HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1995 Planning Commission Minutes•
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 9 -" I y `
COUNCIL
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
2.
5 .Llt ���). �roibcitf;1"-1oL ,. L .� C' �- z, 'F 3 r %� = f 7 a 0 7
•
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
17.
• --
20.
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18,1995
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist,
Candace Rowlette, and Elizabeth Hawn. Janice Berg was absent. The following
represented the City Staff: Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron,
Septic Inspector Steve Weckman, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Councilmember Goetten
was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
( 0) #2064 ROBERT S. OLSON & IRVIN T. GEFFRE, 4665 BAYSIDE ROAD -
SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENTNACATION OF
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS 7:02 -7 :18 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaf -ron reported that the application is a request for a lot line rearrangement between Lot
1, Block 2, owned by Geffre and Outlot C, owned by Olson. This property was platted
Iast year with an outlot for the 14 acre rear parcel. The outlot was created for future
development. No septic testing has been done nor any park dedication fee taken.
. As part of the original proposal, Olson agreed to sell Geffre the portion of Outlot C with
the shed on it, and outlot A. At the current time, Geffre has a 1.94 acre lot, and the
portion of Outlot C would add .35 acres. Outlot A consists of .27 acre, yielding a total of
2.56 acres in a 2 -acre zoning district and would, therefore, conform in area. The
remaining Olson property will total 14.2 acres.
The proposal would require a setback variance for the shed, which is over the 1000 s.f
standard and is, therefore, considered an oversize accessory structure subject to minimum
lot area and setback requirements. The proposed setback is 30', where 50' is required
from the new south (rear) lot line. It presently exists at 12' from the northerly lot line. It
will meet the required 30' eastlwest side setbacks. The oversize accessory structure
requires two standard variances; one for its size of 2450 s.f. where 1200 s.f is allowed,
and needing a lot size of 6 acre minimum. The allowed footprint of all accessory
structures on the property is 2400 s.f. Existing on the property is a detached garage, a
small shed, a quonset, and the oversize accessory structure. These structures total 4182
s.f requiring a variance of 1782 s.f. The size of lot required to accomodate this much
accessory structure is a 5 acre minimum. Gaffron asked the Planning Commissioners to
consider recommending a reduction in the number of accessory buildings to reduce the
number of variances.
is
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
•
( #1 - #2064 Robert Olson/Irvin Geffre - Continued)
The proposed lot line does not preclude the use of the Outlot corridor for a future
roadway. To meet code and not impact future development, an option is to come down
the west side of the properties requiring a 50' corridor, which will not be limited by the lot
line rearrangement. The City is requesting vacation of the utility and drainage easement.
Minnegasco has no interest in this being done. NSP, thru a verbal communication, asked
that the electrical lines not be vacated. This would need to be confirmed. New dedication
of drainage and utility easements is proposed to be required along the new lot boundary.
Regarding the oversize accessory structure square footage variances, Gaffron asked the
Commissioners if Geffre should be required to remove the smaller shed or quonset to
minimize the amount of accessory structures.
It was noted that both applicants were present at the meeting.
Lindquist asked what the uses were for the quonset and other shed. The quonset, which
would be on the new lot, is used for storage. The applicant would consider removing this
structure. The other shed is used for garden tools. The applicant requested maintaining
this small shed. The quonset is 1014 s.f., and its removal would reduce the variance to
768 s.f.
Peterson commented that Outlot C at 14 acres was large enough to consider moving
proposed rear lot line further south into Outlot C. The applicant responded that it would
not be a problem to change the lot line 20' more to the south. When questioned by
Peterson whether the lot line change would affect the future road, Gaffron said it would
not affect the future road.
Gaffron noted that as part of variance approval, the City should require the standard
oversize accessory structure covenant stipulating that Geffre's lot size cannot be decreased
by a future division without requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure.
Rowlette asked that a date for the quonset removal be noted in the resolution.
There were no public comments.
Peterson noted that there would be no impact on any neighbors.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2064 with
the removal of the quonset 60 days from the final date of approval, an additional 20' be
added to the south end of the lot, a covenant placed on the property requiring the removal
of the oversize accessory structure if the lot is made smaller, and new drainage and utility
easement be granted. Vacation of the existing easement will be approved subject to
confirmation of the interest of NSP. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #2) #2065 SAMUEL MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H.
DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE, AND WILLIAM TOLES, 2435
SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
(REPEAT) 8:00 -8 :37 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Marfield, Mr. & Mrs. Hill, and William Toles, were present.
Gaffron reported that the request is for a vacation of a road right -of -way and utility
vacation with a rededication of utility easement and replat of the Dicon Addition. The
property was platted to create 3 buildable lots and a public road in 1974 when it was a 1-
acre zoning area and consisted of 3 -1/2 acres. The replat would allow the Hill property
better lakeshore access. A 50' utility easement runs east to west in the existing plat. The
current plat includes a 50' dedication of CoRd 51. The proposal is to regrant easements
necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs.
Gaffron noted that a letter from NSP indicates there is a distribution facility in the area.
