HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. minutes/3-17-14 . MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. #14-3656 BRIAN NELSON ON BEHALF OF THOMAS RANDGAARD,2765
SHADYWOOD ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
6:43 P.M.—7:23 P.M.
Brian Nelson, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the properiy owner was notified by the City last March that construction and/or earthwork
within 75 feet of the lake requires a permit from the City. The letter was sent to the property owner as a
courtesy in response to the City receiving notification of a Minnehaha Creek Watershed issued permit for
rip-rap work. Also in March of 2013,the property owner received a permit from the City to remove a
legally non-conforming porch from the south side of the home within 75 feet of the lake.
In February of 2014,the applicant met with Planning Staff to discuss City requirements and the various
aspects of the project that were already underway. Those projects include constructing two south facing
elevated patios to replace an existing deck on the east and an existing porch with an on-grade patio on the
west side of the property, both of which have been removed; re-paving the existing sidewalk with paver
stones;and installing two rain gardens on the north side of the property. The property owner also
received a cost-share grant from the MCWD to install shoreline buffer vegetation on the northern
shoreline.
The creation of the rain gardens and installation of the elevated patios result in filling and grading within
75 feet of the lake,which requires a conditional use permit. The sidewalk and the patios are not exact in-
kind footprint replacements according to Staff's observations. In order to reorient or relocate non-
conforming hardcover existing within 75 feet of the OHWL, a hardcover variance is required.
The applicant is requesting after-the-fact conditional use permit approvals for land alteration in excess of
ten cubic yards conducted within 75 feet of the OHWL to install rain gardens and elevated patios. An
after-the-fact hardcover variance is also requested in order to approve the rearrangement of sidewalk
hardcover as well as two elevated patios which were constructed in place of an existing porch that has
been removed and an existing deck within 75 feet of the OHWL where structure or hardcover is normally
not allowed.
Because lake exists on both the north and the south sides of the property,the majority of the subject
property is unbuildable as it is located within 75 feet of the OHWL. Lakeshore on two sides of a property
as shallow as this one creates a practical difficulty. As a result,both proposed patios are located within
75 feet of the lake. The applicant has indicated that both patios are to be constructed in the same footprint
as the pre-existing deck and porch. Hardcover within 75 feet of the lake is limited to driveways, stairs,
lifts, landings and lockboxes. The applicant intends to replace non-conforming hardcover without
increasing the square footage within the 75-foot setback.
City Code requires that landowners must obtain a conditional use permit from the City prior to engaging
in activities that include fill to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. Of the conditions required to be
met, Items 2, 6, 7,9,and 13 are generally applicable. Staff went through the analysis in the Staff report
and Staff can discuss that if the Planning Commission wishes.
According to State Statute, an existing non-conforming structure may be reconstructed in-kind provided
the permit or request to do so is submitted within one year of removal. The property owner removed the
porch in March of 2013 and the land use application was submitted on February 19,2014, less than one
Page 4 of 26
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
year after removal. Staff,however, does question the in-kind nature of the replacement since it appears
the stair of the west patio is intended to be built lakeward of the extent of the pre-existing porch.
It also appears that the elevated west patio will extend into the area of pre-existing on-grade patio. As this
and the east patio are to be elevated above grade with decorative walls and/or corner posts, it would be
considered an expansion of a nonconformity. There is also a portion of the stair on the west patio that is
entirely outside any previously existing hardcover or structure and would be considered new structure.
As it relates to the east patio,the submitted plans show a 3' x 8' stair toward the lake on the eastern deck
which is not shown on the survey. Staff would discourage the further expansion of either patio area,
particularly toward the lake. During Staffls inspection of the property,there was too much snow cover to
determine the extent of the patios. The photos taken by Staff of the property show that the short walls and
corner posts have not yet been constructed. The applicant should clarify the state of the various elements
of this project.
The property owner to the west has submitted comments and photographs.
Staff recommends after-the-fact approval of the conditional use permit and setback and hardcover
vaziances for two elevated patios, a new paver sidewalk, and installation of two rain gardens with the
following conditions:
1. The City Engineer's recommendations should be followed. Curtis noted the applicant
submitted a stormwater pollution prevention plan today.
2. The west patio should be limited to the extent of the previously existing porch footprint and not
expand lakeward or into the area of the previous on-grade patio.
3. The west patio should be screened with vegetation on the west and south sides to screen the
structure from views from the lake.
4. The east patio should not be permitted to expand closer to the lake than the previously existing
deck.
