Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2013 Planning Commission Minutes J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 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 Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Consulting City Engineer David Martini, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Cynthia Bremer was present. Mayor Lili McMillan arrived at 8:10 p.m. and Council Member Levang arrived at 8:27 p.m. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2013 Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 22,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0,Berg Abstained. OLD BUSINESS 2. #12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS,4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.—6:44 P.M. Rodney Colson, Colson Custom Homes,was present. Curtis noted the Planning Commission reviewed this application at its January meeting based on a revised survey submitted the day of the meeting. The survey depicted a similar top of bluff location as the 2006 survey. However, due to timing, Staff was unable to verify the bluff location prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The recommendations made by the Planning Commission were based on the revised survey. Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff reviewed the bluff as shown on the revised survey and disagreed with its depicted location. The topographic information provided on the revised surveys differed quite a bit from the 2006 survey. For instance,the slope on the western portion of the lot in the 2006 survey is depicted as-25 percent while the 2013 survey reflects approximately 50 percent slopes in the same location. � The applicant revised the survey again at the direction of Staff and correctly depicted the top of bluff. That survey was dated 2/1/13. Staff has reviewed and agrees with the top of bluff as shown on the February survey. The February survey reflects a top of bluff existing along the 966' contour resulting in the proposed home being situated as close as 12 feet from the top of bluff and the 30-foot bluff setback extending halfway through the home. Page 1 of 23 MINUTES OF TIiE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City Council reviewed the application at their February 11�'meeting and directed that the application be brought back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised survey. The Council also requested input from both the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources on this application prior to their next review. The Planning Commission had directed at its January meeting,based on information from the O1/18/13 survey,to move the proposed patio out of the 20-foot bluff impact zone and reorient the deck to encroach no more than the house based on the location of the top of bluff as shown. The applicant's revised February survey responds to the Planning Commission's basic direction on both the patio and the deck. The patio has been moved out of the bluff impact zone as shown on the Ol/18/13 survey and the deck has also been reoriented based on the O1/18/13 survey. Due to the other constraints of the property,the proposed location may still be the best option even though the top of bluff appears to have moved up the slope 10 plus feet into the building envelope. The revised top of bluff location results in an even more restricted buildable envelop than previously realized. The applicant's proposed home is generally consistent with the 2006 plans and reflects only an additional four feet of depth added on to the garage to make it more functional. To further push the house away from the bluff results in an unreasonably small home considering the established driveway location. Staff has requested feedback from the DNR. This information should be available prior to the City Council's next review of the application. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are included in the Commission's packets. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested consistent with the February survey and revised house plans showing the reoriented deck. It should be noted the proposed home location will result in minor grading within the bluff and bluff impact zone to accommodate drainage. The deck will be installed using helical screws. Rodney Colson indicated he is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Schoenzeit asked the applicant to comment on what he plans for mitigation work to deal with the closeness to the bluff. Colson stated silt fences and biotubes will be used depending on the conditions. Colson indicated if there is still frost in the ground, it will be difficult to install silt fencing but that hay bales and biotubes would be used. In addition, smaller machinery will be used to minimize the impact to the bluff zone. As it relates to the deck, helical screws will be used in place of footings. Colson indicated the helical screws essentially resemble an ice auger with a 3-inch round shaft. The sizes will vary on the blades but they essentially spin into the soil and will disturb the soil minimally. Curtis displayed a picture of a helical screw on the overhead. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Page 2 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted this is a difficult lot to work with and has a number of practical difficulties. Schoenzeit stated in his mind further mitigation will be difficult to request. Landgraver noted the City Council discussed the prior failure of the bluff. Curtis noted this property as well as the adjoining property experienced a bluff failure on separate occasions. The failure on the adjacent properly occurred approximately three years ago. Landgraver noted the neighbor stated at the Council meeting that there were a number of plastic bottles and other debris under the soil that contributed to the failure. Leskinen indicated it is her understanding that subterranean walls were constructed to fix the failure on this properly and are still in place. Curtis indicated that is correct. Lemke asked if Staff is aware of where those walls are. Curtis indicated they are approximately in the area of the stairs but that she is not aware of the exact location. Landgraver noted those were facts that the Planning Commission had not discussed before and that he wanted the Commissioners to be aware of those. Schoenzeit noted the City Council also wanted the DNR to comment on this application before it was brought back to the City Council but that it probably is ready for the Planning Commission to comment on. Lemke asked if runoff is a concern on this site due to the increased hardcover. Curtis indicated the grading plan as proposed is consistent with the City's requirements to maintain drainage to the lake or to the road on to the applicant's property. In this case the runoff is diverted to the lake. Curtis indicated there are ways to capture it and treat it or slow it down but that it is difficult to do some of those measures given the topography of the lot. Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3582,Colson Custom Homes on Behalf of BWB Holdings,4731 North Shore Drive,granting of variances,subject to the conditions of the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 3. #13-3591 ERVIN WACHMAN,OUTLOT C,BAYVIEW FARMS 2ND ADDITION(PID 06-117-23-22-0018),PRELIMINARY PLAT/SUBDIVISION,6:45 P.M.