Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL � The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit,Kevin Landgraver, and Jean Krogness. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Mayor Lili McMillan was present. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 2 was added to the Consent Agenda. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing for Item No. 2 at 6:32 p.m. • There were no public comments. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. . . MINUTES *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2013 Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the March 18,2013,Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS ' *2. #13-3598 WILLIAM AND CYNTHIA BOWMAN OF 450 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTIi AND MICHAEL SOWADA OF 2300 WILLOW HILL DRIVE AND OUTLOT 1,WILLOW NTT,L,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3598,Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement,William and Cynthia Bowman,450 Willow Drive South,and Michael Sowada,Outlot A and 2300 Willow Hill Drive,subject to conditions of Staff. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. #13-3599 DEAN JOHNSON OF HOMETIME VIDEO PRODUCTIONS,80 CREEK RIDGE PASS,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE,6:34 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Dean Johnson,Applicant,was present. Page 1 of 26 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. ' Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact side setback variance to allow the existing home under construction to have a 24-foot setback where a 30-foot setback is required. � In November,2012, a permit was issued for construction of the new home at 80 Creek Ridge Pass. In December,while digging for the foundation,the builder encountered a damaged sanitary sewer line. Additionally,the builder discovered that the sewer line was not centered within the utility easement as had been expected. As a result,the location of the proposed home would not allow for the desired 10-foot separation between the foundation and the sewer line. The logical solution was to adjust the angle of the home 7.8 feet in the rear to move it ten feet away from the sewer line rather than revise the house plans. This results in a 37.8 foot setback on the northwest side and a 24-foot setback on the adjacent side where a 30-foot setback is required. The builder is also the owner of the adjacent property to the southeast,which is the property affected by the reduced setback. The Creek Side development was approved as a Planned Residential Development with reduced front yard setbacks but the RR-1B separation between buildings with 30-foot required side setbacks was _ maintained. In order to avoid the existing sewer line,the home as constructed encroaches six feet into the required side setback with a 6' x 18' portion of the home. The remainder of the home meets all required setbacks. Staff finds that while the location of all utilities should be verified in the field,the location of the sanitary sewer line is unique to the subject property and is not caused by the property owner. The applicant's request is reasonable and does not appear to adversely affect the neighboring properties. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty and does not appear to alter the character of the neighborhood. Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variance. A revised as-built foundation survey accurately representing the field verified location of the sanitary line is required to be submitted for approval prior to placement on the City Council meeting agenda. . Curtis displayed the original building permit survey and the as-built survey on the overhead. Leskinen asked if the building permit survey depicts the sewer line. Curtis stated it shows it as the sewer plans reflected. Curtis indicated they have located the sanitary manhole at the front of the house,which was not where it was expected to be, and they also located a damaged sewer line,which was repaired in the process. � Schoenzeit asked what process the applicants went through once the damaged sewer line was discovered. Curtis stated the builder encountered the problem with the line and contacted the Public Works Department. The City Engineer met with them on site and they discussed corrective actions that could be taken. After the correct distance was determined,the applicant came in and spoke with Staff about the . 6-foot difference and turning the house. Since the builder owned the adjacent property, it was determined to be the best solution at the time. Landgraver asked if there is a domino effect with shifting this residence on the adjacent lot. Page 2 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the thought at the time was, given the way the properties were developed with the close setback to the road,the hope was to maintain the 60 feet total between the homes. Staff had questioned whether the home at 90 Creek Ridge Pass could be relocated to maintain the 60-foot separation. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could discuss whether that is appropriate or not,but it does not appear it would have that domino effect. Dean Johnson,Applicant, stated as they were digging,they hit the pipe and some water started coming in. Initially they thought they had hit a French drain. The next day the excavator stated it was flowing again and that was when they realized there were a couple of big boulders on top of the sewer line. Johnson indicated they had Scott Oberaigner from the City come out and inspect it. Based upon their inspection, it appeared the line veered and was getting dangerously close to the house. Following that inspection,they made a trip to city hall and spoke with the City Engineer and Staff. Johnson stated he told Staff that he did not have a problem with shifting it over to one side. Johnson indicated he is not a developer and that Staff was telling him that they want a 10-foot setback from the house. Johnson stated he suggested repositioning the house over,and everyone seemed to think that was a good plan, so they proceeded with the work. Johnson stated this subdivision was developed with 30-foot setbacks on both sides. Given the price range, it is challenging to put a house on those lots of the size that you really want to build. Johnson stated if they have to take six feet out of the building pad, it would be a challenge. Johnson noted there is still approximately 54.5 feet between that house and the next one. There is the additional problem of the creek and the 20-foot setback from the creek. In 2007 or 2008,the City adopted another 20-foot setback. The way the lot is situated,with the 20-foot setback, it makes the lot pretty much unbuildable. Johnson indicated they have not developed any house plans for the adjacent lot at this time but that they may need a variance. Johnson stated he is hopeful the Planning Commission agrees to this solution and that he does not want to dig up the whole sewer line and relocate it. Gaffron stated he concurs with what the applicant has said. The City adopted a wetland ordinance a year or two after this subdivision was approved. There is no question the next lot is a tight fit. Gaffron stated in his view the 54 feet versus the 60 feet of separation meets the intent of the subdivision. The original intent was to have a more urban style neighborhood while preserving a lot of area around the perimeter of � the subdivision. There are a total of 14 homes on approximately 20 acres. There is also a lot of buildable area on the other side of the creek that is preserved. Gaffron indicated he is comfortable with this solution. Krogness stated she notices the porch is the part that is encroaching, and that she is wondering whether they plan to do anything as far as screening for the people who will eventually build next door. Krogness noted they cannot put the porch in the back of the house since there is not enough room. Johnson indicated they will be doing a substantial amount of planting in that area in addition to what already exists. The majority of the views from the adjacent house will not be facing the direction of this lot. Page 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the solution and the process followed seems reasonable given the circumstances, and from a variance standpoint,there is a practical difficulty given the conditions encountered during the building process. Landgraver stated the City will need to deal with the adjacent lot at the time they propose house plans. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Lemke asked if the corrected sewer line has been reflected on the as-built survey. Curtis indicated that information will be provided prior to this application going before the City Council. Leskinen stated she does have concerns about the adjacent lot but that there is only so much flexibility on a narrow lot. Leskinen recommended the applicant not have any further encroachment than what it currently is and to try to maintain the 60-foot separation if at all possible between the two homes. Leskinen recommended at a minimum he maintain the 30-foot setback from the lot line for the adjacent home. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission cannot waive the fee and that they would need to raise that issue with the City Council. Landgraver moved,Krogness seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3599,Dean Johnson for Home Time Video Publishing,Inc.,80 Creek Ridge Pass,granting of an after-the-fact side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #13-3600 ESKUCHE ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF KATHRYN KALLAS,3048 NORTH SHORE DRNE,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:52 P.M.—7:30 P.M. Peter Eskuche,Applicant, and Sven Gustafson,Builder,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a new residence with portions of the home encroaching up to 30 feet into the average lakeshore setback. A conditional use permit is also requested in conjunction with grading and filling activities within 75 feet of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The existing home on the subject properly is situated up to 70 feet into the average lakeshore setback and 25 feet into the required 75-foot setback from the lake. The applicants are proposing to construct a new residence which will meet the 75-foot lake setback but is proposed to encroach up to 30 feet into the average lakeshore setback on the northeast portion of the home. A conditional use permit is also requested as the applicant is proposing to conduct filling and grading activities within the 75-foot setback. The purpose for the grading and filling is primarily to fill in and Page 4 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. mitigate for the existing,to be removed, hbme foundation as well as to complete the finish grading for the new, proposed home. The existing home is nonconforming with respect to the lake setback and the average lakeshore setback. - Approximately 525 square feet of the existing home is located ahead of the 75-foot setback line and the existing deck is entirely within the 75-foot setback. The applicant is proposing to fully conform to the 75- foot setback requirement with the proposed home. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the � new home to encroach up to 30 feet into the average lakeshore setback on the northeast side. The home to the northeast is located approximately 180 feet from the lake where the adjacent neighbor to the southwest is between 70-80 feet from the lake, resulting in an average lakeshore setback line at an approximate 45-degree angle across from the subject property. The applicant is proposing to situate the home so that the encroachment is improved for the neighbor to the northeast but still ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The existing home on the property extends into the 75-foot lake setback area. The demolition of the hoe does not necessarily result in the need for a conditional use permit. However, as the applicant is proposing to construct the new home right at the 75-foot setback,grading within the setback is shown. The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's grading plan for the purpose of the land use application and did not identify significant concerns. The City Engineer's comments are attached. The Planning Commission should note that there is an unclassified wetland shown on the properly near the road. The applicant should work with the MCWD and delineate the wetland if deemed necessary. � The final grading plan will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal and the applicant will need to comply with the City Engineer's requirements at that time. Staff believes the proposed grading within the 75-foot setback area will have no impact on surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site are not significantly altered. The resulting grade will be similar to the other properties in the neighborhood. To comply with the zoning code requirement,the height measurement and basement determination will be based on the pre-existing grade, not on the altered grade. In addition, Staff feels the prosed use of the property for construction of a residence will not be changing as a result of the proposed grading activity,so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. The fill and proposed grading on this lot will have minimal, if any, environmental impacts. Staff finds that the location of the new residence will result in an improvement of the average lakeshore setback encroachment for the property to the northeast. This home is situated with views facing east and north. Only one side window appears to face the subject home. Aerial photos show the existing tree stand between the two homes in the area where the proposed home will encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and average lakeshore setback variance if the Planning Commission determines the existing views enjoyed by the neighboring homes will not be further impacted. Schoenzeit asked where the 75-foot setback is located. Curtis indicated it goes up to the patio area. . Page 5 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 dclock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if it is possible to prevent any future variances for other lots if the average lakeshore setback variance is granted. Curtis stated City Code and the resolution would have language in there concerning any changes or expansion to the plans. Schoenzeit asked if there are any characteristics of the lot that would prevent it from being placed at the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the further you pull the new home back,the further you are behind the home to the south, which would affect this home's view. If the applicant's home is pulled further to meet or better the average lakeshore setback, it will start to impact the views of the new home. Landgraver asked if they are speaking of 40 square feet that would encroach into the 75-foot setback. Curtis illustrated the area of the home that would encroach. Curtis noted they are improving the hardcover in the 75-foot setback. � Lemke asked if the home on the adjacent house were to be razed,whether they could construct any closer to the lake. Curtis indicated they would need to meet both the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback as determined by the new home being proposed. Given the nature of the setback requirement, it does move people back from the lake on either side if they should rebuild in the future. Peter Eskuche,Applicant, stated the only issue he wanted to touch on was to point out that the home to the left is located next to Nurenberg Park and is basically offsetting the entire building site for this lot and make it conforming. Their home is located approximately halfway back on the lot,which allows them to have panoramic views of Nurenberg Park. That forces this house quite a bit back and puts a burden on this lot. As Staff pointed out,the white roof is so far back that you cannot get a sense of Maxwell Bay. Krogness asked how far back the house with the wing on it is. Krogness stated it appears the new house would be basically at the same depth as the wing and it would not impact the views that the new house would have. Krogness noted the new house would not have the same view it would have if it stayed where it was. The house next door is not going to stay forever since it is an older house. Krogness asked why they are worried about the house on the other side and cutting off their view. Krogness stated in her view this is a lot of house for this lot and it is not in compliance. I{rogness asked how many square feet that section of the house is. Curtis indicated she is not sure how many square feet it is. Eskuche stated part of the problem is that the house is there and their view would be significantly reduced if they conform to the average lakeshore setback because they would not be able to see most of the lake. The house is located behind the wing and behind part of the adjacent house. They are moving the new house 39 feet behind the existing house. Curtis stated in her belief the new home would not negatively the views from the house to the south but rather would improve the views. It could potentially impact the side views from the house to the north. Page 6 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated iypically when they are looking at protection of an average lakeside view, Staff considers the windows facing the lakeside and not the views from every window in the home. Eskuche stated this is similar to a variance application he was on approximately a month ago. The City's .ordinance deals with homes that are typically in a line. Since the next home is not in line and is actually fronting the water facing north, it puts the burden on his client. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Schoenzeit stated on a rebuild, it should be as close to compliance as possible. By allowing this home to be so far forward,they would be allowing the adjoining property to take advantage of the noncompliance. Schoenzeit stated not only are they going to be ahead of the average lakeshore setback,they are going to get a variance to go into the 75-foot setback. Leskinen noted they are pulling the new home back to the 75-foot setback and are only encroaching with a corner of the home into the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit stated the idea is that because it is pushing towards the lake,the neighbors will get to take ` advantage of that. Gaffron stated it would be the opposite since the neighbor would require a greater variance to stay where they currently are. Schoenzeit stated if you put the home at the average lakeshore setback,that would be pulling it back for everyone. ' Leskinen noted even with this variance, it would be pulling the average lakeshore line back. Schoenzeit stated the house should be located at the average lakeshore setback line. Landgraver stated the neighbor to the south should be contesting this because they are giving up some of their view in the future since they will have to pull their house further back. Leskinen stated she sees a practical difficulty in that the home to the north is set so far back that it skews the average lakeshore setback line. Leskinen indicated she can see the logic of not wanting to pull it all the way back because that would really diminish their view. Landgraver stated they are currently closer to the lake than what is being proposed and that they are moving hardcover and structural coverage further away from the lake. Landgraver indicated he does feel there is a practical difficulty given the way the property to the north is structured,which is to take advantage of the two aesthetic features of that property. Landgraver stated that is a unique situation and makes it difficult for reconstruction of this property. Landgraver indicated he is in favor of what is being proposed. Page 7 of 26 - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that the proposed project improves what is existing by moving structure further away from the lake. Schoenzeit noted this is new construction. Leskinen stated she is not sure what to do about it because if you pull it all the way back to the average lakeshore setback line, due to the house to the north,there will not be much of a view. Schoenzeit commented it would still be a view of the lake. Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty of not being close enough to the lake does not work for him. Curtis stated the practical difficulty of the house to the northeast and the fact that the applicant's home does not adversely affect that property, balance each other out. The practical di�culty to locate the home ahead of that line may not be enough by itself, but because they are not negatively impacting their views, that is the piece that fits together. Schoenzeit pointed out if the other house is rebuilt,the house to the north could move up 100 feet. Leskinen asked what he would propose as a solution. Schoenzeit suggested perhaps splitting the difference. The fact that there is nothing stopping it from being pushed back, it should be as close to compliance as possible on new construction. Lemke stated the views to the lower left are a little bit restricted but the views to the right are tremendous, which is what the average setback is all about. Schoenzeit commented the view at the setback would still be spectacular to the right. Landgraver asked what the average lakeshore setback line is for the property to the north. Curtis stated it would be the difference between the property next to them and the lake. Currently it would be 70 feet if that is the setback of the current home. Curtis indicated they could go to the 75-foot line. Landgraver asked if Schoenzeit is suggesting pulling this house back to an arbitrary point and then locking in the northeast property. Schoenzeit stated this lot is like a blank sheet and that there is nothing forcing the placement of the house in that location. Schoenzeit noted they would also be adding hardcover to the driveway to push it � forward. Landgraver stated if you do that,you would be imposing on the next door neighbor. Schoenzeit stated since this is new construction,a large lot, and a fabulous view on the one side, it would seem reasonable. Krogness asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is suggesting they move it back to the average lakeshore setback line or halfway. Page 8 of 26 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the code would say to move it back to the average lakeshore setback and that he would encourage the applicant to split the difference. Curtis pointed out it would put the applicant's house more directly next to the neighboring home,and with the proposed location,they are looking at more open space. If the house is pulled back further,there will be less of a separation. Lemke asked how much they would need to pull it back in order to meet that line. Curtis indicated 30 feet. Schoenzeit indicated he would be comfortable with 15 feet. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not supposed to design the house and asked if the applicant would be comfortable with pushing it back 15 feet. Eskuche indicated he would not be. Leskinen stated in her view the applicant's proposal is reasonable. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3600,Eskuche Associates on Behalf of Kathryn Kallas,3048 North Shore Drive,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and conditional use permit,based on StafPs recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3,Lemke,Schoenzeit and Krogness Opposed. MOTION FAILS. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission make another motion that passes or table the application if the applicant wishes. Schoenzeit stated in an attempt to provide direction to the applicant,the fact that it is new construction and that there is nothing preventing it from being pushed back,he would be comfortable in allowing 15 feet. � Eskuche pointed out if this proposal passes and the house is pushed further back,the average of those two houses would be within the conforming setback at 75 feet. The issue for his client is the location of the neighbor's house and that they are proposing it slightly behind the neighbor's house. The location of the residence to the north unduly burdens them and makes this situation unique. Eskuche indicated he does not understand why their proposal is not reasonable. Schoenzeit noted there are two setbacks and that nobody can build in the 0-75 foot zone unless their property is all peninsula and that area is your only building envelope. The other reason for the setback is to protect close and far away houses,which is the secondary protection for lake views and massing. Schoenzeit noted the 75-foot setback is a minimum and not a maximum. With new construction,the applicant has the opportunity to be compliant, and that they are offering to split the difference between what is compliant and what is being proposed. Eskuche stated the nature of a variance is to deal with something that is unique. The ordinance was not created for a lot like this. Eskuche indicated the variance he was granted a month ago was similar. On that lot the house was centered on the property and their setback ran right through their house. In that situation they were granted a variance. � Page 9 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Eskuche indicated this is the same condition but just not as extreme. The proposed location of the house is 20 feet behind the 75-foot setback and is actually completely behind the neighbor's house. If you move the house any further back,you will have a pretty substantial house blocking their view of the lake. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Builders, stated the idea behind the adjacent setback line and the spirit of � why it is part of the code is to protect everybody's view and not to force people over time to move further and further away from the lake. The setback is to protect everyone's views. In this case,being behind that line or ahead of the line does not affect the view of the home to the north. Gustafson indicated everything they are doing is improving their view. The home to the south is not impacted in any way. The whole purpose of what is being asked for is a variance to allow them to have reasonable views of the lake. Pulling this house back an arbitrary 15 feet simply puts the proposed house further behind the other house. Gustafson stated this is not a clean slate since they cannot affect the two houses to the north and the south and that they are stuck with that hardship. Schoenzeit commented it might be a long-term process,but the further a house is located away from a lake,the better the water quality can be. Gustafson stated in spirit it is but that is not the purpose for the average setback line. Schoenzeit stated over time you could improve the lake quality by moving the homes back. Gustafson noted they are asking for a variance to the average lakeshore setback and that it is not driven by water quality or hardcover. The intent of the ordinance is to protect the views of the