5. The east patio should be screened with vegetation as much as feasible on the south side to screen
the structure from views from the lake.
6. The eastern rain garden should be revised to meet the required 5-foot grading setback from the
property line.
7. Corrected hardcover calculations should be submitted with the administrative permit application
reflecting hardcover within and outside the 75-foot setback. Currently the numbers are
combined.
8. An after-the-fact administrative permit is required for each of the elements of the project.
The Planning Commissioners had no questions for Staff.
Page 5 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Samuel Geer, Landscape Designer, stated in terms of the concerns of City Staff, he would like to point
out is that initially they were not aware of the need to obtain a conditional use permit since they were
utilizing permeable clean rock for fill for the elevated patio deck and it was not fill in the traditional
sense. 'The excavation that would be necessary to construct the rain gardens was below the stated
threshold of 10 cubic yards in the ordinance. Upon being alerted of that fact,Geer indicated they have
endeavored to comply with all of Staff's requests in terms of additional planning and plan revisions in
terms of adding additional screening and completing a detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan,
which also includes an inspection component.
Geer stated he would also like to point out that overall this project is dedicated to reducing the amount of
hardcover presently on the property and instituting stormwater management practices, such as the
elevated paver decks,which are actually built to be permeable, as well as the rain gardens and vegetative
shoreline restoration on the north side of the property. Geer stated each of these items is intended to
offset the new construction. Likewise, it should be noted that on the west patio,the one labeled H,that
there was an existing at-grade deck that will be removed and returned to a permeable condition. Geer
stated essentially there will be a net reduction in permeable surfaces. The proposed steps located around
Patio H were located roughly over the footprint of an existing concrete slab that wooden steps stepped
down previously.
Geer stated as it relates to the steps coming off of Patio C,they are requesting that the variance basically
take into consideration the fact that overall the hardcover has been reduced in a net sense. Geer indicated
the steps are critical for the decking to match with the existing architectural interfaces.
Geer stated given the exterior elevations of the entrances and exits to the structure,an attempt to not
construct a staircase from the existing footprint would be very problematic and add greatly to the cost of
the project. It would also potentially present a safety problem by not complying with the Code in terms
of a landing. Geer indicated the steps would be inset into the patio.
Leskinen asked when he says Patio H is to be returned to a permeable state,whether it is no longer going
to be a patio.
Geer indicated that is correct.
Leskinen asked if that area is going to be grass or plantings.
Geer indicated previously this area was a three-season porch but there a brick patio around the exterior of
the three-season porch. The proposed paver deck rests within the existing three-season footprint that was
there previously.
Leskinen asked if there will be paver patio there instead.
Geer stated previously there was a three-season porch there and that the brick patio will be removed and
replaced with a mulch planting bed that will be permeable. Geer stated the dotted line depicts the existing
at-grade deck constructed out of bricks.
Brien Nelson,Applicant, indicated that deck was constructed out of pavers and has been removed. The
proposed patio will go directly with the walls as seen in the elevations. The walls will go around the patio
in the area between the three-season porch. Nelson indicated the patio will not be going any further out.
Page 6 of 26
_ MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis displayed a photograph of the house.
Nelson pointed out the location of the three season porch and the location of the foundation. Nelson
stated there will be a raised paver patio in that area.
Lemke asked what will happen to the east of that.
Nelson indicated there will be plantings in that area.
Leskinen asked if that planting area is the only area that will be going back to a permeable state as the
way permeable is defined. Leskinen noted permeable pavers are considered hardcover in Orono.
Nelson indicated it is, but noted that they are also not adding any other hardcover and will be working
within the existing hardcover areas.
Lemke noted there are a number of downspouts and asked if those are draining into French drains on the
property.
Nelson stated those were installed prior to him being involved on this project and that he is not sure where
they drain to.
Lemke stated it appears that some of those go into drain tiles near the rain gardens.
Nelson stated three downspouts will be piped directly into the rain gardens out in front and that there are
two downspouts on the western side in the front of the house and one on the farther corner of the garage.
Geer indicated he does have a drainage plan if the Planning Commission would be interested in seeing
that.
Schwingler asked where there would be room for a vegetation buffer around the west patio.
Nelson indicated there is a planting design that buffers all the way around both of the paver decks.
Schwingler noted the neighbor had expressed some concerns about screening.
Curtis displayed the planting design on the overhead.
