboda classified it the way they did. The property owners need a garage of a suitable size due to the limited driveway and the fact that Ferndale Road is not wide enough to accommodate parking. Levang asked how the driveway for the neighbor would work. Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead. Sonnek illustrated on the overhead the location of the driveway and how the neighbor would access his property. Sonnek noted they are proposing a separate driveway for this property. Levang asked if there is any concern about there being two curb cuts on West Ferndale. Sonnek indicated there currently are two curb cuts. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to eliminate their use of the second curb cut and narrow their driveway. Curtis noted the applicants will be removing the portion of the shared driveway that leads to their garage. Levang noted the neighboring house has a second story deck, and asked what their view will be from the deck. Sonnek illustrated the view of the neighbors on the overhead. That property will be able to see the entire bay area since they are proposing to locate the new house further back. Levang asked what the stone structure would be used for. Sonnek indicated it is just basically a shed at the present time and that they will be replacing the roof on it. Landgraver asked if the little pathway to the structure is included in the hardcover calculations. Sonnek indicated it is and that they have attempted to minimize the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone as much as possible as well as in the other zones. Sonnek stated they might be able to trim a little more off the driveway. Levang asked what will happen with the wooden fencing. Sonnek indicated all of the wooden fencing will be removed and new vegetation will be planted in place of some of the fence. Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if the applicant has any objections to Staff's recommendations. Sonnek stated they do not and that it is simply a matter of revising the survey. They will also work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to obtain their approval. Curtis stated if the Svoboda representative's classification does not match the MCWD's classification, they can submit an application to have that reclassified,which would make a difference in the variance to the garage. Leskinen asked if the wetland is reclassified to a Manage 1,whether there would be any encroachment into the buffer. � Curtis indicated there would not be an encroachment from the proposed home. Thiesse asked if the undergrowth would be maintained. Anna Peters indicated they have not yet done a landscape plan. Thiesse noted a couple of the trees will be removed with the reconfiguration of the driveway. Sonnek indicated three or four trees will need to be removed. Thiesse asked if there is any concern with leaving a structure that close to the roadway. ' Gaffron noted it is not within the right-of-way and the right-of-way in that area is 66 feet. Gaffron indicated the City Engineer would need to be consulted to verify whether that is the case. Sonnek stated if Ferndale is upgraded,you would go the other direction since that area is flat. Stonick indicated they could build a 26-foot wide road without encumbering the ditch on their side of the road. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the building height is compliance with code. Curtis indicated she noted the height of the structure because they are requesting setback variances and the proposed building is higher than what currently exists and would be more visible. Curtis stated the height does conform to the City's height regulations. Sonnek noted he will be lowering the house another foot and a half. . Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application#12-3544,Charles Cudd DeNovo on behalf of Mary J.Bowman Trust, 1165 Ferndale Road West. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0 Page 9 NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #12-3545 J.ANDRE LaTONDRESSE ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND PATTY BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE,7:23 P.M.—7:37 P.M. J.Andre Letondresse,Applicant,was present on behalf of John and Patty Bailey. Gozola displayed an aerial photograph of the subject property and the adjoining lots,noting that the areas in green are what currently exist on the subject property. Gozola pointed out the property owners do have some existing illegal plastic underneath the rock on two sides of the home and a paver walkway leading down to a paver driveway in front of the home. Gozola pointed out the plastic will need to be removed as part of this application and is not included in the hardcover numbers. Gozola stated the applicant is proposing to add a screened porch on the western side of the home while simultaneously removing existing areas of deck and patio. The existing home is currently legal nonconforming to both hardcover and average lakeshore setback requirements. The proposed improvements would result in a net reduction in overall hardcover. As part of the proposed project,the application is requesting a 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance to allow 27.12 percent hardcover where 28.16 percent currently exists,and a 4-foot variance to the average lakeshore setback requirement to accommodate construction of a screened porch addition on an existing home at 2807 Casco Point Road. The existing home is currently 12 feet beyond the average lakeshore setback line. The 0-75 foot zone currently has some hardcover located within it but would not be altered as part of this application. Structural coverage on the lot is currently at 10.89 percent and would be increased to 11.79 percent under this proposal,which is under the maximum allowed. In reviewing this application, Staff believes all 14 criteria are met. The proposed changes to the property will be decreasing the overall hardcover on the lot and are in conformance with the City's massing standards. The changes will not impact adjoining properties in terms of drainage,availability of light or air,or the overall character of the neighborhood. The property is unique in the sense that the road and lakeshore do curve at this location in such a manner that the average setback requirement is not necessary to protect the adjoining properties'views of the lake. The average lake setback is designed to protect the views from any forward addition on any of the homes in the area. In this particular case,the orientation of the neighboring home in relation to the lakeshore and the proposed addition results in a situation where the proposed addition does not block the prominent view that is protected by the average lakeshore setback regulation. The addition does meet the side yard setbacks and the proposal is to improve the livability of the home. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the City and other applicable entities with jurisdiction prior to any construction. 2. Construction shall follow the survey and plans as submitted or as required to be updated by the City Engineer. 