lake, and to suggest that over time this house will go away may not necessarily be true because it could be remodeled. Gustafson stated they do not feel it is fair to say to them to just wait and that eventually that house may be relocated. Schoenzeit stated the proposed location allows the residence to the north to further encroach. Curtis noted it would pull that house back. Gustafson stated it should be at the 75-foot setback but it is not,which is the problem. The house to the north has lake views on two sides and it does not matter that he is not at 75 feet. Leskinen stated in her view the spirit of the rule is being met by pulling it back behind the 75-foot lake setback and maintaining their views as well as improving the views of the neighbor,which is the spirit of the law. � Schoenzeit commented he is not comfortable with tossing out the outlying properiy since at some point the outlying property may be rebuilt. ' Lemke stated he does not feel 15 feet would make that big of a difference. Leskinen suggested someone on the Planning Commission either make a motion to table the application or make a new motion to deny. Eskuche indicated they would prefer it be approved as submitted. Page 10 of 26 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend denial of Application#13-3600,Eskuche Associates on behalf of Kathryn Kallas,3048 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 2, Landgraver and Leskinen Opposed. 5. CITY OF ORONO,WETLAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,7:31 P.M.—7:55 P.M. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission and City Council at their joint work session on Apri13 discussed the potential for revisions to Orono's wetland ordinances. The attached memo and exhibits from the work session provide substantial background information, and a number of specific questions were asked to assist in determining a direction to proceed in making ordinance revisions. The responses to those questions are generally summarized as follows: 1. Should Orono continue to require that wetland buffers be established for an existing developed home site when a project other than a `complete home rebuild accompanied by hardcover increase' is proposed? The reason the increase is listed is because that is how the Watershed District deals with existing situations. They do not actually trigger a wetland buffer requirement until or unless it is a complete rebuild on a residential home and the hardcover is increased. Gaffron noted the City has had a couple of situations in the past where people were required by doing an addition to their house or building an accessory structure to create wetland buffers. That has become problematic for those property owners and they have requested the City relook at their regulations. One of the issues was that the Watershed District does not require the same � level of wetland buffer requirements that the City does. In fact, in those situations,the Watershed District would not have required even a delineation of wetland or the establishment of a buffer and a setback from a buffer. At the joint work session,the group said the City should not continue that practice and they should revise their buffer triggers to be in line with those of the MCWD. Upon adoption of an ordinance, in the future any property owner who is doing an addition of a pool, a tennis court, an addition to the house or even a total rebuild of their house, but not increasing hardcover,would not trigger the need for a wetland buffer. 2. Should Orono change its buffer width standards to match those of MCWD?The answer at the work session was,yes; and if so, should Orono adopt the MCWD standards for buffer ' modification [MCWD Wetland Protection Rule 6(b thru fl], or continue to require a buffer � setback? Gaffron recommended the City accept the MCWD's standards for modification of buffer widths,but ensure the City continues to have some setback from the buffer if MCWD regulations don't provide for one. Gaffron noted the MCWD's standards are a little bit higher than the City's standards for the same type of wetland. , Gaffron stated under the assumption that you have to have a buffer that is triggered by Orono's ordinances and the Watershed District's ordinance,the Watershed District does not necessarily end up with a situation that forces there to be a setback from the buffer. The setback is important because the buffer is an area that cannot be mowed. What the City found with Stone Bay,prior to the current City ordinance,was that they were building homes right up to the area of the buffer and a person really could not have any lawn between the house and the buffer. As a result,the City established a 20-foot buffer setback,which has been in place since 2005. Page 11 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The group determined that the City needs to continue to have some setback from the buffer if the Watershed District's regulations do not provide for one. 3. Should Orono continue to require avoidance of future nonconformities even when the buffer . requirement is not triggered? The language of future nonconformities is talking about the idea that even though your project does not necessarily trigger a buffer,the code, as it exists today, does not allow someone to create some structure or encroachment in what might be a future buffer. In order to establish whether . there might be an encroachment,the City would need to determine where the wetland is,what kind of wetland it is,where the boundary of the wetland is, and what the setback from the buffer is. They would then need to determine whether or not what somebody is proposing is going to be a future encroachment. The group determined that the City should not continue to require avoidance of future nonconformities if the buffer requirement is not triggered. Gaffron indicated this becomes much less of an issue if the City is no longer applying buffer requirements for existing homes. 4. Should Orono continue to require creation of buffers when the wetland in question is entirely on an adjacent property? The group decided no for existing single family home situations and yes for new subdivisions; but realizing the City may have limited authority to require wetland delineations outside the subject property. There is also the potential that that wetland buffer that is created is only going to be on the property in question and there might be a gap between the wetland and the property line. 5. Should Orono continue to require buckthorn and other invasive species removal from buffers that are established pursuant to Orono code but not required under MCWD code? The group decided that,no, it is a losing battle when just the buffer area is required to have the invasive vegetation removed and not the rest of the property. If you have a two acre property and you have a tenth of an acre where you are going to remove the buckthorn, it is difficult to say there is a benefit in doing that. 6. Should Orono code be revised to be in complete conformity with MCWD Code? There are critical aspects of Orono code that are not in MCWD Rules, such as the 20' buffer setback requirement that the City may not want to give up. If Orono's code is revised to be in complete conformity with MCWD code, a punch list of requirements the City would no longer enforce includes: - wetland buffer establishment triggered by improvement projects at existing homes; - ability to require buffer setbacks except where an established documented buffer already exists; - avoidance of projects that could result in future nonconformities; � - buffer establishment triggered by wetlands on adjacent properties; - ability to require removal or management of invasive species in buffers except when associated with new development projects; Page 12 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. The consensus of the group was that the City needs to retain the ability to require a structure setback from the buffer. 7. Staff has no expectation that MCWD would be willing to enforce Orono code requirements that are more restrictive or different than MCWD Rules. If Orono chooses to have its ordinances exactly match MCWD codes, it would seem pointless to continue having shared jurisdiction over identical regulations. Would Orono give up all wetland management authority to MCWD? Or would MCWD give up all wetland management authority to the City, including its status as LGU for WCA regulations? Is one of these two options better than the other? Gaffron noted there certainly are cost and staffing issues if the City was to take over complete wetland jurisdiction. If MCWD was to take over completely, Staff would have to work out procedural details for City building permit issuance, but that is a manageable task. Gaffron noted this item will need more exploration. 