Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2015 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 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 Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Jim Cornick, Jr., was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:36 p.m. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2015 Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #15-3717 CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL, LLC, 1340 FOX STREET, VARIANCES, 6:35 P.M. — 6:43 P.M. Curtis stated the subject property is approximately one-half acre in area and is located within the RR -1B, rural residential district, which requires a minimum of two acres. The property owner recently purchased the northern 50 -foot wide portion of this lot in order to combine it with the 100 -foot wide 1340 Fox Street property in order to increase the lot area. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on the property and is requesting lot area, lot width, front yard and side street setback variances. The property has 129 feet in width where 200 feet in width is required. The property abuts an undeveloped 60 -foot street right-of-way on the west and an undeveloped 12 -foot wide alley on the east. Fox Street dead -ends at this property so the majority of the 30 -foot wide Fox Street right-of-way is undeveloped in front of this property as well. The public rights-of-way are considered side streets for the purpose of measuring setbacks. The home is proposed to be 26.5 feet from Fox Street, 16.2 feet from Barrett Avenue on the west, and 28.4 feet from the undeveloped alley on the east side where 50 -foot setbacks are required. The rear 50 -foot setback will be met. The applicant is also proposing to create a new driveway approach and conduct minor grading within the Fox Street right-of-way which will flatten out the front yard adjacent to the sidewalk. The City's Engineer has reviewed the plans. As noted within Staffs memo, the plans currently reflect structural coverage that exceeds the 15 percent limitation by 138 square feet. It is not the applicant's intent to request a structural coverage variance. The applicant is working on a revised plan to conform. Prior to City Council review of this application, the structural coverage overage should be resolved. Staff finds the size and topography of the property creates a unique circumstance not created by the applicant. Granting the applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and Page 1 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The undeveloped rights-of-way surrounding the property create a practical difficulty for the property owner regarding the increased setback requirement. The proposed home does not appear to limit the light, air, and open space currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area, lot width, side street setback and front yard setback variances resulting in a 16.2 foot setback from the undeveloped right-of-way Barrett Avenue; a 28.4 foot setback from the undeveloped alley to the east; and a 26.5 foot setback from Fox Street in the front. The applicant will continue to work with the City's Engineer regarding the driveway access orientation and the potential need for an encroachment agreement. The applicant shall reduce the structural coverage level prior to placement on the City Council agenda. Paul Cameron, Applicant, had nothing to add to Staff's report Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m J. Diann Goetten,1385 Fox Street, stated she is here tonight to see what is going to occur on this property Goetten stated the area is currently an unimproved right-of-way and that she would like to know what is going to happen with that area. Goetten noted there are very few properties in this area. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Leskinen stated the application appears to be very straight forward. Leskinen stated she is happy the applicant was able to acquire additional property to the extent they could to help make the lot a little bigger. Schwingler noted Point No. 4 says the existing home has reached the end of its useful life. Schwingler stated he would encourage the applicant to continue to work at reducing the 15 percent structural coverage. Schwingler moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3717, Chamberlain Capital, 1340 Fox Street, granting of front and side street setback variances as well as lot area and lot width variances, to allow construction of a new residence, subject to Staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. #15-3708 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(8) REGARDING FENCE STANDARDS, 6:43 P.M. — 7:35 P.M. Gaffron stated the proposed amendment is intended to clarify how fence height is measured, to establish standards for the use of temporary fences, and to clarify the language regarding the average lakeshore setback applicable to fence construction. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at its January work session and then held a public hearing at its January 20 meeting with no public comments forthcoming. The item was tabled upon Staff recommendation as it was determined that the draft ordinance was incomplete and there were specific changes requested by the Planning Commission. Page 2 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated one of the proposed revisions is to add a sentence to clarify how fence height is measured. The existing code says that a fence can be no more than six feet in height in specified locations. Gaffron noted this last summer a question came up as to how that 6 -foot height is measured, and it was noted that on a sloped parcel, a fence if oriented horizontally and vertically and if a standard 6' x 8' fence panel is used, at one end it will be six feet above grade and at the other end it could be as much as seven or eight feet above grade. Gaffron noted there are some options in constructing a fence, such as skewing the panels into a parallelogram shape if possible to match the slope or setting the panels at an angle matching the slope. Gaffron noted not all panels available commercially can be skewed, and the visual aspect of panels with an angled or non -vertical orientation may be less aesthetically pleasing. Gaffron stated the issue then becomes how to measure the height. The proposed draft language is that for the purposes of this section the term fence height shall mean the measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including posts or other structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, post finials, and so forth measured vertically to the existing grade directly below the fence. Referring to sketches contained in the packet, Sketches 2 and 3 would work but Sketch 1 would not under that scenario. The Planning Commission should also consider whether excess height should be allowed for decorative fence elements. An issue to discuss is whether the decorative finials atop each post should be considered as part of the fence for height measurement. If a decorative fence element is added, then the functional fence height would potentially decrease. One option is to include language that says "no more than 10% of the length of a fence panel may exceed the established fence height limit, and by not more than 10% of the allowed maximum height". For a 6 -foot fence, this would be a 10 -inch wide finial element for each 8 - foot panel that could be as much as 7 inches taller than the fence. Gaffron stated the phrase fence panel is necessary to prevent someone from interpreting this to mean a continuous 10 -foot length of a 100 -foot fence can be 6' 7" high, which is not what is intended. The third issue the Planning Commission should consider is language clarifying how fence heights are limited on non-standard lakeshore lots. The language originally drafted for the amendment regarding the standards for fences on lakeshore lots created a conflict in the language between Items b.l and b.2. Item b.I addresses the frontage along a street or side street and states that "Fences within the required street (rear) yard or side street yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original grade. An exception to that is a fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. Item b.2 addresses side yards and was initially proposed to include rear yards of a lakeshore lot. Staff would suggest that this revision not be made since it conflicts with b.1. Item b.3 addresses the lakeshore yard of lakeshore lots and is not proposed to be changed. The language currently reads as follows: "Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a Lakeshore lot, shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. Page 3 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted there are lakeshore lots oriented with a road between the house and the lakeshore. This orientation is common in certain areas of the City where the road historically followed the shoreline and lots were later created that extended through the road to the lake, with the house site located landward of the road. These lots do have a yard behind the house that could be considered a rear yard. Since these types of lots have never been addressed in the Code, Staff would suggest adding Item b.4, which states as follows: "When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a public or private road, and the yard on the opposite side of the building side from the lake does not abut a street, such yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard and subject to the fence provisions of Section 78- 1405(a)(8)a.2. Gaffron stated part of the discussion at the January work session was to further clarify that the average lakeshore setback line pertinent to fences is different than the average lakeshore setback line as it applies elsewhere in the code. Staff would recommend the following revision be made to the second sentence of Item b.2: "Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and any portion located lakeward of the fence average lakeshore setback line shall not exceed 42 inches in height. The term "fence average lakeshore setback line" for purposes of Section 1405(a)(8) means a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located." A final item of discussion is whether to add language regarding fence materials and use of temporary fences. The draft ordinance reviewed in January was intended to include the addition of Item e.3 regarding fence materials and temporary fencing. Item e.I states: "The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance and shall not allow it to become or remain in disrepair or in a dangerous condition. Item e.2 states: "Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties or the street. The term "finished side" means that side having no structural supports. Item e.3 states: "Fencing materials shall consist of permanent all-weather products. Temporary fencing improvements which normally consist of materials such as snow fencing, silt fence, bioretention logs or other types of products normally associated with construction projects shall not be allowed to remain on