3. The proposed grading along the new addition shall be shown on the plans submitted with the building permit application and existing drainage patterns shall be maintained except as authorized by the City Engineer. Page 10 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. Because this project will disturb more than 100 cubic yards of material, a Storm Water Pollution ' Prevention Plan must be submitted for review in accordance with Section 79 of the City Code. The minimum$2,000 sediment and erosion control financial security shall also be required of the owner for this permit. 5. The applicant will be required to obtain a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit for erosion control. A copy of the permit shall be submitted to the City after MCWD approval. 6. The City Engineer shall have the option to inspect the property at the applicant's expense during the construction process to ensure on-going compliance with all engineering requirements. 7. The variance shall expire one year from the date of resolution; City Council approval will be required for any subsequent extension. Schoenzeit asked if the deck meets the structural requirements. Gozola noted it is an enclosed porch. Schoenzeit asked if that area is expanded at some point in the future,whether they would still be inside the structural coverage. Gozola stated they would still meet the structural coverage requirements. Thiesse noted there is a large pine tree that obstructs the view currently. Levang stated the neighbor's windows would be looking directly at the addition and that the pine tree provides some screening. ` Landgraver asked whether the added roof to that area of the house would alter the direction of the runoff. Gozola stated the City Engineers did look at that and one of the conditions of approval is that they would be reviewing the drainage impacts on the entire property. At this time nothing has jumped out to them that would raise any concerns. Curtis stated the City Engineer reviews the plans to verify that the runoff is not directed to the neighbors' properties and that the City will want the water to go towards the lake overland or to the street overland. Andre LeTrondresse,JAL Architects, stated because of the dog leg of the road,the neighbor's house is around the corner. When the shoreline is in a relatively straight alignment,what you are trying to protect is the established line in relation to the lake. When the lake takes a big bend, it would be nice if the City could define a line that bends,which the code unfortunately does not allow. In light of that,the face of � the porch has been located 10 feet back from the lake side of the house. The intent was to have 80 percent of the addition within the profile of the existing house. LeTrondresse noted the property owners have had a lot of conversations with the neighbors on the proposal so it should not come as a surprise to them. Schwingler asked if the neighbors have signed off on the project. Page 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated they have. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Leskinen commented it is a very straight forward application and she would be in support of approving the application. Schoenzeit commented that it may behoove Staff to perhaps look at having a more complex average lakeshore line since this is a similar situation to an application earlier tonight. Thiesse noted the applicant is missing out on a lot of the view of the lake because they are not allowed to pull the house further forward. Schwingler moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3545 J.Andre LaTondresse on behalf of John and Patty Bailey,2807 Casco Point Road,granting of variances subject to the conditions outlined in StafPs report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #12-3542 CITY OF ORONO,CODE AMENDMENT FOR LOTS OF RECORD IN SHORELAND AREAS,7:37 P.M.—7:52 P.M. Gaffron stated as a result of the Minnesota Legislature adopting laws regarding the use of nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas,the proposed amendments are intended to bring Orono's code into conformity with state statutes. Gaffron indicated there are some impacts associated with the statutes that are opposed to Orono's philosophy but the City is required to comply with the state statutes. The impact in Orono is significant due to the large number of small lots and shoreland areas located within the City. Under Orono's codes, they would be considered substandard or unbuildable. Typically the lots are substandard in area and width. The statute requires that cities allow the property owners to build on lots that meet certain criteria established in state rules and by the DNR,with the City no longer having the ability to deny the buildability of those lots. Gaffron stated an example of that situation is the Maple Place/Minnie Avenue area where there were seven 50-foot lots that were approximately 9,000 square feet each. The applicant originally agreed to combine some of the lots to meet the 100-foot width, 18,000 square feet, and half-acre standards. Staff agreed that would be a better situation than having one building on each 50-foot lot. Since then,the applicants have indicated that they are going to construct a house on each one of those lots. The City does not have any ability to stop it other than to make sure that they meet the 25 percent hardcover. As a result of the small sized lots,the houses will have very limited footprints and narrow driveways. Gaffron reiterated this code amendment is to make Orono's code conforming to state statute. Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted the other significant impact with the code amendment has to do with Big Island. There are a number of lots on Big Island that are smaller than the five acre standard. Back in 1983,the City looked at Big Island and established the concept of record lots consisting of individual existing lots in single ownership as well as groups of lots in common ownership,designating each group as a single record lot. A total of 69 record lots were identified, consisting of some 170 individual tax parcels. The record lots were further designated based on size as subdividable,conforming, substandard buildable, and substandard unbuildable. The intent was to recognize the limitations of providing services to Big Island necessary to support development and to limit future development consistent with that minimal level of services A majority of the record lot owners agreed via lot area variance resolutions,which were then filed against the property titles,functioning similar to a special lot combination agreement. In some cases,however, where owners did not agree to the variance conditions, individual lots were never granted the variance and were never combined in any manner. These record lots are at risk of being sold off as individual parcels and would be subject to the new statute,making individual lots buildable in complete conflict with the intent of Orono's 1983 regulations. Gaffron reiterated that the City is required to comply with the statutes. Gaffron noted the attached table included in the Commission's packet shows the lots that have not