8. ' Is the City satisfied that MCWD has the capacity to enforce their codes in a timely manner acceptable to Orono? Are there certain risks in Orono giving up complete local wetland control to another agency? This issue will also need more exploration. Gaffron stated given the discussion at the work session, it appears there are a few straightforward changes to the ordinance which at least in concept can be dealt with fairly easily. However,there are nuances within the MCWD code that Staff would need to review further with MCWD staff to ensure that any short term code changes the City makes do not inadvertently result in the City giving up authority it needs to maintain an acceptable level of wetland regulation. Gaffron stated rather than put an ordinance in front of the Planning Commission tonight, he is attempting to identify all those areas that might have pitfalls to them and then discuss the issues with the MCWD. Gaffron noted this item was published for a public hearing. Following public comment, Staff would recommend the application be tabled to the May 20`f'Planning Commission meeting. Landgraver stated the memorandum accurately reflects what was discussed at the work session. The tenor of the meeting was to simplify it and put the City in a position where they could defer to the MCWD except in the area of the setback. Landgraver commented it now appears to be more complicated than what was originally anticipated. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated there are some issues that Staff will need to look at prior to drafting an ordinance. - � Landgraver asked if Staff has enough resources to meet their timeline. Gaffron stated in his view it is still possible by the beginning of summer to have something finalized. The important point to take into consideration is where the Watershed District stands on these issues and then make a determination on whether the City can accomplish what they want with the changes. Leskinen stated the City's overall objective is to eliminate the redundancies but yet still maintain enough control to accomplish what Orono would like to see done on any particular project. Page 13 of 26 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission and the City Council will need to feel comfortable they are not � giving up something that they feel is important. Schoenzeit stated another aspect is to look at the various triggers and how that has impacted different projects. Gaffron stated that is another thing to take into consideration, and noted from 1973 to 2005,the City had nothing but a 20-foot wetland setback. The City did not require those other things and a number of homes and commercial buildings, including city hall, have been built without those requirements. At the time many of those structures were constructed,there was no delineation process other than a survey depicting generally where the wetland was. As time went on,the federal government required additional protection of wetlands,which resulted in buffers and setbacks to buffers. Gaffron stated one question the City has to consider is whether they want some sort of setback from the wetland and then determine whether they will lose that if the City goes back to just having the Watershed District deal with it under their code. Gaffron indicated with a house that is located 40 feet from the edge of the wetland, a 20-foot addition would not trigger any regulations,but would be located 20 feet from the wetland,which is one of the issues that should be considered. Leskinen asked if that could be addressed in the building code or the building setback. Gaffron indicated that is one option. � Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Gaffron stated he is recommending the Planning Commission discuss it further and then table the applicafion to the May 2 City Council meeting. Leskinen commented the work session was very productive. Landgraver stated in his view it is prudent to have a setback from the buffer and that the question comes down to how much control the City should give up to the MCWD. Leskinen asked if a meeting is scheduled already with the Watershed District. Gaffron indicated he does not have a meeting scheduled at this time but that it is likely he will meet with representatives from the Watershed District prior to May 1. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application#13-3601,City of Orono,Wetland Ordinance Amendment,Zoning Code Sections 78-1601 through 78-1614,to the May 20 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 14 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Monday,Apri115,2013 ' 6:30 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS 6. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES,7:56 P.M.—9;06 P.M. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission reviewed the topic of accessory uses and structures at its regular meetings in February and March as well as at its March 6`h work session. During the March 18"'meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the tables of unlisted but extremely common accessory uses and structures and provided comment on how these items should be addressed in the City's ordinances. The Planning Commission did not review the"somewhat"or"marginally"common items at that time. Staff has,however, drafted a proposed ordinance amendment for discussion that addresses all three categories of unlisted uses. The attached draft ordinance begins with a title revision and adds Section 78-201 which is a general statement indicating that if a use is not listed, it's not allowed. The ordinance proposes revisions to the `accessory uses' section of each of the 9 basic single-family residential districts,so there is necessarily a significant amount of text duplication in the ordinance formatting.Additionally it amends just the Accessory Use section preamble of the RPUD, Industrial, and B-1 thru B-6 districts. Finally it amends specific sections of the Zoning Code pertinent to accessory uses regarding height of structures, standards for tennis courts,pools, etc., and non-encroachments,as well as a few minor word additions to selected sections. A brief summary of the ordinance revisions: Section 1. The title of"Supplementary Requirements and Restrictions-Accessory Buildings" (encompassing Sections 78-1431 thru 78-1440) is amended by adding"and Structures"to reflect that this section also deals with structures that are not buildings. Section 2. This is a new section under"District Regulations—Generally,"which states that uses not specifically shown as permitted, conditional or accessory in a zoning district shall be considered as prohibited,and allows for the City or applicant to initiate an amendment to the Code per the existing zoning amendment process to determine whether such use should be allowed. Staff has discussed the alternative of inerely having the Council make a `same or similar' determination on a case-by-case basis. Staff does not recommend that, as such a process would either result in a denial, or an approval that requires a code amendment process to document it. Sections 3 thru 1 l. These are significant revisions to the `Accessory Uses' section within each of the single family residential districts. With one exception,the text revisions are identical within each district. The exception is that `Farm Animal Structures' is added only in RR-districts where Keeping of Farm Animals is an allowed accessory use. � In these nine sections,the order of items has been changed from alphabetical to groupings by similar topic. Also,the preamble sentence within each district's accessory use section has been modified by stating that onlv the listed uses are permitted,provided thev are subordinate to, and associated with and located on the same lot as a permitted use. - "Private garages and parking spaces,which is a listed use in all districts,"is followed by a listing of allowable detached buildings that are not garages, as garages are subject to a variety of specific setback and location rules within various sections of the code. Page 15 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. - "Private swimming pools,tennis courts and paddocks"has been replaced by a pair of"private recreational"entries as suggested by the Planning Commission-one for `recreational sportin� facilities', and one for `recreational plav facilities'. The division is intended to reflect the perceived difference in structure size and level of activity between the two concepts; but other than making `sport courts' subject to the special setbacks applicable to tennis courts and large pools,there are no changes in how these are regulated,other than to list them as `facilities' not previously listed. Gaffron stated it may be prudent to add language identifying setback standards applicable to each of these items. Item 4 talks about private recreational sporting facilities such as pools,basketball hoops, hockey rinks,tennis courts sports courts, skateboard ramps,batting cages, etc, and noted these are all active type of sporting facilities,as opposed to Item 5,which talks about private recreational play facilities, such as hot tubs and spas,recreational fire rings,patios,barbecue pits, outdoor kitchens, playhouses and play structures, swing sets and other recreational play facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents. Gaffron asked if that is consistent