Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-1995 Planning Commission Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2 7-b,,)eacLA 3. 4.. 41 IN i I 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 09. 20. IN '-2 Mr, TLC UV IN ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Elizabeth Hawn. Candace Rowlette was absent. The following represented the City Staff" Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council Members Goetten and Kelley were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ( #1) #2051 MICHAEL HILBELINK, 2760 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7:01 -7:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Hilbelink was present. Mabusth explained that the application is for a 4 -lot residential plat of the former Rosch homestead at the northeast quadrant of Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. The property contains a type 1 wetland. All lots meet the 2 -acre dry contiguous and width requirements. The on -site septic has been found to be conforming. All are proposed as mound systems located on slopes less than 6 %. The Planning Commission conceptually approved access for three lots from a private road with a cul -de -sac. Lot 4's access will be from an existing curb cut off Watertown. Road. A road could be platted along the east lot line with each of the 4 lots meeting area and width standards. The access plan was chosen in order to save trees, reduce the grading impact on elevations, and minimize impact on existing development to east. If a road was constructed at east lot line with four lots in the Peterman addition and three in current development would be through lots. Conditional use permits would be required for all accessory structures. The development must provide retention areas before runoff can enter the type 1 wetland. A retention pond is within lots 3 and 4 and drainage flows between the shared line of lots 2 and 3. Mabusth included the draft of the Park Commission minutes regarding the Hilbelink property for a decision on park dedication fee or land for park use. The Park Commission recommended to the Council to ask for cash in lieu of land. They asked that the land in the 8' trail be excluded from the 8% and the fee adjusted. The trail along Old Crystal Bay Road on the west side is being installed by the City. isThere were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 • ( #I - #2051 Michael Hilbelink - Continued) It was noted that additional drainage easements will be taken along the shared lot lines. No drainage easement will be taken over type l wetland. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2051 with the conditions as stated under the Staff recommendations. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #2) #2052 DOUG SAMS, 1185 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT/AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7:55 -8:14 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mabusth reported that the property is on Loma Linda Avenue. A survey of 10/93 was approved with the building permit. Mabusth said the property receives drainage from the north and west, and eventually drains through a ditch under Loma Linda, and continues to the lake. Mabusth said she has fielded a call from a neighbor and distributed a letter from Mrs. Moe, who is concerned with the filling on the Sams property and the impact from that filling on drainage. It is Moe's concern that the fill will have a negative impact on her property. Mabusth relayed the history of the drainage for the property. In the early 1980's, the Moe's were inundated with water and asked to funnel the water with tile and install rip rap. A 27" culvert was approved. A tile on the Udell's property conveys the drainage from Sams and one other property to the tile on the Moe property and then on to the lake. The Engineer was asked for his recommendation, which was faxed to Staff, and Peterson read into the minutes. Engineer Gustafson did not recall the exact concerns of the Moe's, but said it was his opinion that the fill should not have any negative impact on the Moe's. The existing channel and culvert should be adequate and little retention would be needed. If a problem exists on drainage downstream, Gustafson said a restrictor could be installed on the Sams culvert. It was suggested to ask Sams to mitigate any fill placed below the 958' elevation. Applicant Sams asked for approval to relocate the drainage easement and would rededicate a public easement. It was Sams' goal to create -a level yard with the 600 -700 cubic yards of fill. Sams said the road elevation is higher and did not feel the fill affected the drainage. Mabusth said the Engineer asked for grading of a 3:1 slope, vacation of the original easement, and dedication of a new easement. Gustafson asked for retention or restriction before the drainage goes to the culvert. • 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 • • • (#2 - M52 Doug Saris - Continued) Peterson and Lindquist questioned what would happen if a drainage problem did occur from the fill. Peterson also asked how the fill was done without a permit. Sams said when he moved in 1 -1 /2 years ago, he put his name on a list for clean fill. He followed instructions of his contractor and landscaped and sodded in August of 1994. He was notified this spring of the availability of the fill, and as a new homeowner, did not realize he was violating a rule. He was informed of the violation after the fill was delivered. Sams said he thought this was a continuation of the original construction. He added he was aware of the culvert. Smith asked what the lot looked like prior to the fill being added. Sams said he bought the 3 -acre lot in 1991. The last owner had cut alot of the dirt out and brought to another lot. Sams had been informed that the lot was partially excavated. Schroeder asked why the applicant, after being advised to stop with the fill, added more fill on top of the original load. Sams said the fill was available, and he added it knowing he was in violation. A letter received from Lyle Oman to the applicant informing him of the original violation was noted. Peterson said the Planning Commission would have to rely on the City Engineer to resolve the drainage issue. Schroeder said if the fill presented a drainage problem for the Moe's, the fill would have to be removed. Sams said he would be prepared to take the fill out if it was found to present a drainage problem for the Moe's. Mabusth said Gustafson advised that he did not believe filling on the Sams' property would have created retention or flooding problems on the Moe property. There were no public comments. Smith asked that Gustafson discuss the drainage problems with the Moe's. Peterson emphasized to Sams that no more fill could be added. Schroeder said a penalty should be assessed to the applicant. Sams said the amount of fill on his property now is all that he requires. He said he would mitigate the flow through the culvert and assist the Moe's, if necessary. Schroeder said if a problem is found to exist, it was created by the applicant. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #2 - #2052 Doug Sams - Continued) Lindquist said the applicant should submit an amended grading plan. The Planning Commission should also receive feedback from the Engineer on the grading and the situation with the neighbors. Mabusth said another neighbor has called about drainage problems too. It was decided that too much information was missing at this time. It was noted that erosion control efforts have been made with silt fencing. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2052 to allow the applicant to hire a consultant for a detailed grading plan and for meeting with the Engineer on the drainage situation. Ayes b, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS ( 0) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUNTANIS, 1098 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION - 7:13 -7 :55 P.M. Mr. Gountanis was present and had asked the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. There was a question regarding the original plan and it's approval regarding a second story elevation above the garage, which was not seen or discussed. The applicant provided the floor plan, which includes two bedrooms with closets and two bathrooms with a hallway and door into a large room planned to be used as a game room. This second story will be accessed from a stairway. Peterson remarked that the approval was for the residence to be within the same footprint with no further expansion. The lot is very small, which would create problems with any expansion. Lindquist and Smith agreed that a second story to the garage would be too massive for the property. Gountanis responded that approval had been recommended for case #3 involving new construction instead of repair within the same footprint and a maximum lot coverage of 1500 s.f. The house structure is 2 -story, and the 22x22' garage is an addition. Gountanis said the setback was defined by the horizontal and not by height. He had thought a 2- story garage was approved and noted no condition made on the height of the structure. The statistics of the lot and variances were restated, and the three case options were reviewed for clarification and refreshment. It was noted that the elevations did show a 2- • story garage but approval did not include the same. The lack of detail in the floor plans was also brought to the attention of the applicant. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) Mabusth reported that it had been stated at the prior Planning Commission meeting that the Commission was an advisory body only and made recommendations to the Council, who is the determining body for all applications. The applicant was warned of this, and applicant advised he would go forward with the purchase based on the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission did not allow excess of structural coverage and said they were dealing with intensification of the structure on a sub - standard lot. The applicant referred to the Planning Commission action notice, which relayed an attached 22x22' garage was recommended with a minimum setback of 3' and adjacent to the right side. It also noted the 1500 s.f lot coverage maximum. Gountanis said it did not mention not allowing a 2 -story garage. Lindquist said the approval was for a 2 -story house but the Planning Commission was unaware of a 2 -story garage. Smith said the location of the door was determined due to the need for minimal impact on • the public right of way. Gountanis said the elevation plan was presented showing the 2 -story garage, which was verified by Mabusth. Peterson, who was not in attendance at that particular meeting, noted that the minutes of the July 17 meeting made no reference to a second story for the garage nor were any detailed floor plans presented. The applicant responded that he could not provide detailed floor plans without knowing what the rules were. The plans call for the same foot print, which is 980 s.f for the residence plus the garage area, for a total of 1492 s.f. The structural coverage amount deals only with the foot print itself, not the square footage of the interior. It would not include the second story of the house or of a garage. The ordinance relating to a no massing effect was mentioned. It was also noted that the survey was current. Hawn said she was not present at the meeting when the recommendation was made. However from the discussion tonight, if a second story to the garage was discussed, it would be denied. Hawn said the Planning Commission's duty is to provide the best recommendation to the Council along with the best advice. At this time, a 2 -story garage on that lot has been determined to be too much. The best recommendation and advice gained from this meeting then would be to deny the second story to the garage. • There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) Lindquist said he would not approve the 2 -story garage. Peterson said the garage was only shown as a 2 -story on the elevation drawing. Schroeder said considerable progress has been planned for the property with the house being moved back out of the 0 -75' setback area and believed this was enough to warrant approval for the 2 -story garage. Gountanis said the reason case #3 was chosen was to improve all the setbacks. He said he felt he had made concessions. It was key to Gountanis to maintain the basic shape and gain as much house on the foot print as possible. Gountanis emphasized that he tried to accomodate the recommendations of the Planning Commission and stay within the guidelines. Peterson said he agreed with that summation. He noted that alternatives were limited, and the issue of the 2 -story garage was a misunderstanding and an oversight. Peterson said he would be inclined to vote for approval. • Mabusth said the oversight was the reason the application was brought back before the Commission. The oversight was also on the applicant's part for not bringing to the attention of the Commission the desire for the garage to be two stories. Gountanis said he did not know it would be a concern. It was further noted that cases 1 and 2 did not present the garage as two stories, only one. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the plan for a 2 -story garage. Ayes 4, Hawn, Smith, Berg, Lindquist; Nays, 2, Schroeder, Peterson. Motion for denial approved. • The applicant asked what was the definition of a one -story garage. Mabusth said there was not one but it must be within the setbacks. Gountanis asked if he could follow the roof line of the house. Berg suggested following the same pitch, but lowering it one story, and demonstrated what she meant on the overhead. Mabusth said the design plan should be reviewed. Ann Stevens voiced her frustration to the Planning Commission regarding the oversight, the lost month of construction time, the costs involved in redesigning by the architect; adding, she wanted the Council to review the plan. She also said she was confused that it was noted the floor plans were not detailed, when she felt Mabusth had said the plans were the best. Mabusth clarified that she had said the plans were adequate for the review and addressed all pertinent issues. 6 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #4) #2039 WALLY AND SHARON CARSON, 3010 SOMERSET LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9 :07 -9 :17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. Carson were present, along with their contractor, Mark Gronberg. The application is for a decorative pond within a type 1 wetland. It is presently under review with the Corp of Engineers, who is reviewing the project with other agencies and checking for effect on the wetlands. The property is a 3 -acre parcel with 1 acre of type 1 wetlands. The residents within the subdivision are asking for assurance that the pond would not affect their properties. Gronberg said the 1650+ cubic yards of fill will be used for back filling. The Watershed District was said to believe there would be no negative impact from the pond construction. Peterson asked for the reason for building a pond. Gronberg said there was a two -fold purpose. One reason is for beautification of the site to create a higher type 3 wetland, and the other is to use the fill for the house pad. Peterson said the question is always what is a pond. The Planning Commission does not want a round bowl with gravel and mowed grass up to its edges. The Commission would like to see more type 3 wetland ponds, which would include no mowing within 10' of the pond to encourage native growth. Mabusth said this was noted in the Engineer's recommendation. Gronberg said this was shown in the configuration for the pond. Mabusth asked the applicant what the maximum depth would be of the pond. It would be 6 -8' deep. Smith asked Staff to ensure the standards are consistent with the pond development plans made for another project on Orono Orchard Road. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a 6' deep pond with the moving of 1650 cubic yards of fill to create a type 3 wetland with the standards developed with the pond on the Spencer property on Orono Orchards. No mowing would be allowed within 10' of the pond. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #5) #2042 THOMAS FRANK, 1233 BRIAR STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:14 -8:23 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. Frank were present. 7 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #5 - #2042 Thomas Frank - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property is a lakeshore lot on a natural environment OHW, French Creek Lake. There are no improvements within the 75' setback. A structural on a OHW requires a 150' setback. There are some hardcover improvements at 75. The proposal requires an average lakeshore setback variance. The house is within the 50' street setback. The proposed deck requires a setback variance. The deck exists at 1.3T and is proposed at 131'. The proposal requires a 3' average lakeshore setback variance. Peterson read into the minutes a letter from the DNR, which recommends the proposal, with two conditions. They ask for screening and relocation of the deck to another area of the home. Peterson did not see where the deck could be repositioned. Mabusth said the setting is very natural and no visual screening is needed. It was determined that the DNR had not been on site in reviewing the proposal. Schroeder asked if the deck could be smaller. Mrs. Frank said, although it could be a little smaller, the steps for the deck allow access to the driveway, and the deck only extends 6' from the house. Mr. Frank said the hardcover is within the 25% allowable at 19.14% and ask for approval as proposed. Mabusth asked the Commissioners if they would give approval for structure within the street setback. Lindquist and Peterson saw no problem. Mabusth will contact M.r Richter of the DNR. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2042 to extend the deck based on the lack of another area in which to relocate the deck and the proposal having no impact on its surroundings. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#6) #2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to table the application until the September 1.8 meeting at the request of the applicant. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #7) #2045 JOHN STEINMETZ, 1155 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:23 -8:40 P.M. • The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Steinmetz was present. 8 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #7 - #2045 John Steinmetz - Continued) Mabusth reported that this property is located at the intersection of Brown Road South and Willow Drive with the house on higher elevations from adjacent roadways. The original driveway has been relocated to Willow Drive along with a new detached garage. New landscaping has also been done. The proposal requires structural coverage and street setback variances for a covered deck to be installed around the entire residence along with a single story addition at the NE corner of existing residence. Dave Zetterstrom of the Hennepin DOT said there was no minimum setback requirement from a county road. The deck is proposed at 8' width with a 2' overhang extending over the deck and would be located approximately 44' from Willow Drive and 0' from Brown Road South. The structural coverage variance is magnified by the new addition. It exists at 9.3% and is proposed at 16.3% for 260 s.f. or 1.3% excess. No hardcover problems exist. Commissioners discussed ways to eliminate the structural coverage problem. The code allows 15% of area for properties under 2 acres. Peterson suggested the deck and overhang be used on three sides of the home. Hawn suggested eliminating the deck from is the Brown Road side of the residence. The applicant emphasized a four -sided deck and overhang for consistency and for an aesthetically pleasing look. It was suggested to recalculate the deck at 6' in order to maintain the consistency in look, to move back away from the county road, and stay within the structural coverage guidelines. Schroeder noted the considerable hardships. The higher elevation at the road side was noted. Lindquist said downsizing 1 -1/2' all around would meet the requirements. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2045 with the condition the structure is within the maximum of 15% lot coverage to allow the applicant flexibility, and to be at least 2' off the setback line to the county road and the Brown Road right of way. Mabusth asked the applicant to have the surveyor locate the ditch area and traveled road within the right of way. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #8) #2046 LAKEVIEW GOLF, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:40 -8 :52 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. • The applicant and the builder were present. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #8 - #2046 Lakeview Golf - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application was to construct a storage building and to rebuild the 15th and 16th fairways on the SE corner of the golf course. It was noted that the 1974 survey did not include an existing storage building or applicant's house, which is a separate homestead property. It also does not show the RLS correctly. Gaffron asked for an updated survey to be completed as part of the approval. The storage building is proposed at 45x100' in size to be located in the northwest quadrant, 640' from North Arm Road, and visible from both North Arm Drive West and CoRd 19. The building would exceed the 3,000 s.f of building limit at 4,500 s.f. The code allows for an accessory structure on a 9 acre parcel of 3000 s.f. with 6000 s.f maximum for total of all accessory structure footprint areas. Gaffron noted that an amendment has been drafted to allow 200 s.f of accessory structure for each additional acre. 17 acres would be required to support the accessory structure under that amendment. A concern with the proposal is the open view of the accessory structure. It is anticipated that none of the existing mature trees would be removed to accomodate this building. The building will be an average of 16.5' in height of a pole barn type. Screening is • recommended along with color of materials to be chosen to blend into the scenery. The relocation of fairways #15 and #16 will require movement of 1800 cubic yards of fill within the site. As part of a sketch plan, a 2 acre lot subdivision is also proposed. The applicant said the proposal would require carving out of a hill in order to create a view of the green on the second shot. Gaffron said the City Engineer had no problem with the grading. If it is approved, Staff asks that the applicant adher to Best Management Practices in regards to erosion and runoff control. Revegetation would occur as soon as possible in order to play the holes the next year. Peterson asked what color was proposed for the storage building. The applicant said a green or earth tone would be attractice. Smith asked why such a large structure was required. The applicant said the amount of equipment, such as mowers, back hoe, loaders, mulchers, has increased over the years and need to be stored. The majority of the equipment is now outside. It was noted there would be no access to this structure. Smith asked if the smaller storage building could be removed. She was informed that the other building houses the golf carts. Smith also inquired about screening, which is also proposed. Peterson said a CUP to move the fill around should not create any problems as it is not on the roadway and also saw no problem with the size of the structure. Peterson suggested the applicant work with Staff on screening. 