been combined. There are approximately a dozen parcels that have not been combined at the present time. The City Attorney has reviewed the code amendment,and it is Staffls recommendation to forward the code amendment to the City Council. Gaffron noted a public hearing is required. Schoenzeit asked if the lack of attendance at tonight's meeting regarding this application would impact the code amendment in any way. Gaffron stated since this code amendment does not specifically impact a particular property other than to match the state statutes,the City does not have a requirement to send notice to every property owner that is potentially impacted. Gaffron indicated notice was published in the newspaper of the code amendment, which meets the City's legal obligation as it relates to notifying the public of a code amendment. Schoenzeit noted the City does not have a choice in this matter and is required to follow state statute. Schoenzeit asked if the 1,500 square foot building envelope would apply to these lots. Gaffron indicated they would still have to meet the setback standards and structural coverage standards in addition to the hardcover standards. Gaffron noted the 1,500 square feet is a m�imum and it is not a right when you require other variances in order to construct on the property. Thiesse asked what size lot would typically be required to meet the septic requirements. Gaffron indicated it would likely have to be an acre in size. Gaffron noted holding tanks would not be allowed on Big Island. Leskinen noted a primary and a secondary septic site would also be required. Gaffron stated it is unlikely that most of the lots on Big Island would be able to comply with that requirement. Page 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Levang noted at the City Council meeting there was an application where the two septic sites overlapped slightly. Schoenzeit noted there are sufficient additional building codes that help to ensure construction is occurring on appropriate pieces of property. Gaffron stated the substandard city lots will likely have more impact than the lots on Big Island. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3542 City of Orono, Code Amendment for Lots of Record in Shoreland Areas,subject to updating the lot combinations since 1983. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT OF PLANNING COMNIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 23,2012,AND FEBRUARY 13,2012 Landgraver stated he attended the January 23`d City Council meeting and reported that the Mayor recommended that the hardcover task force attempt to complete their work by the end of June. The majority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Leskinen stated at the February 13t�'City Council meeting three of the planning applications were placed on the Consent Agenda. As it relates to the application on Turnham Road,there were some concerns expressed by the City Attorney over the escrow requirement since he felt it was a private property situation rather than public land. Thiesse commented the City is directing to some degree what must occur on the property and that he finds it hard to believe the City cannot require an escrow in that type of situation. Gaffron stated Staff had had a similar discussion regarding the escrow. Curtis commented it is difficult for the City to guarantee or to hold an escrow on private land. Even though the City is dictating what happens to an extent on a piece of property,they do not have any control over that private drive. Gaffron stated he would suggest the Planning Commission look at a similar situation where there was a private road that was in place for 30 years with one vacant lot at the end. The road is owned by the homeowners association. If someone came in and wanted to build on that last lot,heavy equipment would be driven up and down the road. The City has never gone to the extent to require an escrow for whatever damage might be done to the road. Gaffron stated this is a similar situation and it would be Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. quite unusual for the City to try to protect an easement situation like that as opposed to public improvements. Schoenzeit asked if the City goes after contractors for damage. Curtis indicated they have in certain situation where a public street has been damaged by a contractor. Thiesse stated the issue is that the driveway agreement is between two people but the applicant was not part of that agreement. Curtis noted the easement goes over all three properties. Thiesse noted the owner of the subject property does not use the easement. Gaffron stated whoever created the easement did not include in that some requirements for how it gets used or maintained,which is unfortunate,but that an escrow is not something the City has ever required in that type of situation in the past. Levang commented the Planning Commission perhaps should have taken the approach that it was an issue between the property owners. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could have directed Staff to see whether an escrow could be required by the City. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the City Attorney is not present at the meetings to provide legal advice. Levang asked whether the neighbors will be notified that the escrow will not be required. Curtis indicated she will send the staff report and resolution to the interested neighbor. Leskinen stated the Turnham application was eventually approved and a condition was added to have the existing home removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Two other conditions were removed. Bremer commented the City Council felt those conditions were redundant. Leskinen stated the wording strongly encouraged as it relates to the signage on the Luce Line was not felt to be a condition by the City Attorney. The other item that was discussed by the Council was 3508 Ivy Place,which was approved. The Ferndale West application was approved without a turnaround. ' Curtis stated the Council approved his request consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation and the applicant has submitted revised plans. His resolution will be before the City Council at the next meeting. Page 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Thiesse asked if any more recommendations have been submitted regarding Navarre. Gaffron stated he did meet with a couple of the people in the study group and that they discussed processes and procedures for their group and possible ways for how the local business owners should be approached. Gaffron indicated he will be sending a letter to the business owners in Navarre stating basically that the Council is supporting the Navarre Initiative Committee that will be advising the City Council on what improvements should be made in the area. Gaffron stated there are a variety of directions that can be pursued in dealing with connectivity and beautification of the area. That letter will be before the Council on Monday. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:17 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. � � — � Loren Schoenzeit, Chair Page 16