—7:22 P.M. Ervin Wachman,Applicant; Bill Coffinan, Coffman Development; Robert Molstad, Satre-Bergquist; Mark Kjulhaug; and Eric Sims,4645 Bayside Road,were present. Page 3 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat review in order to create five new, 2-plus acre buildable lots and a private road from the original 13-plus acres. All of the lots would be served by a new private road with a cul-de-sac extending southerly from Bayside Road. All lots would also be served by private septic systems and private wells. The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family rural residential development at a m�imum density of one unit per two acres. The proposed development also generally conforms to the standards of the RR-1B Zoning District. Curtis noted tonighYs presentation will be based on the original plans submitted with the application. The applicant has submitted revised plans but Staff and the City Engineer have not had an opportunity to review those revised plans. Copies of the revised plans have been provided to the Planning Commission tonight in the event the applicant would like to refer to the proposed changes to the original plan. The site to be platted as"Bayside Meadows" is currently a vacant field containing open areas identified as a hayfield and meadow, a wetland, and a wooded area along the south and southeast portions of the property. A wetland delineation has been conducted and has been shown on the survey. The wetland has been reclassified from a Preserve classification to a Manage2 classification. The City has received a copy of the delineation and of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the delineation and the reclassification. A storm water pond is proposed to be created to address stormwater resulting from the new hardcover of the development. The storm water pond will straddle the common lot line between proposed Lots 4 and 5 with outlet pipes directing overflow water under the proposed private road into the ditch and wetland on the east side. The area taken up by the storm water pond has been deducted from the dry buildable acreage of each lot. Bayview Farms and Bayview Farms 2"d Addition were plated in preparation for allowing the current Outlot C to be developed with additional building sites. The future driveway relocation was a condition of the plat approval. Agreements detailing the driveway relocation requirement are part of the approval resolutions for Bayview Farms 2"d Addition. An additional new outlot, shown as proposed Outlot A,will be platted for the purposes of constructing the private road with cul-de-sac and connecting to Bayside Road. Hennepin County has provided comments on this proposed plan which support the past � understanding regarding the driveway relocation for both the adjoining properties. The current plan reflects a connection of the Sims driveway to the new private road. The Geffre driveway is not proposed to be relocated. The property is situated south of Bayside road otherwise known as County State Aid Highway 84 and is accessed via a platted 50-foot corridor between the Geffre and Sims properties. The applicant is proposing the following lots under the previously submitted plans: l. Lot 1 is proposed to contain 3.48 acres total;2.79 acres dry,buildable and 0.69 acres wetland. This lot is proposed to be the largest overall with a total of 3.48 acres,but the proposed tree and conservation easements,wetland,wetland buffer,buffer setback, and the proposed road location result in limited options for building sites. This lot is proposed to have 784-plus feet of frontage along the private road. Most of the site's Manage 2 wetland is situated on this lot centrally along the eastern side. There is a sufficient buildable envelope available and all of the required RR-1B district lot line setbacks can be met. Page 4 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Tuesday,Fe6ruary 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. Lot 2 is proposed to contained 2.26 acres total; 2.25 acres dry, buildable and 0.009 acre wetland. Lot 2 has 92-plus feet in width at the cul-de-sac and 180-plus feet in width at the principal building setback and contains 2.25-plus dry acres in area. There is a very small portion of the manage 2 wetland on the northeast corner of the property; a 30-foot wetland buffer is shown surrounding the wetland. Tree preservation easements are proposed on the eastern half of the property as well as a portion across the southern lot line of the property to protect and preserve the existing tree stand. A1 required RR-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is � developed with a new home. The septic treatment sites are located out of the tree preservation area. 3. Lot 3 is proposed to contain 2.63 acres total dry, buildable area. It is proposed to have 110-plus feet in width at the cul-de-sac and 220-plus feet in width at the principal building setback. It contains 2.63-plus dry acres in area. It appears all required RR-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is developed with a new home. Tree preservation easements are shown along the southern and western property boundaries. 4. Lot 4 is proposed to contain 2.18 acres total;2.03 acres dry,buildable and 0.15 acre storm pond. The lot is proposed to primarily front along the private road with a small portion accessing off the cul-de-sac. It is proposed to have 2.038-plus dry acres and will have approximately 0.15 acre of this lot. All required Rr-1B setbacks can reasonably be met when this lot is redeveloped with a new home. This lot will also have a tree preservation easement along the western,rear lot line. 5. Lot 5 is proposed to contain 2.16 acres total; 2.12 acres dry,buildable and 0.04 acre storm pond. A tree preservation easement is proposed over the western and northern portions of the property. The applicant is proposing to plat Outlot A to create a private road with a cul-de-sac. City Codes require a 50-foot corridor and a 100-foot cul-de-sac for a local private road. Street design information was submitted with the application materials and has been reviewed by the City Engineer. The original plan reflected necessitating variances. At first review of the applicant's revised plan, it appears that they do now meet the City's dimensional and engineering size requirements for curve and slope. With the final plat application,the applicant will need to submit maintenance covenants for recording with the plat which address oncoming maintenance and upkeep of the private road. This property triggers the Rural Oasis Conservation Design Plan. A conservation plan dated February 6 was included in the Planning Commission's packets. A preservation easement is proposed which will protect the significant trees identified on proposed Lot 2. The tree preservation easement is also proposed to extend along the perimeter of the entire properly beginning at the south end of the wetland on the east and continuing around clockwise to the north end of proposed Lot 5. This tree preservation agreement will protect the significant trees identified on proposed Lot 2 as well as a stand of white pines on the western perimeter. A conservation easement is proposed at the north end of proposed Lot 1 where it abuts the Sims property. This easement may preserve lake views enjoyed from the Sims property. The applicant's plan also outlines invasive, on-native species to be removed. The report indicates the individual land owners should be responsible for invasive species removal upon construction of a new home. Staff would recommend the responsibility of the initial removal be placed on the developer,with the homeowners association being responsible for ongoing maintenance. The Planning Commission Page 5 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. should direct the applicant in this regard. Additionally,the Planning Commission should identify other areas which should be reviewed,protected, or preserved as part of the plat if appropriate. As part of the development,the applicant/developer will be required to plant one shade tree for every 40 feet of road frontage. Staff suggests the shade trees be of a complimentary native species to offset the removal of dead/diseased trees and possibly healthy native trees from the building sites. The City's 2008-2030 Comprehensive Trail System Map indicates that a future trail is planned on Bayside Road. The Planning Commission should discuss the merits of an easement for trail purposes adjacent to Bayside Road over the 50-foot road corridor outlot. The standard stormwater and drainage trunk fee will be applied to the development at the time of final plat. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission discuss the conservation design as well as any other areas the commissioners identify, specifically the invasive species removal. As noted,the Geffre driveway is not proposed to be relocated as required. The Planning Commission should discuss the recommendations of Staff and Hennepin County using the guidance provided in the Bayview Farms 2"a Addition resolutions and direct the applicant accordingly. In addition, Staff recommends the application be tabled upon providing clear direction to the applicant regarding expectations. The applicant should be prepared to discuss the issues with the Commission and prepare to draft revised plans as requested for placement on the March Planning Commission agenda. Schoenzeit commented the recommendations and requests by Staff seem very reasonable Bill Coffman, Coffman Development, stated they are willing to discuss the issues raised by Staff. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant is willing to deal with the invasive species as part of the development project. Coffman indicated they concur with Staff's recommendation. Schoenzeit asked if they are willing to grant a trail easement. Coffman stated they concur with that recommendation as well. Schoenzeit stated the conservation design report outlines the importance of cataloguing the trees and identifying any outstanding features of the land to be included and set up for preservation as well as addressing the invasive species to make sure they are properly identified. Coffman stated they have a plan that will be prepared for the HOA. Schoenzeit stated the last recommendation is that the existing home move their access, give up their county road curb cut and utilize the private road. Coffman stated Eric Sims is willing to connect up to the new road. As Staff inentioned,the Geffres would prefer not to hook up to the new road since it would create a longer driveway and would require Page 6 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. additional maintenance. Coffman indicated he is not sure how they would be able to require another landowner to give up their road access. Curtis indicated she did speak with Mr. Geffre on Thursday and that he indicated they do not want the additional expense of a longer driveway and that he wants to remain independent of the new subdivision. Mr. Geffre was not able to attend tonight's meeting but has submitted a letter detailing his concerns. Landgraver asked if the Geffres originally agreed with combining the driveways. Curtis indicated they did but that in speaking to them, she had the impression that they did not completely understand the ramifications of that. Mr. Geffre's February 14`f'letter states the following: "I am writing with some concerns regarding Land Use Proposition#13-3591. This proposition is in regards to connecting my existing driveway at 4665 Bayside Road with the proposed new private roadway to the Wachman Parcel. I am opposed to connecting my driveway to the proposed private roadway for the following reasons: � No. 1. The new driveway would require much more maintenance and upkeep as it would be approximately 100 feet longer; No. 2. The new driveway would come very close to my drain field. It also would create a useless strip of land between the driveway and County Road 84; No. 3. We do not want to be responsible for any future repairs, maintenance or upgrading of the proposed private road." Lemke asked if Hennepin County will have any problems with the two curb cuts. Curtis indicated she cannot speak for Hennepin County but that the County's comments are included in the packet. Curtis stated she can ask for clarification from Hennepin County prior to this application going before the City Council if the Planning Commission would like. Landgraver stated as a point of order,there is nothing the Planning Commission can do about the drain field. Curtis stated Mr. Geffre's point was that it was very close to it and he does not want to impact it. Berg asked how far away the new road is from Mr. Geffre's driveway. Gaffron stated it is approximately 150 feet. Schoenzeit commented that would also create a lot of hardcover. Landgraver stated in terms of the conservation easement, Staff brought up some good points about Mr. Sims' property. Landgraver asked if the applicant is agreeable to a conservation easement on the north end of Lot 1. Coffman indicated they are proposing that. Page 7 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted she did not have a chance to review the recently provided information and asked if the applicant is now proposing to pave the street to the 24' width and change the radius. Coffman stated they have resolved the issues with the road and the only variance they are now requesting is relating to the length of cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is presently 54 feet in excess of the City's Code. Lemke asked if the Sims' property would be part of the homeowner's association. Coffinan indicated they would not be. Schoenzeit asked David Martini how the process is going with the developer and whether he has any concerns. David Martini, Consulting City Engineer, stated they have no concerns at this point but that they have not had a chance to review the latest information provided. The biggest concern related to the curve and the steepness of the road. Martini stated it appears with the new information submitted that those two things are being addressed. In going through the point by point response by the applicant, it looks like in general there is an effort being made to address the comments raised and that he did not note anything that was being disputed at this point. Martini stated there appears to be a good faith effort on the part of the applicant to address the comments raised by his office. Schoenzeit asked if Mr. Martini agrees that there should be as few variances as possible in light of the fact that this is a new development. Martini stated that is correct. Martini stated the Sims' driveway is the most concerning with the closeness of the new road. Hennepin County will ultimately have the final input into what is allowed or not allowed for road access. Ideally, from an engineering standpoint,you will want to remove that driveway off of the county road and bring it into the private road but that the points brought up by the property owner are valid. Martini noted an easement will probably be required since that driveway will cross onto the neighbor's property to get to the private road. Martini stated there are certainly some challenges with being able to take that driveway and hook it up to the new road but that he would have to defer to Hennepin County. Schoenzeit commented it might be nice to pre-secure the easement if the access to the county road has to change at some point. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Peter Meyers, 70 and 100 North Shore Drive, stated they have a concern related to the fact that this is a very quiet area with deep lots,wildlife and a marsh, all of which will be changed as a result of the subdivision. Meyers stated in his view the noise would be greatly increased with this development. Meyers indicated even today he can hear a neighbor who is well off to the east of them in their swimming pool, and that placing more homes into this area is problematic. Meyers stated he and his wife are not in favor of further development of this area. Schoenzeit asked if he is proposing an alternative to this project. Meyers indicated he is not. Page 8 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pat Thull,210 North Shore Drive, illustrated her property on the overhead. Thull indicated she is glad to see the tree buffer preserved but that they are not proposing a tree buffer between their property and this development. Since their patio is very close to the property line and their house is located uphill from this development, it would be nice not to have to look down on the homes. Thull stated she would like some consideration given to some trees being planted in that area since this development changes the existing environment. Thull stated in order to accommodate the people who have been living there, she would like to see more of a buffer between the current buildings around the properly. According to the aerial view,there are no trees and she does not understand why that is being called a tree buffer. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Schoenzeit stated the point about mixing a new development with an old neighborhood is a good point and one that the Planning Commission should review. Berg asked if there are any trees at this time in that area. Thull indicated there are not. Schoenzeit asked if the developer is amenable to planting some trees in that area. Coffman stated the aerial does depict some trees between this development and the Wachman property. The Wachmans have owned the property for 20 years and were there prior to many of the other homes in the area. Coffman indicated they are certainly willing to take a look at planting some additional trees along the edge to strengthen that buffer in an effort to be a good neighbor. Schoenzeit asked if that would be satisfactory. Thull indicated she would appreciate that. , Landgraver asked if Staff has any other items they would like the Planning Commission to discuss. Curtis indicated at this point it appears the applicant has addressed a number of the issues in their new submittal of information and that she would encourage the Planning Commission to reiterate the direction they would like the applicant to follow. Schoenzeit stated in following the recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer,the Planning Commission would like to see zero variances other than the cul-de-sac length. In addition,the Planning Commission would like to see the developer include the invasive species cataloguing and proposed removals,the granting of the requested trail easement, and ensuring that the design conservation report is detailed as to the negative aspects that need to be corrected and the positive features that need to be preserved, Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission heard some compelling reasons against removing the curb cut for the neighbor that is not part of the development and adding some more trees to the buffer as proposed for other areas. Coffinan indicated he is agreeable with that. Page 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission should table the application. Coffman requested they be allowed to move forward to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission's recommendation would be that the checklist be documented and accepted by City Staff prior to the application proceeding to the City Council. Landgraver noted the nature of the neighborhood is changing but that the development is compliant. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission's role is to ensure that the application is compliant with City regulations, and that if the request is compliant,the Planning Commission has a duty to make their recommendations to the City Council. Gaffron asked if the developer is going to grade in building pads at specific locations. Coffinan stated there will be some grading done but not a lot. Gaffron asked if any potential buyers have expressed interest in any particular lot. Coffman indicated the development is still very conceptual at this point. Schoenzeit encouraged the developer to continue to work with Staff to resolve all the issues prior to this application proceeding to the City Council. Schoenzeit reiterated his recommendation that the application contain no variance requests. Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3591,Ervin Wachman,Outlot C,Bayview Farms 2"d Addition,Preliminary Plat/Subdivision,subject to the developer accepting removal of the invasive species as part of the development project,granting of the requested trail easement as requested by Staff and City Engineer,that the conservation design report will be detailed in nature outlining both the positive aspects and the negative aspects that need to be corrected,and that the developer include a tree buffer for the rest of the property as requested by the neighbor with similar planting density as the other tree buffers to be installed as part of this project. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #13-3592 PILLAR HOMES ON BEHALF OF BRIAN AND JUDITH BUTTERFIELD, 3955 WATERTOW ROAD,VARIANCES,7:22 P.M.—7:31 P.M. K.C. Chermak,Pillar Homes,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lot area,rear and front setback variances in order to construct a new single-family residence. The properly is located in the RR-lA, 5-acre zoning district where 100-foot front and rear setbacks are required for a principal structure. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing home and garage and construct a new single-family home. The property is smaller than the required five acres and is awkwardly shaped. The septic locations and the topography offer additional limitations for the building site. In addition to the lot area variance, the applicant is requesting setback variances to allow construction of the home 50 feet from the front Page 10 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. properly line and 68.2 feet from the rear where 100-foot setbacks are required in order to construct the proposed home. The subject property is an existing lot and the existing home on the property was constructed in 1957. While the property owner has family owned property directly to the east,there is no additional land available to make this property conforming in a way which would not create an awkward or unusable configuration or make another property nonconforming. The proposed home will meebexceed the required 50-foot side setback requirement by proposing a 78- foot setback,thus lessening the impact of the new home on the adjacent properties. While there are a few homes set far back off of Watertown Road,the proposed 50-foot front setback for the home appears to be consistent with the location of a number of the homes along Watertown Road in the immediate area. Staff finds that a practical difficulty exists in the size and shape of the property and the zoning requirement for lot area as well as the 100-foot front and rear setback requirements. The applicant's proposal does not result in excessive structural coverage or massing and does not appear to alter the character of the locality. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area,front yard and rear yard setback variances as requested. Leskinen asked if the red building is part of this application. Curtis indicated it is on the neighboring lot and that this lot is very awkwardly shaped. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and pointed out the location of the red shed and the subject property. Gaffron noted Exhibit E is a good depiction of the other lots in the area. K.C. Chermak indicated he is here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Jeremy Grand, 3965 Watertown Road, asked if this application would increase any runoff into his property. Schoenzeit indicated whenever someone is developing their property, City Code requires that they handle the runoff on their own property. Schoenzeit noted there would be a city engineer approved grading plan. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Leskinen commented it appears to be a very reasonable plan. Landgraver stated from the submitted plans, it does appear that the runoff stays off of the neighbor's property. Page 11 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the City's review would ensure that additional runoff would not go on to Mr. Grand's property as a result of this proposal. Curtis encouraged Mr. Grand to contact the City Engineer if he has any additional concerns after tonight's meeting regarding the drainage. Leskinen moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3592,Pillar Homes on Behalf of Brian and Judith Butterfield,3955 Watertown Road,granting of lot area, rear and front setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #13-3593 and#12-3594 PETER ESKUCHE ON BEHALF OF NANCY BIGOS,3350 FOX STREET,VARIANCE,7:33 P.M.