Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Bruce Lemke, Kevin Landgraver, Loren Schoenzeit, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Acting Chair Lemke called the meeting to order at 6:30, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21,2016 Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 21,2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0,Berg Abstained. 2. #17-3886 HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: ESSENTIAL SERVICES,6:32 P.M.—6:40 P.M. Sarah Karel, Hennepin County Emergency Management,was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a mesonet weather station as an essential service. A mesonet station consists of a 30-foot tall tower within a 40-foot square fenced in area with small weather sensors mounted on the tower and other equipment mounted on the ground. The mesonet station is considered an essential service since it will be communicating important information to County departments, including public works and emergency response. The information is then sent via cell phone to Hennepin County's central weather gathering station. One public comment was received from an adjoining neighbor who expressed concerns about possible radiation being emitted from the station. Staff has confirmed that the only signal to be emitted from the station will be a cell phone signal. A conditional use permit is required for all structures, including utility poles, within rights-of-way, which are an integral part of a system for public transportation as for transmitting power, water, heat, communications, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Planning Commission and City Council have to determine that there is no harm to the adjacent properties as part of the conditional use permit process. Based on Staff's review of the site, the most impactful aspect of the improvement is the 30-foot tall tower. The 30-foot height is the maximum permissible height for principal structures in the LR-1C zoning district. The tower will be located in the northeast corner of the property. Immediate neighbors consist of the fire station to the east and the Dakota Rail trail to the north. The nearest residential property is approximately 220 feet to the north and is located in Spring Park. The tower in this area will be visible, as existing vegetation along the rail right-of-way will not completely screen the tower. The equipment is not expected to generate noise, light, vibration or odors. Barnhart displayed pictures of the overall site on the overhead. Page 1 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff finds the standards for approval of a conditional use permit for essential services are satisfied. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Sarah Karel, Hennepin County, stated she had nothing to add to Staffs report. Schoenzeit asked whether the residents would be able to access the data. Karel stated the residents would be able to go to HennepinWestMesonet.org., which is a free public website,to access information for this specific station or other weather gathering stations. Landgraver noted the area appears to be somewhat sloped in the back and asked whether that is a desirable spot for the tower. Karel stated the purpose is to measure exactly what the area is showing as far as weather gathering data and that soil moisture and soil temperature is one component of that. Karel stated preserving the ground in the area of the tower is important. Berg asked whether Hennepin County has ever allowed cell phone companies the ability to erect some of their equipment on the tower. Karel indicated they do not. Lemke asked whether the land within the fenced in area would be mowed and otherwise maintained. Karel indicated they will go out and maintain the area a minimum of every two to three weeks and that it will be kept shorter than the other grass since the rain gauge is located there. Karel stated it will look basically like the area around it. Lemke noted an email has been received from a resident and that this is a public hearing tonight as well. Barnhart stated an email has been received from one of the neighbors expressing concern about any possible EMF radiation being emitted from the station. The neighbor also requested that the adjoining property owners be notified if there is the addition of any radiation emitting equipment. Barnhart noted additional equipment would not be able to be added without going through a new application process. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Schoenzeit asked whether a resident would be able to erect a ham radio tower up to 30 feet in height provided it meets the setbacks. Barnhart indicated to his knowledge that would be allowed. Page 2 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3886, Hennepin County Emergency Management,3880 Shoreline Drive,granting of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a mesonet weather station. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 3. #17-3887 REVISION,LLC, ON BEHALF OF GEOFFREY AND STEPHANIE MARTHA, 2092 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,6:40 P.M.