Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2012 Planning Commission Minutes � i . . � NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission meeting met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners Lizz levang,John Thiesse,Kevin Landgraver,Denise Leskinen,and Bruce Lemke. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Mayor Lili Tod McMillan was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 3 and 5 were added to the Consent Agenda. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for Item Nos.3 and 5 at 6:33 p.m. There were no public comments regarding these items. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIOSN MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18,2012 Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 18,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #12-3557 RUSSELL SCHUMER,955 TONKAWA ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES,6:34 P.M.-7:08 P.M. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance for construction of a water feature and landscaping constituting excess hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to table this application for a month pending potential action by the City Council to adopt a new hardcover ordinance. Gaffron stated the issue with this application is whether or not the City Council will adopt the proposed hardcover ordinance that would then eliminate much of the level of variance that is in place on the . _ property. There is a large excess of hardcover excess in the 75-250. If the ordinance is adopted,that would change the amount of hardcover that can occur within the 75-250 foot zone by allowing credit for the 0-250 foot zone. In this specific application, a significant amount of the existing hardcover would presumably then become conforming. There would still be a small amount of hardcover that this property would be over. One of the questions for the Planning Commission is whether they are interested in making a • recommendation to the City Council under the current ordinance. If the Planning Commission would like Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 � 6:30 o'clock p.m. . to make a recommendation to the City Council based on the possible pending ordinance, it would change the parameters and would allow more hardcover on this property. The primary reason it is on tonight's � agenda is because the Planning Commission tabled it for one month. Gaffron indicated he is not sure how long it will be before the City Council takes action on the new hardcover ordinance and that Staff would like this application resolved at some point. Schoenzeit noted in addition to waiting for the City Council to take action,the hardcover numbers listed in Staffs report may not be the final result. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Thiesse asked whether it is a question of amount or a matter of schematics. Gaf&on stated it is a little of both. One of the things the Planning Commission did at their meeting when they discussed the new hardcover ordinance was to make a recommendation of a 30 percent limit past the 250-foot line. That would create another tier or zone within these Tier 1 properties,which is what the City Council is reviewing at this point. Thiesse asked how that would affect this property. Gaffron stated Staff has not attempted to determine what those numbers would be past the 250-foot line. Based on what has been proposed within the 0-250 foot zone at 25 percent,that would allow him 12,340 square feet of hardcover but that he would still be approximately 1,400 square feet over the new potential limit. Thiesse asked if the applicant has submitted a plan. Gaffron indicated the plan has not been finalized at this point in time. Russell Schumer,Applicant, stated following the last meeting he contacted his landscaper and was informed that he working up north and would not be back until after this meeting. Schumer indicated he . will be meeting with him and getting a plan put together,which would likely be similar to the plan proposed by Melanie Curtis but perhaps with some minor changes. Schumer stated he should be able to have something put together fairly soon. Thiesse asked if the plan would bring the property into the square foot number that the City may possibly be adopting. Schumer stated if the hardcover number is changed,then that would save a lot of changes that would be required on the lot. Schumer indicated an area of the pavers may need to be removed,whichwould bring it into compliance. ' Gaffron stated the other factor is whether fabric becomes non-hardcover. A substantial amount of it is fabric,which has not been taken into account in the numbers. Schoenzeit asked if the fabric is the type that would be allowed. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 . � 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated Staff would need to verify that and asked the applicant if the fabric is 100 percent permeable. Schumer stated he provided Staff with a specification sheet on the fabric. Levang asked if the Planning Commission goes with the City's existing regulations,what the applicant's plan is. Schumer stated it would probably cost him as much to remove it as it did to put it down. Schumer stated the rock would have sunk into the ground without the fabric and that it is there for a reason. Schumer stated the permit that was issued did not include any of that fabric or the pond,which he was told by his old landscaper was included. Schumer stated he was not told about the denial of that part of the permit and that he assumed everything was okay. He found out about it when he wanted to put a pergola over the pavers in the back. Schumer indicated he did not know what to do after that. Levang noted when the applicant appeared last time,the applicant's attorney did most of the talking. Levang asked why he did not come forward sooner and why there has been so much back and forth between the City and himself. Schumer indicated he did not know what to do but figured he would have to do something about it eventually. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Landgraver stated he does not know whether it is right for the Planning Commission to delay action on this matter since it is not known when the City Council will vote on the hardcover ordinance and that in his view the Planning Commission should make a decision on this application under the current .' regulations. Thiesse stated he has difficulty with that in that the new regulations are for a reason,which is to protect the lake and the environment. The Planning Commission members all accept the fact that what he has is going to be acceptable at some point and that he has difficulty making him spend that kind of money to remove it given the fact that it is going to be acceptable to the environment once the new hardcover ordinance is adopted. Leskinen indicated she tends to agree with Commissioner Thiesse. Leskinen noted the bulk of the hardcover is the landscape fabric versus pavers or other solid items and that she is not opposed to waiting until the new ordinance is adopted. Levang stated she does not want to go down that path and that she would like to make a ruling on this application under the current regulations. The Planning Commission should take into consideration how long this has been going on and how much Staff time has been put into this application. The applicant ' does not have a good reason why he has not complied up to this point. This is an after-the-fact variance and the Planning Commission has an obligation to look at it in those terms. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . Monday,July 16,2012 . ' 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated to summarize,the options would be to deny the request or encourage the applicant to request his application be tabled until the City Council passes the ordinance. > Levang stated what she has heard from Staff is that they would like this to be dealt with and that the '. , Planning Commission should go forward under the ordinances that are on the books today. The Planning Commission cannot predict what regulations will be approved in the future. Gaffron noted the City Council will take final action on this application and that they have the option to table the application. Gaffron stated the City has had applications that have been tabled indefinitely and that they can become rather drawn out. Staff would rather have it pass the Planning Commission with recommendations based on current code or potential new code than to table it indefinitely. Gaffron stated in his view it is important to pass it along to the Council so it is in their court. Lemke stated in his view this application should be reviewed under the ordinances that existed at the time the work was done and that the applicant should not be rewarded for dragging his feet and not dealing with the situation. Schoenzeit stated if the Planning Commission finds out that half of the 13,000 square feet is fabric,which is likely going to be approved under the new ordinance,the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to require verification that the fabric is permeable material. The City Council at that point could choose to either table it or deny it. Gaffron stated the work will not need to be done until the City Council acts on the application. One of the City Council's options is to table the hardcover ordinance for a number of months. Schoenzeit stated if the fabric is not compliant under the new ordinance,the City Council likely will not approve the application. Gaffron stated the current language in the new ordinance says 100 percent permeable but that he is not sure whether that is defined very well in the ordinance. Gaffron noted when the fabric is laid on the ground, it changes the way the fabric works and that the engineers need to define what type of fabric should be used. Leskinen noted Planner Gaffron indicated this application could be brought to the City Council with a two-pronged approach. If it looks like the hardcover ordinance is not going to pass any time soon,then � the City Council can either table it or review it under the current regulations. Gaffron stated his intent was to make the point that the Planning Commission could review this under the � current ordinance and make a recommendation based on that without taking into consideration the fact that the City may be adopting a new hardcover ordinance. The second option for the Planning Commission is to take the draft hardcover ordinance into consideration. If it is found that a variance is still needed,the Planning Commission would need to find whether there is any basis to grant a variance under that new standard and then make a recommendation to the City Council on whether they find the necessary basis to grant a variance. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission does not know what the final ordinance is going to be and they would have to make an assumption that what is in the draft ordinance will be adopted. Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission could deny it under current regulations but then put a caveat in their recommendation that they would approve it under the new ordinance. � Gaffron stated that is one option. � Thiesse noted the applicant may not need a variance if he removes 1,400 square feet. ' Gaffron indicated it would depend on what parts of the draft ordinance are eventually adopted. Schoenzeit asked what the applicant feels about the discussion tonight. Under the cunent ordinances the , applicant's request would be denied,but if the new hardcover ordinance is adopted,the application looks ' more favorable and a variance may not be needed. Levang noted the applicant would still be 1,400 square feet over in hardcover. Gaffron stated if the applicant has to remove 1,400 square feet,the question becomes what pieces would be removed. Gaffron indicated it might be asking too much of the applicant to define that since they do not know what the standards will be. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could send the application forward with a recommendation of denial and the City Council could decide whether to act on the application or to table it. Schoenzeit commented it is hard for the Planning Commission to approve something based on the possibility that a new ordinance might be adopted and whether the fabric would be deemed acceptable under the new ordinance. If the Planning Commission does not take the new ordinance into consideration,the amount of hardcover is too much and it is an after-the-fact variance. Thiesse asked if the ordinance language is passed as the language is currently written,whether fabric would be included. Gaffron indicated it would be. Thiesse asked if 25 percent is the recommendation for the 250-foot area and beyond. Gaffron stated it is 30 percent. � Thiesse stated the Planning Commission's recommendation could be based on the current wording of the new ardinance. Gaffron stated it is very questionable whether the City Council would give him credit to use that in the � 75-250 foot zone. ' Thiesse noted the applicant would be 1,400 square feet over under the new ordinance. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could deny it under current ordinances and send it forward to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the City Council would have a better understanding of when they anticipate the new hardcover ordinance would be adopted. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated once the ordinance is adopted,the City Council may want to send this application back to the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit stated in his view the Planning Commission cannot approve this application under the proposed new ordinance. Landgraver asked if the applicant understands what the Planning Commission is discussing. Schumer stated it all depends on the ruling of the new ordinance and that it is uncertain when that will be ' approved. Leskinen asked if the applicant anticipates a plan being put together in the near future. Schumer asked if the Planning Commission has any idea when they will be possibly voting on the new ordinance. Curtis noted it is scheduled for review at the August 13th City Council meeting. ` Schoenzeit noted it is not certain the new hardcover ordinance would be adopted at that meeting and that it could be tabled again. Leskinen stated the applicant could bring his plan to the City Council at that point. Schumer stated he is planning to get together with his landscaper once he comes back from up north and develop a plan that would be in conformance with the hardcover changes. Schumer noted he started to discuss this with the City in 2009. Thiesse stated he is still having difficulty with requiring removal of the work given the fact that the Planning Commission knows the regulations are going to be changed. Thiesse noted the City's regulations are intended to help guide the residents. ; Schoenzeit stated based on the City Council's discussion about the new ordinance, it is not a 100 percent certainty that the ordinance will be passed as currently written. Schoenzeit stated the Planning � � Commission could also send it forward to the City Council with the recommendation that they not take any action on the application until the ordinance is adopted. Levang indicated she would not be comfortable with that because they do not know when it will be adopted. Schoenzeit noted it is just a recommendation and that the City Council can elect to take action on this application before the new ordinance is approved. Levang stated the Planning Commission should go back to Exhibit 3,which states: In September of . 2007, it was found that the landscape work had been installed without a permit being approved. The applicant has concurrently applied for and obtained a variance for a pergola which has not been constructed. Staff has been working with the applicant to make the hardcover compliant as part of the pergola construction. Levang noted Staff has been dealing with this situation for a long time. If action � Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. had been taken in 2007,the Planning Commission would not be discussing this tonight,and that it has been kicked down the road for quite a while. � Schoenzeit moved to recommend denial of Application#12-3557,Russell Schumer,955 Tonkawa Road,with the additional recommendation to the City Council that they do not proceed with negative actions on the application until the new hardcover ordinance is resolved. Levang recommended including a time limit on it. • Thiesse suggested the spring of 2013. Schoenzeit stated the City Council can also place a limit on it. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission wants action to be taken on this application in 2013,that he would recommend leaving it until June or July since the work would not be able to be completed in March. Gaffron noted Staff has extended this application for the second 60 days and that the current deadline for City action is October 4t". The applicant would have to agree to extend that if the City Council does not want to take action on the application. Gaffron stated it is likely the applicant would not have a problem extending that deadline. If the City Council is heading in a different direction and it does not appear likely the new ordinance will be adopted, Staff will request action before October 4`�'. Schoenzeit amended his motion to recommend denial of Application#12-3557,Russell Schumer, 955 Tonkawa Road,with the recommendation to the City Council that they do not proceed with negative actions on the application until the new hardcover ordinance is resolved,and with the additional recommendation that if the hardcover ordinance is not adopted by the end of June,2013, the City Council should take action on this application. Landgraver seconded. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. , NEW BUSINESS � *3. #12-3564 MARTIN WOODY ON BEHALF OF DAVE SCOTT, 1905 HERITAGE DRIVE, VARIANCE � Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3564,Martin Woody on behalf of Dave Scott, 1905 Heritage Drive,granting of a front yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. " 4. #12-3565 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH AND GAIL TEYNOR, 2789 PHEASANT ROAD,VARIANCE,7:08 P.M.—7:36 P.M. Kathryn Alexander,Applicant,was present along with Sven Gustafson,Developer. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on the subject property and is requesting a lot width variance and a 75-250 foot hardcover variance. A 4,700 square foot home is proposed, including garage,resulting in 38.5 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone where 50.5 Page 7 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 . 6:30 o'clock p.m. percent hardcover currently exists. As part of the project,the tennis court will be removed and the driveway will be reconfigured. . The lot does not meet the required width of 140 or 80 percent of that to be granted administrative ' approval per City Code. The property currently includes a home,a long driveway, a detached garage and a tennis court. The existing hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone is 50.5 percent. The applicant has proposed 38.5,which would reduce the hardcover by 2,000 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to remove the tennis court from the 250-500 foot zone,which would reduce the hardcover from 50 . percent to 16.5 percent. There is a small boathouse that will remain at the lakeshore and comprises 1.7 : percent hardcover. As the Planning Commission is aware,the City is contemplating a major amendment to the hardcover regulations. The applicant's proposed plan results in 27.4 percent hardcover in the first 250 feet of the property. If one is to compare the proposal to the draft regulations as they are currently drafted,a 2.4 percent reduction would be necessary to conform to the potential code requirement for Tier 1 lots at a 25 percent limit. The proposal would result in 22.4 percent total hardcover for the entire site. The applicant did design the site as a whole to be under the 25 percent with the hopes that the City Council would have adopted the new ordinance by the time this applicant was before the Planning Commission. At this time it is uncertain when the new hardcover ordinance will be adopted so the applicant is pursuing a hardcover variance. Although the applicant's proposal results in a total reduction of the site's hardcover by 4,600 square feet, the 75-250 foot zone variance is still requested. The proposed home is under the 15 percent structural coverage limit. The hardcover does not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission was provided with an exhibit showing statistics for variances granted on. . lakeshore lot rebuilds within the 75-250 foot zone areas consistent with this lot. It appears that during the nine year period analyzed,very few hardcover variances were granted on properties with similarly sized 75-250 foot zones. The Planning Department would recommend approval of the lot width variance and Staff would recommend that the public hearing be held tonight,that the Planning Commission review the conditions outlined in Staff's report,and make a recommendation to the Council regarding the request. Landgraver asked if Staff could explain how they should be processing the analysis completed. Curtis stated there are a number of different sized lakeshore lots throughout the City and that historically it has been helpful in the past for Staff to look back on how the variances were granted. If you look at lots that are 40 and 50 feet wide and have a smaller depth in the 75-250 foot zone,you will see hardcover variances being granted in the high 30s and 40s. With this size of a 75-250 foot zone,you will find one or two properties that are similar to this lot. The analysis is a historical reference from 1999 to 2007. Curtis indicated Staff has not had time to update the document to bring it current to 2012 statistics,but that it is a tool that the Planning Commission can reference. Gaffron stated the two columns the Planning Commission should be looking at are the 75-250 approved percentage column and the 75-250 foot area column. When you look dbwn the list of 75-250 foot areas, you will see areas between 15,000 and 20,000 square feet. The approved percentage shows that there were four actual applications out of the approximate 15 applications that were granted a variance in the Page 8 . MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 75-250 foot zone. Gaffron noted the analysis also shows that there are a number of properties of similar size that do not need to apply for a variance. Levang asked if the boat house is going to stay. Curtis indicated it is. , Levang noted the boat house is in pretty bad shape and asked whether there are plans to improve it. Curtis stated the property owners are allowed to rebuild in kind. . Lemke asked if there is any percentage of the lot width that the house can cover. Curtis stated the required setback is 10 feet and the proposal does meet the required setbacks. � Kathryn Alexander sated she was just looking at the chart provided by Staff and noted that she is aware of two other variances granted that are not reflected on the chart. Alexander indicated she is not sure of the actual lot coverage of those two lots but there have been more variances granted since 2007 that are not shown on the chart. Curtis stated the chart does not include variances granted from 2008 to 2012 and that it is intended to show the level of hardcover approved for lakeshore rebuilds from 1999 to 2007. In those years,the average hardcover approved is 26.3 percent in that particular area. � : Schoenzeit stated it is interesting that they have not seen anything for more than 17.5 in that particular area. . Alexander stated this lot is unique and that they did look at a number of options