NSP will not give their approval for the easement vacation and any changes will have to
AM be made at the expense of the applicants. Gaffron thought if the existing utility lines were
located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vacation in exchange for new
easements. A Minnegasco letter said there are natural gas lines in the area, and the
company objects to the proposal unless suitable right of way and rededication is resolved.
Peterson clarified that the utility easements must remain as they now exist. Gaffron
confirmed this.
Gaffron said City sewer was extended to the area in 1980 with 10' easement on either side
of the line. The City Engineer indicates 30' total width is needed for that utility easement.
It was noted that the applicants have not provided a survey of where all the utility lines are
located. This is required and is being asked for from the applicants.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #2 - #2065 Marfield/Hill/Toles - Continued)
The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be removed and the property replatted in
this proposal. The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent of their house as
well as the majority of the cul -de -sac, giving the Hills a continuous single parcel from the
County road to the lake. Mr. Toles on Lot 3 would gain the end portion of the cul -de -sac
area. The Toles driveway would be revised to gain access from CoRd 51. Regrading
would be done to eliminate the existing drainage pipe. The Marfields would gain the west
and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane. A 20'x90' outlot is proposed for the shared
portion of the proposed Marfield/Hill driveway. Staff is concerned that the replat would
result in a " backlot" configuration which would not meet the 150% acreage or setback
standards. The Marfield lot would appear to become a backlot under the proposal.
Another Staff concern is that with the area being .zoned for 2 -acre lots today, if this 3 -lot
plat was proposed, the City would require platting of a private road 50' wide with a 100'
cul -de -sac and a 24' paved road. The application as proposed does not meet the current
City codes, but what currently exists does meet code.
Marfield commented that if the three lots had 6 acres, the lots could accommodate the
roads. It was his opinion that all of the blacktop to serve the three small parcels was too
much. He noted City officials in the past had agreed with this opinion.
Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Department feels the road
as it even now stands does not totally meet their needs and would ask for more road if that
were possible, i.e., larger cul -de -sacs or loop roads.
Marfield said Scotch Pine Lane is the only public road between CoRd 51 and Bohn's
Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of
which are driveways.
Hill suggested that the fire department use the grassed areas to gain access. It was
commented that fire trucks could get stuck in the grassed areas creating new problems.
Mrs. Hill noted that the fire department could not access the Toles property as it now
exists. Rowlette concurred with this notation. Marfield noted that, although Orono is
into green spaces, it allowed this 3/4 acre of blacktop to be built where it isn't necessary.
The Commissioners agreed that they too like the green grassy areas but trends are
changing for emergency situations. The police department has responded that they
approve the proposal. The fire department had not been notified of the proposal.
It was noted that the public uses the road, even though it is marked dead -end, and are
creating a safety hazard by driving 30 mph. Mrs. Marfield noted that her grandchildren
had a close call from being hit by such a car driving on the road. Other concerns were
noted regarding security of the area.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #2 - #2065 Marfield/HilUToles - Continued)
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2065 until the Fire Department
could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toles noted that tabling would
upset his plans for rebuilding on his property this fall.
Gaffron asked the Commission about the issue with creating a backlot by having an outlot
resulting in the Marfield property being more substandard for setbacks and area. He
requested whether there is also a problem with the outlot to be owned by both Marfield
and Hill. Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it.
A letter from neighbors, the Levy's, favored approving the application providing the new
driveway not be closer than 15' from the lot line and the utility easements to their property
remain in effect. The neighbors to the west, the Luke's, also had no objection. They
asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be allowed on the site.
Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to an approval motion for
Application #2065 subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to be
dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15' from the neighboring property.
• Gaffron suggested it may be inappropriate to place the fire department in a position to
approve or disapprove this request without further Commission input. Gaffron asked the
Commissioners to address the issues under item #1 in the Staff memo relating to the
variances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands delineation
and dedication on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as
a unique request as compared to other three -lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant
approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests.
Rowlette said she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this application noting
the existing substandard access to the Toles property. There would be better access from
CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal.
Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul -de -sac to allow the Hills to
cross to their lakeshore parcel without crossing the road would be a benefit.
Smith asked Gaffron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3 -party cul-
de -sacs to ask for removal, is this opening the door for similar requests. Gaffron said it
could be opening a "little door ", and that is the reason good findings are important here.
Peterson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this application forward
to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lindquist said some of the
issues may come back to haunt the Commission. Schoeder agreed this could happen, and
not only on the cul- de-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addition to the fire
safety issue.
•
r�
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #2 - #2065 Marfield/Hill/Toles - Continued)
Hawn withdrew her amendment to the motion.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2065 to gain specific input
from the Fire Department and general input on the issues. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1,
Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment.
( 0) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I
SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH
RENOTIFICATION 7 :18 -8:00 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicant was present.
Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had
been combined from a 3- parcel property consisting of lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicant had
previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result of a
request for one tax statement. The two lots meet the area and width requirements.
Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property. Lots 3 and 4 are
the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street. A more recent driveway
was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru driveway with a circle.
The applicant said this driveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed
vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985. The driveway was reestablished in
1994. The original subdivision shows an outlot with a drive circling around and
connecting to the cul -de -sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1.