10 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #8 - #2046 Lakeview Golf - Continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval for a 4500 s.f storage building, work with Staff on a screening plan, to relocate the 15th and 16th fairways with the movement of fill on the property, and to update the survey at the end of the building process. Tom Major asked how the site was selected. The applicant said the site was in the middle of 3 holes, and the only good spot where there are lots of trees to block it out. Ayes 6 Nays 0. (#9) #2048 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT,1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:52 -9:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicant. Mabusth noted that approval has been granted for a green house, a guest house, and a 2- level caretaker residence within this property. The current application is for the conditional use permit for a studio apartment within the upper level of the oversized accessory structure and will act as an independent structure with its own kitchen and entry. If sewer comes to the property, all accessory structures will be considered. The sewer is likely to occur and hopefully scheduled for 1996 awaiting completion of comprehensive plan amendment and Met Council approval. The property's scheduled date of 1995 to update the septic will be to be refigured if sewering is not done. Crawford said the construction company would like to be off -site and completed before 1996. Peterson said he saw no problem with the studio apartment and saw the issue needing resolve as sewer. Peterson is concerned with the lapse of time and the need for protection, questioning whether the septic is able to handle all of the current usage. Schroeder asked how many people live on the premises. Mabusth said there would be a total of six bedrooms within structures. Although components of the kitchen, etc., were in place according to Crawford, Mabusth said the studio apartment is a separate residential unit. Mabusth further added that no floor plans were ever provided to Orono Staff of this building. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #9 - #2048 James & Joann Jundt - Continued) Mabusth said the septic is non - conforming, and it is being questioned what affect the apartment would have on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good idea to ask for septic inspections. Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to fail. Crawford noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the applications. Schroeder added that the City cannot allow more people to reside on the property than the septic can handle. He is in favor of inspections; and if the system fails, Schroder said that would affect the conditional use permit. The property has two separate septic units, one for the main residence and one for the accessory structures. The septic units do not meet the separation requirements. Peterson commented that normal inspections occur every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be inspected more often. Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, for approval of a studio within the oversized accessory structure, subject to conditions of the CUP with inspections of existing relevant • system every two months to show its capability in handling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the applicant for extra inspection time. Gafl'ron remarked that the earliest date for sewering of the property would be the end of 1996. It is Staffs sense that the septic is not running out onto the ground, but noted the 3' separation is not met. It is possible that the system may not be able to handle the usable wastes during this period of time. If this is found to be true, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basis. There were no public comments. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented on an issue with tree removal in the 0 -75' zone for waterproofing of a tunnel that was not approved by Staff. All of the earth around the tunnel was moved during the waterproofing process. Staff will ask for replanting of these trees. Crawford commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0 -75' setback. An amended application will be coming before the Planning Commission on this issue and is not part of this application. ( #10) #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA 10 ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:25 -9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. 12 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) The applicants were present. Gaffron reported the application was to replace an existing deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavated from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition. Replacement would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the frost line. This would all occur within the 0 -75' setback area and require hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42' from the lake, and the 8x24' deck would be located 34' from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the application based on the existing house being within 75' of the lake and proposed porch and deck increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be within the 37.5' shore impact zone. 0 Gaffron noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48 %, resulting in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanency. Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8' gravel driveway located in the 0 -75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. The applicant said the property was overgrown and buildings were found to be deteriorated. There is a tank on the property but the reason for it is unknown. During clean up, the driveway to the lake was discovered. Two 20 -yard dumpsters were used to remove debris from the yard and house. An outhouse sized building still exists by the lakeside. Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the filling on the top dressing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed. It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so shaded that sod will not grow and thought a wall would help. It is the applicant's desire to keep the property natural. Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussion. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) Lindquist asked why the deck and porch would be beyond the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0 -75' zone as possible. It was noted that there is a lx6' patio extention leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. Gaffron asked the Commission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to On light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gain the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s.f of hardcover has been removed and felt they were being • sensitive to that issue. The applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8' instead of 8'6 ". Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested the driveway extension and outhouse -size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peterson asked if the issue is altering the Lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline. Gaflron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip -rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. 14 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement of the deck and screened porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. Approval was recommended for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast side. No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal of the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the existing accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to include the bench -deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #11) #2050 WILLIAM TOLES, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUSLIC HEARING - 9:48 -10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gaffron reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a pool on the lake side of the property, which was purchased by the applicant in July of 1995. The pool would create a 15' average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 75 -250' zone from 33.1% to 32.6 %. Gaffron compared the application to a 1988 variance approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is now exceeded. There continues to be no hardcover in the 0 -75' zone. The 75 -250' zone was approved in 1988 for 29.5 %, but exists at 33.1 %, and is proposed at 32.6 %. The 250 -500' zone was approved in 1988 for 24.1 %, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a slightly different base lot area for each zone. What Gaffron thinks happened is the driveway portion was eliminated but rock beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were listed separately. The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and the garage addition built. The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced with hard surface. The 1390 s.f. of land in base area calculation change and 400 s.f of concrete patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardcover within 115' of the lake. In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, there was 21.7% before, and as approved, in 1988, . now existing at 22.1 %, and proposed at 21.8 %. 