in designing the home. . The people have owned the lot for 16 years and they want to make it a permanent home. The only way they found to accommodate their family size was to construct a detached garage and put it into the 250 foot zone. Otherwise the home would not have any lake views. Leskinen asked whether they would consider a completely detached garage. Alexander stated it would need to be located quite a ways from the house. Curtis noted they are already behind the average lakeshore setback with the proposed home. Lemke noted a number of trees would also be destroyed if the garage is pushed further back and that they are proposing to only remove only tree under this application. : Alexander indicated they did look at a number of options but that they felt they need to pursue the hardcover variance under the existing regulations since the property owners would like to start construction in August. Alexander noted they are under the 25 percent limit that would be allowed under . the new hardcover ordinance. � Thiesse asked which neighbor submitted a letter regarding this application. Page 9 MINUTES OF TI� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 ' 6:30 o'clock p.m. . Curtis indicated Staff did speak with the neighbor at 791 Pheasant Road and that they had no opposition to the proposed plan. Chair.Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. ' Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Schoenzeit stated that perhaps the Planning Commission should put their blinders on as it relates to the proposed new ordinance. Schoenzeit stated in his view,for this large of a lot,whether it is driveway or house footprint,you should be able to fit a nice house in there that meets the hardcover requirements. Landgraver stated that was his reaction as well. There are some mitigating circumstances and the � property owners are not overly aggressive at moving it towards the lakeshore. Landgraver commented some thought has been put into the application to try to make it conform. Schoenzeit asked how many more feet it has to be away from the lake in order to comply. Thiesse questioned whether the house would fit the neighborhood if the size was reduced. Curtis displayed an aerial view of the homes in the neighborhood. � Schoenzeit stated it is difficult to approve hardcover in excess of 25 percent. The water quality and drainage to the lake are factors that need to be considered. Levang stated she could live with 30 percent but noted they are requesting 38.5 percent. Alexander stated they would be looking at 30 to 40 feet further if they pushed the house back. Curtis indicated the porch is at 190 feet. Alexander stated the porch is at 110 feet. Alexander indicated there is a point where you will lose lakeviews with the trees and adjoining homes. Gaffron noted the porch is at 119 feet. . Leskinen commented that what is being proposed is an improvement from what currently exists. � Levang noted it is a reduction over current hardcover but that the amount of hardcover being requested seems a lot in the 75-250 foot zone. Levang stated she does not feel pulling the house back will do much � to improve the situation and that they are proposing a lot of house. Gaffron stated one of the potential ways to reduce hardcover is to reduce the driveway apron. If the garage was somewhat reoriented so that the driveway and garage pad was in the 250-500 foot zone,that would start to reduce the hardcover. Gaffron noted moving the house back 15 feet would only reduce the � hardcover by the amount of driveway that is in that area. Schoenzeit noted the porch is also in that area. Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated as you move the house back,you will not gain any hardcover percentage because a longer driveway would become necessary Thiesse stated the goal is to keep hardcover away from the lake and to improve the water runoff into the lake. Thiesse commented it would be easy for them to create a swale or a rain garden and divert the water away from the lake to avoid the need to redesign the house. Levang asked for Staff to display Exhibit C on the overhead. Curtis displayed Exhibit C. Gaffron pointed out the topography near the tennis court is fairly flat. Halfway up the long driveway,the elevation is between 50 and 52 as you go towards the lake at the 250-foot line. The topography is high on the east side of the tennis court and lower on the west side. Gaffron noted there is a flat area in that part of the lot where they could try to direct the drainage. Thiesse stated massing does not seem to be a problem if you compare it to the house next door. . Levang asked if Staff is suggesting reducing the driveway. � Gaffron stated the garage doors could be facing backwards rather than to the side,which would help locate the driveway apron into the 250-foot area. Alexander stated the homeowner has worked very hard on this design for a year and that they are reluctant to make any changes to it. � Lemke asked if the surface of the driveway area would make any difference if it was constructed out of permeable pavers. . Landgraver stated not under today's ordinances. Lemke commented he would hate to see additional trees destroyed. Levang asked if any of the trees are protected. Curtis indicated only those trees that are located within 75 feet of the lake would be protected. � Landgraver noted the applicant has been cognizant of not constructing as far down the hill with respect to some of the existing topography and landscaping. The massing issue relative to the house on the other , side is a nonissue. Landgraver stated under current regulations, asking for 38.5 percent seems to be a little too much and that he cannot envision approving a 38.5 percent variance under current regulations. Alexander stated they would prefer the Planning Commission vote on the application tonight. Landgraver moved,Levang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3565,Kathryn Alexander on behalf of Joseph and Gail Teynor,2789 Pheasant Road,granting of a lot width variance and denial of the hardcover variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING � Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. *5. #12-3566 JIlVI MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH ON BEHALF OF OLD ORCHARD FARM,LLC,20 O RONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3566,Jim Murphy and Sandra Smith,on behalf of Old Orchard Farm,LLC,20 Orono Orchard Road North,granting of a comprehensive plan amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #12-3561 JOHN LEIN,2700 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,SKETCH PLAN,7:36 P.M.