with what the Planning Commission feels was discussed and whether the distinction between the two makes sense. ' Landgraver stated in his view it does make sense. ' Gaffron stated the following language has been added: - "Kennel Structures"liave been added, `subject to the provisions of Chapter 62,Article 3'. As an accessory structure, kennels must be located at least 5' from rear lot line and 10' from side lot lines. Should `and dog runs' be added for clarity, subject to the same 5'/10' setbacks? `Kennel' oddities: - By definition in Chapter 62,the following are `kennel structures': a dog house or enclosure of any kind; and a fenced pen intended for keeping dogs or a dog run,when fenced area is less than 600 square feet in area. _ - If you keep 3 or more dogs in a kennel structure,you need a kennel license,which is subject to City approval,but code does not specify a setback for the kennel structure. - If you keep 1 or 2 dogs in a kennel structure,you don't need a kennel license as long as the kennel structure is in a side or rear yard and at least 30 feet from lot lines. Leskinen asked whether the licensing should be a separate issue. � Gaffron indicated it probably should be. Leskinen indicated it is talking about the activity or the structure at a certain distance and the animal code deals with at what point a person would require a license. Leskinen noted the terms are used interchangeably in there but they do not necessarily mean the same. Gaffron stated if you call the zoning department and ask how far the kennel structure has to be from the lot line,you would be told five feet from the lot line and ten feet from the side lot line. A person may then end up needing a kennel license because it is too close to the lot line even though they only have one dog. Gaffron stated it is one of those issues that will need to be looked at further. " � Page 16 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING � Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted a person is required to have a kennel license for three or more dogs even if those dogs are kept in the house,which has nothing to do with the structure. The structure would be addressed in the accessory use section and that perhaps the City should look at using dog license or other terminology to create some distinction for the general publia Gaffron indicated he is in agreement with that. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should propose some type of parameters for . kennels and/or dog houses. If a neighbor has a more elaborate structure,the City may want to look at them. . Schoenzeit stated the issue is when it crosses the line of a small dog house to something more elaborate. Leskinen asked if the City is attempting to regulate the structure or the activity,which may impact the whole neighborhood. Leskinen commented it may be helpful to have some regulation as to the activity and the level of disturbance to the neighbors. If there are three dogs in a structure five feet from the lot line, it could make a lot of noise. Schoenzeit stated if there is a fenced-in yard,there is nothing preventing the dog from standing at the fence line and barking. Leskinen stated the objective is to address the noise or interference with the neighbor's peace and � enjoyment of their property. Schoenzeit stated the City cannot control a loose dog within the property line but the City can regulate a structure that is located close to the lot line. Gaffron stated a person can currently get a license for three dogs and there is no standard for how they are housed. Gaffron stated it may be an item where the City just accepts the fact that kennels are subject to a different section of the code. The City could perhaps consider a future amendment to what is regulated currently. Gaffron noted kennel structures were never listed but everyone agrees that it is a structure. It could be small enough not to require a building permit but that it perhaps should meet some type of � setback,which means it should be listed as a structure. Schoenzeit stated the City should have some say in where the structure is located. Leskinen suggested there be a setback regulation for the kennel structure regardless of how many dogs . will live in it. : Gaffron stated currently it is the same as any other accessory structure. Landgraver stated a good starting point would be five and ten feet and that it should also include dog runs. ` Gaffron noted fencing has been added, subject to the existing provisions contained in the non- encroachments section. Gaffron indicated the City has fencing regulations that are fairly focused and that he is not sure whether there needs to be any additional language incorporated. Schoenzeit asked whether arborvitae should be included under fencing. Page 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated a person has a right to remove branches that overhang your properly. A person does not have the right to go on the neighbor's side,but you can remove what is hanging over on your property. The City has not limited people from planting what they want as a natural border but it can become an issue. Gaffron noted arborvitae or other natural vegetation can grow to be higher than a three or six foot fence. Lemke asked whether there have been any issues with underground electric dog fences. Gaffron indicated he is not aware of any situation like that that has become a problem. Gaffron noted signage is already covered under a different section and that he does not envision the need to add any further language to the code. Gaffron stated flagpoles has been added, subject to the accessory structure location requirements of the zoning chapter, but it does not establish setbacks equivalent to its height. Gaffron asked whether the words `and height' be added after location? Gaffron stated the height restriction could be 30 feet or no higher than the residence. Landgraver commented it would make sense to have a height restriction on poles, especially on small lots. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there should be a height restriction on poles. Gaffron stated compost structures and firewooii piles has been added. Gaffron stated the issue is whether the following language should be added: `subject to the accessory structure location requirements of this Chapter,' but that it may be perceived that a firewood pile is a use and not a structure. Landgraver stated he originally was leaning towards placing some parameters on those items but in the interests of moving this forward,he would probably leave it as is. Gaffron noted home occupations and roadside stands are already covered in the code. Gaffron stated the"storage of recreational vehicles"has been added, subject to the existing listed code provisions. Ice fishing houses and similar structures equipped with wheels are listed as being a recreational vehicle, and a structure, when not on wheels,are subject to either the pertinent vehicle storage or structure location standards. "Garage sales"and the like have been added and are limited to two sales per year of four days duration each; and sale of"personal or recreational vehicles and equipment"has been added, limited to two items per year and cannot be parked in the right-of-way,boulevard or front yard but must be in driveway. "Laundry drying equipment"has been added. The Planning Commission should decide whether to add � the language, "subject to the accessory structure location requirements of this chapter." This language would solidify that it is an accessory structure and needs to meet setback requirements. Leskinen stated she would be very hesitant to regulate clotheslines any more than saying it is an allowed use. Leskinen asked if it has ever been an issue in the past. Page 18 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated there was one occasion that he is aware of and that the City would likely not enforce it unless a complaint is received. Landgraver stated if the City regulates it,they would have to define what laundry drying equipment is. Leskinen stated, as she has indicated in the past,she does not want to get so mired down in details that the City is regulating everything. Leskinen stated she understands regulating things that affect the neighbors visually or noise-wise. Landgraver noted if it is not regulated,the City would not have a way of enforcing setbacks, etc. . Leskinen stated the list could become endless and asked what the objective is. Leskinen asked if the objective is to control what is on the property and how it affects the neighbors. Landgraver stated it would be permitted since it is listed. Gaffron indicated it would be permitted. Landgraver stated not having it in here is the problem. Leskinen stated she is fine with it being listed as an allowed use but that she does not want to expand on the definition and complicate things. � Landgraver stated they are in agreement and that he would leave it as is. Gaffron stated solar electric and solar thermal systems' has been added, as has"Geothermal systems". The City does not have any code standards in place for