15 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #11 - #2050 William Toles - Continued) The applicant said the property has huge spaces of green and assumed there was enough space to warrant a pool. He is willing to make any changes necessary without destroying the house to accomplish the pool. The applicant said the deck is not matching and is in stages of deterioration. He would like to make the deck congruent with the pool. It is within his plan to adjust the decking amount. The deck is needed to gain access to the house which is elevated but not necessary to sit on. Peterson said while the average lakeshore setback is generally a most sensitive issue, it is not an issue here. Because the pool is below grade, there is no visual impact. The hardcover itself is the issue of concern. Again, trading plastic for a swimming pool, is an issue. Mark Gronberg said the shape of the lot was unique. The property is large but a big portion is taken out of the 75 -250' zone. He reitereated that all hardcover is back from the lake beyond 115' creating a good buffer. Schroeder asked the applicant what removals he had in mind for the deck. Toles said he would like to shorten the deck where the massive deck areas are located. He was told he would not need approval to do this. A question not dealt with was whether the 4' overhang with an area below it was considered hardcover. Although there is a net decrease in the hardcover, it is trading structure for non - structure. Peterson noted there are no accessory structures but the garage. There were no public comments. Smith asked for the Commission to see the decks plans to accomodate trading hardcover for hardcover. The applicant said he would be shrinking the size of the decking with or without approval for the pool. Peterson said with removal of plastic and some deck, it would not be a large isue. He also noted with all of the green space, there was good drainage on the property. Smith said she felt there was a problem with trading the pool for plastic under an overhang and questioned whether the plastic would be back in place within five years. The applicant said the house does not have a basement and the deck does help keep the rain away and would like to keep the deck by the house. The odd - shaped lot was again noted by Schroeder, who reiterated no structure or hardcover was located in the 0 -75' zone. Peterson said he would recommend approval with the applicant working with Staff to reduce hardcover beyond the 400 s.f reduction planned in the deck/patio area. 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #11 - #2050 William Toles - Continued) Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the request for hardcover and average Lakeshore setback variances to construct a swimming pool on the lake side of the existing residence with maximum hardcover allowance of 32.6% with more reduction if possible. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #12) #2054 TONY EIDEN COMPANY, 2700 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:12 -10 :17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. Mabusth reported the application is for a conditional use permit required for filling of approximately 500 cubic yards of fill for an undeveloped property within the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition. The fill would be an improvement on the drainage creating a gentler slope to the type 1 wetlands to the northwest. The drainage flows under Countryside but would have no impact on the approved drainage plan within the subdivision. The Engineer asked that erosion control be placed along the wetland prior to construction and • a swale be constructed on the southeast side of the driveway to prevent drainage into the septic site areas. Gronberg said the grading was necessary for creating a nice drive to the house as it could not be raised any further. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, for approval per the Staff recommendations. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth said Eiden would bring the application before the next Council meeting. ( #13) #2055 TONY EIDEN COMPANY, 2800 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST /2425 THOROUGHBRED LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:17 -10:28 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant's representative, Mr. Dillerud, was not present. Peterson suggested tabling the application, but those present in the audience asked to give 18 their input at this time on the application. 17 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #13 - #2055 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the application. The applicant is seeking to construct a monument at the subdivision entrance at Thoroughbred Lane and Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road and Countryside Drive West 30' in diameter with 50 linear feet of retaining wall at height of 3- 3-1/2'. The monument would be of a horse drinking water from a fountain. A setback variance would be required because of the size of the monument. Peterson said there was an existing ordinance in effect dealing with entrance monuments, and it should not be changed. The applicant, however, does have a right to come before the Commission for a variance. A letter from Bruce Kokal asking for rejection of the proposal was read into the minutes. Mabusth asked that all members of the audience present in relation to this application sign in on the attendance sheet for the record. There were 10 people present who were in opposition to the application. Mabusth said she would notify the applicant of their displeasure with the proposal. Anne Bowman, 10 So. Willow Drive, said she was not notified of the application. George Stickney said he lives at the end of the development. It was his opinion that the monumernt would create a huge maintenance and vandalism problem. Stickney said the monument would be an issue for the homeowners association. Stickney said he was on the architectural review commission for the homes being built in the subdivision. Mayor Callahan was asked if it was required to table the application without the presence of the applicant. Callahan said there was no requirement to do so, but it was what was generally done. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2055. Callahan asked Staff to convey to the applicant the feeling of the audience and the Planning Commission. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #14) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:28 -10:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mrs. Wigley, and landscape architect, Matt Laue, were present. 