Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Loren Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, City Planner Laura Oakden,and Recorder Jackie Young. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:39 p.m. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21,2017 Leskinen moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the August 21,2017,Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 2. #17-3965 GORDON JAMES ON BEHALF OF DAVID AND LYNN GUTERMUTH, 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,6:31 P.M.—6:48 P.M. Oakden stated the applicant is proposing to reconstruct a new single-family home on this site and is requesting the following variances: 1. Setback variance for construction of the new retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL; 2. Hardcover variance to exceed the 25 percent limitation by 171.25 feet; 3. Lot area and lot width variances. The applicants are working with Gordon James Construction to reconstruct their new home. Along with the retaining walls will be stairs. The applicants are proposing to bring the hardcover down to 26.3 percent, which would still exceed the City's 25 percent hardcover. Current hardcover is at 40 percent. Structural coverage meets the City's requirements. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size for the LR-1C zoning district. Oakden noted retaining walls are not permitted within 75 feet of the lake. The applicant is proposing to install new stairs to gain lake access and install new retaining walls to support the stairs. Stairs are permissible. The applicant is hoping to be proactive in protecting the trees, vegetation, and shoreline on the property with the retaining walls. The walls as proposed will range from one to six feet in height. Because some of the walls will exceed four feet in height, engineered design is required. Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot shape, size,and the drainage and erosion that have taken place in the lake yard. The applicant has provided a landscape improvement plan which appears to offer relief to the shoreline and lake yards on the property. The applicants have not provided clear practical difficulties to support a hardcover variance. Page 1 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot width, lot area, and lake yard setback variances contingent on the applicant providing plantings to screen the retaining walls from the lake view. Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance or submittal of revised practical difficulties which meet the variance criteria and support the granting of the variance. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. John Van Dyke, Gordon James Construction, stated they have been working with the property owners to bring the hardcover below 30 percent. Approximately two years ago the neighbor to the south had their back yard regraded and as a result there is a lot of runoff coming onto the Gutemuth's property. Van Dyke indicated they will lose one of the large maple trees due to erosion and they have experienced a lot of silt buildup behind the boathouse. The property owners previously had been able to walk down the slope to the lake but that is no longer the case due to erosion. Van Dyke stated they worked hard to try to get under the 25 percent hardcover limit, but because of some of the existing conditions,they are not able to do that. Thiesse asked if there is any natural way of maintaining the slope and reducing the erosion without the retaining walls. Van Dyke stated in his opinion it would be pretty difficult to do and that a retaining wall system appears to make the most sense. Leskinen asked if a reduction in hardcover could be made somewhere else on the property to eliminate the 171.25 feet. Van Dyke indicated they could look at that and that the property owners' desire was to at least maintain the path around the house, landscaping and deck. Van Dyke noted the stairs have added to the hardcover on the ot. Thiesse asked if the wall between this property and the neighboring property to the south will stay. Van Dyke stated they are not planning on touching it. Schoenzeit asked why the house could not be moved closer to the street to reduce some of the driveway hardcover. Van Dyke stated they probably could relocate the house slightly, but since they are on the lake,they would like to take advantage of the view. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Will Hack, Gordon James Construction, stated they are dealing with a situation that did not exist when the Gutermuths purchased the property in 2008. Hack stated he appreciates the questions about the hardscape and that a lot of effort has gone into positioning the house for effective spacing from the street. In addition,the driveway has been narrowed down as much as possible to reduce hardcover but still allow cars to enter the property and be set back from the street. Across Casco Circe, Hack noted some of the Page 2 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. cars sit in an easement area and that the proposed driveway for this property allows those cars to be moved out of that area. Hack stated the homeowners have indicated when they first purchased the property there was not a need for stairs and that erosion has resulted in the need for the steps in order to access the lake as well as help stop the erosion. Hack noted the stairs are an integral part of the solution. Hack stated as it relates to the photographs that were submitted, it is difficult to capture the funnel effect coming from the neighboring property. Hack noted there is a swale that comes out of the neighboring property onto this property. Hack noted the picture on the screen depicts the silt being deposited at the back of the boathouse,which did not exist until a couple of years ago. Hack pointed out the funnel in the back yard. Hack noted that funnel has caused a tremendous amount of erosion in a short period of time and that they are attempting to alleviate that water and erosion. Hack stated the stairs are part of the integration of the erosion control and to provide a degree of safety for someone walking down the hill. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Thiesse stated in his view the applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty with the erosion and that the retaining walls are to fix the existing conditions. Thiesse noted there are currently stairs down to the lake and that they are replacing those. Lemke stated in his view the proposal makes sense and that there are some circumstances with the property that were not caused by the owners and they are attempting to address them. Lemke noted the owners are also reducing the existing hardcover substantially. Leskinen indicated she does not have a problem with the lot area and lot width variances and that she can somewhat see the need for the retaining walls but that she would like to see the hardcover reduced somewhere else on the property. Thiesse stated some of the easiest places to reduce hardcover are in the driveway and sidewalks. Thiesse stated reducing the driveway might meet the City's requirements but at some point could cause the driveway to be less functional. Leskinen noted the hardcover is coming down substantially from what exists currently. Schoenzeit stated as a package it works. Schwingler indicated he is in agreement. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3965,Gordon James on behalf of David and Lynn Gutermuth,2665 Casco Point Road,granting of lot area,lot width,hardcover,and setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0 3. #17-3967 HENDEL HOMES ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL AND VANESSA SMITH,3060 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,6:48 P.M.—7:00 P.M. Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated the applicant would like to reconstruct a new single-family home on this site and is requesting the following: 1. A lot width variance. 2. A lake yard setback variance. 3. An average lakeshore setback variance. 4. A side yard setback to allow increased building mass within 8.8 feet of the lot line where a 10-foot setback is required. 5. A variance to permit crowding of the principal structure to allow a 1.5 foot setback between the principal and accessory structure. Oakden stated according to the survey,the hashed areas are the portions that are changing versus what is existing. The applicants are working to construct the home on the same footprint and to reuse the foundation of the existing home but are proposing to replace an existing lakeside deck with an enclosed roofed screen porch. This would create additional volume and mass in the average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot lake yard setback. Further,the applicants are requesting a side yard setback to increase the volume of the portion of the home 8.8 feet from the west lot line to raise the roofline. The addition to the home next to the existing detached garage as proposed results in an increase in the massing and the applicant is requesting a variance to be closer than the required 10-foot separation between buildings. The property meets the lot area but is only107 to 106 feet wide where 140 feet is required. All structural and hardcover requirements are met. Oakden indicated the black line on the survey outlines the existing roofline and the yellow reflects the proposed roofline. If the roofs of the two structures were combined,that would negate the need for a variance. Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot shape, size and location of the home with respect to the shoreline which support the granting of reasonable variances. The Planning Commission should discuss whether a variance for the crowding of buildings is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Michael Smith,Applicant, stated the house was constructed in 1952 and has low ceilings. Smith indicated they considered remodeling the house until it became apparent it was not feasible due to the cost. Smith stated they would like to use the same foundation and construct a 3,900 to 4,000 square foot house,which is smaller than what currently is on the property. Smith noted Mr. Hendel is out of the country currently and is unable to attend tonight's meeting but that he will try to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Lemke asked if the City has received any comments from the neighbors. Oakden indicated no direct comments to Staff besides the notices being signed and sent back have been received. Thiesse noted the accessory structure appears to have a floating slab and that it would not be a good idea to tie into that. Thiesse asked if there is a reasonable amount of room to walk through the two structures. Thiesse stated to his understanding the reason two structures are not put that close is for emergency reasons. Curtis noted it is not a commercial building and that the property owners do not need to provide emergency vehicle access back there. Schoenzeit asked if the foundation will be scrapped. Smith indicated they will be keeping it. Schoenzeit commented the proposal appears to be fairly reasonable even if the foundation is removed. Thiesse stated it is difficult to see 307 feet of land behind the house and then have someone ask for variances in front of the house but that is due to reusing the existing foundation. Leskinen moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3967,Hendel Homes on behalf of Michael and Vanessa Smith,3060 North Shore Drive,granting of a lot width variance,a lake yard setback variance,an average lakeshore setback variance,a side yard setback variance,and a variance to permit crowding of the principal structure to allow a 1.5 foot setback between the two structures. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #17-3968 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FRED AND PATRICIA JOHNSON, 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE (PID 07-117-23-43-0026),VARIANCES, 7:00 P.M.—8:07 P.M. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design Company,was present. Curtis noted this property has been the subject of similar variance requests in the past in order to develop the property and all of those have been denied. Over the years the City has adopted several ordinances which provide relief to small lots with respect to setbacks and structure footprint limits. Some of the new rules,when applied to the subject property, provide the intended relief, such as the side street setback and overall hardcover. However, the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to develop the property: Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. A rear setback of 10 feet where 20 feet is required; 2. A 75-foot setback; 3. A 75-foot hardcover variances for portions of the proposed home and hardcover improvements; 4. An average lakeshore setback; and 5. Lot area and lot width variances are necessary at a minimum in order to deveop the property. The average lakeshore setback line is determined by the location of the home at 1555 Orchard Beach Place. That home is situated approximately 125 feet from the lake. To conform, the proposed home on the subject property would need to be set back at least 125 feet. The subject project is only 110 to 120 feet deep and portions of the proposed home and accessory hardcover are within 75 feet of the OHWL. The proposed access stair near the lake is permitted under city code. However,the patio attached to the home, portions of the home, and portions of the front entry stoop are not specifically permitted. The hardcover associated with those structures totals approximately 246 square feet or 2.5 percent of the proposed hardcover. A practical difficulties analysis has been included within Staff report. Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size, shape, and location of the property exist which justify the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback variances allowing development. The applicant has requested a rear yard setback variance, a 75-foot setback variance, and hardcover variances within 75 feet for the new home. The lake setback reflects as much as a 3-foot encroachment of the corner of the home or the entry stoop which could possibly be redesigned. These encroachments are not supported by practical difficulties. Hardcover within the 75-foot setback will offset with two existing to be removed concrete features. It is not supported by substantiated practical difficulties. Comments have been received and were included in the Planning Commission packet. There may be additional comments presented this evening. Staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setbacks as requested. Staff further recommends the Planning Commission review the practical difficulties provided by the applicant and determine if they support the additional variances for lake setback and 75-foot hardcover. If the Planning Commission finds the additional variances are supported by practical difficulties, approval may be appropriate. Leskinen asked if this lot was considered unbuildable at one time. Curtis indicated variances in the past have been denied. Leskinen asked if the lot has always been taxed as a buildable lot. Curtis stated she is not sure whether the tax situation has changed with the lot. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated he realizes the applicant has been before the City a number of times in an attempt to make use of the property but that it is a lot of record and there is a sewer stub that was Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. installed in 1972. The property was assessed for that sewer stub in 1970. There was a house on the property at one time,which burnt down and the garage was torn down after that, although some of the foundation does still exist. Sharratt noted almost nothing about the lot is conforming other than it is a lot of record. Sharratt indicated they are attempting to design a minimal sized house with a small two-car garage. The house on the bottom floor has an entry, living space, dining space, and a small kitchen. The second floor has a master suite on one side and two bedrooms on the other side. Sharratt indicated they also designed the house with a flat roof in an attempt to be sensitive to the neighbors. The neighboring house is 10 to 15 feet higher than the proposed house, so their visibility will be maintained. Sharratt stated it is likely that neighboring house will be a teardown at some point in the future. Sharratt stated they are attempting to present something that is reasonable and is compact. Leskinen asked what the square footage will be of the house. Curtis stated the footprint hardcover is 1,408 square feet and the stoop is 77 square feet. Thiesse asked if there is a way to make it work the way Staff has recommended. Sharratt stated there is always a way that things can be redesigned but that they are proposing an entryway so there will be a closet since there will not be a mud room. Because the home will be slab on grade, all the mechanical has to be located on the first or second floors. The living space is also compact. Sharratt indicated they could perhaps take a look at the front entry and reduce the size of the stoop. Currently it is approximately three feet over at the corner of the house and four feet at the stoop. Thiesse asked if rotating the house would cause problems with the rear setback. Sharratt indicated it would. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Les Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated his family has lived in this area since 1963 and that he only received the notice on Friday so he has not had a lot of time to review the proposal. Delton stated as it relates to the taxes,his understanding is that it has always been taxed as a non-buildable lot. In regards to the sewer stub,there is typically a sewer stub put in whether it is a buildable lot or not and that does not mean it is a buildable lot. Delton stated they have quite a few objections to the proposal. Delton noted this has been before the Council a number of times and it has been denied every time. The lot is very small and consists of only .22 acres. All the surrounding lots are over an acre. Delton commented the lot does not fit the area. Delton stated another problem is Orchard Beach Place used to be considered a fire lane and that he is not sure if it is still considered a fire lane. As a result, there really is no place to park. If they have a house on this lot and they have overnight guests,they will need to park out in the street if there are more than two cars. There is also a sewer lift station as well in the area. Delton stated he is concerned about on-street parking and that years ago people could not park on Orchard Beach Place. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Delton noted City ordinance requires an acre to build and that this lot is less than a quarter acre. In addition,the lot tends to be very wet since a lot of runoff goes into that lot currently, and there is standing water on the lot after it rains. Delton noted the City should have received letters from two of the neighbors that the Planning Commission can review. In addition, setback will be a problem for two of the adjoining properties. Delton stated currently all of the houses are set back and then there will be this house sitting right next to the lake. Delton stated he can remember when the original people purchased it and they were told it was an unbuildable lot. The new property owner bought it a couple of years ago knowing it was an unbuildable lot. Delton stated he understands the City can change ordinances to make lots more buildable, but if you look at the neighborhood,the house does not fit. Nancy Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated in her view the lot is simply too small to build on and that she is concerned about the runoff into the lake if a house is built on this lot. Delton stated the proposal goes against all the City's criteria and requires variances to allow building on such a small lot. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Lemke stated in his view the lot is not buildable and that the imposition on the neighbors is too great. Lemke noted the City has looked at this property time and time again and has always come to the conclusion that it is not a buildable lot. Thiesse asked how the City can stop someone from approaching the City of Orono time after time requesting variances that keep getting denied or whether they just keep deflecting it. Barnhart stated the City can keep deflecting it unless there is a change in designation or ownership since a property owner is allowed to apply for a variance from the standards in the ordinance. Leskinen stated she does not feel it is a buildable lot since too many variances are required and there is no justification for it. Leskinen stated the lot is small and wet and that she would not be in favor of granting the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback variances. Schoenzeit asked if anything has changed in the City's code or the state's interpretation of the law between the last time variances were denied on this property and now. Barnhart stated the City has adjusted a number of ordinances that have opened up more of a building envelope for this lot. The one thing that has not changed is the average lakeshore setback, which is unavoidable given its location. Schoenzeit noted it can meet the 75-foot line but not the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted they would never be able to meet the average lakeshore setback. Schwingler commented he struggles on this application since it would change the character of the neighborhood. Schwingler stated it is a very challenging piece of property and that it would be nice to have it cleared off and a livable home there but that he is having a hard time envisioning the parking and the lift station. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated given its location,a house on this lot would be out of character with the neighborhood, which is one of the standards of the variance. Curtis noted they are not asking to create a lot that is out of character but asking to develop the lot with a reasonable use. Thiesse stated a house that best fits the lot does not fit the neighborhood. Leskinen stated another part of the governing regulation is the effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Leskinen stated with the lift station at the bottom, it is a very challenging road, and a house could create issues with parking,which is something that should be considered. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is making a recommendation and not the decision but that he does not see anything compelling enough to recommend approval. Lemke stated in his view the architect did a great job designing the house but the property is not suitable for any structure. Lemke moved to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3968,Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Fred and Patricia Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place and not grant any variances. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission needs to specify reasons for denial. Curtis stated it would be helpful if the Planning Commission would provide findings for denial at least on the variances that Staff recommended approval on. Schoenzeit stated granting the variances would make a house out of character with the neighborhood. Thiesse stated he does not see a practical difficulty for encroaching into the 75-foot setback. Curtis stated she is looking for reasons for denial on the variances recommended by Staff. Leskinen stated they are denying the application based on the fact that a house on this lot would be out of the character with the neighborhood and that they do not see a practical difficulty for the lake setback. Leskinen stated building on this lot would affect the health, safety and welfare of the community because the lot is so small, access and parking are difficult since there is a lift station at the end of the road, and the house would be out of character with the neighborhood. Thiesse noted the City typically grants lot area and lot width variances but not a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated she recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback and that she is looking for findings for not granting the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant could construct the house if he put it behind the 75-foot line. Curtis noted it requires an average lakeshore setback variance. Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the applicant could say the practical difficulty is that he cannot meet the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit stated the applicant could push the house back a little to stay behind the 75-foot line. Curtis noted the applicants are asking for a 10-foot rear setback variance rather than a 20-foot setback and that Staff is looking for direction on whether that would be acceptable. Curtis noted the average lakeshore setback line makes the lot unbuildable without a variance. If the Planning Commission is not supportive of granting the average lakeshore setback variance, Staff is asking for findings supporting the denial. Schoenzeit noted the City now allows 2,000 square feet rather than 1,500 square feet. Schoenzeit stated if the owner puts the house behind the 75-foot line and does not own the 125-foot line, it would be a more compelling discussion. Schoenzeit stated he is against going in front of the 75-foot setback. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of variances to the rear setback and the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit stated in his view the up to 2,000 square feet provides an argument for the rear setback since the applicant is only proposing 1,400 square feet. Thiesse stated simply because the code allows something does not mean someone can do it. Lemke asked if the size of the lot is acceptable. Schoenzeit noted the size of the lot is not adequate but that it is a practical difficulty. Lemke noted it is in a one-acre zone. Schoenzeit noted there are lots in the one-acre zone that are one-third of an acre all over the City. Schoenzeit stated the applicant may rather bring something a little more compliant back, but that given the proposed 1,400 square foot footprint,there has to be some allowance because the building does not fit given the size of the lot. Schoenzeit stated it sounds like, given some of the City's code changes and a slightly altered design, with the right set of arguments,the house could be made to fit. Schoenzeit commented enough things have changed in the code since the last time to make the best argument for development of this lot. Schoenzeit stated the fact that it has not been paying taxes on a buildable lot does not matter. Schoenzeit noted if the applicants were tearing a house down, it would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicant needs to work on his variance logic but that there is an argument to be made. Lemke commented he does not see any compelling argument for the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted it cannot be met, which is the argument. Schoenzeit stated in his view the average lakeshore setback is a hardship. Schoenzeit stated the Applicant could probably table his application and fix the 75-foot setback and bring it back. Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated if the only variance the Planning Commission is not in favor of is the 75-foor setback,they could direct the applicant to make those changes before appearing before the City Council. If the Planning Commission is not in favor of the rear setback variance, Staff requests more direction for the applicant. Schoenzeit stated if he caps the structure at 1,400 square feet and is not asking for the 75-foot setback variance,that gives the applicant some leeway. Schoenzeit stated in his view the front stoop should be retracted accordingly. Schoenzeit stated an argument could be made that the sewer stub does not count, even though it usually does, and the argument against it are that the taxes are wrong. Lemke noted taxes are not the Planning Commission's decision. Thiesse commented they should assume it is a buildable lot. Thiesse asked if the back yard is away from the lake. Curtis indicated it is the north lot line. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could deny it with the recommendation that the applicant make some changes to their plan. Curtis stated she would like findings for the position taken contrary to Staff's recommendation. Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission consider granting the rear yard setback but not the 75-foot setback variance. Schoenzeit stated he would deny the application because of the 75-foot setback variance request and that the other variances have an implied recommendation of being granted. Schoenzeit stated the hardship for the average lakeshore setback is because he is not able to meet it. Lemke stated he sees the hardship on the neighbors being harder than the average lakeshore setback since it will detract from the neighbors' homes, which is why there is an average lakeshore setback. Leskinen noted there is a motion on the table with no second. Lemke stated the motion to deny is based on the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission can deny a variance if there is no way they can meet it. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can deny it unless the practical difficulties and hardships support the granting of it. Thiesse stated if the recommendation is based on practical difficulty, it is very hard to recommend against it. Barnhart noted there was a comment made earlier that a house that fits this lot does not fit the neighborhood,which supports denial of the average lakeshore setback variance and the 75-foot setback variance. Barnhart stated lot area and lot width variances could also be reasons for denial and that it is up to the City Council to make the final decision. Other comments included too many variances and not enough justification for those. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated the house does not fit into this area. Schoenzeit stated the 2,000 square footprint allowance does not have a must fit in the neighborhood clause to be invoked. Thiesse noted Item No. 3 states the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Schoenzeit stated this house alters the neighborhood but the question is whether the 1,500/2,000 square foot structural coverage trumps other variances. Curtis stated the 2,Q00 square feet is the City's allowance for structural coverage and oftentimes a lot under 10,000 square feet will need more than a lot area and width variance. The City used to make an assumption that a reasonable house was 1,500 square feet and that has been increased to 2,000 square feet, which is conceivably within setbacks and hardcover. If the lot is further challenging,the Planning Commission should take a look at those other factors. Schoenzeit commented often a little house is still within the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated if a 10,000 square foot lot also needs to be in character, this house would not meet that. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether a lot of record this small guarantees them the right to build. Thiesse stated they are allowed up to 2,000 square feet for a lot less than 10,000 square feet. Schoenzeit noted they do not meet the 75-foot setback, which is a reason for denial. Sharratt asked if there is value in tabling the application and moving the house, which would eliminate the 75-foot setback variance. Thiesse stated in his mind, if the Planning Commission recommends denial and they bring it before the City Council,they would make that decision. Thiesse stated it appears the 75-foot setback variance will be denied, and since they cannot meet the average lakeshore setback, in his view that could be considered a hardship. Schoenzeit asked which is higher, out of character or cannot happen. Thiesse stated the house that fits on this lot does not fit the neighborhood. Thiesse noted he voted not to have a house on this property previously and that he does not feel enough has changed since the last time. Leskinen concurred with Commissioner Thiesse. Thiesse stated in regards to the criteria,the applicants are proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the granting of the variances will alter the locality. Thiesse stated the conditions do not apply to other land in the immediate neighborhood and that it should be a denial because it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission needs to list the specific reasons for denial of the three variances Staff recommends approval. Leskinen asked whether the fact the house would alter the essential character of the neighborhood is sufficient. Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated it is a finding and she can take that and bring it to the Council. Curtis stated she does not know how subjective that is. Thiesse stated it is fairly obvious from the aerial. Leskinen asked if there used to be a beach in the area. Les Delton stated his family has lived there since 1963 and that one of the neighbors has been there since 1948. Delton stated according to his understanding,there used to be an Orono city beach there and this lot was Orono property at one time. Delton stated he does not know when it passed into private hands but that it was a city beach a number of years ago. Leskinen stated that is a nonissue since it has been purchased by a private party. Schoenzeit stated when you draw the line of where all the other homes are,this house is clearly on the other side of the line and that would go to the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated the other homes are not on top of the lake in this neighborhood. Thiesse asked if the City has ever seen a lot this small in an area that has larger lots. Schoenzeit stated there are other places where there are third-acre lots in the same area as one-acre lots. Thiesse noted this lot is less than a third of an acre. Schoenzeit stated that is also out of character. Thiesse stated it appears the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback would be denied due to character and that the 75-foot setback can be met so there is no reason to grant the variance. Lemke stated the house and the lot are out of character. Schoenzeit commented the lot is what it is. Curtis requested direction on the rear setback. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and noted the lake is located on the front side of this lot. Curtis noted the setback is a function of the width and that 140 feet is the width requirement. Thiesse stated he would recommend a 10-foot rear setback and that the applicant is requesting 10 feet. Thiesse asked whether it would be less than 10 feet if the house is rotated. Curtis indicated that is correct. Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,Application No. 17-3968,Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Fred and Patricia Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #17-3969 DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES,ORONO PRESERVE RPUD AGREEMENT AMENDMENT,8:07 P.M.—8:33 P.M. Barnhart noted the City Council approved the RPUD for a 39 unit single-family development back in October of 2016. The applicant is now requesting an amendment to the RPUD agreement to allow a maximum defined height of all buildings of 35 feet instead of the 30 feet allowed by zoning ordinance. The calculation of building height is based on the height of the building and the adjacent existing ground level. Orono Preserve was originally a very flat development and fill was brought in to create house pads that provided surface drainage away from the structures. This elevation,coupled with a narrow two-story structure and high pitched roofs, raised the defined height to over 30 feet. A review of the first two plans resulted in a defined height of 32 and 31.5 feet. In lieu of modifying the RPUD agreement to allow higher buildings,the developer has the following two options: 1. Adjust the roof pitches and/or the grading plan to fit within the regulations for the project,or 2. Apply for variances for specific parcels that require flexibility. Barnhart stated part of the challenge is that this would be no different than reviewing the height question during preliminary plat review. The increase in height is a huge deviation from City standards and the job of the Planning Commission is to review the height and decide whether it negatively impacts the Planning Commission's view of the application. Barnhart stated up on the screen is a section drawing originally intended to illustrate the buffer requirements. Staff requested the applicants submit this drawing in order for the Planning Commission to be able to see the homes and their height compared with the berm and landscaping. Schoenzeit asked why they would not just fix the grading since it is a clean sheet. Barnhart indicated the grades were changed to positively influence the drainage away from the homes and that they did not add extra grade beyond what was approved. Barnhart noted the City Council did approve the grading plan and it was consistent with the original grading plan that was approved. Scott Jensen, David Weekley Homes, stated they developed the site with design holdouts and that they feel it is irresponsible to truck in more dirt. The site has a two and a half foot holdout and that they are attempting to balance the dirt that is excavated for the basements and keep it onsite. Jensen stated if they bring in more soil and raise the existing grade,they feel it is irresponsible to do that only to truck out dirt. Jensen stated they are looking for clarification on their plans. Jensen noted they typically construct homes with a 10-foot main floor ceiling height and a 9-foot second story. To balance the soil onsite,they will need to reuse the soil from the basements to get the site to balance and drain. Due to the water table issue,there are a number of lots that have a 1 or 2-foot step condition on it,which will raise the house higher in order to get the sewer, grades, and water level below the basement elevation. Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jensen stated they essentially are just trying to clarify what was brought forward in sketches originally. Jensen stated they did not realize it was from existing grade and that they believed it was from the proposed grade on the surveys. If it was from the proposed grade, it would be a nonissue. Jensen noted their existing grades are 2.5 feet below the proposed grades. Thiesse asked if the final grade will be at the proposed. Jensen stated it is taken based on existing grade. Thiesse asked whether they will be close to the 30 feet when the homes are all built. Jensen stated two homes have been submitted and that they put in another foot and a half of dirt to get to their proposed grade. Jensen stated the height is based on existing grade versus proposed grade. Thiesse asked if any dirt will be trucked in to get to the proposed grade. Jensen indicated he does not want to truck in any dirt. Jensen stated they would like a variance up to 35 feet for height if they go off of existing grades. Jensen stated if they go off proposed elevations,they would need a maximum 2-foot variance. Schoenzeit asked if the height will be 32 feet when all is said and done. Jensen stated they will meet 32 feet from finished grade to peak. Leskinen asked if 32 would be the max. Jensen indicated it would be if they are allowed to go off of proposed elevations and not existing grade. Schoenzeit noted on new developments,the grade is set as proposed and not existing. Barnhart stated that is correct, and that on a new development,the City approves a grading plan. Barnhart stated there is a question on whether existing or proposed should be used to determine height. Thiesse stated the proposed is what should have been approved and that the developer should be living within the ordinance of 30 feet. Schoenzeit stated the proposed grade plus 30 feet is what was approved and that the developer had the ability to set the grade at what they wanted. Jensen stated it is not a choice of making it two feet taller but it is a requirement of that lot in order to get the house to work properly with the lot. Schoenzeit stated they had a clean sheet to do whatever they wanted and that they should build a house that complies with the 30 feet. Jensen stated if they can go off of proposed elevations in measuring height,that would be helpful. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Thiesse stated in his view because this is higher density with smaller lots,that should equate to smaller houses. Schoenzeit stated the developer could adjust the roofline and that the height restriction is strictly adhered to. Thiesse commented he cannot remember the last time the City granted a variance to height for residential housing. Barnhart noted the Orono senior housing building was granted a height variance. Barnhart stated the question before the Planning Commission is whether they are willing to increase the height above 30 feet. The other issue is the difference in definition. Barnhart indicated there was a miscommunication between the applicant and staff regarding proposed and approved grade. Schoenzeit stated it should be 30 feet above what was approved and that he is not in favor of increasing the building height. Schoenzeit stated when they created this new project,they got their chance of setting the grade, and if a new lot needs a step to change a grade,that had to be in the plan and they do not get to make it 32 or 35 feet after the fact. Lemke stated if the topography was rolling, he would not have as much of a problem, but this site is flat and the homes are already sticking up. Leskinen expressed a concern with anything going higher than 30 feet from grade whether that is established grade, proposed grade, or existing grade. Leskinen noted the homes will be a little closer together and that she does not want them to be taller. Leskinen indicated she would like to stay with the height as defined in code. Leskinen stated as far as where grade is established, she can be flexible on that, but that her understanding is there already is an approved grading plan so those grades have already been established. Thiesse stated the grades were left low so they could use the dirt from the basement excavations and that in his mind the developer should be working with proposed grade rather than existing. Schoenzeit commented they should not be allowed to fill it in with more house since the project gives them the luxury of setting the grade but not raising the house. Ian Peterson, David Weekley Homes, stated they are just attempting to clarify and that the way the code reads is existing highest ground versus proposed finished grade. Peterson indicated they are fine with proposed grade on the grading plan and that they were trying to simplify everything by trying to envision what would be the absolute tallest they would need. Thiesse stated they can either use existing highest ground and give the developer two feet or work off the proposed grade and give the developer no additional feet. Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Peterson stated it is very typical in the development world to max grade the site and keep the footprint of the building down two to three feet depending on the type of soil. Once it is backfilled in,everything fits in nicely. Peterson indicated they have hauled in over 40,000 yards of fill and that they would rather not haul in more fill. Peterson stated they are just trying to get clarification on whether it is proposed or existing. Schoenzeit stated he is not interested in granting a variance to the height. Thiesse stated he would rather see the 30-foot height restriction complied with and that his understanding is that the existing grade would be the proposed ground in this situation. Thiesse asked whether Staff sees any issues with doing it that way. Barnhart stated holding firm to the 30 feet is appropriate and that Staff can address the proposed versus existing. Thiesse stated he would like to keep the 30 feet solid and base it off of the proposed grading plan. Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3969,David Weekley Homes,Orono Preserve RPUD Agreement Amendment,with the understanding the height of the homes will be limited to 30 feet based on the proposed grading plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:33 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.) 6. #17-3964 MARY SCHOMMER,3635 TOGO ROAD,SKETCH PLAN,8:37 P.M.—9:06 P.M. Mary Schommer,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated this is a sketch plan for a proposed subdivision of a 2.34 acre property to create a total of three lots where one lot currently exists. The property is currently zoned LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, with a prescribed density of one unit per 1/2 acre. From a density standpoint,the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The northern property would be accessed off of Togo Road where the current home exists and two additional lots are proposed to access off of Northern Avenue on the south. The lots range in size between 0.51 and 0.91 acres. All lots provide the minimum lot width measured at the front setback. The proposed sketch shows the applicable setbacks and the resulting building pad areas. The project will be served by City water and sewer. A wetland has been delineated near the center of the property. The size and location of the wetland impacts the buildable area of the southern two lots. City Code requires that each sewered lot provide 0.5 acres minimum of contiguous dry buildable area. It does not appear that this standard can be met for proposed Lots 2 and 3. No house plans have been provided with the sketch plan. Unless otherwise amended,the homes will need to meet all applicable city standards. A Conservation Design plan will need to be completed as required by City ordinance. Page 17 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The project as proposed will require approval of a subdivision with some level of flexible zoning approval to account for the lack of contiguous dry buildable area for the southern two lots. A 20-foot right-of-way dedication is shown along Togo Road. The sketch drawings do not include a dedication of additional right-of-way for Northern Avenue. With half of Northern Avenue's traveled road on the railroad right-of-way, it is in the City's best interest to regain the necessary right-of-way outside the rail corridor for potential relocation of Northern Avenue should the need arise. Property subdivision is one of the few opportunities the City has to acquire necessary road rights-of-way. Curtis stated the Planning Commission should discuss the appropriate amount of right-of-way to apply to this subdivision and identify any additional issues or concerns with this application and provide some guidance to the applicant. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, stated he is representing the owner of the property and that her intention is to sell the property. Kempf indicated they are looking for direction from the City to generally understand if what is being proposed is acceptable. Kempf noted the proposed subdivision from a density standpoint is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that all lots meet the dry buildable requirement. To make this subdivision viable,the dry contiguous buildable will require the potential use of an RPUD. Kempf stated to the right of this parcel is Northern Oaks, which was done as an RPUD. The drainage from the pond in the middle of that development runs from the east and the west to a point just to the right of the big white parking lot. Kempf stated as it relates to Northern Oaks, from the left side of the pond all the way across those lots except for the two most to the west are noncontiguous. Kempf stated in his view Northern Oaks is a very good precedent both in terms of time and locale to this subdivision. Kempf stated in addition, all of those lots in the Northern Oaks development are approximately 78 feet wide,with at least four lots noncontiguous. The upper portion depicted on Exhibit B is the Togo Road side, which is 124 feet wide. Kempf stated there are no real issues there. On the south side the subdivision will create two lots of 100 feet and 114 feet wide as proposed on Northern Avenue. Kempf stated that width is very appropriate to the neighborhood and are actually some of the wider lots in the area. Kempf stated as to Staff's recommendation for a 15-foot dedication of right-of-way beyond the existing blacktop on the northern side, Staff is correct that if it was a normal dedication of right-of-way,the two lots on the southern side would be totally unbuildable. Kempf stated a 15-foot right-of-way dedication beyond the existing blacktop, plus the front setback from the right-of-way, would barely allow for an adequate 24-foot depth garage on the east lot. Kempf stated they would like to see a 13-foot setback to allow for a 26-foot deep garage. Kempf pointed out if you look at the strange shape of the buildable areas,the lot on the right will not support a garage on the left-hand side. Kempf stated it should also be noted that in 1982 the present owner provided the City of Orono a 20-foot easement all the way along the 525 feet of the east boundary. At the time of that easement,the City installed two sewer stubs at the Northern Avenue location and the owner paid special assessments. Kempf stated he heard earlier this evening it does matter if there is a sewer stub but that it is a little bit Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. different in this case because when the City was making the agreement to obtain that easement,at that time they decided they would put in two stubs. Kempf stated in his view that shows clear intent. As it relates to the buildable areas, 30 feet was given by Northern Oaks to the City. Kempf stated what the developer was looking for in that situation was to pack in as many lots from east to west as they could and that the 30-foot easement did not matter to them since it did not affect the number of lots that they were able to create. Kempf noted back in 1918,the City vacated that street and it was attached to the adjoining properties. As a result,Mary Schommer actually owns half of Northern Avenue. Kempf stated she has decided she does not want to plow it and that she is willing to give some of that back. Kempf noted it is a very different situation between Northern Oaks and this property because the 30 feet did not impact the usability of the lots in Northern Oaks. If 30 feet is required in this situation, she would be giving up the ability to sell the lots. Kempf stated as it relates to the statement that property subdivision is one of the few opportunities where the City has the ability to acquire necessary rights-of-road, all of these lots along Northern Avenue end just past the east lot. Kempf pointed out none of those lots will be subdivided and the City will never get 30 feet all the way down from Northern Oaks to the end of Northern Avenue, and even if they could get a complete stretch,the road ends at the next lot. Kempf stated he is not sure what the City would do with it and that it is not something the City needs. Kempf indicated he is in agreement with Staff that it is reasonable to give 15 feet but that it does not seem reasonable to give more simply because it makes the lots unbuildable. Thiesse asked about the front line of the buildable footprint. Kempf stated Mark Gronberg was unable to be here tonight but that he determined with the 15 feet and the front setback,they would be very, very close to the front line. Kempf stated part of the problem is the erratic boundary of the wetland. Curtis stated the wetland setback and buffer would be no less than 35 feet. Leskinen asked whether the Northern Oaks subdivision was an RPUD. Curtis indicated the resolution says RPUD but it is listed as PUD No. 9. Leskinen asked whether Staff has any preference. Curtis indicated they do not and that they are looking to see whether the Planning Commission is willing to allow some flexibility. Thiesse stated he recalls the developer wanted the lots along Northern Avenue to go through so the people would be responsible for that wetland area and that an easement was provided to get around to the other side. Thiesse stated in his view the two lots fit the neighborhood and that he is in favor of allowing some flexibility. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with that. Page 19 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated as far as the flexibility portion, if the right-of-way is taken off the front,they could reduce the front yard setback. Schwingler commented he likes flexibility being allowed as well. Thiesse stated in his view the City would allow the noncontiguous dry area. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 7. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11,2017 Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the Orono City Council on September 11: • The Dale Gustafson variance was approved on Consent. • The variance as part of the Dahl Road preliminary plat was denied. • Preliminary plat for the Lake West development for the Lupients was approved subject to 13 conditions. • The Council was not supportive of the YMCA sketch plan and generally followed the Planning Commission's direction. • Staff is moving forward with the Navarre Area Plan to ascertain what residents would like to see happen in the area. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission will start seeing more activity with the Comprehensive Plan in the spring. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schwingler asked how the Comprehensive Plan open house went. Barnhart indicated approximately 45 people attended and that there were some comments made that they liked the current direction the City is going and that the City should not introduce urban areas where there currently are none. Thiesse asked if the Pence Lane application was approved. Curtis indicated the Council provided some feedback on their sketch plan and that they are preparing an application. The applicants will no longer be pursuing a subdivision but they will be asking for variances like for the creation of private road, creation of a second back lot off the driveway, and the substandard back lot variance. Curtis stated once those variances are received, Staff can administratively move the lot line. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Page 20 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 18,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:09 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: Y ' /r John Thiesse, Chair Page 21 of 21