the property following final inspection, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a permitted construction project, or protection of property during a similar project or winter conditions. Such temporary fencing materials shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis on a parcel." Gaffron stated for a lakeshore lot, a person is allowed a 42 -inch fence along a side street and a 6 -foot fence along a county road but not up the side lot lines. From the beginning of the street yard and along the side yards down to the average fence lakeshore setback, a 6 -foot fence would be allowed. From that point on down to the 75 -foot zone a 42 -inch fence would be allowed. Staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions. The Planning Commission should consider whether inclusion of the optional text regarding extra height to allow for decorative elements is appropriate. Page 4 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Thiesse stated as it relates to the height of decorative elements, he would like it to be 12 percent for the posts only. Thiesse stated the post could extend higher than the fence by 12 percent or some number the Planning Commission is comfortable with. Thiesse asked if that would help clarify it. Gaffron stated if there is a width standard for the post, that would likely work. Gaffron stated someone could decide to have a 100 -foot long fence, and if they are allowed 10 percent of that fence to be higher, it should be clear that it relates only to the posts and not ten feet of that 100 -foot length of fence. Gaffron stated in his view people will attempt to reinterpret it from what the Planning Commission's intent is. Landgraver stated it is not only the height but also the width of it. Thiesse noted it says no more than 10 percent of the length of a fence panel may exceed the established height limit. Gaffron stated if it is eight feet long, it can be 10 percent higher than that or 9.6 inches can be up above. Thiesse stated he is saying just the post. Gaffron stated someone could conceivably put a post every two feet to get around that. Leskinen stated any ornate element or finials between the posts would have to be at the 6 -foot maximum height. Gaffron stated on a wrought iron fence, you would have to look at the top of the spikes as the six feet. Gaffron asked if the optional language should be included for the decorative fence elements. Schwingler stated he would leave it as it is. Landgraver noted the suggestion by Thiesse was that the finial could not exceed the width of the post. Thiesse stated it could exceed it. Gaffron stated if the panel is 8 -foot or 96 inches, they would be allowed 10 percent of that for each 8 -foot section. Gaffron indicated it goes to the aesthetics of the fence and that there could be a situation where someone wants a decorative fence. Gaffron stated in his view the language, as written, provides a good protection against people doing exotic things that are out of whack with what the City's goals are. Landgraver asked if it is inconceivable for someone to have a 20 -foot wide panel. Thiesse indicated it is not inconceivable. Page 5 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if there should be a cap placed on the length of the panel or the size of the finial. Gaffron stated the width of the finial is based on the panel width. Lemke asked if it should be based on the post width. Curtis asked what the largest post is that could be used. Thiesse stated it could be 24 inches. Landgraver stated a maximum number might be a better way to go. Leskinen asked if it should be 10 percent of an 8 -foot wide panel. Gaffron suggested a maximum finial width of ten inches. Lemke asked if it could be ten inches high as well. Gaffron indicated 10 percent of a 6 -foot high fence is about seven inches. Gaffron stated the last thing the City needs to be doing is designing someone's fence, but that they should put some standards on it. Leskinen stated she does not want to micromanage the fence design since it will be difficult to enforce. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not exceed 10 percent in height of the post for the finial, with a maximum width of 10 inches. Thiesse stated as it relates to Item No. 4, he would recommend that it read as follows: "Fences within the required side yard of a Lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence, etc." Thiesse stated in his view the use of the term fence average Lakeshore setback line will be confusing for the average property owner since the City has another average lakeshore setback line. Thiesse stated as it relates to Item 5, the City issues certificates of occupancy prior to the establishment of turf. Curtis indicated it would be a temporary certificate of occupancy and not a final. Lemke asked if there is a minimum fence height. Gaffron stated the City does not have a minimum fence height. Lemke asked if anything six inches and over would be considered a fence. Thiesse noted bioretention logs are included under fence materials. Gaffron stated Item No. 5 is talking about permanent fences with the exception of e.3. Page 6 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated she is in agreement with Staff on Item b.2 and not include it since it conflicts with b.1. Leskinen indicated she is comfortable with the proposed amendments with the revisions made this evening. Landgraver asked where the Planning Commission is with the fence height. Landgraver asked if it is Staff's suggestion that the height is determined by measuring the top of the