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 0 ( #14 - 92056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application is for land alteration conditional use permit and variance to excavate in the 0 -75' zone and to install boulder retaining walls. Code sections prohibit grading within 75' of the lake, as well as any hardcover in that area, and requires a CUP for lakeshore alteration. The application proposes two tiers of boulder walls; one at the top of a 2:1 slope, the other at the base of that slope in the flood plain next to the lake. The walls would taper to a 3:1 slope. A retaining wall at the top of the slope would be extended to make the lawn level. A MCWD permit is required to build within that flood plain. A previous contractor had been turned down by MCWD when he applied for their permit. Gaffron said he had spoken with the MCWD, who saw no need for the walls. Gaffron said he concurs with the finding that the walls would provide no significant stabilization. Showing an elevation sketch, Gaffron said the wall would be exposed 5 -112 of the 17' height at the lake. It would be difficult to screen all of this wall. Gaffron said Staff sees little justification for the walls unless there was imminent failure of the slopes. Walls are not normally approved by the City for aesthetic reasons or for surface soil erosion. The erosion occurring by the house is in the shaded area. Fill would make this area to the north and south more level and could possible be screenable with vegetation. Staff currently views the site has having a natural state of shoreline, and changing it as proposed will yield a layered look of ornamental vegetation. The Engineer has found no problem with the proposal from an engineering standpoint, but notes there is no evidence that the slope is about to fail. Gaffron said the hardcover had not been measured. There is mulch with fabric within the 0 -75', some of which Gaffron said should stay and some should be removed. There is likely a need to stabilize the ground where no grass is growing to control the erosion. The drainage around the house drains towards the neighbor and fans out. Peterson asked the applicant why she felt the walls were needed. Mrs. Wigley said it was her feeling that erosion was occurring on both sides of the house as well as being the issue on the hill. Her main concern is for safety of her family noting the vegetation on the hill is full of poison ivy and poison oak. Wigley did not wish to remove the natural look of the hill with grass. She said she is a maintenance -type person, who likes to take care of the problem before the hill falls down and would like to remove the poisong ivy and oak. Schroeder said the applicant could replace the poison ivy and oak with other vegetation without requiring boulder walls. Gaffron said the City feels there is no need to grade the hillside to get rid of the poison ivy and oak, and there is no slope problem requiring the wall. Gaffron did agree that leveling of the top area would be helpful. Schroeder said he agreed that erosion was occurring on the sides of the house, and maybe at the top of the slope, but did not see any erosion at the bottom. 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 • ( #14 - 92056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) Peterson told the applicant that the Planning Commission does not want residents to wait until a hill is eroding, but he also did not see any problem except by the house. The weeds and the structure on the hill should hold back the hill while revegetating according to Peterson. It was also noted that the stairway was in good solid condition. Gaffron inquired about a drainage pipe found on the property. The applicant said she had no idea what was the reason for the pipe. The contractor said he would check on the pipe. Laue said defoliating would be difficult and would kill the undergrowth. Hawn asked what would be used to kill the poison ivy and oak voicing her concern with chemicals washing into the lake. Laue said a spray would be allowed to dry resulting in no run off. Laue said the top wall would hold back erosion from the house area. It is his plan create a swale with the boulder wall being located higher and the soil lower to catch the drainage and allow it time to percolate thru the soil. Lane said an original permit was denied by the MCWD, not because of the plan, but because the neighbor's contractor was under investigation. The neighbor was asking for a similar boulder wall. Schroeder said it would be hard to believe that the permit was denied for any other reason than merit. Schroeder said the City's Comprehensive Plan sets guidelines for lakeshore. The Plan requires that natural vegetation be preserved as much as is practical. If erosion is present, rip rap can be used. The City recommends a natural look. The applicant asked what was the definition of erosion. It was noted that no erosion was noted by either the Engineer, Staff, or the Planning Commissioners. Schroeder said the only erosion noted was near the home, which can be assisted with walls at that location. Wigley said she was looking at taking the grass out and putting in vegetation. Lane said the mulch will also be removed. Gaffron asked if the walls were to be approved, what construction process would be used for this project. Laue said two options were available. If permission were received from the neighbor, he would come across their property, drop the materials over the hill to be placed by a machine at the bottom. The other alternative would be to bring in the wall material over the lake during the winter and install it in the spring. Gaffron read into the minutes a letter received from the DNR noting their concern with retaining walls removing the natural vegetation, with screening, erosion control of the steep slopes, and concern over water level and ensuing construction. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 0 ( #14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) Hawn said if the boulder walls were wanted to hold soil before revegetation, a landscaper should be able to provide plants that germinate quickly. Silt fencing was noted to be an option to prevent erosion into the lake while vegetation was germinating. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2056 for redesigning and gaining of a MCWD permit. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist said the walls would more than likely be denied by the lake and is not in favor of going ahead with this proposal. Schroeder said if erosion was clearly shown, then he would be willing to look at the proposal. Smith said she did not see the project to include boulder walls. The applicant responded that her major concern for the project was the safety of her children. ( #15) #2057 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:58 -11:22 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Nystrom and his architect, Greg Frazee, were present. Gaffron reported that the application has been amended and is now proposed as a residential tear down and replacement. The principal structure is presently located within . the 0 -75' zone and is proposed at the 75' line with a 10' wide deck encroaching the 0 -75' zone. The detached garage will also be taken down and reconstructed to meet the setback requirements. Hardcover in the 0 -75' zone would be significantly reduced with increases shown in the 75 -250' and significantly so in the 250 -500' zone. The side setback is proposed at 9.5' where 10' is required. The average lakeshore setback is also an issue to the house on the north. Lindquist asked if the deck and house could be moved back 10', resulting in no hardcover in the 0 -75' zone. Frazee said this could be done but preferred the proposed scenario. The house to the south extends into the 75' setback with a porch touching the side lot line. With the proposed house located at the 75' line, it allows the applicant to maintain the same view as the neighbor and the ability to look beyond the house. If the house is moved back 10', the view of the lake would be limited. Lindquist said he had a problem with an structure in the 0 -75'. q p Y 21 t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #15 - #2057 James Nystrom - Continued) Peterson said if a new house was built to the north, it also would be at the 75' line. Schroeder appreciated the tremendous improvements made in the proposal and saw no problem with the deck as there were hardships with the house. Hawn asked why the 10' side setbacks could not be met. Frazee said he worked with the floor plan trying to minimize room sizes to meet the requirement. He found it would be necessary to move rooms upstairs, and it was the intent of the applicant