Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2012 Planning Commission Minutes 1 � 7 f / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 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,and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member David Rahn was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 6 was added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing on Item No. 6 at 6:34 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING CODZNIISSION MEETING NIINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2012 Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of March 19,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS , 2. #11-3534 DANIEL NELSON ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR J.NELSON ESTATE,400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,SUBDIVISION,PRELII�ZINARY PLAT,6:35 P.M.—6:47 P.M. Gaffi-on noted this application was tabled at the November 21,2011,Planning Commission meeting pending submittal of a Conservation Design Plan and for confirmation of MCWD approval of wetland impact mitigation plans. The Conservation Design Plan has been submitted, and because the wetland fill impacts have been reduced to less than 1,000 square feet by establishing retaining walls on either side of the road as it passes the wetlands,the applicants'consultants are applying for a deminimus exemption so that no mitigation will be required. This application is requesting preliminary plat approval to create three,new buildable lots and a private road from the original 12.37 acres. Each of the lots will consist of at least 2.0 acres dry,buildable and a 50-foot wide private road outlot,with cul-de-sac, is also proposed. The Conservation Design Master Plan addresses specific actions that have been taken or will be implemented to protect identified resources, including maintenance of existing drainage patterns,tree preservation,wetland protection,and view protection. Information about these protective measures will Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. be provided to lot buyers about the protective measured required for the property. A conservation easement is planned to protect the trees along the north boundary. Wetland flowage and conservation easements and buffer covenants will be required. The need for wetland mitigation is expected to be eliminated by reducing the road shoulder width as it passes between the two wetlands near Willow Drive and by adding low retaining walls(less than 4'in height)to the road design for this stretch. The City Engineer has noted that Wetland C has not been classified on the City Wetland Classification Map and will need to have a MN RAM classification to determine the appropriate buffer width. Other wetland recommendations are included in the 11/21/11 Engineer comments. Wetland buffer mitigation will be required where warranted. Gaffron noted the lot layout and lot standards have not changed since the November review. The road design has changed slightly by adding surmountable swale concrete curbing to direct runoff to the culverts and ponding areas. The earlier plan showed a rural section without curbing and with wide ditches. The curbing also reduces the grading required next to the road which allows for increased tree and wetland preservation. Gaffron stated a trail easement along Willow Drive should be granted for potential future city trail construction. Park fees and storm water and drainage trunk fees will be required. The City Engineer has indicated that the existing barn should be removed before final plat approval. Septic system design reports have been submitted and approved. Gaffron noted the neighbors located at the southwest corner of the property are currently working with the applicants to purchase a 30'by 116'strip along the west boundary of proposed Lot 2. This would reduce the area of Lot 2 by approximately 0.08 acres,which would have no significant impacts on Lot 2. This would be platted as an outlot within the Nelson plat and designated for combination with the Bowman property. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1) submittal of confirmation that MCWD will not require wetland fill mitigation; and 2)subject to past and ongoing City Engineer comments and recommendations. Schoenzeit noted the location of the drainage pond is where the most heavily wooded section of the lot is and asked whether there is another spot the drainage pond could be constructed. Gaffron stated the water cannot be diverted into the wetland so the applicant's engineer has proposed placing the holding pond in that location. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated they did look at other options for the holding pond but that the pond needs to be located in the lowest area to capture the runoff from the road and that this was the only location for the pond. Thiesse noted that is a low area. Schoenzeit commented it is a technically correct spot but that it is somewhat disruptive to the vegetation. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gronberg noted the other wooded area on the lot to the east is being included in a conservation easement. The trees along Willow Drive will also be saved. Gronberg commented the larger holding pond is required to meet the City standards and that this location is really the only option available to accommodate it. Daniel Nelson,Applicant,had nothing to add to Staffs report. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Landgraver moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3534,Arthur J.Nelson Estate,400 Willow Drive South,subdivision and preliminary plat approval,subject to the conditions outlined in Staffs report and the recommendations of the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. #11-3503 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT- LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: DOCK RENTAL,6:47 P.M.-7:07 P.M. Schoenzeit noted this item should be heard under old business since it was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron concurred that this application is old business and that he has only heard from one or two residents this past week concerning this item. Gaffron stated the text amendment was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional public input. The City Attorney and Staff have had a number of discussions concerning this text amendment. The issue before the Planning Commission is whether the City should allow residential boat slip rental. Staff originally proposed an amendment that seeks to clarify the current regulation that prohibits private residential dock rental. The City Council directed Staff to draft a couple of options for Planning Commission and City Council review. The first option would be to allow docking of guest boats on a short-term basis, and various permutations of that language have been discussed.The second option is to remove the current prohibitions on residential dock slip rental and simply allow boat slip rental on Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron noted there are some differences between the way Orono regulates boat slips and the way the LMCD regulates them. The LMCD does not really attempt to regulate boat slips unless there are more than three boat slips located on a single property. The City has ordinances in place since the 1960s that generally prohibit rental of residential boat slips. The intent of Staff was to simplify the code since the current language is contained in five or six different sections of the code. The main concern expressed to date has been that there should not be residential boat slip rental but provisions need to be made for relatives,neighbors and friends. In talking with the City Attorney,he has indicated he is uncomfortable with defining what a friend, a neighbor, or a relative is. The City Attorney has not proposed any enforcement language at this time and has indicated he does not feel he would be able to suggest any new language that would be enforceable. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted a considerable amount of public comment was received at the March Planning Commission meeting. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. Schoenzeit asked what the possible scenarios are that would be available for consideration by the Planning Commission without a recommendation from the City Attorney. Gaffron stated one of the concerns of the City Council is that everyone who has an interest in this amendment has a chance to provide input. Gaffron noted this item was not published since it was continued at last month's meeting. There has not been a great effort by Staff to notify the public,and at this point, given the public comment at the last meeting,the Planning Commission has the option to table the application and perhaps direct Staff to provide more notice to the public. The Planning Commission could also forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation. Gaffron indicated there is not an urgent need to pass this application tonight. Schoenzeit stated his feeling is that if there are any changes to be made to the code,they might make the situation more complicated,and that the number of issues associated with this issue is limited. Schoenzeit stated in his view there should be more opportunity for public notice. Levang indicated she is in agreement that the application should be tabled. The primary issue that Staff has is simplifying the code by consolidating the language into one section and that she would be more comfortable with notifying the public of the proposed text amendment to allow the City to get their input. Schoenzeit asked what the desire of the City Council is. City Council Member Rahn stated his thought would be that at some point in time Staff would be drafting changes to the ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. Rahn indicated based on the City Attorney's comments,he is not sure whether that will be possible or not,but that he would like the Planning Commission to review any alternate language that may be proposed. Rahn concurred that it is difficult to discuss the text amendment when there is no new language being proposed. Gaffron indicated Staff could provide the Planning Commission with some options and the disadvantages/advantages that Staff feels are associated with each of those options. Gaffron commented the options presented may not be options recommended by Staff and/or the City Attorney, but that the Planning Commission would at least have the opportunity to review and discuss them. Thiesse commented it appears that there are a few words that have been added to some sections of the text amendment that appear to be an issue and that perhaps that language could be removed and the sections could be consolidated Gaffron stated the words that have been added is a statement in each of the lakeshore zoning districts stating that the accessory use of a private dock shall not include renting or otherwise providing space, including boat buoys for docking,mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to persons other than Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COIVIMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. the owner or occupant of the property except when licensed as a joint use. That language currently exists in the code but is in different sections of the code,which makes it difficult to explain to property owners. Landgraver stated in his view they should direct Staff to draft some language and then hold another public hearing to obtain any other input from the general public. Schoenzeit reopened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Richard Anderson,3205 Crystal Bay Road,noted the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to accept the language that Staff has proposed. Anderson indicated he is the owner of three marinas in Orono and that he is opposed to allowing rental of residential docks. The majority of the public at the last Planning Commission meeting also indicated they were opposed to the rental of residential dock slips. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to accept Staff's language and the text amendment then went to the City Council. Only one council member was opposed to the vote. Anderson indicated he is not sure what the motive is of that council member to send it back to the Planning Commission since they have already recommended approval of the language. Schoenzeit stated he did attend the City Council meeting where this was discussed and that the City is working to create ordinances that are reasonable and fair. Schoenzeit noted there is language in the text amendment that would prohibit residents from doing certain things and that the ordinance needs to be examined and thoroughly discussed prior to it being adopted. If the current ordinance is broken, it needs to be adjusted and all options need to be considered. Schoenzeit indicated the City wants to look at it further to see if the language can be made to match the usage. Anderson asked what the intent of the meeting was last month. Schoenzeit indicated the intent was to get public input on the draft text amendment and that additional questions were raised at the City Council meeting. Schoenzeit commented there are different options to deal with some of these issues,particularly as they relate to parking,without impacting what happens in the water. Anderson questioned whether there should be a B2 District anymore. Anderson asked how the B2 District would be protected. Schoenzeit stated those are fair questions and need to be looked at. Schoenzeit noted there is no new recommendation to review or approve the text amendment and that protection for nonrental is well established in the City's current code. Levang noted there was no legal notice of a public hearing tonight,which is part of the concern of the Planning Commission. The process typically is that no legal notice is required when an application is tabled,but that the Planning Commission wants to make sure that the public has ample notice of this text amendment. Anderson asked what additional direction the Planning Commission is giving to Staff and the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the City will continue to review the amendment to see what other options are available. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Anderson commented the Planning Commission does not appear to be at a point where further direction can be given. Anderson stated he has worked with the City for the past 25 years and that he maintains a legal,well-maintained operation. Schoenzeit stated the City appreciates the comments and participation of Mr.Anderson on this item. Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to table Application#11-3503,City of Orono,Zoning Code Text Amendment—Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts: Dock Rental. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 3. #12-3549 MARGARET PELTOLA, 1550 NORTH ARM DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES,7:08 P.M. Margaret Peltola,Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact front setback variance for the construction of an enclosed entryway and covered deck. The existing home,constructed in approximately 1930, is a one- story walkout rambler with a one-stall detached garage. Over the winter the applicant,with the assistance of a friend,began construction of an enclosed 6'x 6'entryway and a 6'x 6'adjacent deck without the required building permits. Review of a 1999 survey on file indicated the partially finished structure was located less than the required 35-foot setback from the front lot line.The applicant has provided an updated survey and is requesting variance approval in order to complete the structure as proposed. The proposed enclosed entryway as constructed is 34.4 feet from the street lot line and the covered deck extending from it is 28.4 feet from the front lot line. The LR-1B zoning district requires a 35-foot front or street yard setback. No other variances are required for this addition. With the enclosed entryway door facing the street,an entry porch or stoop encroaching into the setback is necessary for reasonable access due to the height of the main floor. If the entry door was relocated to the side of the enclosed entryway,a stoop could likely be constructed that would not require a variance. Covering that side entry stoop might impact views from the front windows and would reduce light into those windows. The applicant has indicated to Staff that the interior of the enclosed ent7yway is too small to allow for large furniture,etc.,to make the turn so that a straight-through configuration was constructed. Additionally the applicant has indicated that a south facing door and porch would conflict with existing utilities. The applicant also noted that the covered porch is intended to protect visitors from the rain, etc., as the house has minimal overhangs. A factor in considering practical difficulty is whether the request is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and adjacent properties. The Planning Commission should determine if the requested setback variance will alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing an addition that will extend 12' closer to the road than the west wall of the home,which is 39.7 percent from the street lot line. Because the residence is slightly angled back from the street,the nearest point of the enclosed entryway will be 34.4 feet from the street lot line or just 0.06 feet closer than allowed. However,the addition of the covered deck/porch is the primary cause of the need for a variance. Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The 6'x 6'enclosed entryway extending from the pre-existing front door could be accomplished with minimal or no variance to the front setback. However,granting of a variance to allow an additional six feet of structure encroachment to accommodate the covered porch may not be necessary to preserve the applicant's ability to reasonably access the home in an energy-efficient manner. The applicant has indicated the porch and entryway are necessary for future accommodation of wheelchair access to the house. The Planning Commission should consider whether such access could be reasonably accomplished with a side-loading entryway and a covered porch directly south of the entryway, substantially meeting the applicant's goals but minimizing the level of variance needed. The conditions applying to this property are somewhat unique in that existing structures on adjacent properties are not uniformly set back from the road. The adjacent home to the north has a detached garage located in the front yard approximately 25 feet from its front lot line. The applicant's entryway and covered porch will extend no closer to the road than that neighboring garage. The residence to the , immediate south is located approximately 34 feet from the street lot line. The applicant's house sits four to six feet above the street and the entryway and porch will be somewhat screened from public view by existing vegetation. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed entryway addition will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or have any negative impacts on light,air,or open space in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the applicant proposes 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. Is the requested setback variance supported by practical difficulties? Can the proposed entryway and porch be reconfigured to minimize the extent of setback variance required? Staff recommends approval of the minimal(0.06') setback variance required for the enclosed entryway. With regards to the covered porch, Staff recommends the Planning Commission review with the applicant whether the covered porch can be reasonably reoriented to the side of the entryway and still meet the applicant's needs. If so, Staff would recommend that the additional6'variance to accommodate the westerly extended porch be denied and the applicant be provided direction as to providing an alternative plan. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant obtained a building permit and whether the building is structurally sound and meets City code. Gaffron indicated it is his understanding the building inspector has not reviewed the structure or the plans and that no permit has been obtained. Schoenzeit stated it appears to be structurally sound from the sketch. Gaffron stated that would be subject to the building inspector's verification. Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dan Devord stated he helped the applicant construct the building and that the structure is a stand-alone structure. Margaret Peltola stated if the deck is on the other side, it will not be a safe place to live anymore since people would be able to look through her entire house from the deck. Devord indicated no nails were used in the construction and that they utilized nuts,bolts, and screws for the structure.The footings were cemented in four and a half feet down. Peltola stated they did obtain a permit for the deck and this structure was constructed exactly in the same manner as the deck. Devord indicated he has known the applicant for the past 15 years and that she has had to retire early due to health issues. For the last 10 years,her health has been deteriorating and she has expressed fear of the future. This structure will accommodate a wheelchair. Peltola pointed out this is also the flattest and lowest part of the property. The deck is four feet on one side and seven feet on the other side and it would be very costly to construct a ramp on that side. Devord stated he knows the American Disability Act requires reasonable accommodates be made for the handicap in public buildings and that this structure is not unreasonable. Leskinen asked why a permit was not pulled to construct this structure since the applicant clearly understood a permit was required. Peltola stated she did not pull a permit because she knew it would be costly and another survey would be required. Peltola indicated she has already spent$5,000 on the structure. Devord indicated social security disability is her only source of income. Leskinen commented that not pulling a permit ultimately is more costly. Leskinen asked why the applicant could not just construct a covered porch with a ramp. Peltola stated if you open the front door,a blast of cold air comes in,and when it is windy,the door slams against furniture. Peltola indicated her living room is very long and narrow and that she could not use the doorway in the wintertime due to the cold air coming in. Leskinen asked what the need is for the additional deck. Peltola stated the house does not eaves, so when there is snow on the roof, it falls on someone's head. Peltola indicated she would like to have a covered porch due to the weather. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented it appears that it would be difficult to remove the deck since it is attached to the roof of the entryway. The structure is in line with the neighbor's house and is not a danger to the traveling public since it is up the hill from the road. Landgraver noted that currently visitors to the house are required to walk through the yard. Landgraver asked whether this would be the appropriate time to consider the need for a sidewalk and whether that will present a hardcover issue. Gaffron stated following construction of the structure,the hardcover is currently at 23.8 percent and they are allowed 30 percent. Gaffron indicated in his view there is adequate area to accommodate a ramp in the future and not impact hardcover. Schoenzeit asked whether approval should be contingent on obtaining a building permit,having the building inspector inspect it,and then bringing the project up to code or requiring a sidewalk. Schoenzeit stated it is likely the ramp will require a handrail. Devord indicated construction is not complete at this time and that they were planning on adding a handrail. Schoenzeit suggested approval be subject to obtaining a building permit and an inspection by the building inspector. Schoenzeit asked whether the Planning Commission should approve the hardcover for the sidewalk and ramp. Thiesse noted the variance would be good for a year,which would give the applicant time to construct the ramp and sidewalk. Gaffron stated the variance approval is good for one year and that Staff can then extend it for another year. Gaffron stated it would be best to obtain a permit to finish the structure and then to also obtain a permit for the ramp. Peltola asked if she would require another survey. Gaffron indicated she would not. ' Levang asked what the requirement is for a sidewalk. Gaffron stated he does not perceive there will be a hardcover issue and that typically they look for a four-foot wide sidewalk. Gaffron stated the ramp would likely be 3-1/2 to 4 feet wide to accommodate a wheelchair, and at this time hardcover does not appear to be an issue. The ramp will require a railing. Gaffron indicated that if this situation had occurred where they came in and wanted to construct a handicap accessible ramp at the setback,the ADA would force the City to accommodate a ramp,which would be approved through a variance process. Schoenzeit moved to recommend approval of Application#12-3549, 1550 North Arm Drive, granting of after-the-fact variances,subject to Staff recommendations and subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit for the structure,a ramp,and sidewalk. Leskinen asked whether the ramp should be included in the building permit. Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit indicated it would be and that the entire structure will need to be constructed according to building code. Schoenzeit noted they are within the typical setback for the neighborhood. Leskinen seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #12-3551 CARL TSENG&KIlVI YUEH CHAUN,1505 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:32 P.M.—9:05 P.M. Carl Tseng and Kim Yueh Chaun,Applicants;7ohn Romey,Contractor; and Dan Pertinen,Designer, were present. Gaffron stated the subject property is just over one-fourth of an acre in the 2-acre zone. The lot was platted in 1926 and the existing home is presumed to date from that time period. The lot is 99 feet in width by definition but only 60 feet in functional width. The applicant is requesting the following approvals for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property: 1. Lot area variance to allow construction on a lot of 11,951 square feet where 82,120 square feet is required; 2. Lot width variance to allow construction on a lot of 99'defined width and 60'functional width where 200'is required; 3. Side setback variance to allow west side setback of 10.0'where 30'is required; 4. Side setback variance to allow east side setback of 10.4'where 30' is required; 5. Street setback variance to allow street setback of 21.9'where 50'is required; 6. Lakeshore setback variance to allow lakeshore setback of 493 feet where 100'is required; 7. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow average lakeshore encroachment of 30'where no Encroachment is allowed; 8. 0-75'hardcover variance to allow 12.2 percent hardcover where no hardcover is normally Allowed; 9. 75-250'hardcover variance to allow 36.2 percent hardcover where only 25 percent is normally Allowed; 10. Variance to allow structure within Bluff Impact Zone where no structure is normally allowed; l.l. Conditional use permit and variance required for 0-75'grading/filling/excavation in excess of 10 cubic yards. Portions of the existing home were apparently constructed in the 1920s. The residence is a one-story walkout with a one-stall detached garage. The applicants propose to remove the existing home and Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. garage and construct a new 2-story walkout with attached garage. The property is very steep and a portion of the property at the northwest corner of the existing house meets the definition of"bluff." Long Lake is classified as a Recreational Alake by the MnDNR and requires a 100 foot structure setback � from the OHWL. The southwest corner of the existing house is 43.6 feet from the OHWL and the proposed house will have a setback of 49.3 feet. The increased setback results from a combination of factors related to the angled shoreline,while the lakeward fagade moves south a few feet,the west side setback increases from iwo feet to ten feet. The only way to increase the setback from the lake would be to reduce the size of the proposed house or move it closer to the street,which would require a greater street setback variance. In many past situations where the required lake setback cannot be met,the city has approved variances in which at least a 50-foot setback seems reasonable. The slope on the property decreases from west to east across the property. The neighboring property to the west has slopes in excess of 30 percent and meets the definition of bluff. Only the northwesterly portion of applicant's property is a bluff,with the 970'contour line defining the top of bluff. It would be most accurate to say that while the existing house is partly within the defined bluff,the bulk of the proposed structure is mostly not within the defined bluff but the attached garage will be within the bluff impact zone. Staffs primary concern here is with establishment and execution of a grading and drainage plan for the site that will not impact adjacent properties and will provide slope stability. Approximately two-thirds of the property is within the 0-75'hardcover zone.Existing 0-75'hardcover is 15.1 percent, of which three/fourths is existing house and the remainder is concrete sidewalks.The proposed plan reduces the 0-75'hardcover to 12.2 percent by removing virtually all the sidewalks, slightly decreasing the square footage of the house, and adding a small 88 square foot deck. In the 75-250'zone,hardcover is proposed to substantially increase,going from 15.7 percent to 36.2 percent. The increase is a function of a number of factors inherent in the proposed design and includes an increased house footprint,attachment of a 2-stall garage, addition of driveway to serve the attached garage, and providing an acceptable setback from the street to the house. Total proposed hardcover is 2,492 square feet or 20.8 percent. Of this amount, 1,794 square feet is in structure and 712 square feet is in driveway, stoop and sidewalk. Potential revisions of the proposal to reduce the amount of hardcover each have their plusses and minuses. The house could be reduced in size. The 15 percent lot coverage standard is a limit and not an allowance. The applicant by code is allowed 1,500 square feet of structure regardless of lot size but limited to 15 percent. The attached garage could be relocated to the east half of the house rather than the west half. The street setback to the house/garage would decrease,but the driveway would be shorter. This would likely result in less off-street parking availability. The amount of fill needed to accommodate the driveway would likely decrease. Likewise,construction of a detached garage instead of attaching it would potentially have similar impacts. Potential methods of mitigation the hardcover excesses could be explored, such as directing as much runoff as possible to a rain garden located in the relatively flat area near the shore or requiring that a shoreline buffer be established. The Planning Commission should note the following: Page 11 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. � 1. There is an existing well located in the middle of the proposed driveway. This well likely will have to be abandoned and a new one constructed if the driveway location does not move. 2. According to City records,the property has never been connected to the municipal sewer. The future connection will be via a privately owned grinder station, as the existing and proposed houses are below the gravity line in the street. The 1-1/2" service line dedicated for this use is just inside the west property boundary. 3. An existing storm sewer catch basin in the right-of-way adjacent to the existing garage discharges to a 12" pipe below the east lot line. There is a 10'easement along the esat side lot line for this pipe,which discharges at the base of the slope. Pending confirmation that this easement is of record,the applicant is advised that no structure, including cantilevers and roof overhangs,will be allowed to encroach within that easement. 4. A number of mature trees exist on the property,as well as very nearby on the adjacent properties. There are two large mature oaks lakeward of the house in the 0-75'zone and these must be protected at all costs. An additional mature oak in the 0-75'zone on the property to the west overhangs the applicant's existing house and is potentially at risk if it conflicts with the proposed house. Additional mature oaks and ash trees in the street yard are at risk under the current proposal. 5. The proposed house appears to meet the City's established height limitations of 30'and 2-1/2 stories. However,the plans provided to date are sketches only. Height limitations will have to be analyzed once final plans are submitted with the building permit,and no variances will be granted to those limitations. 