—7:39 P.M. Peter Eskuche,Applicant,was present. Schoenzeit asked if there are two separate applications. Curtis noted there are two separate applications but that they are reviewing them as one application. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a new in- ground swimming pool and a conditional use permit to permit a bathtub or shower in the proposed pool cabana(accessory building). The home on the subject property was constructed in approximately 1920. Over the past several years, the property has undergone renovations and additions. In 201 l, an average lakeshore setback variance was granted in order to allow additions to the existing home ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. As the property owner proceeds with improvements to the property, an in-ground pool and pool cabana are now proposed.T he proposed pool will be located partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line which requires a variance. The pool cabana is proposed to have a bathtub and/or shower which requires a conditional use permit. The property owner will need to agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation,used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained,or rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The pool cabana is proposed to be situated 10 feet from the other structures,over 100 feet from the eastern side lot line and over 150 feet from Fox street. All required setbacks for the pool cabana will be met. The pool is proposed to be 120 feet from the east, side lot line and will meet the 10-foot setback from other structures. It is proposed to encroach as much as 20 feet into the average lakeshore setback line. The average lakeshore setback cuts through the middle of the existing home and any improvement on the lakeward portion of the home or property would require a variance.T he subject property is large and there is ample vegetative screening between the home and the property to the east. Because the pool will be on the east side of the home, it will not be visible from the property to the west and it does not appear the pool will adversely impact views of the lake enjoyed from the adjacent properties. Curtis noted there is an existing in-ground pool located approximately 140 feet from the lake and entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing pool is also proposed to remain. � Page 12 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff finds the pool cabana to be in compliance with all zoning requirements and recommends approval of the CUP for the shower. Staff finds there is practical difficulty inherent to the property due to the relative location of the neighboring residences and the extensive setback from the lake. These factors support the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant's request is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and does not result in excessive massing on the property. Further, it does not appear the proposed pool will negatively impact views of the lake enjoyed by the adjacent properties. Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the plumbing in the accessory building. If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulty supporting the variance to allow the proposed in-ground pool to be located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line,an approval recommendation should also be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission discussed the existing pool previously at the time of the earlier application. Curtis indicated hardcover on this property is not a concern and that the pool was either shown to be removed on the survey or it was stated in one of the meetings that it would be removed. Curtis stated removal of the pool was not part of the request that they made at that time and is not today. Schoenzeit asked if the hardcover numbers are okay with the pool remaining. Curtis indicated they are. Peter Eskuche indicated he would be available to answer any questions. Landgraver asked if the existing pool will remain. Eskuche indicated it would and that it is one of the historical aspects to this property. Schoenzeit noted a covenant for non-rental use, etc.,would be required. Eskuche indicated the pool and cabana would be for seasonal use only, Leskinen asked if there will be any vertical obstructions in the pool such as slides or decks that should be screened. Eskuche indicated there will not be. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3593,Peter Eskuche on Behalf of Nancy Bigos,3350 Fox Street,granting of an average lakeshore setback Page 13 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. variance and conditional use permit,subject to a covenant being filed in the title of the property and other Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES This item follows Item No. 7. 7. #13-3595 WILLIAM ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP,LLC,2350 WATERTOWN ROAD AND PID 34-118-23-33-0055,SKETCH PLAN REVIEW,7:40 P.M.—8:22 P.M. William Abbott,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated this sketch plan contemplates a rezoning and subdivision to create five new '/2 to 1 acre buildable lots and a private road from the origina14.8 plus acres. All of the lots will be served by a new private road with a cul-de-sac off of Willow Drive and will be served by city sewer and water. The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family rural residential development at a ma�cimum density of two to three units per acre. The proposed plan result in lots between 0.5 to 1.1 acres and reflects a 35-foot front and rear and 15-foot side setbacks. A 25-foot side setback from Willow Drive is also proposed. The proposed single-family development is consistent with existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. There are two existing home sites to the south on larger lots. The property is located in the RR-1B, one family rural residential district,which allows for single-family rural residential uses with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. However,the properties have been included in the area and have been reguided in the 2000-2020 and 2008-2030 Community Management Plans to allow for low-medium density of 2 to 3 units per acre. The overall density of the development is proposed at 1.25 units per gross acre. In order to accomplish the density proposed,the properties must be rezoned from RR-1B to Residential Planned Unit Development District. The development should be expected to conform to the RPUD district standards. The site consists of two separate parcels,the westerly of the two being a vacant field abutting Willow drive,the easterly being a wooded lot containing an existing home which accesses currently off of Watertown road via a long,flag driveway. A creek cuts diagonally through the property from the northwest to the southeast. It appears that some of the area surrounding the creek is mapped as a Manage 2 wetland. When weather permits,a wetland delineation will have to be conducted and shown on the survey. In addition, a 25-foot buffer and 20-foot buffer setback will be required. A copy of the delineation report and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the delineation will be required at the time of preliminary plat application. The property is situated generally along the east side of Willow Drive just north of Watertown Road. Access to the property will be via a road and cul-de-sac off of Willow Drive. The proposed lots layout as follows: Page 14 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. Proposed Lot 1 will have 0.71 acres total area. There is an unknown area of wetland on this property. This lot will be a corner lot. The front lot line will be the private road frontage. There is 77 feet of frontage proposed along the newly created road. This lot is shown to have 350 feet of frontage along Willow drive. There appears to be an approximate 100'x 50' buildable envelope available and a 2080 square foot home is shown. A vegetated berm is proposed within the 25- foot setback to screen this lot from Willow Drive. 