to maintain an understated and lower profile. Peterson read into the minutes a letter received from the DNR recommending denial of the application due to structure within the 0 -75' zone. The DNR determined a reasonable alternative would be to move the structure back 10'. Peterson informed the applicant that this is the only opportunity the City has to make properties meet current codes. Schroeder noted lakeshore properties are a "Catch 22" proposition. Owners want to be on the lake; yet it is bad for the lake. Gaffron noted that the average setback, lot area, and lot width problems are inherent to the property. The pertinent facts relating to the existing and proposed houses were reviewed. A major improvement with setbacks was proposed for the garage. Schroeder moved to approve Application 92057 as proposed due to the obvious hardships of the property, the substandard lot, the considerable effort to meet regulations, in particular the 0 -75' zone, to warrant the proposed exceptions. There was no second to the motion. Peterson said the property had the amount of space needed to move the house back and set the standards where they would meet City requirements. The applicant said there was a privacy issue involved. The neighbor's screen porch being on the property line looks directly into the home. Lindquist said, although the reasons were valid, many other applications also have valid reasons. He noted it was becoming more difficult to allow any encroachment into the 75' lakeshore area. Schroeder agreed. Gaffron said the City cannot predict what will happen with other homes in the area. Decisions cannot be made based on possible predictions. The applicant said the home to the south was in good condition. s 22 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #15 - #2057 James Nystrom - Continued) Lindquist said there were three choices, to table the application, deny the proposal, or approve the proposal with an amendment moving all structure out of the 75' area. The applicant suggested amending the application to move the structure and deck back 10'. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2057 with the stipulation that all structure be moved back out of the 0 -75' setback zone. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #16) #2058 RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS INC., 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLANNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:22 -11:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant and contractors, Keith Waters and Blake Bichanich, were present. Mabusth reported that the proposal is for a commercial office building just south of the intersections of CoRds 15 and 19. The property is made up of 3 vacant lots, two of which front CoRd 19 with a 250' frontage and zoned B -4 commercial. The other lot to the rear is zoned residential and would support a duplex. The lots would be combined, and a . single office building would be erected to house a national office center for Autografs, Inc. The applicant proposes to reduce the amount of parking available to what actual usage is predicted and provide space for future expansion if needed. The goal is to maintain open space with plantings. It is the applicant's desire to protect the wooded, treed area. There is a provision for future parking with the current plans. The business is a prototype, and the applicant would like to know if there is an ability to expand the building and parking into the residential zoned area in the future if needed. Retaining ponds would be located on the property with drainage for the initial building and expansion proposed to drain into the pond. It would be connected with a 12" culvert. All drainage will be directed away from Kelley Avenue and to the east under County Road 19. Ron Rantz relayed the background on the use. The building would be a corporate office and graphic design center using 3M technology. The company is creating a marketplace for the technology. The computer work and production would be performed on the premises to include a printing area that would create the graphics thru computers that would go out to kiosks within car dealerships nationwide. The location was chosen due to nearness to 3M and Rantz' home. The number of employees would be limited. The technology requires a controlled environment of temperature and humidity for the printing process. Rantz reported that there would be no chemical concerns as there is nothing toxic within the toners used. The product is the same as that used in lazer toners. The process electrostatically feeds off of the humidity and air. People are able to remain in the room throughout the process with no personal harm. 23 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Smith asked if there would be any materials needing discarding on the premises. The applicant said he would need to look into that matter with 3M. If a disposal area was needed, Berg asked where this would occur. Mr. Waters said it would be contained within the building. The lower level plan for the property is designed as a loading and receiving area, which would be covered and heated. Deliveries by UPS -sized trucks would be made about weekly with pick ups daily. The film has to be stored in a controlled environment and then acclimated to the room. The loading area would be part of the building itself. Rantz said this loading area as well as the shipping areas were excluded from the net floor area calculations. Mabusth said the loading berth would not need to be included in the calculations but the shipping area should be. Mabusth said in determining parking spaces, if shipping area is included in net floor area, 67 parking stalls would be required. It is presently shown as 64, with 3 more needed. There would be no problem with locating those stalls on site. is Schroeder asked how many employees would work in the building. The 25 -30 employees would be involved in administration and production with 10 -15 graphic designers, who would be on a part-time basis. Rantz said 10 -15 employees would be on the premises at one time. Rantz said the building is large for the proposed business to be conducted, but large tables are needed, 20 -25' long to lay out the graphics. The shipping area will require the space for vehicles to pull in for installation of graphics being provided for public reviewal. These vehicles would be used as models. Schroeder asked if there would be a car wash on the premises. Rantz said the cars would be sent out to be washed, even in the winter. Only slight clean up will be conducted in the building. Rantz said the cars used as models would not be done on a daily basis. They are for experimental use only to see if the graphic will work on a vehicle. Testing the graphics on cars is needed to determine the perimeters. Berg asked if the process was odorless and requires any ventilation. The applicant said the process is completely self - contained in a sealed controlled humidity. The air is recirculated within the building. 3M is said to have an environmental room similar to the one proposed. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if this use was an appropriate use. No variances would be required, and the lots would be legally combined. 