Weckman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway.
With the driveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot 1, the requirement of 1/2 acre
contiguous on Lot 1 with the principal structure placed on the lot is not met. An option
was noted to end the driveway as shown on the drawings; or since Lot 1 is being sold to
the applicant's son, an option would be to allow the use of the driveway on a temporary
basis while using the adjacent two properties and not adding an easement in favor of lots 3
and 4.
6
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued)
Peterson asked the applicant if there was a reason to leave the driveway going through
Lot 1. Cloutier said when the property was subdivided in 1962, outlot 1 provided ingress
and egress to lots 1, 2, 3, 4. When lot 2 (owned by Mr. Paurus) was sold, provision was
made for lot 2 to use outlot 1 up to the lot line. The applicant added that lot 4 has an
easement right to use outlot 1 as well as lots 1 and 3. Cloutier preferred that only Paurus
use the drive near his property in order to maintain privacy for all parties concerned. The
driveway through lot 1 is used to access Cloutier's lot 4 instead of the driveway through
Paurus' lot 2. Weckman said there was no easement for that driveway to come through to
lot 4. Cloutier said the driveway provides use as an alley to his residence and as the main
drive for delivery trucks and other large vehicles.
Peterson suggested closing the access from Frederick Street or have the applicant decide
between the Frederick Street access or the driveway through lot I .
Schroeder commented that any decision should be based on the possibility of a future
subdivision. If lot 3 were proposed as a separate lot, the road by lot 2 could be used for
access. The problem with that solution would be the use of 3 properties on one
substandard road. Weckman was concerned with lot 3 not having the 1/2 acre of land
. required with the structure. Schroeder said the resolution would need language to address
access for future subdivision. Gaff -on noted that lot width was also a potential issue for
splitting off Lot 3 in the future.
Cloutier said he had no plans at this time to subdivide lot 3. He did not wish to be cut off
from the thru road.
Hawn noted that emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessing Cloutier's
property from Frederick Street. Hawn suggested extending the center road to the cul -de-
sac from Frederick Street. Topography was found to be a consideration with this
suggestion. It was further noted that this option would not solve the problem with cutting
lot 1 in half Weckman said if the 1/2 acre requirement could be met by relocating the
driveway on Lot 1, this would be an option. This would require new plans and
calculations.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued)
Peterson asked if there were any other issues to consider. Weckman noted that no park
dedication fee would be required. The City Attorney said the property had already been
subdivided as of record. There was also a difference of opinion on whether this was one
parcel or 3. Weckman said Mabusth had requested language be added to note that any
future subdivision must meet current standards and codes. It was further noted that the
property has been assessed for two water and one sewer connection but would require
assessment of another sewer and SAC charge. Cloutier responded that it was his belief
this was incorrect as lot 4 was connected to sewer from Frederick Street. He added that
when water was provided on Casco in 1971, a stub line came from Casco to his property.
Gaffron said he would follow up on the charge for the sewer unit. Weckman said if the
sewer line crosses a neighbor's, the City would need to verify and identify any easements.
During public comment, Wilbur Anderson, 3555 Frederick Street, read a letter from Norm
and Rusty Paurus. The letter said the Paurus' approved the application if no changes were
submitted from the 3/20/95 submittal, or asked to allow their feedback on any changes
made. The Paurus' asked the proposed house be moved 5 -6' to the northeast to save
several mature trees and that all construction and driveways comply with current City
ordinances.
SPeterson asked for Cloutier's comments on the letter. The applicant was unsure what
trees were being referred to as there was a solid line of trees on the lot. Cloutier did not
believe it to be reasonable to redesign the house with the topography since there was no
lack of trees on this or neighboring properties. Peterson said the proceedings cannot be
stopped because a neighbor was not in attendance.
Commissioners noted that the driveway was the main concern with the application. The
lack of 1/2 acre contiguous on lot 1 because of the configuration of the driveway was the
problem.
Cloutier commented that lot 1 consisted of 3/4 acre and contained woods continuous over
to Frederick Street. He asked for approval of the driveway for he and his son.
Lindquist said he was uneasy with the proposal. The applicant was told that there would
be a time when the property did not serve Cloutier and his son. Lindquist noted that the
roadway by Paurus' lot 2 could serve both Paurus and lot 3.
Rowlette asked if Frederick Street was used on a daily basis. Cloutier said he used the
access from Casco. Rowlette noted that the Casco driveway was not well maintained.
The applicant said red rock had recently been brought in but said further destruction of the
driveway would occur during the construction process. Rowlette said she saw no reason
for the middle driveway to serve lots 3 and 4 when outlot 1 was already in place to serve
those lots.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued)
Smith opined that three drives for one house was unnecessary. Cloutier said he would be
willing to close off the driveway from Frederick Street. The issue of the 1/2 acre
contiguous would still be a problem.
Gaffron suggested moving the driveway to the northeast and refiguring if the 1/2 acre was
available. Lindquist said if the 1/2 acre was present, it was his opinion that the application
could be granted under the present code without coming back to the Planning
Commission. Gaffron said there would still be a subdivision needed to separate Lot 1
from lots 3 and 4.
Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2000 for subdivision subject
to Lot 1 meeting the zoning standards with the 1/2 acre of contiguous with respect to how
the driveway bisects the property. Applicant shall make payment to the City for a sewer
connection charge of $1,284.50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service
availability charge of $850.00. Applicant is to provide an updated survey locating sewer
and water service at Frederick Street prior to scheduling the application before the
Council. Final resolve by the applicant is necessary concerning dedication of easement for
Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot 1. Applicant will sign off on a
• resolution with the disclaimer drafted by City Attorney, and clarification will be made that
the property is one lot. Applicant will work with the City to clean up the property of
miscellaneous items.
•
Lindquist asked if the applicant would consider abandoning the driveway from Frederick
Street due to the number of driveways. The applicant said he would prefer not to but
would do so if that is the desire of the Planning Commissioners. The applicant was told
that an easement from the road to the west for Lot 2 cannot be vacated as it is a private
easement.
Schroeder said another alternative would be to dedicate some land for the roadway. The
applicant made a suggestion of taking a portion of lot 1 to lot 3 and remove the
boathouse. The 150% lot area requirement for a back lot on 3 was noted. This
suggestion was not to be considered at this time.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who noted if Frederick Street access is not in use, it
should be closed.
9
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
(#4) #2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE -
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8 :37 -8:48 P.M.
Gaffron reported that the application is for a hardcover variance in the 75 -250' setback
area for an addition on the lakeside. The property is also near the Narrows Channel,
which affects the 250' line. The addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks as
well as the average lakeshore setback. Very little hardcover exists in the 0 -75' area with a
patio consisting of rock with plastic constituting 4.4% hardcover. The hardcover in the
75 -250' area exists at 44% where 25% is allowed. The proposal calls for removal of rock
beds with plastic or fabric underlayment reducing the hardcover to 31.7 %.
A new survey has been done on the property. It shows that some of the rock beds have
been added since the 1.988 deck was approved. This was not done by the current owner,
who purchased the property one year ago.
The property consists of 28,000 s.f. or .6 acres in a 1 -acre zoning district. The lot
coverage by structure is 11% where 15% is allowed. A concern is the addition of the 3-
season porch above the deck, which was built since 1988 without permits. Staff is asking
for an after- the -fact permit for the construction of the porch, which meets setbacks,
without any penalty assessed.
As to the hardcover variance issue, Gaffron noted there is no structure feasible to remove,
just rock and plastic. The shed on the property is needed for storage.
The applicant commented that the 1987 resolution allowed for 37.6% of hardcover. With
this proposal, the hardcover will exist at 31.7 %, less than what was approved in 1987.
Olson noted that the net square footage for the addition was 267 s.f.
Peterson said the Commission currently often trades plastic and rock for structure, and
under the code. Peterson saw no problem with the application and noted it had no effect
on the neighbors.
Smith asked if the removal of rock and plastic included that in the front of the property.
She is concerned with an erosion problem with removing that rock area.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve Application 92044 subject to the
removal of plastic in the beds. Rowlette amended the motion to include the 31.7% of
hardcover would be the maximum allowed in the future and any future structural additions
should only be approved by trading structure for structure.
10
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
(#4 - #2044 George Olson - Continued)
Mrs. Olson asked on the hill portion of the property if it would be sufficient to perforate
the fabric in order not to remove the fabric so as not to affect the area. Peterson said she
should work with the builder on this but the Planning Commission cannot distinguish .
perforated from fabric -laid areas.
A member of the public noted that the material under the rip -rap was not considered
hardcover. She was informed by the Commission that the rip -rap itself is hardcover so the
material underneath does not matter.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #5) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH
AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC
HEARING 8:48 -9 :40 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
MCWD Engineer, Andy Syverson, and Manager, Tom LaBounty, were present.
iGaffron reported that the request is for variances and conditional use permit to construct a
2.5 acre wet detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to remove sediment
and nutrients from the creek flowing into Long Lake from the north. The area in question
is on the Pearce property, located southwest of Tanglewood Road and east of Dakota
Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard, on an easement.
The site is not within the City designated wetland but is on the national wetland inventory
map. It consists of type 2 and type 7 wetlands protected under the Wetland Conservation
Act from filling or draining. The Wolsfeld Lake area drains southeast from Medina under
CoRd 6 under a culvert to the 2 -1/2 acre pond area. It would be a two cell pond with 4:1
slopes with a peninsula feature and contain an outlet with a fish barrier to keep fish from
moving up creek. The type 7 wetland is a wooded wetland in a low flood plain area.
Major excavation would be required, involving removal of 25,000 cubic yards. A gated
access driveway would be constructed off of CoRd 6 for spoils removal as well as future
access. A concern is with the fill material being taken off -site and its affect on traffic on
CoRd 6. It is unknown at this time where the materials would be taken. This would be
determined by the contractor.
Variances and conditional use permits would be required for the excavation. A variance
to the shoreland ordinance is required as this is a creek/tributary protected area where no
tree removal is allowed within 75'. No intensive vegetation clearing is allowed within 75'
nor grading or filling; all of which would be done.