2. Lot 2 is proposed to have 38 feet in width at the cul-de-sac and approximately 50 feet at the principal building setback. The suggested home site is set back about 80 feet from the cul-de-sac. It is 90 feet wide at the suggested building site and is proposed to be 0.65 acres. There is an unknown area of wetland on this property. Not shown on the concept plan within proposed Lots 1 and 2 is an easement for the existing sewer line that extends across those lots from Willow Drive to proposed Lot 3. The conceptual stormwater pond location appears to potentially interfere with this sewer line. Whether a formal� easement for that line exists must be established. 3. Lot 3 is proposed as a flat lot which has 25 feet in width at the cul-de-sac and 135 feet in total width within the building envelope. This lot is also proposed to have two separate easements: a 20-foot wide existing utility easement containing the Hackberry neighborhood sewer line connection to the Long Lake sewer system,running from west to east and down the west lot line, and a 20-foot wide drainage easement following the creek. The drainage easement cuts the building envelope in half. Curtis noted flat lots are not permitted. The City allows front lodback lot layouts with special provisions outlined in City Code. 4. Lot 4 is proposed to be 1.08 acre in area and 48.77 feet of frontage. It has an existing home and is proposed to access off of the cul-de-sac. The utility and drainage easements from proposed Lot 3 continue on to this lot. � 5. Lot 5 is proposed to contain 0.55 acres in area and 51.9 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac. a 2,128 square foot home is shown situated in the proposed building envelope. 6. Lot 6 is a corner lot with 83 feet of frontage on the proposed road/cul-de-sac and 235 feet on Willow Drive. A vegetated berm is proposed within the 25-foot setback to screen this lot from Willow Drive. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide outlot to create a private road with a 100-foot cul-de-sac which conforms to the requirements within the subdivision ordnance for a local private road. The proposed paved width of the private road is shown as 25 feet where the Code requires 24 feet for three to six homes. The cul-de-sac is proposed to have a 70-foot paved diameter,where City Code requires an 80- foot paved diameter. Given the fact that six homes will be served from the proposed roadway and given the shortness of the proposed roadway,parking for guests will be at a premium. Parking on Willow Drive should be avoided. This will not only better facilitate parking but will allow additional options for snow storage. Page 15 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. It is important to note that here should be a platted corridor to the properiy to the immediate southeast for potential future road connection to serve that property. This would allow for a future through road from Willow to Watertown. This would provide more options for future development of the property to the southeast and ultimately make for more efficient road maintenance. A Rural Oasis Study and Conservation Design Master plan is required for this project and it should be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Any platting that takes place would require the recording of easements and buffers for the wetland. The property is subject to the 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. Conservation easements should be provided to protect the views and natural features identified with the comprehensive Conservation Design Master planning process. The subject properiy is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Sewer service is available to these properties via the Hackberry system which discharges to the Long Lake system. Water service is available from the Long Lake system subject to Long Lake approval. Sewer and water fees will be due to Long Lake, subject to the provisions of the Glendale Cove Sewer and Water Agreement. The developer will be responsible for installation of sewer and water laterals to serve the development. Per past City practice,there will not be a connection charge to Orono for sewer or water but Long Lake connection charges will apply. Staff has developed a series of sketches depicting options for consideration. Sketch 1 puts a slight curve in the entry from Willow and also includes a future 50-foot angled corridor from the cul-de-sac to the northwest corner of the property to the southeast. This layout also reduces the length of the outlot driveway to Lot 3 to around 100 feet. Gaffron stated Sketch 2 avoids platting a permanent cul-de-sac and makes use of temporary cul-de-sac easements. This type of layout has been used on occasion in the past. The benefit is that if/when the road is extended to serve the next property,the temporary cul-de-sac can be physically removed and the underlying land can revert back to the appropriate owners via extinguishing the easement rather than vacating a platted road. This option also saves on future survey costs. Both Sketches 1 and 2 end up putting a corridor connection to the next property right at the northwest corner of the parcel,which may be awkward and may not be a reasonable place to connect into that property since you will end up with either a right angle turn or some triangular shaped lots. Sketch 3 shows the cul-de-sac further to the east and north and rearranges the layout so that Lots 1 and 2 become single lots and would access directly to the cul-de-sac. Lots 2 and 3 would also access directly to the cul-de-sac. Lots 4 and 6 would access directly on to the private road but instead of having a connection at the very northwest corner of the neighboring property, it would be moved it south either to the very south end of Lot 5 or between Lot 5 and 4 and 6. Gaffron stated conceptually this is an idea that could work. The potential is that you create the corridor between Lots 5 and 6 with the expectation that that lot is either going to access the driveway off of Willow Drive or the future road. It also forces there to be two new roads or connections off of Willow Drive. Page 16 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked why Staff is confident that that lot will be developed. Gaffron stated in his view every developable property in Orono will someday be developed. If those potential corridors are not dealt with now, it becomes difficult to deal with in the future. Typically the City does not like to maintain cul-de-sacs. Gaffron noted Glendale Cove became a public road and has a cul-de-sac. The development is an RPUD at roughly the same density as what is being proposed in this application. As it relates to Stone Bay, it was developed for high density but it also created narrow private roads within the development. In this case,the City is looking at a road system to serve single-family homes and not twin homes or townhomes. If there is going to be a connection to the next property,the City should put in place a useable road with some idea of how that other property may be developed in the future. Gaffron stated it is possible to plat a 50-foot road down the western side of the property but that he is not sure how it would develop. Schoenzeit asked if that would become a public road. Gaffron stated the City for the last 30 years has required that the connecting roads be platted and have had dualing cul-de-sacs with the connector corridor. Neighbors like cul-de-sacs that do not connect on through. If the City is going to be asked to take that road over in the future,the City would require that connection be made in order to not have to deal with the cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated he would have every expectation that the next developer will want to come in off of Watertown Road and have their own private road. The question becomes at what point in the future should it become a through road. Gaffron indicated these sketches are all just possible options and that the wetland delineation will provide some better guidance. The need for storm water ponding will also provide some direction. There are a number of unresolved issues at this point that Staff cannot