24 NaNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Berg was informed, when asked, that no drainage would flow from this property to Kelly Avenue. Schroeder noted that the proposed building was very large for new technology. Waters said the technology has existed and proven to work Schroeder also reiterated the relayed information given by the applicant of an air infiltration system, similar to a big computer room, with no hazardous materials used. Smith asked if the product would be taken to the public or to businesses. She was informed that the product would be taken to the general public this fall as well as to a production center located in California. The application of the decals is performed, however, at the car dealerships. The appropriateness of the use was discussed within the B4 zoning district. Mabusth said the Planning Commission needed to determine if the business meets the intent of the B -4 zoning code. Schroeder said the use as an office is met but other areas may be more problematic. As a building for creative use, Peterson said it falls under items 11 and 18. The intent of the B4 is its relationship to residential area as an administrative office • building with limited public access and no exterior sales. Peterson said he saw the proposal as an appropriate use. Hawn questioned the expansion and using residential property for the purpose of expansion. The applicant said it was unknown if expansion would be needed. Mabusth said the residential lot could not be used for any expansion without rezoning. Lindquist and Berg informed the applicant that they would probably not agree to allow any expansion within the residential area. The applicant asked why he should have to pay taxes on a piece of property if he is unable to expand onto it and has no use for it. Mabusth said a 24' road would have been required and the 35' setback to rear lot line. The applicant was shown to benefit with owning this lot as he would be able, with having the residential lot as part of the combined lots, to construct the structure at the lot line without encroachment into the residential area. Otherwise, there would be a 35' rear yard setback required. The combination of the three lots allows the applicant some flexibility. The applicant asked if he would be able to propose rezoning of the lot in the future. He was informed that this would be possible, but was also informed that the Planning Commission was unable to make such commitments to applicant. This was an issue to be best addressed by the City Council. 0 Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2058. 25 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Rantz asked if it could be proven that the parking was adequate for expansion, would the City allow 44 stalls. Rantz was informed that this would be satisfactory but no recommendation could be made for expansion into the residential zone. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS ( #17) #2043 GORDON JAY BUHRER, 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN AND PROPOSED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION The applicant was not present. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2043. Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #18) #2047 LAKEVIEW GOLF, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - SKETCH PLAN OF SINGLE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Mr. Wenkstern was present. • Gaffron said the sketch plan is for a 2 -acre lot to be subdivided from the 130 acre golf course for a single family residence. The land is unused and considered surplus. The zoning is RRIB rural residental requiring 2 acres with 200' frontage on the road. It is located outside the MUSA requiring septic and well. There is sewer in the street but it is not accessible. To change MUSA boundaries is problematic. Connection would require Met Council approval. Staff recommends septic and well. The mound -type septic sites in the sketch plan may work but there might be a need to expand the boundaries due to the steep slopes. A southern driveway was determined to be the likely approach according to the Engineer. Lindquist asked if the applicant proposes any other parcels to be divided from the golf course. The applicant said he was looking to build on the property for himself. Wenkstern said he preferred the driveway to the north side to be further from any balls being hit. Gaffron said the slope created problems with sight distance. The applicant asked if there was a setback for a driveway entrance. Gaffron said Staff looks for 5' but there is no setback for driveways. There would have to be a separation as no grading is allowed within 5' of the lot line, and the intent is to provide a place for snow storage on the lot next to the driveway. It was noted that septic testing would need to be completed. The applicant was informed that 80% of new systems are mound -type due to the soil conditions within Hennepin County. • 26 • C� • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #18 - 92047 Lakeview Golf - Continued) Peterson commented that the Park Commission reviewed the sketch plan and did not propose a trail on the property but would ask for normal park dedication fees. The applicant was informed that this amount would be 8% of the lot area or cash in the equivalence of 8% of the fair market value before development. ( #19) #2053 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN OF A 3 -LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Mr. Platterer was present. Mabusth reported that the plan is for a division of a 6.37 acre homestead, located to the north side of Sugar Woods development, into three lots. All structures would be removed. The property is accessed via a platted road. The property is on a natural environment lake to the northwest, the OHW is at 985.5 elevation. .4 of the total property is a type 3 wetland adjacent to the normal high water level. Each lot is shown meeting the two acres of dry buildable. It was noted that if the road were moved to the west, the lots would not have the 2 acres of dry buildable required. Lot 2 requires a lot width variance in its present configuration. Mabusth reported that the septic would be mound -type systems, and 3 were tested at an 8% slope. The septic code specifically states that mound systems must be placed on a slope no greater than 6 %. Staff could not recommend approval of 3 lot plat based on septic limitations. The property is not located within MUSA. Mabusth asked the Commission if they would recommend approval of current layout? A lot width variance would be required for lot 2 that gains access via a long platted corridor. The lakeshore lot meets 200' at the lake and the 150' setback. Platterer said he has owned the property for 20 years. The MUSA line is adjacent to the property to the south. The property contains alot of sandy area. The applicant selected the building sites based on the views, maintenance of trees and slopes, and then constructed the lot lines to meet the codes. The applicant was informed that with a 150 -200' long road, his likely choices would be for 3 executive lots or 2 hobby farms, with contemplation for larger cul -de -sacs required by the fire department. Peterson said it was his opinion that the property consisted of two lots, not three, as there would be too much crowding in order to gain the proper septic. Berg agreed with this conclusion. 27 • C� J • . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #19 - #2053 Dennis Platteter - Continued) Lindquist said he would not agree to an area variance but would probably approve a width variance. Mabusth said the applicant does not have the acreage to allow lot 2 to be realigned and the road outlot extended to the west. The applicant inquired about a lot next to his property consisting of only one acre. He was told it could only be rebuilt in the original footprint but septic approval would determine whether it was buildable or not. Platterer was informed that the Park Commission recommended asking for park dedication fee. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1995 (DALE LINDQUIST) No report was given. ( #21) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1995 (CANDACE ROWLETTE) Candace Rowlette was absent but the Commissioners received copies of the draft from the Park Commission pertaining to upcoming subdivisions. ( #22) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No additional issues were discussed. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #23) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the July 17, 1995 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes 6, Nays 0. 28 u • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 ( #24) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL No representative was selected. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Ayes 6, Nays 0. 1� 7 �A) �, g4AS� Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 29