11
u
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMN41SSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued)
The project has been in the planning stages for the past couple years and is slated to be
constructed early 1998. The project will be done in the beginning of January to the
beginning of February with revegetation and replanting taking place in the spring.
Peterson clarified that the project would only occur and be effective if the Deerhill project
in Medina is completed. Tom LaBounty said the Medina project is in condemnation
process at this time. He noted that the easements for the other two ponds, one in Long
Lake park and the other on the private land, have been completed. The object of the Long
Lake project is to clean up the water discharging from Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka to
the corridor to the Mississippi and is part of the overall scheme.
Schroeder asked if there was anything that would prevent the Deerhill project from being
completed. LaBounty said he expects an appeal to the condemnation proceeding but
expects to have all the permits in hand by the end of September.
LaBounty cited the Gleason Lake project and the concerns regarding the disposal of
materials from the site on Hwy 12. He would like to address the problems relating to this
project.
LaBounty said contractual agreements have been made with the property owners when
asked by Smith. Performance stipulations have been set out.
The alum treatment of Long Lake will occur after the ponds are completed. The
effectiveness of the treatment will depend on how effective the ponds are and their
construction. LaBounty said alot of the effectiveness depends on the Best Management
Practices in the sub - watershed. The clarity level would be a progressive improvement.
5 +' is expected, which is a radical difference from the 1' clarity presently in Long Lake.
When the revegetation is ocurring, the improvement in clarity will hit a flat spot, but will
then continue to improve.
Hawn asked about the sediment ponds. She was informed that 50% of the phosphorus
would be removed by the alum treatment. Hawn questioned whether the remaining 50%
would contribute to future water quality problems being created. Syverson noted that
while the phosphorus removal was believed to be 50 %, the sediment removal would be a
higher percentage, 80 -90 %. This would result in a significant decrease of sediment to
cover the alum. 50% is the typical efficiency found according to Syverson. Further gains
would require more ponds and would be too large to be feasible. Syverson said the
process is two fold. The internal process would recycle the alum which would be taken
out and sealed and then more taken out from there resulting in a higher percentage of
75 %. Reestablishing vegetation then gives the lake a chance to work on its own. The
project is a helping hand which allows the lake to work on its own.
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1.995
•
( #5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued)
Peterson inquired about long term maintenance. LaBounty said this would be done thru
agreements. Long Lake has already entered into an agreement regarding a fish barrier. If
no agreement is made with Medina or Orono, the MCWD would handle the maintenance.
Lindquist asked how often cleaning out of the sediment would occur. Syverson said this
is site specific and depends on facts such as erosion and development, which would
increase the amount of cleaning done. Syverson said the Orono project is two cell. The
first cell would catch the most sediment and need to be cleaned out in 3 -5 years. The
larger cell would require less frequent cleaning projected at 15 -20 years. The maintenance
is dependent upon the management practices upstream. Hwy 12 construction was cited as
an example. If silt fencing were not done on the ponds there, more material would fall
into the ponds requiring frequent cleaning. Syverson said the management is a
cooperative effort.
Lindquist inquired about the Dickey Lake area. Syverson noted this was a very small
phosphorus loading area and the cost would not justify a pond. It was noted that the
wetland area on the east end of Long Lake where there are streams works as a detention
pond. This area was noted to serve as a natural stormwater management pond as the
• water comes out of this area quite clean.
Schroeder inquired about runoff from roads such as Hwy 12. LaBounty said this does
exist but they try to make up for it with projects such as the pond.
Peterson asked for public comments.
Bill Pearce, joint owner of the subject property, along with his attorney, Greg Fontaine of
the Dorsey firm were in attendance and asked to present a summary of the conditions of
the settlement agreement between Pearce and the MCWD. Fontaine said Pearce became
involved when the plans for the pond were announced. The original proposal was for a 3-
cell, 5 acre pond south of 6, not Deerhill in Medina, with small ponds in Long Lake.
Pearce then retained an engineering firm to come up with a better solution. The size of
the detention system on the Pearce property was then reduced which was a substantial
improvement.
Pearce said he understood the need for the detention pond on his property, although he
would prefer it was not necessary, and was generally supportive, and still is, of the project.
Fontaine said there have been design specifications and significant alterations made
without consultation with Pearce. He cited an example with changes to the fish barrier
upstream from Long Lake. LaBounty later noted the net effect of the change in the
barrier would not affect the outcome.
13
•
•
u
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued)
Pearce felt it would be to the City's interest to include conditions in the agreement
between Orono and the MCWD. A summary of these conditions were given out to the
Commission members. The conditions are intended to reduce the impact of the area and
be restorative of the area. Fontaine said there has been difficulty with the MCWD
complying with timely notice to Pearce with regards to revision of documents and follow
thru on design elements. He believes it is in the best interest of the City to require as part
of their review an artist's rendition of the area showing the revegetation, and explain the
differences between the specifications and what the MCWD is doing. Fontaine said it also
is necessary for the MCWD to spell out the maintenance requirements with who doing
what, who paying, and on what schedule. Specific recommendations were given in the
handout for such maintenance.