Geer stated in order to comply with Staf�s recommendations, they have created a screening plan. The
footprint of the west deck would have a hedge to block the view of the adjacent property owner of the
new proposed porch. There are also some foundation plantings consisting of a shrub barrier that would
basically screen the front of the deck from views from the water and would provide more accented
plantings.
Leskinen asked if there is a sidewalk that goes around everything.
Nelson indicated those would be stepping stones placed in the grass.
Page 7 of 26
_ MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Geer indicated it would not be a dense flagstone pattern and it is proposed to be single steppers spaced
two feet apart. 'The hardcover calculation for that would comprise approximately 100 square feet and is
not necessarily something that would be included in the plan at this point.
Curtis noted that hardcover would require a variance.
Landgraver asked if there will be vegetation to the right of the west deck.
Geer pointed out the areas of vegetation. Geer noted the drawing is somewhat inaccurate and that some
elements are no longer planned to be included within the plan.
Leskinen stated she is wondering why a permit was not sought when the notification from the City last
March was pretty clear that a permit was required for any movement outside of the rip-rap. Leskinen
stated she has a question why the permit was not applied for until after the work was started.
Nelson indicated when he was brought on to the project in the late fall,he was inaccurately directed on
what was applied for and what was not. Since that time the front walkway has been completed within the
same footprint as the previous concrete walkway. Work was then started on the larger patio. The walls
were constructed as well as the pavers installed. At that point Nelson indicated he talked to Staff about
the project and the various things that needed to be done prior to any further work being completed.
Geer indicated there was a different project team involved with demolishing the three-season porch and
that they did not have any communication with them. Geer stated they were not aware of the stipulations
prior to notification from City Staff.
Lemke asked if a demolition permit was required.
Curtis indicated it is and that a permit had been issued in March of last year.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shadywood Road, indicated he has resided next to this property for approximately
22 years and that Mr. Randgaard has resided there for approximately ten years. Zimmerman stated in his
view Mr. Randgaard has been probably the worst possible neighbor that anyone could have. There have
been numerous police calls to the property and it has been cited previously as an unruly house.
Zimmerman stated when he first met Tom,he was told by him that he is going to have a lot of bashes at
the house,which has proven to be true.
Zimmerman indicated Mr. Randgaard has lived there a couple of brief occasions, with the house being
abandoned for approximately two and a half years with the utilities shut off. In addition,the landscape
was left to go wild and the gutters have fallen off. Zimmerman stated this has been a problem property in
the past and that at one time Mayor Gabriel Jabbour caught Mr. Randgaard bringing tankers on to the
property and the police were called.
Zimmerman stated there was never a deck in that area. The two owners who lived there prior to Mr.
Randgaard constructed a fully enclosed hot tub room off the master bedroom.
Page 8 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Zimmerman submitted some pictures of the property prior to Mr. Randgaard owning the house.
Zimmerman indicated there was never a three-season porch or a patio but a room that extended out three
to four feet that contained a hot tub.
Zimmerman stated the only use of the decks on this property has been as party decks and that large,
industrial speakers were placed on them. As a result of the noise,the police were called many times in
the early morning hours and that he is totally opposed to creating additional hardcover and putting a deck
where there was never a deck previously.
Zimmerman commented rain gardens are great and that he is supportive of those as well as the sidewalk
since the sidewalk was previously overgrown with vegetation. Zimmerman stated rebuilding the existing
deck off the family room is also not a problem but that he would strongly argue against putting another
deck onto this house that was never there in the first place. Zimmerman indicated the other neighbor feels
the same way but is currently in Florida.
Zimmerman stated he would like to get some resolution to the problems. Zimmerman noted he had to
call the police a couple of weeks because the door to the house was left wide open in 20 below weather
and that he has no idea what is happening with the house. The police informed him that no one was in the
house and that they closed the door. Zimmerman indicated this has been a bad situation for a long time.
Lemke asked what was under the hot tub and whether there was any support.
Zimmerman indicated he is not aware of what was under there and that he is assuming it was built up in
some fashion.
Schwingler asked what he feels about the proposed buffer with or without the deck.
Zimmerman indicated he does not have a problem with the buffer, but that he would not be in favor of
creating another deck since it would be close to the property line. Zimmerman stated the decks in the past
have been used to hold large parties and that the police records reflect all the calls to that property.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Landgraver stated what he is troubled with is the characterization of the west patio, and asked whether it
was permitted for something to be there.