-8:00 P.M. Ken Westrand,Representative of John Lein,was present. Curtis stated the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the guiding for the area for single-family rural residence at a maximum of one unit per two acres. The proposed development generally conforms to the two-acre dry buildable, 200-foot width standards for the RR-1B zoning district. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 15 plus acre parcel into four 2-acre single-family residential lots which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The property is within the RR-1B residential district allowing for single-family rural residential with a minimum lot size of two acres dry buildable. The site also contains a 5 plus acre Manage 1 wetland,which requires a 35-foot buffer setback and a 25- foot structural setback from the buffer. The City will require easements over all wetlands and buffers designated on the site. Proposed Lot 1 will have 2.55 plus acres dry land. This includes a seemingly disconnected piece at the southwest corner which may or may not be contiguous. The contiguous,dry buildable area should be verified.This lot is a corner lot proposed to have 288 feet of frontage along the private road and 600 feet along CSAH 6. The private drive frontage should be considered the front of the property for lot layout purposes and the property should not have access on to CSAH 6. There is a Manage 1 wetland in the , western half of the lot. There is a sufficient buildable envelope available and all of the required RR-1B District lot line setbacks can be met. Proposed Lot 2 has 61 plus feet at the cul-de-sac and 140 feet at the principal building setback. It also contains 2.23 plus dry acres in area and has a large portion of the Manage 1 wetland on the western portion of the property. All required Rr-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is developed � . with a new home. Proposed Lot 3 has 61 plus feet in width at the cul-de-sac and 140 plus feet in width at the principal building setback, contains 2.06 plus dry acres in area, and contains a drainage creek which runs down the eastern and southern portion of the properly. The existing home is situated on this properly as well as a • small bridge crossing the creek. The developer should identify whether the house is proposed to remain. It appears all required RR-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is de�eloped with a new home. Proposed Lot 4 is also proposed as a corner lot with 2.02 plus dry acres. It will have 284 feet of frontage on CSAH 6 and over 250 feet on the new private road. The private road should be considered the front for setback purposes and there should be no access directly on to CSAH 6. All required RR-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is redeveloped with a new home. Based on the existing topography, Page 12 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. the developer should consider including a proposed grading plan for this lot if a walk-out home is to be proposed. This project will trigger the need for the developer to conduct and submit a conservation design plan. The property has an area of existing woods along CSAH 6 and a pine stand along the eastern property line, one 5-acre wetland and an open view-shed over the wetlands fro County Road 6. The Rural Oasis Study and Conservation Design Master Planning process has been formulated to help determine on a case-by- case basis what natural values should be preserved. The applicant is proposing to plat Outlot A to create a 50-foot private road corridor with a 100-foot cul- , de-sac as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and the CMP for a local private road.The existing driveway access to CSAH 6 should be abandoned. The standard paved width for this road would be 24 feet with a 50-foot diameter cul-de-sac. An access permit is required from Hennepin County in order to � relocate the access and create the private road. The City requires standard perimeter, drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the plat as well as Conservation and Flowage Easements over the delineated wetlands and wetland buffers. A trail currently exists on the south side of CSAH 6. The Flanning Commission should discuss whether the dedication of a trail easement in the applicant's property along the north side of CSAH 6 should be required as part of this application. The subject property is not located within the MCTSA so sewer service is not available to these properties. The properties are proposed to be served by septic systems and private wells. � Issues for discussion by the Planning Commission include the Conservation Design,grading of the site, existing buildings, and access. As it relates to Conservation Design,the developer should develop a plan which identifies and outlines measures for preserving the ecological assets unique to this property. This plan should be submitted to the City with an application for preliminary plat review. As it relates to grading,the developer should consider a master grading plan which includes building pad locations as part of the preliminary plat review process.The topography shown on the sketch plan survey was taken from the City's topographic maps. The actual site topography will need to be field verified with a preliminary plat application. The developer should identify which, if