—6:58 P.M. John Daly, Revision, LLC,and Stephanie Martha,Applicant,were present. Curtis noted revised calculations and a survey have been placed before the Planning Commission this evening regarding this application. Those revisions were submitted earlier today. Curtis stated the property currently contains a small house and garage. The applicant is requesting a side setback variance and a Tier 1 hardcover variance in order to construct improvements to make the existing house and garage more functional. The applicants initially requested a hardcover variance to permit 25.7 percent hardcover. Currently the site has 25.6 percent hardcover. The allowable hardcover in this district is 25 percent. After reviewing Staff's recommendations,the applicant revised their plans with a reduced hardcover of 25.5 percent. The service door landing was omitted,the driveway was narrowed down, and a proposed patio was eliminated. The applicants are also requesting a side setback variance. The applicant proposes to connect an existing detached garage that will be situated 1.3 feet from the south side lot line to the home with an addition. This connection would result in the detached garage becoming part of the principal structure. The existing home is currently conforming with respect to setbacks, but the connection would make the principal structure nonconforming as the house would no longer meet the required 10-foot side setback. The structural coverage level is proposed to increase by over 1,000 square feet, and although conforming to the massing limitations, it results in the need for a variance to increase hardcover over the existing nonconforming level, 470 square feet in excess of the permitted level. Initially Staff had concerns about the resulting hardcover increase, but with the revised plan, Staff does not have any concerns. With respect to the setback variance for the principal structure connection,the location of the existing structures may support the variance. The applicant should be asked to describe in detail the intended project. Staff would support the variance for the connection since there will not be a substantial change for the adjacent property owner. Staff did receive one phone call from another neighbor asking for clarification on the address but he did not express any concerns with the proposed project. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. John Daly, Revision, LLC, stated he would be available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Schoenzeit asked whether the existing garage has frost footings so it can be attached. Page 3 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Daly indicated they do not know that at this point. The existing structure has a driveway and sidewalks that wrap all the way around it. The current setback from the property on one side of the structure is 1.3 feet and they are not able to increase that at this point. Daly stated there are footings there so it is not a slab on grade but that they will not know if there are frost footings until they dig down. Daly stated at this point the garage appears to be in good condition. Curtis stated the Building Code would require footings four feet deep. Lemke asked whether the City Engineer has reviewed the footings. Curtis stated the City Engineer did not review that but that he has taken a preliminary look at the grading plan and did not note any concerns. Lemke asked how the garage was constructed in the first place with that setback. Curtis indicated the garage has been there quite a while and that Staff at this point would consider it a legal nonconforming structure. Daly stated the house was originally constructed sometime in the 1930s. Daly stated their goal is to maintain the characteristics of the home and keep it as an older style cottage on the lake. Landgraver asked if there is any way to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent. Daly indicated that would take some work and that he will need to know the actual square footage that equates to that percent. Daly noted they are reducing the current hardcover. (Commissioner Jan Berg recused herself from voting on this application) Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Schoenzeit stated the applicants could probably eliminate the additional square feet of hardcover by building the attached garage and sliding the building over slightly. Schoenzeit noted on a clean sheet design,the City would never allow this, and the only reason why a hardcover variance is being considered is because it is existing. Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission can make a recommendation that if the existing garage ends up being torn down that the applicants will have to build a structure more in compliance. Lemke stated his understanding is the applicants can rebuild in kind. Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis stated the better direction might be to not approve the setback variance and direct the applicant to revise their plans in some way. Page 4 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated his recommendation is based on the fact that the variance is required due to the existing garage, and if the existing garage goes away,the applicants should be required to comply with the 25 percent. Lemke asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is recommending that they approve the side setback variance if it exists as it is, and if not,they would need to come back. Schoenzeit noted Staff indicated they do not feel that would be helpful. Curtis stated Staff would prefer the Planning Commission speak directly to the request. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission feels the practical difficulty is sufficient enough to approve the addition,they should recommend the approval. If not,they should recommend denial or request the applicant modify their plan to improve upon the setback. Daly stated if a different addition goes on the south side of the house,the current house is still close to the setback line. Curtis noted the house is 17 feet from the property line. Daly stated it would not make sense for that room to be there then if they have to move it. Daly stated their goal is to maintain what is there today and that they are requesting permission to attach the addition to the primary structure. Daly indicated the space is currently a walkway or a sidewalk and that they are requesting permission to connect those two areas together. Schoenzeit stated if they find out that the garage does not have frost footings, they will have to tear it down if they want to connect it to the house. Schoenzeit stated if they end up tearing it down, his recommendation is that they not put the new structure exactly where the old structure was but instead make it more compliant with the setback. Schoenzeit stated the only reason why the Planning Commission is considering the variance is because the garage is where it is. Daly stated even if it were torn down, as a detached structure they are allowed to rebuild it in kind. Daly stated their intentions are to try to keep the garage since it has some historical elements. Schoenzeit stated the code would probably allow them to tear down the garage, rebuild it in place with frost footings, and then get a variance to connect it to the house since they would have a practical difficulty. Schoenzeit commented this would short circuit it and basically say it is there. Landgraver stated that is the end game that is allowable and doable. Landgraver stated he is more concerned about the hardcover since they are so close to being in compliance. Landgraver stated when there are complete do-overs, it is hard to grant an exception, but that this is not a complete do-over. Landgraver indicated he is okay with the side setback variance for the reasons already articulated. Schoenzeit stated from the neighbor's point of view,their view will not change. Lemke stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 25 percent. Schoenzeit noted approximately 100 square feet would need to be removed. Lemke asked whether the applicants would be willing to look at reducing the hardcover. Page 5 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Daly stated they did look at it once from when they submitted the application and that they can take a look at it again. Daly indicated the property owners would like a two-car garage and having a turnaround due to safety concerns for backing up onto Shadywood Road. The property consists of 4.4 acres and the lot is currently less than what is required from a structural coverage standpoint. Daly noted they are reducing the hardcover from what currently exists today. Lemke asked if the Planning Commission should table that portion of the request. Curtis stated if the direction from the Planning Commission is no hardcover variance,they can deny the hardcover variance and the applicants can continue to the City Council if they are able to find those reductions and request only the side setback variance. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could ask to see it again but that she is not sure what the value of seeing 100 square feet taken off the plan would be. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3887, Revision,LLC,on behalf of Geoffrey and Stephanie Martha,2092 Shadywood Road,granting of a side setback variance,and to recommend that the hardcover be reduced to 25 percent prior to the application proceeding to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0,Berg recused herself. 4. #17-3888 DJ KRANZ COMPANY,INC.,ON BEHALF OF GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH,3745 SHORELINE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:58 P.M.— 7:09 P.M. Bruce Quam, DJ Kranz Company, Inc.,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for expansion of the existing church building in order to construct an 18' x 24' two-story addition for storage, office and kitchen facilities. The addition requires a conditional use permit since the church operates as a conditional use. The proposed addition requires no variances as all setbacks, hardcover, and other zoning requirements will be met. The building plans submitted depict the proposed interior layout and exterior finishes. Under consideration by the building official is whether the addition will trigger a requirement for fire suppression sprinkling of the entire building. Staff finds that the proposed addition and associated interior remodeling, along with the proposed landscaping plan that removes an existing detached storage shed, are positive improvements to the property and its use as a place of worship and daycare center. Gaffron displayed the survey of the site and noted a 2-foot retaining wall is being proposed as part of the landscape plan. Gaffron noted the location of the addition should have no impacts on neighboring properties and the size of the proposed addition is very minor when compared to the size and orientation of the existing building. The slight increase in hardcover will still leave the property well below the 35 percent hardcover limit. While it is anticipated that the improvements will not require increased stormwater ponding,the applicants are advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine whether any permits are required. Page 6 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff would note that the lower level storage area includes a 6-foot wide garage door that opens to the proposed lawn. The applicants may wish to consider whether a hard-surfaced pathway to the parking lot might be appropriate in this area. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the addition and remodeling project as proposed, subject to the applicant confirming with the MCWD whether any permits or stormwater management improvements are required, and subject to submittal of an as-built survey of the entire property being submitted upon completion of the project. Gaffron noted the current survey does not contain all of the necessary information for the entire property and that an as-built survey of the entire site will be required upon project completion. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff Pastor Loren Davis, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, stated he has been a pastor at Good Shepherd for approximately 24 years and that one of the things on their to-do list that was created a number of years ago was to remodel the kitchen. Davis noted the church has previously remodeled the sanctuary and replaced the east wall, and that they felt this was the next project on the list. Davis noted the kitchen was originally constructed in 1959 on the south end of the building,the part of the building with the gable roof was constructed in 1959,the flat roof portion was constructed in 1971, and the front wall was replaced in 2003 and made more energy efficient. Davis noted this would be an 18' x 24' addition on the south end, which is where the kitchen is located. Davis indicated they are not doing it to increase occupancy of the building but to upgrade the kitchen to current code and building standards. Davis indicated they will also be putting in a handicap family accessible bathroom on that end of the building. There currently are bathrooms in the lower unit and in the new upper part, but due to the brick walls,the bathrooms are limited and are not handicap accessible. The stairs will remain where they are but a safety door will be added that closes off the daycare portion. Davis noted the current wall extends all the way out to the dotted line and that the addition will allow for easier access. In addition,the pantry will be enlarged slightly and the kitchen will be moved to the south. Davis stated Shoreline(Early Childhood Development Center), a tenant in the building since 1970, shares the facility with Good Shepherd and that there is a need to have two separate refrigerator and freezer units as well as space for both groups to do food preparation. Davis stated by having some storage in the lower level,they would be able to eliminate a shed on the property and clean up some things that sit outside currently. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Schoenzeit commented the addition makes sense. Landgraver stated it is a good improvement. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3888, DJ Kranz Company,Inc.,on behalf of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church,3745 Shoreline Drive, Page 7 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. granting of a conditional use permit for the construction of an 18' x 24' two-story addition,in accordance with Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 5. #17-3889 TIMOTHY AND JANE WHITE,2170 PROSPECT AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:09 P.M.—7:14 P.M. Timothy White, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicants' property located on Prospect Avenue, Briar Street and Crystal Avenue has street frontages on three sides,which requires a 50-foot setback as it is situated between two streets and is also a corner lot. The applicants are requesting setback variances in order to construct additions to the existing home on the north side. In the area of the home, the subject property has a width between 53 feet and 61 feet. The home is 24 feet wide. The applicants have proposed an addition to the home on the north side, which encroaches into both the side street and side setback areas of the property. A 50-foot setback is required from Briar Street and a 30-foot setback is required from the east side lot line. The 21-foot wide addition is proposed to encroach as much as 32 feet into the side street setback and 12.1 feet into the side street setback. A practical difficulty analysis has been provided in Staff's report. Staff finds practical difficulties exist in the property's substandard area and width, as well as the street frontage requiring 50-foot setbacks on three sides. Applying the setbacks,there is no buildable area on this lot. The encroachments do not appear to adversely impact the adjacent properties. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances. Curtis noted there is an existing shed behind where the addition will go and will be removed as part of this project. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Timothy White, Applicant, stated they are attempting to gain a little more space in the back of the house and make the house more useful. White stated the current setbacks are to the point where they are very limited in what can be done. White asked whether there is a 50-foot setback in both directions. Curtis stated it is 50 feet from Briar, 50 feet from Prospect, and 30 feet from Prospect. White stated they want to construct a small addition in the back, put a roof on the lean-to, and clean up the back part. Landgraver asked which shed will be removed. Curtis pointed out the location of the shed that will be removed, noting that it was not reflected on the survey,which is why it is being removed. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Page 8 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented the property is very limited given the street setbacks and that the addition is a positive improvement. Landgraver noted there is a house located further down Briar that also required some variances due to the setbacks. Curtis stated the lot consists of a third of an acre and that the zoning is for a 2-acre lot. Landgraver stated the setbacks are a mitigating factor. Berg moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3889,Timothy and Jane White,2170 Prospect Avenue,granting of street setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 6. #17-3890 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF STEVE AND STACIA ANDERSEN,517 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE,7:14 P.M.— 7:45 P.M. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, and Steve Andersen, Applicant,were present. Curtis stated the applicant constructed a new residence on the property starting in May of 2015. The project was completed and an as-built survey was submitted in July of 2016. Upon Staff review of the as-built survey, it was noted that two entrance monuments had been constructed near the road which did not meet the required 10-foot setback from the edge of the pavement according to City Code Section 78-1405. The entrance monument pillars are located 3.5 and 4 feet away from the traveled portion of the road. The entrance monument pillars were not included in the original building permit for the home but were shown on a subsequent survey submitted for the swimming pool permit. A separate building permit is required for entrance monuments and construction drawings are required. With the application for the swimming pool permit, no construction drawings were submitted. The subject property boundary extends into the private road. Entrance monuments are permitted to be closer to the street than other types of accessory structures. The Code requires a minimum of a 10-foot separation from the paved,travelled roadway for the construction of entrance monuments for safety reasons. The entrance monuments are located 3.5 and 4 feet from the pavement. The City Engineer did review the monuments and his comments are included in the packet along with comments from one of the neighboring property owners. Staff finds that there may indeed be practical difficulties supporting the location of the entrance monuments. However, entrance monuments are an amenity and not a necessity. There is adequate space between the driveway and the road for some type of entrance monument to have been constructed to meet the 10-foot setback. Should the Planning Commission find practical difficulties exist to allow the monuments to remain as constructed, additional comments regarding support should be provided. Staff did not find a practical difficulty for the monuments and recommends denial. Page 9 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted photographs of the monuments have been included in the Commissioners' packets. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, stated they did have an active building permit for the property. Back then landscape plans were not required at the time of building permit. Bieker stated when it came time to get the pool permit, which also triggered getting the landscaping in order,they submitted the pool permit application with the new survey showing the pool and the entrance monuments in their present location. In receiving the permit for the pool,there were no comments about the monuments being too close to the road. Bieker indicated they then proceeded with construction of the pool and were subsequently asked to construct the monuments by the Andersens. Bieker stated they had the understanding that the monuments were okay since they were depicted on the survey. Bieker noted property owners are allowed to have two monuments per single property and that the setback from the property line is acceptable. The one exception is that the monuments are closer to the roadway than what is normally allowed. Bieker stated the situation was further complicated was he believed this to be a private driveway and not a private road since the road is not built to normal road standards, not maintained by the City, and does not allow two cars to pass side by side. Bieker stated due to the narrowness of the road, some of the neighbors feel they have the right to drive through Mr. Andersen's bushes and tear up his grass to avoid an oncoming car. The Andersen's desire was to put the monuments in place to prevent people from driving in that area. Bieker stated they also put lighting on the monuments since there are no lights on the street and that stretch of roadway is very dark. Bieker stated this is a very large site but there is a tremendous amount of wetlands on the site which required the house to be built close to the road. Bieker noted people cannot park on the road and you need to park on your own property. Bieker stated moving the monuments back would impede on people being able to park in the driveway and be able to negotiate in and out of it. As a result,the location was selected since it was believed to be the best spot for the monuments and still be far enough from the roadway. Bieker commented people should not be driving more than five or ten miles an hour since it is built like a private driveway. Bieker indicated he has some photographs of the monuments and the general area. Bieker noted there are a number of things that are located much closer to the road than the monuments, such as telephone poles, trees, gates, fences, and boulders. Bieker stated these monuments are actually further back than many of those other things that exist along the road and that during the onsite visit by Staff there were no safety concerns expressed. Bieker stated how this transpired was unintentional. Bieker stated the monuments cost in excess of $10,000 and they would need to be destroyed and rebuilt if they have to be relocated. Steve Andersen,Applicant, stated he read through the letter that was sent to the City and that there has been one neighbor that voiced his concerns throughout the project. Andersen stated he has eight other neighbors who were fine with the project. Andersen indicated he was out there pretty much every day making sure that the road was cleaned off. Page 10 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Andersen stated there are a lot of people that walk down the road to the park and that his monument lights are the only ones that are there. Andersen commented the area is very dark and that this is probably one of the more popular areas to walk in order to access the