fence from the ground. Gaffron stated Sketch 3 would not work since the fence would be at seven feet when the fence is at an angle. Gaffron stated Staff would need to measure the fence at a very vertical point and not at an angle. Gaffron noted someone could argue that a 6 -foot panel touching the ground its entire length should still be considered a 6 -foot high fence, but from some perspectives it will be higher than six feet from the ground. Thiesse stated to him that means he cannot buy the standard, off the shelf 6 -foot chain link fence sections, and that the Planning Commission should not go that direction. Gaffron stated it almost forces someone to build the fence on the site and not purchase a prefabbed fence. Gaffron noted last summer the City had an issue where someone constructed a fence as depicted in Sketch 1 and technically the fence measured higher than six feet from the ground. Thiesse stated it depends on where someone is measuring from. Thiesse stated the axis of the fence is perpendicular to the ground, and if you measure a standard fence, the post will be six feet high, with the panels in between, which would be Sketch 3. Thiese stated in his view it could be argued that Sketch 3 is a 6 -foot high fence. Gaffron asked if it should read six feet perpendicular to the grade of the slope. Gaffron stated it would not allow Sketch 1 but it would allow Sketch 3. Thiesse stated a six-foot panel is standard but that chain link fences come in different widths. Leskinen asked how many fence complaints the City typically receives. Gaffron stated the issue is height and that people will sometimes erect a 6 -foot high fence when they are only allowed 42 inches. Leskinen stated the City needs to provide some direction in the ordinance and that it comes down to how detailed it needs to be if it is not a dominant issue. Gaffron stated the ordinance needs to spell out the standards clearly for enforcement purposes. Thiesse asked what the worst case scenario would be with Sketch 1. Landgraver stated in his view Sketch i kind of defeats the purpose of having a fence and that it is the uneven slope that will challenge the ordinance. Landgraver stated in his view Sketch 2 or 3 is reasonable and that it should be 6 -foot perpendicular to the ground. Thiesse stated he is leaning more towards Drawing 3. Page 7 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated he likes the term perpendicular Gaffron indicated under that scenario Sketches 2 and 3 could occur. Gaffron stated instead of saying from the top of any part of the fence, it should perhaps read to a point perpendicular to the grade. Gaffron indicated he will look at that again. Lemke noted the last paragraph says height shall mean the measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including the posts and the ornate top designs. Lemke noted the Planning Commission was talking about the finials being above the height of the fence earlier. Gaffron stated that will also need to be tweaked so it fits with the optional language changes. Gaffron stated as it relates to lattice, someone could argue that the top of the fence is below the lattice and is merely decorative. Gaffron stated in his view it is part of the fence. Leskinen asked if that is addressed in the optional language by the 10 -inch maximum width. Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron asked if he should cross off from the top of any part of the fence, including vertical structural supports, such as lattice or any top design elements, and just say measure perpendicular to the grade. Gaffron stated below that it could talk about finials, with a limit being placed on the type of stuff that can go on top of the fence. Thiesse asked what the top of the fence would be then. Thiesse stated it should be consistent and horizontal. Gaffron stated it might not be horizontal. Thiesse stated they would then need a definition for top of the fence. Gaffron stated he would concur. Leskinen stated the top of the fence is six foot above the bottom of the fence and in between the posts it may or may not be taller than the fence. Gaffron stated he would include the language regarding vertical structural supports and ornate design elements, whatever that might be, and then including the language that allows the finials to extend another ten percent of the height. Gaffron stated he is not totally comfortable about removing the language that talks about the other items since they would still be considered part of the fence. Leskinen stated they would make up the top part of the fence. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement. Leskinen stated in her view the language regarding fence materials is pretty straight forward. Gaffron stated as it relates to Item 5, the permanent materials should be separated from the temporary materials, which should start at Item 4. Leskinen stated it is less confusing that way. Page 8 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked what would happen if a new development is graded and silt fencing is erected but the lots do not sell for six to seven years. Curtis stated the City would still have an escrow at that point. Thiesse noted turf would need to be established under the language. Curtis stated it would not necessarily need to be turf as long as it is stabilized with some type of vegetation to the point where there will not be a sediment or erosion issue. Thiesse stated he is questioning it because the City is making the homeowner do it but not the developer. Lemke asked if he is questioning the time frame for the