any, of the existing structures will remain. � In regards to access,the applicant is proposing to create an outlot in a new location for the new private road. Creating the private road to City standards may impact the adjacent wetlands. The City would � expect that the existing curb cut for the current driveway at CSAH 6 be eliminated and the remainder of the driveway, as it cuts through Lots 3 and 4, be removed. The additional hardcover may trigger the need for creation of a stormwater management pond. The developer should work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if the road will require a stormwater pond. The location of the pond • should not result in a substandard size lot and should be included on the preliminary plat drawings. Curtis stated the goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat. The Planning Commission should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. During the sketch plan review,the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present any problems so that those issues can be discussed and addressed by the Planning Commission. Page 13 MINUTES OF T�E ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 ' 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if there are enough septic connections available on County Road 6. � Curtis noted this property is not within the MLTSA. Gaffron indicated there is a line of properties between Medina and County Road 6 that are not within the MUSA. To bring 2-acre lots into the MUSA would be very difficult under the current Metropolitan Council standards. There are three properties at the north end of Brown Road that are connected to the sewer and serves the church and the group home. Levang asked where the existing road is located. Curtis indicated it is located along the property line and crosses over the creek to the existing home. Levang asked how it crosses over the street. Curtis stated to her understanding there is a culvert. Ken Westrand stated to his recollection there is not a culvert there but that it is some sort of suspension bridge. ' Levang asked if that would be abandoned. Curtis indicated it would be and that access would be gained off of the cul-de-sac for all the lots. Leskinen asked if the trees would be addressed in the conservation design. � Curtis indicated they would be. Leskinen commented there is a beautiful stand of trees located on the eastern border of the property and County Road 6. � Thiesse asked if the County is going to allow an offset entrance on to County Road 6. Curtis stated to her understanding the property owner did approach the City of Medina and was told that they could not make a connection. The development has not been presented to Hennepin County at this point since it is a sketch plan review. � Gaffron stated the County's position is that they have a requirement to provide access and that they would likely dictate where that access is. Gaffron indicated it would be up to the county to approve the location. Curtis noted it is one access point as opposed to creating three separate access points so Hennepin County likely will not discourage that proposal. Landgraver asked if the City is familiar with this developer. Curtis indicated the developer at this point is the property owner. The property owner is working with Mr.Westrand,who is here tonight. Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONiMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Westrand indicated he has developed lots in the past. Curtis indicated she spoke with the property owner last summer and they walked through the City's : requirements for a subdivision on the property. The property owner did not go forward at that time and that this is the first submittal in the process. Schoenzeit noted the City has had other developers who have not completed a Conservation Design and that Staff typically provides them with a checklist of items that needs to be completed. Gaffron stated one of Staffs recommendations is that prior to lot lines being defined,that they should identify what the City values on the site that should be preserved,such as wetlands and views. Step one in the subdivision process should be the conservation design. Ken Westrand indicated that the applicant,John Lein, is currently in Europe. If the sketch plan is approved or looked upon favorably,he will bring back a formal submission to the Planning Commission. Mr.Lein has retained Rusty Olson to perform PERC tests for the septic. The creek that runs through the property originally was spring fed, and when the development was done to the north, it went dry. Since then a home was constructed on the north side and the drainage from that lot is feeding the creek at the present time. Mr.Lein would like to do minimum dirt moving and save as many trees as possible. He is opposed to the idea of bringing in sanitary sewer but that if the development does need city sewer,then he would want to reduce the lots to one acre. Mr.Lein will be back in the States at the end of July. He would like to begin the development in 2013. Westrand indicated he had trouble understanding everything that was said here tonight,but that he would suggest Mr.Lein meet with the planner once he gets back to see what requirements he needs to meet. Schoenzeit stated Staff will wait for the Conservation Design Plan before commencing further work on the sketch plan. Thiesse recommended he check with the fire deparhnent on the bridge. Curtis noted that will not be the access to the development and that it is an existing walking bridge to gain access to the barn. • Thiesse asked whether that will be removed. Curtis stated it is likely that will be eliminated. Levang asked if the barn will remain. Curtis stated she has not discussed that with the applicant. Levang stated in her view preservation of the trees is important. Schoenzeit stated with the neighbor's property feeding the creek,the impact this plan would have on the creek will need to be looked at. Page 