Schroeder commented that the project was complicated and asked Pearce what costs he
has born due to the project. Pearce indicated engineering costs have run $85,000, and the
easement will only recover about $20,000. Schroeder noted that the Barr engineering
report will have a positive influence on the project. It was also his belief that another
meeting is required for the Commission to look over the findings, especially in light of the
time and cost consideration Pearce has given to the project.
LaBounty said the project began in 1988. It was originally proposed to totally take place
in Medina, then was changed to two ponds in Long Lake, then changed to include the
Pearce pond and Deerhill, and now to include Long Lake, Medina, and Orono. The
phosphorus reduction amounts have remained the same. LaBounty pointed out if no
agreement can be acquired on the Deerhill Road pond, the project would be back to a 5-
acre pond on the Pearce property.
LaBounty asked, regarding the 7 engineering findings, that while 1 -5 met with the MCWD
approval, #6 LaBounty would like the agency to be treated as would any other federal
agency. On #7, the special conditions under which hauling can be stopped, LaBounty said
fines can be imposed on the contractor. He further noted no fertilizer would be used and
tree removal has been taken care of To control erosion, LaBounty said the slope down to
the pond would be 4:1 with a 6 :1 slope out of the pond.
Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the application.
Fontaine noted that LaBounty has only recently taken over the project for the MCWD and
has done a good job with communicating with Pearce.
Schroeder asked that copies be made of the Barr report for the Commissioners.
Smith thanked Mr. Pearce for his time and cost considerations he has taken.
14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
0
( #5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued)
Rowlette questioned item A on the handout and asked what would happen if the Medina
project was not completed prior to the Orono project. LaBounty said it would be
sufficient to condition Orono's approval on the completion of the Deerhill Road project.
LaBounty said he would furnish an artist's rendition of the revegetation and will meet with
Pearce.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
The Planning Commissioners asked to schedule a joint meeting with the Council regarding
this project.
(#6) #2060 TIM FEYO AND KAREN FULLER -FEYO, 4055 ELM STREET -
VARIANCE RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 -9:55 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron noted that the application was for a renewal of a lot area variance previously
• granted in 1978, 1980, and 1994. The property is located in the LR -1B single family
lakeshore residential zoning district requiring 1 acre on Elm Street, west of Tonkawa. A
54% variance for lot area is requested for the .46 acre lot. The lot meets the lot width
requirement as it contains 118'or 84% of the 140' standard, where 80% or 112' is required
for existing lots of record.
Gaffron reported that the three lots were combined into one parcel and received approval
of a conceptual footprint in 1994 with 10' side setback, 30' rear, and 35' front setback.
The grading plan showing the driveway meets the satisfaction of the Engineer. Concern
with the grading is from direct runoff traveling downhill. A proposed downspout and
underground the will direct drainage to the road ditch at the front of the lot, from which it
flows to North Arm.
Peterson received confirmation that there are no changes to the application, and it is a
renewal application only. Peterson inquired of the applicant if it was their intention to do
anything with the property. Feyo said it is their intention to sell or build. The Feyo's are
in the process of securing loans. It was noted that the shed belonging to the neighbor is
still located on the Feyo property.
Schroeder inquired if there was a lot line problem. Gaffron said the shed still exists over
the lot line and the neighbors still disagree. Schroeder asked that the lot line be located
and stipulate the location of the shed.
15
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
•
( #6 - #2060 Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller -Feyo - Continued)
Peterson said regarding this survey dispute, his position is to look at the survey submitted
by the applicant as the one by which to gauge the application. A neighbor's survey would
only be considered if it differed from the one supplied by the applicant.
During public comments, Herman Laue said he is concerned with drainage, hardcover, and
the lot line issue. He said he is working on a survey and may pursue a Torrens action in
order to settle the lot line dispute. Peterson commented that Laue has not to date shown
by documentation any discrepancy with the survey done by the applicant.
Rowlette moved, Smith seconded, to approve the renewal of Application #2060 with the
same conditions previously laid out.
Gaffron noted receipt of two letters from neighbors, Laue and Wiley, opposing the
renewal of the application, which were read into the minutes and are part of the
application package.
Another letter from Mr. Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane, neighbor down hill from Laue,
opposes the renewal due to a concern with runoff from stormwater. It is his opinion that
• the increase in hardcover would add to the runoff problem and cause erosion to the public
access. Schroeder commented that any home built on the property would have to have an
approved drainage plan that met City code. Peterson noted that this was a case of dispute
between neighbors.
Gaffiron clarified conditions previously stated regarding legal combination of the lots,
setback and hardcover requirements, and detailed grading plans showing driveway and any
tree removal, and retaining walls.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
( #7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE
RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 -10:02 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weckman reported that the application was for a variance renewal, which expired
September 12, 1995.
The applicant was not present.
• There were no public comments.