temporary fencing. Thiesse stated as soon as a certificate of occupancy is issued, the temporary fencing would need to be removed, but part of the City's laws regarding fences is also designed to make the City look nice and that if a developer is not able to sell the lots, the temporary fencing may remain for years. Leskinen asked if the developer will be required to establish some type of vegetation. Gaffron stated to his understanding the developer has a year. Landgraver stated there should be some type of trigger to the City alerting them to the fact that the temporary fencing has remained for so long. Landgraver stated in his view there should perhaps be some type of time limit for the temporary fencing, but that he is not sure it should be included in this section of the Code. Leskinen stated Item No. 5 could be included relating just to the developer Curtis stated if the soil is not worked on, typically after a 14 -day period some form of vegetation starts to grow. Thiesse stated his concern is that they will have to rip it out and then put it back in after they are done working on the house. Curtis stated one of the reasons for the temporary fencing regulations is to prevent someone from installing a snow fence and leaving it there indefinitely. Gaffron stated Chapter 79 of the Code talks about site erosion control, and there is an inspection and maintenance section that says the best management practices have to be inspected once every seven days on exposed soil areas, within 24 hours after a rain, etc. Gaffron stated the language reads that final approval cannot be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and protective devices, have been completed and final stabilization has occurred. Gaffron stated the City does have a control that says the temporary fencing must be removed in Chapter 79. Page 9 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse suggested that type of language not be included in this ordinance Gaffron indicated he will make the changes discussed by the Planning Commission and bring it to the City Council. Leskinen moved, Schwingler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3708, City of Orono, Zoning Code Amendment, Section 78-1405(a)(8) — Fences as a Nonencroachment, with Staff incorporating the proposed revisions discussed tonight. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 4. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 26, 2015, AND FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Landgraver stated he attended the January 26 City Council meeting and that there were no planning items on the agenda. Landgraver stated the zoning code amendment for retaining walls was tabled. Lemke stated he attended the February 9, 2015, City Council meeting and that the Schmid application was approved, the wellhead protection ordinance was passed, and the stormwater drainage trunk fee was discussed. The City Council also talked about different banners and flags or plants for the light poles in Navarre. The City Council elected to go with the banners. Lemke stated the City Council also talked about videotaping the Planning Commission meetings. Lemke stated one of the council members had indicated that it is nice to be able to see the passion displayed by the Commissioners when discussing certain applications. 5. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Leskinen noted she did receive an e-mail from the Mayor today about possibly videotaping the Planning Commission meetings and requesting that she obtain feedback from the Planning Commissioners. Leskinen indicated she is neutral on it. Landgraver stated in his view it is not a good use of time and resources. Thiesse stated he would agree with Commissioner Landgraver and that few people will watch it Lemke stated he can see it both ways. Lemke stated he personally would not watch it but that someone else might want to. Leskinen reported after the last meeting she received a call from Lisa Danielson from Windergy who had expressed a desire to meet with her. Leskinen indicated she was unable to meet in person but that Danielson had indicated to her that she was very disappointed in the way she had handled the meeting and that in her view not enough time was allowed for discussion. Leskinen indicated she listened politely to what Danielson said to her and informed her that she would take her comments back to the Planning Commission. Leskinen stated from her perspective, she was very comfortable with the ordinance and felt it had been fully discussed through a number of work sessions and meetings. Leskinen stated in her view unless and Page 10 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. until people have a really good understanding of the potential impact on the residents and the environment, the City is better off with stricter controls. Leskinen stated if there is increased demand for wind turbines, the City can always loosen the regulations but that Orono might not be the best community for it given the diverse land uses. Landgraver stated to his recollection no one from the public was cut off or prevented from speaking. Leskinen noted there were a number of points the Planning Commission needed to discuss and then the meeting was opened to public comment. Thiesse stated Danielson did show up a little late in the process and that the ordinance had been discussed numerous times. ADJOURNMENT Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:42 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST d� Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 11 of 11