6. Long Lake Boulevard is a narrow dead-end street with minimal availability for on-street parking. Parking of construction vehicles is likely to be difficult at best,and the applicant should be forewarned that construction may have to involve shuttling from off-site. Gaffron stated the applicant is proposing to use the property for residential purposes,which is permitted by ordinance. The question then is whether the proposal for that use is reasonable given the unique and somewhat extreme site characteristics. The property was platted before existing codes were enacted, and many of the existing improvements were established prior to current codes. These circumstances are unique and not created by the landowner. Granting of the variances will alter the essential character of the locality is subjective. The proposed house to be constructed is significantly different in character than some neighboring homes but is similar to others. Other homes along the street are similarly located near the road at the top of or within a bluff feature. The Planning Commission will have to determine whether the neighborhood character will be altered. Reasonable use of the property requires some level of variances to various code requirements. Economic considerations will not be a practical difficulty as long as some reasonable use of the property is allowed. Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The conditions applying to this property are somewhat unique in that few areas of the City have existing structures on slopes as steep as this, and most properties in the LR-lA district are larger than this site. Some neighboring properties to the immediate west along the south side of Long Lake Boulevard are similar in character to this lot. All other properties in Orono's LR-lA zoning district are required to adhere to the same requirements that this property must adhere to. Granting of some level of variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. However,the applicant does have the right to reconstruct the existing structures in-kind. The granting of some level of variances is not likely to impair health, safety, comfort,morals or be contrary to the intent of the code. Finally, granting of some level of variances appears to be necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty and will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the applicant proposes 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. Is the proposed house appropriately sized or should it be reduced,perhaps to the 1,500 square foot minimum allowance, in order to reduce the impacts and the degree of associated variances? 4. Are the proposed hardcover levels acceptable,or should they be reduced to more closely match City standards? Can the site layout be modified to reduce the magnitude of variances? Should the hardcover levels be subject to mitigation? 5. Does the Planning Commission conclude that the average setback variance is acceptable because neighboring lake views are not impacted? Staff recommends the following: 1. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. 2. Staff recommends approval of 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover variances at a level the Planning Commission finds acceptable. If reductions from the current proposed levels are recommended, then a revised site plan and house plan should be requested. Staff recommends that mitigation measures be required for excessive hardcover on the site. 3. Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variances, subject to establishment of a grading and drainage plan acceptable to the City Engineer and subject to no encroachment of the east side 10' drainage and utility easement by overhangs, cantilevers,or other structure. 4. Staff recommends approval of lake setback and street setback variances as proposed, subject to any revisions needed if hardcover must be reduced. Page 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as proposed. 6. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow structure within the defined bluff impact zone subject to establishment and execution of a grading and drainage plan for the site that will not impact adjacent properties and addresses any slope stability concerns. Any retaining walls four feet in height or greater will require submittal of plans designed by a structural engineer. 7. Staff recommends approval of a CUP and variance for grading/excavation/fill within the 0-75' zone, subject to a final grading and drainage plan that addresses any City Engineer concerns regarding slope stability; subject to adherence to the City's erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process. 8. The applicant shall take all necessary measures to ensure the survivability of the mature trees within the 0-75' protected area. 9. The applicant is advised of street parking limitations during the construction process. Schoenzeit asked if Staff has an overhead of the proposed setback versus what currently exists. Don Pertinen,Designer,pointed out the existing house on the overhead, and indicated they would start at the same setback as the existing house. The proposed home will be no closer to the lake than the existing house. Schoenzeit stated as it relates to the side elevations,there appears to be a fair amount of the foundation sticking out of the ground. Schoenzeit asked if that meets City Code. Gaffron indicated it does. Because the garage is unexcavated underneath, it would not be counted as part of the perimeter. Staff looks at how much of the side,rear,and front walls of the perimeter have at least six feet or less exposure based on existing grade. Staff has done that analysis with both the proposed house and the existing house, and the applicants just meet that standard. Leskinen asked if the house to the west is a two-story. An unidentified lady in the audience indicated it is a two-story and it has a basement. Gaffron depicted an aerial photograph of the house to the west on the overhead. Landgraver asked if the grading will be raised at the property line to capture the runoff. Gaffron displayed photographs of the existing house and property and pointed out the existing setback and the proposed setback from the street. Gaffron illustrated how the drainage is proposed to work following construction,and noted that a shallow drainage ditch will be constructed down the property line,which may or may not work. The intent is not to have drainage into the house but that it is likely some of the runoff will go on to the neighbor's property. Thiesse commented it appears that the drainage will be captured along the property line. Thiesse asked whether any of the catch basins and pipe to the lake can be utilized. Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated to his knowledge they will not be able to have the driveway utilize the catch basin due to the elevations. Gaffron stated he is not aware of another catch basin near the garage. Thiesse commented it appears there is another catch basin near the mailbox on the other side of the street and that the applicant is proposing to divert a lot of the runoff along both property lines. Thiesse stated it may be necessary to utilize the catch basins given the steep slope. Levang asked where the new well would be located. Gaffron pointed out the sewer line that would be connected to a grinder pump. The well could perhaps be located somewhat east of the driveway but that there could be issues with drainage. Gaffron stated it is his belief that a location for a new well can be found on the property. Levang asked if the applicants will need to back out of the driveway onto the road. Gaffron stated they would need to back out of the driveway and noted that this street is not well traveled and that Staff does not have a concern with that. Levang asked if the driveway could be narrowed. Gaffron stated the driveway could be narrowed but that Long Lake Boulevard is an extremely narrow street with no on-street parking. With the driveway as proposed,the property owner might be able to stack four cars in the driveway in addition to two in the garage. Levang asked as it relates to the stairs down to the lake,how much hardcover that would consist of. Gaffron indicated it would probably be a couple hundred square feet and that it is allowed hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. The applicant had nothing to add to Staffs report. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Kurt Greenley, 1485 Long Lake Boulevard, stated Staff was very mindful of the issues in the neighborhood when reviewing this application. Greenley stated at the time the sewer was installed approximately 15 years ago,the road was expanded somewhat,which is an invitation for people to park there. The City installed no parking signs along the street but recently one of the no parking signs was removed. The road has safety issues,and due to the narrowness ofthe street,vehicles need to turn°around in people's driveways. Greenley stated in his view Staff has done a good job of addressing that. Greenley stated shortening the driveway or decreasing the width of the driveway is not a good idea since a wider driveway would accommodate guests. The snow plow people also need to utilize a special snow plow due to the narrow width of the street. Greenley noted one of the suggestions that is being considered is whether the driveway ought to be moved further to the east,which would be a mistake because there would be six homes emptying out into the street in that same area. Having the driveway in the location proposed by the contractor is safer. Greenley noted he does need to back out into the street,which is not a serious problem. Page 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. � Greenley noted he does have a large lot and that he has kept hardcover on his lot to a minimum. Approximately half of the driveways in the area are not blacktopped. Greenley noted with this proposal the side lot setback will be moved closer to his property and that he understand the need for that,but that he would like to see, in exchange for allowing the variance,that there be no temporary structures,dog kennels or storage allowed in that 10-foot area. Greenley noted there will be 60 feet between his house and this house,but that 50 feet is located on his property. Greenley stated in his view the house may be a little too large for the lot given its small size and topography. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Schoenzeit asked how long the proposed driveway is. Gaffron indicated it is approximately 38 feet to the roadway from the garage. Schoenzeit noted it is at the minimum size to accommodate four cars. Thiesse stated that a nonconcrete or nonblacktop driveway would not be good for this property as it relates to the runoff given the slopes. Schoenzeit stated the question is how this property will handle its drainage. Schoenzeit asked whether the City has heard from the neighbor to the west. Gaffron indicated he has not heard anything from that property owner and that there is potentially more runoff with this proposal that would be directed towards that property than what currently exists. Gaffron indicated the applicant is attempting to divert the runoff from the neighbor's property. Leskinen asked what the footprint is for the existing home. Carl Tseng stated it is 1,833 square feet with the garage. Gaffron stated Eachibits C and D show the house and garage. The existing house consists of 1,065 square feet. The garage consists of 252 square feet. The proposed house would be 1,692 square feet. The proposed house is bigger,with the footprint for the proposed house and garage being approximately 1,700 square feet. Leskinen asked if the total footprint of the house and garage is 1,794 square feet. Gaffron indicated that would also include the deck,which is considered structural coverage. Leskinen noted it would be a slightly bigger home than what currently exists. Gaffron stated if you take into account the attached garage, it would be slightly bigger. Schoenzeit stated any overhangs on the east and west sides would also need to be taken into account. Schoenzeit asked whether they would still be allowed a two-foot overhang. Gaffron noted on the east side of the house there is a 10-foot easement and that Staff is recommending there be no encroachment of overhangs,eaves, or cantilevers on that side of the house. The standard Page 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. would be 30 feet for the setback. Gaffron stated with the granting a 10-foot setback where there is a 30- foot requirement,the Planning Commission should understand exactly what is being proposed for overhangs on that side of the house. Schoenzeit noted that in a conforming situation on a 10-foot setback,they allow a two foot overhang. Thiesse noted it is a drainage easement and that the issue is with maintenance of the pipe and the need to use heavy equipment. Thiesse stated the overhang would be 30 feet in the air. Gaffron stated the workers would need to be mindful of any overhang and that Staff would prefer no encroachments into that 10-foot area. Schoenzeit noted the pipe is not directionally bored. Gaffron stated that pipe has been there for approximately 15 years and is a 15-inch pipe. Thiesse stated the applicant can have a 1.4 foot overhang on that side. John Romey,Contractor, stated they would likely go with a one-foot overhang. Gaffron stated the bump out on the other side of the house would also need to be taken into account. Schoenzeit asked if the deck is included in the hardcover calculations. Gaffron indicated it is. Schoenzeit stated it appears that a couple of the trees will need to be removed as part of the construction, which will have an impact on the 0-75 foot zone. Gaffron noted one of the trees that will be impacted is located on the neighbor's property,which is an issue. Leskinen commented that this is a challenging lot and that the house may be too big for the lot. Schoenzeit asked what the other setbacks in the neighborhood are like. Gaffron stated some of the homes have a 10-foot setback and that the house directly to the west has a 10 to 15-foot setback. Gaffron commented it appears the setbacks in the area vary depending on the lot size. Levang asked if the applicant is willing to reduce the size of the house. Pertinen stated in their view they are proposing a reasonable size home and that they have reduced the home down based on the 15 percent and comments from Staff. Pertinen noted they are creating less of an issue with drainage on one side of the lot by tipping the angle of the driveway and that the grades will remain as close as possible to the existing grades. Pertinen stated in his view the drainage will be improved following this project. Page 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNiISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented each of the requests is reasonable on its own but that they do stack up and create issues. Pertinen commented a two-car garage is a necessity. Schoenzeit stated the other issue is the stairs to the lake and asked if the applicant is proposing any improvement of the lakeshore. Tseng stated they have not considered that and that purchase of the property is dependent upon approval of the application. Schoenzeit stated the hardcover for the stairway to the lake should be included in the 0-75 foot zone hardcover numbers and that there appears to be some improvements needed for the lakeshore. Pertinen indicated they have not addressed that. Pertinen stated they understand that 11 variances is quite a lot but that this is a difficult lot to work with. The applicant is attempting to minimize costs at this point to see whether the Planning Commission would be receptive to this proposal. Landgraver noted a straight staircase down to the lake would direct the runoff directly into the lake. Romey stated they would welcome any recommendations of the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked if any plans have been submitted as it relates to erosion controls. Gaffron stated that typically is submitted at the time of building permit application. Schoenzeit stated there is nothing preventing the neighbor from storing a boat in that area of his property and that it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to restrict storage in the setback area on this property. Gaffron stated City code states storage must be kept five feet from the property line and that any prohibition of storage within 10 feet of the property line would need to be a special condition placed on the approval. Gaffron commented that condition would also be difficult to enforce. Gaffron stated structures would not be allowed in the easement and would be at risk of being removed by the City. Thiesse commented typically those things remain in the easement until the City is required to do some work in that area. Schoenzeit stated the City has no regulations preventing storage on that side of the house. Gaffron stated it is impossible for City Staff to monitor whether a boat is being stored in that area on a temporary basis or any other temporary storage that might be in that area. Schoenzeit stated the issue of storage should be addressed but noted the Planning Commission has no way to prevent the applicant from utilizing that area for storage. Page • 18 NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated there have been some good faith efforts by the contractor to design something that would fit on the lot and that the comments from the neighbors are positive about adding additional