16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
•
( #7 - #2061 Arne Wasberg - Continued)
Lindquist commented that the application was a difficult proposal and suggested tabling
the application until the applicant was present.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2061 until the applicant was
present. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( 0) #2062 TED ROZEBOOM/JOSEPHINE KNUDSON, 2967/2965 CASCO
POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:02 -10:33 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicant, Ted Rozeboom, was present.
Gaffron reported that the application is a joint request for variances to certain performance
standards of the home occupation use in the 1/2 acre, LR -1C, single family Lakeshore
residential zoning district. The request is to allow a home occupation to occur on a tax
parcel not owned by the home occupation applicant, in a building not occupied by the
home occupation applicant, and in a building where the entrance to the home occupation
• is not gained from within the structure but has a separate dedicated entrance.
Gaffron noted that Rozeboom lives at 2967 Casco Point Road. The dwelling at 2965
Casco Point Road, owned by Josephine Knudson, the mother - in-law of Rozeboom,
received building permits for remodeling to create an office area in the lower level with an
existing dwelling unit in the upper Level. The remodeling involved a workroom area,
office space, and sitting area. During review of the remodeling plans, the inspector noted
the need for a home occupation license and advised the applicant of the requirements. The
space was reviewed in April of 1995 and found certain home occupation conditions were
not met. A letter of August 18 to Mabusth defines the use of the space by Rozeboom. By
ordinance, the only person allowed a home occupation license is one who is residing at the
residence, which is not the case in this application. If the lots were combined into
Rozeboom's name, the residence at 2965 Casco would be considered a guesthouse, not
the principal structure, and would still not met the conditions of the code for residency.
It was noted that the two properties were originally one with the residence at 2965 Casco
being the original carriage house of the home at 2967 Casco. The properties were
separated in 1968 by subdivision. Gaffron questioned whether the home ocupation use
now proposed would be acceptable with merely a lot combination. Staff questioned if this
would be a case of a use variance, a commercial use in a residential zone, but the City
Attorney indicated it would not because a home occupation is allowed in a home in a
residential zone.
•
17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
•
( #8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued)
Gaffron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the fact that the properties are
adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists between the two parties involved.
The property at 2965 Casco would not be owned by the person conducting an occupation
there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility of clients
coming to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility of a third party using
the upper residential space. This would then seem to appear as a mixed
residential/commercial use and then possibly be a use variance.
Gaffron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the
family relationship, then the appearance of a use variance still exists if the lots are
separately owned and not combined. If both properties were owned by Rozeboom but not
combined, it may be closer to the appearance of a home occupation. Finally, with legal
combination, this is much more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with
performance standard variances. Variance approval does require findings of hardship.
Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires
the person running the business to live in that dwelling. Peterson said he would vote to
deny the application.
Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home
occupation use. He was told it did not. Rozeboom said he could change the residence at
2965 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would have any bearing on the approval or
denial. He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he
would not. Rozeboom said he was an architectural consultant and the purpose of this
proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother -in -law to live. Rozeboom said if he
combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties.
Peterson said he would not consider changing the ordinance, to which Lindquist agreed.
Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose
value of the property by combining lots. She saw no reason why the applicant could not
work out of the residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage house for his
own home at 2967 Casco.
The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and
be reflective of the neighborhood and of a home. Schroeder commented that a hardcover
trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license.
There were no public comments.
•
18
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued)
Schroeder asked the applicant if he would be able to work out of his own home.
Rozeboom said he would lose the integrity of the Victorian style home and needed the
space provided by the other residence.
Several ideas were aired regarding a lot combination and a "skyway" or structure of some
sort to connect the homes or ownership change of the residences.
Gaffron commented that one option to consider absent legal combination but with
common ownership was a "special lot combination" document that is filed on the chain of
title of both properties that would define what may be done on the properties. Hawn
inquired of the applicant again if he would be willing to combine the lots. Rozeboom said
he would lose too much market value but would be willing to put the other residence in
his name and homestead it.
Gaffron read a letter from Mr. Henney, , 2941 Casco Point Road, voicing his support of
the application.
Gaffron again noted the Attorney's opinion on the use variance as to whether it would
allow the use in that residence. Barrett opined that it would not be a use variance.
Rozeboom asked, and received confirmation, that if the "special lot combination" were to
be done, it could be terminated if the lot ownership would change. It was further
commented that if the relationship were to change or the residence sold, it could also be
terminated but it cannot exist in the present configuration.
Rowlette moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2062 with a special lot
combination defining the relationship of the parties involved, with both parcels being
placed in Rozeboom's name but not required to be legally combined. The use would be
allowed until Rozeboom was no longer the owner of both properties. He would be
required to meet the home occupation conditions except the three noted. No signs or
rental of the property could occur. A portion of the blacktop would be removed and a
landscaping plan be presented prior to going forward to the Council.
Schroeder asked for clarification of what is a special lot combination document. Gaffron
cited an example of separate but commonly -owned properties located on two sides of a
road. The owner wants a house on one side but the garage on the other side. This might
be allowed under a "special lot combination" as the lots were sold together. Schroeder
asked if the application was a typical example. Gaffron said it was an unusual example of
the use but with the City's discretion, it could be done. The document would be on the
chain of title, and if broken, it would revert back to its original intent.