define exactly how this development should be laid out but it is important the City have enough of a road serving this development so parking issues do not develop. Lemke asked why the City would want a public cul-de-sac as opposed to a private cul-de-sac. Gaffron stated in this case they are proposing single-family homes and it is going to end up at roughly 1/3 to 1/2-acre zoning. There are very few areas of the City at that density that have private roads. Gaffron stated he has no compelling reason why it should be public versus private,but if it does become public, the City needs to make sure it is to the point that it can be extended in the future if it becomes necessary. Leskinen asked how big the adjoining parcel is. Curtis indicated it is 3.52 acres. William Abbott,Applicant, stated he grew up in the Orono area and observed a lot of different development. Abbott stated he sees an entirely different housing need at the current time rather than what has traditionally been a need for 5-acre lots and larger homes. Abbott stated he is seeing in recent home sales that people are moving into smaller homes on smaller lots. Page 17 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Abbott stated when he saw this properly, he thought this would be an opportunity to do something to meet the needs of people wanting to move into Orono that are unable to afford the cost of a larger home. Abbott stated current home prices for the larger lots keep people out of Orono and they are trying to create a neighborhood of smaller lots and smaller homes. To create that market,they need to look at costs and how to keep them low. It makes sense to look at future development,but by putting in a shorter road and creating less of a scar with the paved road,we create less impact and less expense associated with the development. Orono is looking for that type of development and this development will help meet that need. Schoenzeit asked what the land portion would cost. Abbott stated Lots 1 and 2 would be around 160,Lots 5 and 6 would be in the 150 range, and approximately 175 for the one-acre pieces. Abbott stated it got to the point where there was a saturation of larger homes but now there is more of a balance. Home prices have come down due to the lack of demand. People are looking for more traditional homes. Abbott indicated they are also attempting to provide some variety in lot sizes. Schoenzeit asked if he has an alternate suggestion to the road connection. Abbott stated as it relates to Sketch 3, as long as they have to create an easement,they could create the easement in a different spot. Abbott stated if you put the easement in the location proposed by Mike Gaffron,you will need another piece of land. If you leave the lots as they are and place the easement on the other side,the lot sizes will decrease slightly but will not impact them a ton. Gaffron indicated it would also avoid Lots 4 and 6 from being through lots. Gaffron stated there is a lot of good logic for that proposal. Gaffron asked if the existing house will stay. Abbott indicated at this point they are not sure. If the house were to go away, having the land with the drainage easement there might be a better way to lay it out. Gaffron stated the City wants to avoid having a bunch of lots all having separate access on to Willow Road. Schoenzeit asked if it would be okay if they did the 50/50 split with the Kelly property. Gaffron stated in the past under the City's subdivision codes you would plat half of the road on one side and the other property on the other side would plat the other side. The City has not done that in a number of years but this may be a case where the City should perhaps consider that. Schoenzeit stated since this is a new development,the City would like to see it code compliant as much as possible. Schoenzeit asked whether there will be ample parking on each of the lots. Abbott stated they are not creating the bigger road to serve as parking and that each lot should have plenty of parking. Abbott noted along Willow Drive there is ample parking for special occasions. Page 18 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated with half a dozen homes,you will have a greater percentage of them using the street for parking. Abbott stated if you took out all the driveway cuts,you are left with a little over 200 linear feet and it would allow some parking on the roadway. If Staff feels parking will be a huge issue,Abbott indicated they could come up with another plan. Landgraver stated what happens is that people will use Hackberry Park to park and that he suspects that if there is a 4`�'of July party,they might use the park and then walk across the street. Gaffron stated you also need to take into account snow storage with cul-de-sacs. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission typically considers parking in their applications and that they should not underestimate the need for pre-planned parking. Leskinen commented in her view it is a good looking development and this type of housing is needed in that area. Leskinen stated in her view the parking is a concern and needs to be addressed up front than trying to address it down the road. Schoenzeit stated one of the benefits to the development would be the extra parking spaces. Abbott asked how difficult it would be to relocate the creek closer to the back or in another spot. Gaffron stated in his view it would be difficult since there are wetland issues. Gaffron concurred the creek is in an awkward location but that trying to change it significantly will not be simple given the wetland regulations. Berg noted there are utility easements in that area as well. Abbott stated the egg-shaped area is thought to be a cattail pond and that they are considering that area for the storm water pond. Abbott indicated he is not sure if that will be allowed. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 6. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES,8:22 P.M.—8:43 P.M. Gaffron stated Staff and City Council have expressed a concern that the City's provisions do not adequately regulate an accessory use or structure. The Council, back in November, adopted a moratorium on accessory uses and structures not listed in the code, and a study is underway to look at what kind of standards should be in place. The moratorium is in effect until August 13,2013. Staff is in the early stages of the process to review the existing standards. Tonight's initial discussion is going to focus on a review of the performance standards that are in place and also take a look at those items that are not listed in the zoning code as accessory uses but are generally permitted"as incidental".Those things could be something like flagpoles,mailboxes, garden boxes and garden trellises. They are common, incidental items that people see and people expect they can just do or have. Page 19 of 23 NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission understand the difference between the City's definition of building and structure. A building means any structure that has a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel. A structure means anything which is built, constructed or erected and does not necessarily have to be a building. Each of the City's residential zoning districts specify a list of permitted accessory uses. General performance standards for accessory uses and structures pertinent to all residential districts are contained within a variety of sections in Chapter 78. In addition to the standards within each district, listed on Page 2 of the memo are the general performance standards for accessory uses and structures pertinent to all residential districts. They include such things as height of structures, dwelling uses that are prohibited,home occupations, lot coverage,tennis courts, pools,paddocks and arenas,non-encroachments. Sections 1431 through 1440 are the standards the City has in place for accessory structures. Various sections within the performance standards regulate various usage aspects of both principal and accessory structures. In addition,elements