hardcover to the driveway. The Planning Commission would have to defer erosion control. Schoenzeit stated that erosion control would need to comply with any recommendations of the City Engineer. Thiesse asked if this site is more unique than most and would require more attention to erosion control. Gaffron stated the slope is quite steep and has potential drainage issues that need to be addressed and built into the design. Schoenzeit stated a strong preliminary recommendation would be that the erosion would need to be addressed prior to this application going to the City Council so the applicant is well aware of what needs to be done prior to purchase. Levang noted the permitting from the MCWD has also not been obtained at this point. Gaffron indicated that normally is not done until a building permit application is submitted. Thiesse noted that on-street parking is also not allowed during construction. Leskinen asked if the application should be tabled pending submittal of a landscape and erosion plan or whether that information can be submitted prior to the application going before the City Council. Schoenzeit stated in his view the Planning Commission does not need to review that information but that the applicant will need to make a good faith effort to design those plans,and until that submittal occurs, the application should not go forward to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated those plans should also be reviewed by the City Engineer before the application goes to the City Council. Leskinen asked if there are any concerns with the size of the proposed house. Levang indicated she has concerns with the size. Leskinen commented in her view it is too much home for this lot. Levang stated she also has concerns with the erosion and how stable the slope will be following construction. Levang stated she would like cleanup of the lakeshore to be more specific and exactly what Staff would like to see occur in that area. Gaffron stated this is the type of site where the area would be regarded and then resodded. In some cases that happens a year or two after the construction of the home,but on this site it should be done prior to the project being completed. There are a variety of things that a future owner will need to do and those should probably be addressed now. Schoenzeit commented submittal of a lakeside improvement plan can be made a condition of the approval. Schoenzeit asked what size house the Planning Commission is looking at. Page 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if shoreline native vegetation would help filter some of the drainage issues. Thiesse stated that is why he would like some sort of a landscape plan submitted. Schoenzeit suggested the applicant present to the City Council a detailed landscape and drainage plan to help mitigate the level of variance being requested. Pertinen stated the applicant has a concern with designing some of this and incurring that expense before going to the City Council without some indication by the Planning Commission that the application will be approved. Schoenzeit commented that is a fair question,but at the same time the applicant is asking for quite a bit and there is some faith on the City's part that the applicant is willing to spend above average to mitigate these issues. Schoenzeit stated having a plan that the applicant is willing to commit to is a fair request on the part of the City. Pertinen stated if they redesign their plans,they would like some assurance that it will be approved. Schoenzeit commented that perhaps this application needs to be tabled so the applicant can address some of these issues. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission is willing to provide a number of square feet that would be allowed for the residence. Leskinen indicated she does not have a specific number but that she has a concern with this large of a house on this lot. Leskinen noted that 1,500 square feet is the amount the City can require. Thiesse noted that 15 percent is also a number that the City can require,which is what the applicant is at. Landgraver stated on a percentage basis,the number they are proposing fits within the City's requirements. Thiesse stated there are a number of issues with the slope of the lot and that he would like to see those addressed in an erosion control plan. Thiesse commented he is not sure if this site warrants something more than what the City typically requires. Schoenzeit stated it appears the Planning Commission believes the building envelope is at the edge of acceptable,and if the applicant were to come back before the Planning Commission with an erosion plan, grading plan,and landscaping plan to show what the applicant is willing to commit to,the plan could receive a recommendation to proceed. Schoenzeit stated at this point he would recommend that the application be tabled and that the applicant work with Staff and the City Engineer to design something that mitigates what is being requested. Deenen Schanke, 1505 Long Lake Boulevard, stated she is the present owner of the properly and that she has had problems selling the property in the past because no one wants to buy the properly due to the City's regulations. Schanke noted the drainage being proposed will help the property. Leskinen asked if Thiesse would like the application tabled. Page 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated in his view the Planning Commission would be remiss in sending this forward due to the lack of information. Thiesse commented he does not need a full plan but that some more specifics would be helpfuL Carl Tseng,Applicant, asked if the size of the house is going to be an issue. Levang commented it appears the size of the house is acceptable. Tseng stated that Kim Yueh Chaun has already spent$7,500 on this application and that they do not want to spend a considerable amount of money on plans if the application is not going to be approved. Gaffron noted the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 21 and that it would go to the City Council the second Monday of June. Schoenzeit stated in that time frame the applicant can complete the preliminary engineering to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer. Schoenzeit recommended the application be tabled. City Council Member Rahn commented it would be very helpful to have the applicant's engineer meet with the City Engineer. Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the size of the proposed home and other recommendations of Staff. Schoenzeit stated it appears the Planning Commission is recommending the application be tabled to allow the applicant time to meet with Staff and the City Engineer to see if some of these issues can be resolved. Thiesse asked who would review Item No. 6. Gaffron indicated it would be the City Engineer. Levang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#12-3551,Carl Tseng&Kim Yueh Chaun, 1505 Long Lake Boulevard,subject to Staff recommendations and the submittal of an erosion control plan,landscaping plan,vegetation mitigation plan,and a tree preservation plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #12-3552 JIM AND SHERRY WHITE,3516 IVY PLACE,VARIANCE,9:06 P.M.—9:23 P.M. Jim and Sherry White,Applicants,were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to allow the construction of a deck on the lake side of the home. The deck will be completely within the 75-250' hardcover zone. With concurrent proposed hardcover removals,the 0-75 foot hardcover will decrease from 6.3 percent to 7.5 percent and 75-250' hardcover will decrease from 47.5 percent to 45.9 percent. The existing home,a one-story walkout,was constructed in 1953. It is located next to a property that is in the process of being rebuilt. The applicants applied for a building permit in January of this year to Page 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. construct a 425 square foot deck to be added to the southeast corner of the residence and were advised that a hardcover variance was required. The subsequent zoning application was submitted proposing hardcover removals in conjunction with the new deck. Hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone is currently 125 square feet,which includes an 83 square foot concrete sidewalk to traverse the slope from the house to the lake,and a 42 square foot pump house. The applicants propose to remove the pump house leaving 0-75' hardcover at just 1.3 percent. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is currently 4,630 square feet consisting of an 1,873 square foot residence, bituminous driveway,concrete slabs/stoops/walkways,flagstone walls and walkways,wood retaining walls and a small canopy. The proposed deck area of 425 square feet includes a stairway to grade alongside the house. A portion of the deck is over existing walkway hardcover. The applicants propose to remove 282 square feet of bituminous driveway, 115 square feet of concrete, 133 square feet of flagstone walks, 11 square feet of flagstone walls, and a1141 square feet of wood retaining walls. The net result is a 75-250 foot zone decrease of 157 square feet or 1.6 percent. In reviewing whether additional removals are possible, it is noted that the existing house sits more than 60 feet from the road and has a side-loading garage,requiring additional area for backing up. The main driveway entrance is 11 feet in width and not excessive. Portions of the backup apron deemed by the applicants as unneeded for backing are being removed. An area of driveway adjacent to the side of the garage would appear to be expendable, but the applicants use that for various purposes and have indicated they would prefer not to lose it. Other areas of hardcover to remain are primarily needed to retain or traverse the slopes on the property. The applicants made their building permit application prior to demolition of the adjacent house to the immediate south at 3508 Ivy Place. The average setback line is based on that previous house location, and the proposed deck does not encroach past that defined average setback line. To dispel any concerns about the view impact for the new home under construction at 3508 Ivy Place,the owners have submitted a letter of support for the variance and note there are no view impacts to their property. The Planning Commission should consider the following: l. 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. Doe 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 impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? A rain garden? Vegetative shoreline buffering along the lakeshore? 4. Are the hardcover levels supported by practice difficulties? Is there room to reduce driveway or sidewalk hardcover any further without reducing functionality or creating additional practical difficulties? Page 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff recommends approval of the 75-250' hardcover variance to allow construction of the proposed deck. The Planning Commission should consider whether additional hardcover removals are warranted or feasible and determine whether any mitigation measures are necessary. Landgraver asked if the drainage flows towards the property line. White indicated the drainage would flow straight. Thiesse asked if removal of the retaining wall would affect the drainage. White stated in preparation for this project,they dedicated the first 20 feet of lakeshore into a conservation easement and planted hundreds and hundreds of native vegetative plants. That area has been designed to keep the runoff from the 30-foot drop from doing directly in the lake. White indicated when he purchased the property,there were very few trees on the lot and that they have added a number of trees since that time. There was also gravel in the area of the lakeshore to prevent it from washing out. White indicated they have removed all that gravel and placed plantings in that area. White indicated he would like to speak with the new neighbor about possibly removing the fence and perhaps plant bushes and other shrubs in that area. White stated he would also like to place a cistern to catch the driveway runoff and then use that water for watering plants. As it relates to the driveway, White indicated they do have to back out onto the street and that they have a small garage. White stated they are attempting to treat the water naturally prior to it going into the lake. Thiesse asked if the driveway would still be functional if that portion of the driveway is removed. White stated that was his proposal and that they would remove more than what is being added. White stated in his view the driveway will still work. Landgraver asked where the water from the proposed deck would drain to. White stated they would like to place under the deck grabbers to capture the runoff. White indicated they currently have three casings that capture the runoff to prevent it from running down the hill. Gaffron noted the runoff would not go on to the neighboring properties. Landgraver commented the drainage appears to be well addressed and asked where the runoff would exit. White illustrated on the overhead the location of the runoff exit. Schoenzeit asked what the deck would be constructed out of. White indicated they are considering cedar. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. Levang and Leskinen indicated they do not have any issues with the application. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3552,Jim and Sherry White,3516 Ivy Place,granting of a hardcover variance,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *6. #12-3553 CRAIGBANK HOLDINGS&LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES, 1700 FOX STREET AND OUTLOT A,MacMILLAN ADDITION,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3553,Craigbank Holdings and Longridge Associates, 1700 Fox Street and Outlot A,MacMillan Addition,granting of a lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. #11-3503 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT- LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: DOCK RENTAL This item was heard after Item No. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMNIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 26,2012,AND APRIL 9,2012 Levang reported the last two City Council meetings have been relatively short and that the majority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda. The LMCD is currently monitoring the low water elevation on Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron noted there was only one planning application that was not on the Consent Agenda. Levang asked why the other application with a bluff was removed from the agenda. Gaffron indicated it was removed at the request of the applicant. Thiesse stated the bluff property discussed earlier tonight is much more difficult than the other application. Gaffron stated the applicant does have the right to rebuild in-kind and that a house in-kind would likely have some of the same impacts as the proposed house. Levang noted that approximately eight neighbors in the Maple Place neighborhood attended the last City Council meeting and expressed concerns with the density being proposed. Gaffron stated as it relates to Maple Place, it has been learned that one of the state rule requirements is that you cannot have any structure within 50 feet of a federal, state,or county highway,which means that the southerly lot is probably not buildable since it is only a 50-foot lot. The applicant has been advised of that regulation and another meeting has been scheduled with the applicant to discuss his application. The Page 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri116,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. developer would like to install city water along the back side of the property. In addition,the property owner has to determine whether they can financially go forward with the project with only five houses. Levang asked why there is no protection for trees in the Maple Place neighborhood. Gaffron stated currently the City only protects trees within 75 feet of the lake. The City a few years back attempted to protect the trees along tributaries and there was a considerable amount of citizen protest over that proposal. Gaffron stated there is nothing in City Code to stop tree removal in areas outside of 75 feet of the lake. The City Engineer is attempting to work with the applicant on erosion controls but has not gotten much feedback from the applicant. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schoenzeit encouraged the Planning Commissioners to RSVP on future joint work sessions. Richard Anderson asked what the protocol was for moving Item No. 7 up on the agenda. Levang stated the issue was that the application was listed under new business and it should have been listed under old business. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:42 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. �.. Zt ✓'� �Y � ( `Z- � Loren Schoenzeit, Chair Page 25