park. Andersen indicated he has had no problems with snow removal with his driveway or the private road and that he is hoping the City would be amenable to allowing the monuments in their present location. Andersen noted some of his other neighbors have monuments. Andersen stated this area of the road appears to be almost the widest part of the road and that there are bushes and tree branches that go at least a foot into the roadway all the way down the road. Andersen stated in the area of the monuments there is plenty of room. Bieker stated the monuments are also designed to deter people from driving on Mr. Andersen's property. Bieker noted he did read the letter from the neighbor and he got the impression that the neighbor feels it is his right to pull onto Mr. Andersen's property. Andersen stated the property was vacant for a number of years and that most of the neighbors got used to doing that. Andersen indicated he did speak with the neighbors about it. Andersen stated the monuments will help keep people from driving over his sprinkler system and tearing up his yard. Landgraver asked what the metal stakes are for that are depicted in some of the photographs. Andersen indicated they are for snow removal and are seasonal. Curtis noted there are plantings in between the monuments and the road. Anderson stated there is also a gas line in that area and that he would like to have something to show that people should not drive over that area since the gas line is not buried very deep. Lemke asked where the other monuments are located. Bieker indicated they are at the entrance of different neighbors' driveways, with one being at the corner fairly close to the road. Bieker stated there is also a fence that comes up to the road but the bigger concern is the trees. Berg asked if they deliver mail down the road. Andersen indicated the mailboxes are located down at the end of the road. Lemke asked if the monuments prohibit any emergency vehicles or fire trucks from going down the road. Curtis stated not to her knowledge. Curtis stated the width of the roadway should be wide enough to accommodate those types of vehicles. Bieker stated it does get very narrow at the end but is wider in front of Mr. Andersen's property. Lemke asked how far the monuments would need to be relocated. Curtis indicated 6 feet and 6.5 feet. Page 11 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Schoenzeit commented it is a tough situation since the monuments clearly do not match the requirements of the code. Schoenzeit noted the City had someone who wanted to put a gate on a county road when there was some room behind the gate. Schoenzeit stated that is not the situation here since they do not have a gate that is blocking the driveway. Schoenzeit stated the monuments are already built and the owner has incurred some expense,which appears to be a practical difficulty. Barnhart stated he would be challenged using the fact that the monuments are there as a practical difficulty since financial concerns cannot be used as a reason to support a variance. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission also reviewed an application where there was a garden shed in the front yard and the property owners were required to remove it. Landgraver stated he has a tendency to side with the City since the approval process was not followed. Landgraver stated while the developer may not have known it was an issue and did not call it out on the plan, he would have to jump to the City's defense and say that they should not be expected to look for things outside of the pool. Schoenzeit stated even if something is on a plan and is not called out by Staff,the developer is still responsible for complying with the code. Bieker stated in his experience every time they turn in a survey, they are scrutinized. Bieker noted the monuments were also listed as an item on the hardcover calculation very clearly. Bieker stated there were approximately ten items listed and the monuments were clearly listed along with the calculations for the pool. Bieker stated in his view it should have been noted that they were there even though it was an application for a pool. Bieker stated every time a homeowner does a project,a new survey is turned in and that in his view the monuments should have been noticed by the City. Schoenzeit asked if the monuments were a line item on the hardcover calculations. Bieker indicated they are and that he could provide a copy of it. Curtis stated she is in agreement that the monuments were listed on the hardcover calculations but that hardcover was not a concern with the property due to the size. Lemke asked if the monuments existed at that time. Bieker indicated they had not been constructed at that point and that the survey said proposed. Berg asked if there was a need for a permit when the monuments were proposed. Curtis stated monuments require a building permit along with a footing inspection. Page 12 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bieker stated the inspectors were there a number of times, saw the monuments being built, and never looked at them. Bieker stated the monuments have 4-foot deep footings. Schoenzeit asked if Mr. Bieker called in the inspection on the footings. Bieker indicated his project manager handled that and that he cannot answer that. Schoenzeit stated if the building inspector signed off on the footings, he would be okay with the monuments. Bieker stated there was not a separate permit pulled for the monuments. Schoenzeit stated if there was an inspection report for these footings, he would be fine with the monuments, but if he doesn't have an inspection report for the footings,they should be removed. Curtis asked if an electrical permit was pulled. Bieker stated there had to