these systems as of yet and the options are to adopt language similar to Medina's(See Table 3 from 3-18-13 packet)or leave adoption of standards for future action. Gaffron noted the City does have a fair number of solar panels. Schoenzeit noted that solar electric photovoltaic is making electricity and solar thermal is actually heating water for some type of domestic use. ' - Gaffron commented it is likely the City has both. Gaffron stated he remembers an application where they were requesting a variance to allow their house at a certain angle because their solar panel was more enhanced at that angle. Gaffron indicated he does not remember what the result was. Gaffron stated the City does have geothermal systems and that they do fairly regularly receive phone calls regarding them. Gaffron stated it would be prudent to add those to the code at some point. Sections 12 thru 19. In each of these districts(RI'UD,B-1 thru B-6, and Industrial)the preamble sentence within the accessory use section has been modified to read identical to the single-family district wording,by stating that onlv the listed uses are permitted,provided the,y are subordinate to, and associated with and located on the same lot as a permitted use. Section 20. This section deals specifically with the height of structures and is drafted with four options for consideration. The existing code is inconsistent within itsel£ Section 78-1366(a)says that the height limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 Page 19 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET3NG Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. percent when applied to the list of structures. Section 78-1366(b)states that heights in excess of those allowed under subsection(a)of this section for the uses enumerated in that subsection may be permitted only by conditional use permit. Gaffron stated the first code section did not require a conditional use permit for the first 50 percent increase. You could have a structure 30 feet in height by code, and if you wanted to go another 50 percent or go to 45 feet,you did not need a conditional use permit. The items listed as structures included such things as church spires, belfries,cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space, monuments,water towers, fire and hose towers,observation towers,flagpoles, chimneys, and at one time smoke stacks. Mot city codes have gotten rid of smoke stacks as an allowed structure. Also included were parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the height of the building, cooling towers and elevator penthouses. This changed in 1977 when three changes were made via Ordinance No. 198: "Antenna or antenna structure"was added to the list; "Silos and other typical farm structures"was deleted from the list; and the conditional use permit requirement was added(antennas were removed in 1997 when a new section was added to each zoning district regarding"communication reception/transmission devices".) In order to get the first 50 percent increase above 30 feet, a conditional use permit was required, but then it also said if you want more than what is allowed,you would need another conditional use permit. There is no difference today in the way the City looks at a conditional use permit in that a resident would require a conditional use permit for the first extra 50 percent and to go higher,you would require another one. Under either section(a)or(b), a conditional use permit is required to exceed the standard height limit. The conditional use permit process and required findings are the same in either case, so the exiting language is confusing. Staff has presented four alternative concepts for discussion: Option 20A. No concept change: +50%and>SO%both require a CUP. In this option we eliminate the language in Part(b)and add the CUP code reference to Part(a). Option 20B. Concept change: +SO%via CUP and>SO%via variance. The intent here would be that the first 50% is a matter of right if the CUP findings are met, but anything above that is a variance requiring that practical di�culty be shown- i.e.harder to obtain. Option 20C. Concept change: +SO% OK; >SO%via CUP. In this option the extra 50% is allowed for the list of structures without any approval process required. If you want more than 50% increase, you need a CUP. This is what was in place from 1968 to 1977. Option 20D. Concept change:No Limit. Under this option,which is in place in a number of other cities,the height limits established by code simply do not apply to this same list of structures(this list is common to many cities' codes). In some cases,they have other height-limiting standards for certain items within the list.Examples include the Cities of Shorewood,Plymouth,Minnetonka, and Lakeville. Landgraver stated he has an observation tower in his back yard and asked how tall it could be under Option C. Landgraver indicated it is currently 20 feet and his house is 30 feet. Gaffron stated under Option C, he could go to 150 percent under 30 feet or 45 feet without any approvals. ` � Page 20 of 26 MINUTES OF THE . � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. � Schoenzeit stated when he looks at the list,he does not see it as a detached structure but that he interprets it such that a feature of a principal structure could be at 150 percent. Schoenzeit stated he does not see anywhere that a second footprint would get that. Gaffron stated the existing language talks about height restrictions when applied to the following structures and kind of intimates that a church spire would be an accessory structure. Leskinen noted this is the accessory structure section. Gaffron asked if there is a comfort level the Planning Commission has as to whether they are attached to the house or not and whether it would be appropriate to have those structures at those heights. Schoerizeit stated the list includes features of the principal structure, such as a parapet wall. Schoenzeit asked if that would be a parapet wall of an accessory structure. Gaffron stated that would be a feature of the principal structure. Schoenzeit stated in the case of a freestanding observation tower,that would be okay. Leskinen stated the parapet wall would not exist on its own and would not apply in this section of code. Schoenzeit stated he reads it that parapet walls are an allowed use that can exceed principal building height. Gaffron stated a flag pole and water towers would be freestanding and that some are clearly additions to the top of a house. Leskinen asked if they are accessory uses if they are part of the principal structure. Gaffron indicated they would not be. Gaffron stated his point is whether Section 7813.66 is really talking about accessory structures or just structures in general that are limited in height. � Schoenzeit stated if you use the words structures and features,then you would cover both. Schoenzeit stated someone's house could have the structural capacity to put a 10,000 gallon tank on the roof and then use kinetic energy at night to drain out,which would be allowed. Gaffron indicated the options presented are conceptual changes from what is in the code and that Option 20A would require a conditional use permit for anything above 30 feet. Schoenzeit stated in his view Option D would be out. , Leskinen indicated she would be okay with Option C. Landgraver commented his observation tower could go up to 45 feet then under Option C without any additional approval. Gaffron agreed that would be allowed under this concept. Page 21 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver noted this is not the finalized document but that he is somewhat hesitant on that item. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has raised some good issues and that$taff will need to look at it further. Lemke indicated he would tend to lean towards Option B since it provides some further regulation. Schoenzeit stated Option B may apply to more of the freestanding structures, and that under Option B, you would need to adjust your list and make it two separate lists, such as features to the principal structure � and freestanding. Landgraver and Leskinen concurred that it would make sense to have two separate lists. Gaffron stated the features would fall under Option C and freestanding would fall under Option B. Section 21. This change merely adds"sport courts"to the list of oversize accessory structures that are subject to special setbacks(tennis courts,pools,paddocks, arenas). Section 22. A number of changes are made to Section 1405,Nonencroachments: 1405(1): "Mechanical devices" is removed(no longer appears in most cities' codes);"gutters" is added; "similar building elements"replaces"the like"to emphasize that these are parts of the principal building rather than free-standing fixtures. Gaffron stated there is a list of items that are common features of a house, such as chimneys, flues, meters, etc. The City has added gutters and other similar building elements to say that these are parts of the building and not something separate. Name plate signs and other signage are subject to the provisions of a different section of the code. Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or other similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building are already in the code. Schoenzeit asked what the ground floor level would be. Gaffron stated Staff has considered that to be the lowest floor but there is not a definition in the code as to what it specifically is. The ground floor is the level you can walk out but it is not necessarily a walkout. - Schoenzeit stated the other piece in the previous discussion was if it was below the neighboring property. Gaffron noted that has not been addressed in this section. The Planning Commission had talked about window wells which do not extend more than five feet from the building and other items such as driveways and sidewalks. Schoenzeit stated the language,not to extend above the height of the ground floor of the principal building was one item discussed by the Planning Commission previously, and the other one that was discussed was when you are below the neighbor's property, such as a retaining wall,or there is a large differential between the two,you can have a terrace at the base of it,and if you are above it,you could put a wall on your side. Page 22 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated you would be assuming terraces are going to be built in the ground. Part of the code talks about how close you can get to the property line when making grading changes. That would have a bigger impact when the neighbor's property is higher and the work is lower. In one particular situation a resident had constructed a wall and the neighbor was concerned about falling over the wall. Schoenzeit stated the terracing to put that negative retaining wall should be allowed. Gaffron indicated he will look at that. In addition,the following changes have been made to Section 1405: 1405(2): Reference to sign ordinances added; language changed to clarify setback requirement. 1405(3): Added window wells, driveways, sidewalks, and parking areas to list of allowed low or at-grade structures. . 1405(4): Added `cantilevers' which is a more contemporary term for bays; added the word `aggregate' to specify that the total of all encroaching bays/cantilevers cannot exceed 20 square feet(if this is not added, it could be interpreted that many individual but separated bays and cantilevers would be possible for a single building);fire escape depth added to place some limit on the encroachment. Schoenzeit asked if these would be considered structural. � Gaffron indicated they would be structural. Curtis stated she does not have the definition in front of her tonight, but to her recollection it has to be four feet from the ground to not be considered hardcover. Landgraver commented he is not sure whether 20 square feet is the right number and that perhaps it should be an aggregate number. Gaffron indicated he will leave the language as is for now. Gaffron stated as it relates to Section 1405(5), they added `laundry drying equipment' as a non-encroachment in rear yard but must meet 5' setback. 1405(7): Added new entry for air conditioning or heating equipment and added that it can be within a required yard but must be located within 5 feet of the building it serves;not within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement; and must be at least 5 feet from any lot line. � Gaffron stated if you are in a neighborhood with 10-foot setbacks,your air-conditioning unit would need to be within five feet of the house and cannot be located within five feet of the lot line. Lemke asked if geothermal would be included in that. Gaffron noted geothermal is underground. Lemke suggested the language include the word above ground. Page 23 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated a person might want a setback if they are going to start sinking their 200-foot wells to make sure your neighbor's activities will not damage your geothermal wells. Gaffron stated the following changes have been made: Section 23. In 78-1433,which states the general height limitation for accessory buildin�s, added `and structures.' Section 24. Added `sport courts' to the Oversize Accessory Structure regulations in 78-1434. Section 25. Added the word `Exception:' to clarify the pertinent standard for detached garages streetward of the house on lakeshore lots. - Section 26. Adoption language. The Planning Commission should review each of the sections of the draft ordinance, especially those in which a there are suggested standards or options for discussion. The goal of this review is to determine whether additional changes are necessary requiring further Planning Commission consideration. Gaffron noted the City Attorney has not had an opportunity to review the language in depth. Questions the Planning Commission should consider include the following: -Are we missing any `customarily incidental' uses or structures that should be addressed? -Are the proposed standards for each item in the listing clear?adequate? complete? appropriate? -Is there anything we should remove from the lists of permitted accessory uses? Gaffron stated as a final note, one comment the Planning Commission made was that it may be helpful to have accessory structure setbacks listed at the end of each district in the table along with the principal structure setbacks. After working through all the variable setbacks that might apply to various accessory structures, Staff has concluded that such a table may be complex and confusing so it was decided not to do one. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance,re-open the hearing for public comments, address the three questions raised by Staff, and if the ordinance is ready to forward to Council, take formal action to recommend adoption. Schoenzeit asked if it would be ready by the May work session. Gaffron stated they do not want to have an impact on people who do projects this summer. If it is discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting, it could still go to the City Council in May. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not made tremendous changes to what was proposed tonight and merely made some tweaks. Leskinen indicated she would not be opposed to forwarding it to the City Council at this point since they can send it back to the Planning Commission if they want it discussed further. Gaffron noted this is the fourth time the Planning Commission has discussed this and that he would not be opposed to sending it forward to the City Council for their review. Page 24 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Chair Leskinen and that the small changes they made tonight should not hold it up from going to the City Council. Landgraver stated he does not feel the small, incremental changes the Planning Commission might make is a reason for it not to go before the City Council. Schoenzeit noted the changes are ultimately up to the City Council and that the Planning Commission has likely reached its limit for changes. Leskinen stated she does not feel the Planning Commission can contribute anything more at this point without feedback from the City Council. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3596,City of Orono,Zoning Study,with the discussed changes,and to forward it to the City Council for their review.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMIVIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 25,2013,AND APRIL 8,2013 Leskinen reported she attended the March 25`h meeting and that there was a presentation by the Westonka Historical Society. Curtis noted the City Council also made the Planning Commission appointments and an update on the Navarre Initiative meeting. Leskinen stated the JEM Technical application was approved. Curtis indicated they are still working out an agreement on the cross parking and that it will need to come _ back before the City Council once that has been finalized. Landgraver reported he attended the April 8`�'meeting and that the golf course application and the Orono School application were approved. Also at that meeting the LMA approached the City Council requesting funds,which was denied. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron noted there was a prioritization work sheet that was distributed earlier this year, and the top items that were listed for review included the accessory uses and structures ordinance,the wetland ordinance, the Navarre mixed use ordinances and stormwater and drainage trunk fees. Generally the Planning Commission and the City Council agreed on what the priorities should be. Gaffron indicated he will send this information out to everyone on the Planning Commission and City Council. Page 25 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 15,2013 6:30 dclock p.m. Curtis requested the Planning Commission look at their packets and let Staff know if there is any information they would like to see added or deleted. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:11 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. � Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 26 of 26