of certain sections further regulate specific accessory structures or uses. These include floodplain management, shoreland management,wetlands protections, and the City's stormwater quality overlay district. Gaffron noted Staff has just started its review of these items and the next step will be to compile a comprehensive list of uses, structures or buildings that the City should have standards for. City Attorney Mattick stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to begin by looking at accessory uses and structures. The City's code includes accessory structure and use,which are two different things but are contained in one definition. It is not that uncommon to have those two items contained within the same code provisions and it is done with the idea that you have a primary use on your property,which is usually your house. An accessory use and structure definition is to cover ancillary uses or structures associated with the home. Mattick stated while Staff has included an analysis on use,the more pressing reason for the moratorium is to allow Staff time to take a look at structures. The City's code currently identifies structures in two separate ways. One way is by having a defined list of accessory structures. Many times when you look at a properly,you will see there are other structures that are not included on the list and it is normal to question why they are not on the list. The City's code addresses that by defining what an accessory structure is. Mattick indicated there are some things that are incidental and customary that are associated with the primary structure. Mattick stated in his view the code actually does a pretty good job of making allowances for that. There is also a judgment call in there regarding customary and incidental which can sometimes cause problems, but a completely comprehensive list would be very difficult to compile since you cannot possibly think of everything. Mattick stated you also have the issue of something that"kind of'fits within the definition of an accessory structure or use and then the property owner gets the benefit of doubt. Staff discussed the merits of creating a comprehensive list. Mattick stated he does not feel that is practical but perhaps should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Beyond that,there is also the Page 20 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. issue of determining if it is allowed and should there be a separate set of performance standards for each and every one of those structures. The easy way to approach it is to say yes, but once you start to examine what happens with an accessory use or structure,you will find that there are different circumstances for each item. As an example,basketball hoops tend to get pushed to the edge of the property. In addition,there are certain accessory structures that are not listed within the City's regulations. Mattick stated one of the directions for the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission tonight is to start thinking about those items. Mattick suggested the Planning Commission start with the concept of accessory structures and then performance standards associated with them in terms of where they should be located. Mattick stated it is a balance of where you should be able to place these items on your property and how they should be regulated. Mattick noted one of the reasons the moratorium was put in place was to allow Staff to make sure that accessory structures are customarily incidental. If someone comes up to a properly,they should be able to say that the accessory structure has not swallowed the pr.incipal structure. Mattick stated the Planning Commission may want to examine whether the number of accessory structures should be limited or how big they should be able to be. Gaffron stated once you get into some of the rural zones,there are allowances for barns that could be much bigger than the house. Mattick stated for a barn that may make sense but for other structures it doesn't. The question is how much does the City want to regulate and make sure that those accessory structures seem like accessory structures. Landgraver stated one of the objectives appears to be for the Planning Commission to define what it is, where it is located, and possibly the size. Mattick stated as it relates to performance standards,the primary issues would be height, location, massing, setbacks, and the number of structures Berg commented it would probably depend on the size of the lot as well. Schoenzeit commented windmills are also one example of an accessory structure that should be given some consideration. Mattick noted on the smaller lots the hardcover regulations would come into play. Gaffron stated the list for RR-lA talks about private garages and parking spaces but does not say anything about accessory buildings that are not garages. The City's regulations currently do not specifically list all those things that are not garages and it probably should. Landgraver stated swing sets are also another item that have become larger over the years. Gaffron stated a number of city codes have an item defined as recreational equipment,which is something that Orono currently does not have. Page 21 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. • Mattick stated in a lot of these situations,the performance standards do not have to be nailed down in the code because common sense prevails, but every now and then you have someone who pushes the Council on it because it is not defined in the code. Mattick stated as it relates to the moratorium, it is not a moratorium on all accessory structures. The moratorium does not prohibit any structures that are specifically listed. There was a concern that the moratorium would inconvenience the community, and to Staffls knowledge no one has been turned away or not allowed to erect an accessory structure at this point. Curtis noted the recent application for the cabana was in the process months ago and is one of those undefined accessory structures. Curtis indicated the applicants submitted their application this summer. Gaffron stated he would like the Planning Commission to discuss this at their next work session and that Staff would like to present them with a list of things that are not currently contained in the code. The next step would be to come up with performance standard for each those items for the March Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this item tonight. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to table Application#13-3596,City of Orono,Zoning Study—Accessory Uses and Structures. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Mattick commented it would probably be helpful for the Planning Commissioners to take a look at properties as they drive by and see what types of other accessory structures are typically contained on properties. Berg asked if entrance monuments with lights are considered an accessory structure. Gaffron indicated it is not listed as an accessory structure but that the City has regulations governing monuments. Schoenzeit asked if Staff could compile a list of the top 10 items that typically fall through the cracks. Gaffron indicated he will compile that list for the work session. PLANNING CONIMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS—JANUARY 28,2013,AND FEBRUARY 11,2013 Gaffron noted at the January 28`h meeting the Council received a report on Big Island and that the application relating to lot coverage and massing standards was placed on the Consent Agenda. Page 22 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,February 19,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. At the February 11�', meeting,there was a discussion on aquatic invasive species. Curtis noted the Colson application was discussed and a number of items were put on Consent. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Curtis noted the City Council will attend the March Planning Commission work session. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. , ' . Loren Schoenzeit, Chair �7 �- �� �-- 2��i-� Page 23 of 23