Gaffron stated according to the photographs,there appears to be a shed or roof next to the house,and
because there is a valley coming down in that area,that is probably why there was a gap there.
Landgraver asked if at some point a deck enclosure was constructed.
Gaffron indicated there likely was but that he is not sure whether it was approved by the City.
Landgraver asked if the issue is that they are not rebuilding an in-kind structure.
Curtis stated based on the 2007 survey, it does not appear that it is entirely consistent with the structures
on the property. Curtis indicated it is difficult to go back in time to see what was there to see if they are
Page 9 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMIS5ION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
replacing it in kind,but that the photograph does show a paver patio area. Curtis stated it is not clear
from the photograph whether there is anything more than a paver patio.
Leskinen stated it appears the enclosure was there.
Curtis displayed the 2007 survey.
Lemke asked if the location of the proposed deck is actually a covered space on the survey.
Gaffron stated the survey is showing it as part of the house footprint.
Landgraver asked if the definition of in-kind is merely the footprint or whether it is the whole vertical
structure.
Curtis indicated it is not. If the structure is taller than what existed, it would not be an in-kind rebuild.
Curtis stated since the patio does not extend up as high as the previous structure, it would not be an in-
kind rebuild. Curtis noted only a portion of the patio extends outside of what existed.
Landgraver stated it appears the neighbor is concerned not necessarily about the footprint but about the
role that the patio will have.
Lemke asked if they could construct a patio in that footprint.
Curtis indicated they could rebuild a room with a roof onto the house in that area. Staf�s concern is that
it is an elevated patio and is a bigger footprint than what existed.
Leskinen stated they are putting their elevated paver patio where the room on the house used to be, and
that if it is within that footprint, it would not be an issue.
Curtis stated that is correct if it constructed in the area where the porch used to be.
Berg stated the issue would be the stairs that extend beyond that footprint.
Leskinen stated she has a concern about going beyond anything that was there. Leskinen indicated she
does not have a problem with the rain gardens and the sidewalk in the front,but that she does have issues
with going beyond what is already there in the back of the house. Leskinen stated in light of the fact that
the owner basically ignored the City's letter that permits would be required, she would be less inclined to
go beyond an in-kind replacement.
Landgraver asked what the calendar issue is that was raised in Staff's report.
Curtis stated state statute allows for someone to apply for an in-kind replacement within one year,which
has been done. The intent of the state statute is to prevent someone from tearing something off and five
years later asking to rebuild it.
Landgraver stated in his view there were different presentations and difFerent thoughts about the project
and that he is not sure what the hardcover numbers exactly are.
Page 10 of 26
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 17,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated Staff is requesting clarification on the hardcover numbers with the 75-foot setback since a
portion of the house is located within the 75-foot setback. Curtis indicated there is some hardcover in a
conforming location but it is not separated out from the 0-75 foot zone.
Landgraver asked if additional information needs to be submitted on the stepping stones.
Curtis stated she would like clarification on whether that is still part of the project since the landscaping
plan is from last June.
Leskinen stated it appears there is no flagstone walkway being proposed currently.
Schwingler stated the outline by Patio H shows what was there before and on the proposed plan the little
block is the new elevated stairs.
Curtis stated that is what she understands it to be based on the survey and the applicant's plan. Curtis
pointed out the larger patio area.
Lemke asked if the replacement is not in kind due to the elevated stairs
Curtis indicated it is also because they exist in an area that did not previously have hardcover.
Geer stated the majority of the stairs are located within the previous footprint of the brick patio and there
will only be a little piece that sticks out beyond the edges of where the pavers were previously.
Leskinen noted they were not elevated previously.
Geer stated they were not and that they are required to get from one elevation to another elevation.
Schwingler noted previously that was a wall.
Leskinen stated they could accomplish the same thing without encroaching any further and that she is not
inclined to increase the encroachment.
Schwingler and Berg indicated they are in agreement with that.
Leskinen asked if there are any concerns with the conditional use permit aspect of the application.
Landgraver indicated he does not have any.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3656,
Brian Nelson on behalf of Thomas Randgaard,2765 Shadywood Road,granting of an after-the-fact
variance and conditional use permit,subject to the conditions outlined in Staff's report and the
City Engineer recommendations,and further subject to only allowing the use of the existing
hardcover with no further encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #14-3657 REVISIONS, LLC,ON BEHALF OF LUCAS AND ELIZABETH DETOR, 1065
FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE,7:24 P.M.—7:34 P.M.
Page 11 of 26