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated that would also be her comment. Leskinen asked if the lot width at the cul-de-sac is sufficient. Curtis stated Staff looks at the cul-de-sac width and then the width of the building envelope. Neither of the lots are 200 feet in width,which is fairly common in the City and variances generally are not needed. The plat will acknowledge that the width is not 200 feet and that will be sufficient. Staff looks at the configuration of the building envelope to confirm that a home can be built in that area and have access. Landgraver noted the Conservation Design asks the applicant to identify the ecological assets of the site and that Staff has asked the Planning Commission to call out some things that they feel are important. Landgraver recommended the property owner submit a detailed grading plan and verify the topography. , Leskinen asked whether a trail would be necessary on the north°side of County Road 6 since there is already a trail on the south side. . Curtis indicated Staff is looking for guidance on that. Schoenzeit recommended a trail easement be granted. Landgraver concurred that it would be better to ask for it given the topography of the area and the present layout of the trail. Landgraver asked whether Staff has any other concerns with the property. Curtis stated there are no major contentious issues but that there are pieces of the property that need to be looked at closer. Schoenzeit stated it would be best not to have orphan pieces of land if at all possible. . Curtis stated she will provide Mr.Lein with a formal letter detailing the discussion tonight. . The Planning Commission took no formal action on this application. PLANNING CONIMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COiJNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 25,2012,AND JULY 9,2012 Levang noted that Jon Schwingler attended the June 25`�'Council meeting and that he is not present tonight. Thiesse stated he was in attendance at the July 9�'meeting and that everything was placed on the Consent Agenda. Supporters of Jay Nygard were in attendance to make public comment on the wind turbine. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Levang stated she will attend the July 23 City Council meeting. Levang requested Staff update the Planning Commission lists to include Bruce Lemke. Page � 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. � Curtis noted there was no July work session and that Mike Gaffron will not be able to attend the August work session meeting. Levang asked whether Mr.Gaffron will be preparing a report on whether roosters should be allowed in the City. Gaffron stated he will be preparing a report and that it is possible it will be part of the zoning ordinance. Otherwise it will be incorporated into the animal ordinance. Various cities have it included in their zoning ordinances, animal ordinances, or public safety. Gaffron indicated he still has a question whether there should be a grandfather clause for roosters but that he would prefer there not be a grandfather clause. Gaffron stated he is aware of one situation with roosters that occurred approximately ten years ago. Schoenzeit asked if the City's noise ordinance would cover this. Gaffron stated it is doubtful that the City's noise ordinance would cover this situation. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission is going to be discussing residential wind turbines. Schoenzeit stated as technology improves and the costs go down,more and more people will be interested in installing wind turbines and that the City should look at that at some point in the future. Thiesse noted there was a newspaper article discussing how lake cities should get get together to make this area a residential and resort community. McMillan stated the mayor of Excelsior is promoting that but that some people feel there is enough going on around here in the summer. The Excelsior mayor would like to have a convention type place where pe.ople from the area as well as out of state can come to for different event. . McMillan stated she sees the need for the City Council to act on the proposed hardcover ordinance. Another issue that needs to be discussed is temporary business signage and that she would like to figure out a solution to that situation. McMillan stated the City needs to prioritize and act on those issues what will impact the most people. McMillan noted that Jay Nygard has never requested the City draft an ordinance for wind energy and that Orono currently allows solar energy and geothermal. The City has also not been approached by anyone else requesting a wind turbine ordinance.McMillan stated in her view the new hardcover ordinance and business signage are bigger priorities since they will impact more people at the present time. , Curtis stated when people approach the City on the different applications,they are told that the current ordinance is what they should go under. Gaffron noted the application on Shoreline Drive will likely be redesigning their plans to make it meet all of the City's requirements so it will not be coming back before the Planning Commission. Levang asked whether the neighbors will be notified of that. � Page 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . Monday,July 16,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated the City does not have an obligation to notify the neighbors that an application has been withdrawn. • Levang stated in her view the neighbors should be notified of that. Schoenzeit commented if the plan is compliant,the neighbors really have no say on what is being built. Curtis stated the City could be put in a position where if they did not do it in all instances,that they would then receive complaints. McMillan asked if the neighbors can come in and see the building permit that was issued. � Curtis indicated they can. . ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. VOTES: Ayes 6,Nays 0. . �.� �'� �� �� 2� I Z Loren Schoenzeit, Chair . Page 18