be. Curtis stated the file will reference a permit number and that she is looking to see if there are any notes under the swimming pool permit. Curtis stated someone cannot just call in and ask for an inspection but that they have to reference back to what the permit is before they can schedule an inspection. Schoenzeit stated an inspection needs to be done every time footings are poured. Barnhart indicated he does not see a permit for the monuments. Bieker stated he will have to see if there is any sign-off sheet in his file. Berg stated if there was not a permit,there would be no need for someone to sign off on it. Lemke asked how many other monuments are on the road. Andersen indicated there are six. Andersen stated there is not that much traffic on the road and that there is more foot traffic. Landgraver asked if Mr. Andersen still wants the monuments if they have to be moved Andersen stated he cannot move them ten feet because that would eliminate his off street parking. Anderson indicated the house is close to the road due to the wetlands and that the other homes are further away from the road. Schoenzeit asked what the distance is from the pavement to the backside of the plantings. Andersen stated if the monuments are 10 feet away from the road, he would not be able to back out of his garage. Page 13 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bieker stated the practical difficulty is that the house needed to be close to the road and that Mr. Andersen is not able to use his property the way the other neighbors can due to the wetlands. Schoenzeit asked what the front edge of the garage door is to the oval. Andersen indicated he does not know that off the top of his head. Bieker stated the realty is if the monuments have to come down, the Andersens will not be able to have them and that they will have to deal with people driving through there. Landgraver commented the Planning Commission is attempting to recognize that there are some issues here. Bieker stated they are attempting to identify the property and make it a workable situation for everybody. Bieker stated cars can be up to 20 feet long,which makes it challenging for off-street parking. Landgraver stated if there is indication that the City inspected the footings,the City essentially approved it by default. Landgraver stated he is sympathetic given the expense and the additional usefulness the monuments are providing, but that he would not want to approve a variance after the fact. Landgraver noted the Planning Commission is an advisory board and that the applicants can go before the City Council. Lemke commented monuments are more decorative than anything else and that he would go along with Staff's recommendation. Lemke stated the applicants are free to bring it to the City Council and have them review it if the Planning Commission recommends denial. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3890,Denali Custom Homes on behalf of Steve and Stacia Andersen,517 Ferndale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #17-3895 UGORETS 8098,LLC,2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,RESTAURANT This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Barnhart noted the applicant has waived the 60-day review period and notice will be republished once the applicant brings this application back before the Planning Commission. Barnhart indicated parking was an issue discovered during the review and the applicant is looking at different options. 8. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON NOVEMBER 28,2016, DECEMBER 12,2016,AND JANUARY 9,2017 Barnhart stated at the end of last year, he sent a spreadsheet summarizing all the actions taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Barnhart stated based on that spreadsheet, he noticed, from a pattern perspective that the City Council looked very closely at the Planning Commission's recommendations. Barnhart stated while the City Council did not agree 100 percent of the time with the recommendations,they appreciated the work of the Planning Commission. Barnhart reported on the following actions by the City Council: Page 14 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. • Approved the final plat for Charles Cudd on Shadywood Road; • Approved the easement vacation associated with that project and other variances. Barnhart noted in November,there was a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop where a number of ordinances were identified and prioritized. The City Council will be hosting a joint work session to review a couple of those ordinances on February 1. Barnhart stated he is going to attempt to keep the work sessions to two hours and that he does anticipate work sessions the first three or four months of the year. Barnhart noted additional items approved by the City Council include the videotaping of Planning Commission meetings and the acceptance of Senior Planner Mike Gaffron's resignation. Barnhart noted Mike Gaffron will be with the City until the end of May. Landgraver stated he appreciates the help of Mr. Gaffron during the Planning Commission meetings and that it is helpful to know if the Council is in line with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Berg commented Mike has always had very valuable information to provide and that he has a great perspective on planning. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lemke asked if any action has been taken on the Planning Commission going paperless. Barnhart indicated that was included in the 2017 budget and that Staff will likely start that later in the first quarter. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:57 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ATTEST: / ,1y 6/: ; Bruce Lemke,Acting Chair Page 15 of 15