•
19
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
0
( #8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued)
Commissioners noted they would not want to see any outward evidence of a business or
any parking.
Vote: Ayes 3, Hawn, Smith, Rowlette; Nays 3, Peterson, Schroeder, Lindquist. Motion
fails.
The applicant asked if it would work if his wife owned the property. Peterson said that
would set a bad precedent. Smith said specific ground rules need to be laid.
Rowlette moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2062 to allow applicant time to
consider other possible solutions. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #9) #2063 GERALD AND CANDACE ROWLETTE, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2063 at the request of the
applicants. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #10) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE,1487 SHORELINE DRIVE -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33 -10 :59 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants were present.
Gaffron reported that the application is for a number of variances for a 3rd -level addition
to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2 -acre zoning district. The
house currently exists at 2 P from the shoreline with the deck 16' from the shoreline. A
bituminous walkway is located under the deck near the lake. There is an 8.3' side setback
where 30' is required. The average lakeshore setback currently encroaches 13' for the
house and 24' for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal. Hardcover in
the 0 -75' exists at 28.1% for structural and 11.1% for non - structural for a total of 39.2°/x.
The lot coverage by structure is proposed at 13.8% meeting the 15% allowable.
There would not be much of a change in the footprint of the house. The proposal is for
what is by definition a three -story home by eliminating the existing flat roof and adding
another level over the main level and basement, which is considered a story with its 18
courses. The street side of the residence is a walk -in with the proposed story to be
located above that. The floor plan shows a car port on the main level, open with a roof,
and proposed with a second story. The pitch of the roof would be 10:12. The height of
the residence meets the ordinance at 28 -1/2' as normally defined; but the house is 46' in
total ground -to -peak height from the lakeside view.
20
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued)
The variances required include Lakeshore setback, side setback with no proposed change,
second story 25.3' from the side where 30' is required, average setback encroachment with
no change, and hardcover in the 0 -75, which will decrease with the removal of the
bituminous walkway. Pea gravel with no liner is proposed to replace the walkway. The
loop drive and an existing portion of the driveway will be removed. What will remain will
allow a car to back up and enter the street as well as an apron for the garage, which will
need to be redesigned to avoid encroaching the drainfield. The septic system will serve
this 3- bedroom home. There is no change to the number of bedrooms but a change to the
bulk of the residence.
Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the issues. The proposed third level is
questioned due to its close proximity to the shoreline. Staff questioned whether the
replacement of the walkway was an acceptable form of non - hardcover. The southerly
neighbors are currently able to view the lake over the home. As proposed, Staff questions
whether the house would tower over and impact the neighbors to the north. The
hardcover would yield a decrease but are the additions and removals a reasonable trade for
the 148 s. f. of structural hardcover. It was noted that the existing overhangs average 4' in
width and are proposed at 18 ". The rock and plastic between the driveway and front entry
have not been listed as hardcover, a portion of which is below the overhangs. The
backup /parking apron will need to be relocated as it encroaches the existing drainfield.
The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvement, however. There
are no feasible alternate septic sites available on the property. The area is being
considered by the neighborhood for sewering. Staff questioned whether enclosing the
carport and changing the roof pitch would be a viable alternative to the third story
proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications are enough to support the
proposed changes.
Peterson clarified that the house will still have three bedrooms but the common rooms and
master bedroom will be enlarged.
Lindquist was concerned about adding to the structure when it was located so near the
lakeshore.
Hawn questioned whether it was possible to enclose the carport and add a story above the
carport to open up the view for the neighbors and not present such a massive structure.
The applicant said he had considered lowering the structure by adding dormers and
burying usable space in the roof line, which would reduce the height by 7 -9' to soften the
look.
Peterson said the home was already substandard by its location encroaching in the 0 -75'
setback area and did not see how the applicant could ask for an even greater impact on the
property.
21
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER l8, 1995
i
( #10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued)
Rowlette said the basement consists of 18 courses and considers the home now too large.
It was her opinion that no more can be added to the structure.
Gaffron asked if there was any logic to changing the roof pitch from its present flat look.
The applicant said the roof was old and a flat roof was not conducive to the Minnesota
winters. It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing. The roof does not present
any curb appeal and a low pitch roof would not help to improve the look. The applicant
felt the high pitch would aid in setting the second story into the structure and is currently
proposed at 25' in height. The applicant said the original house had the boathouse in the
lower Ievel, but now houses the utilities, and that is the reason for the 18 course basement.
The rest of the house has 8' ceilings. The applicant said the height would be 24' with the
use of a different pitch.
Rowlette said she could not approve the application as proposed. The applicant asked for
suggestions. Rowlette said the applicant needs to soften the look, and she would be open
to enclosing the carport area. Lindquist and Hawn agreed.
is The applicant asked what the Commissioners opinion was of an addition of a 2 -car garage
with a rambler style home, while maintaining a regular roof pitch. Commissioners said
side setback and lot coverage would be issues in that scenario. The applicant was told to
come back with an amended proposal.
Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2066.
Gaffron noted receiving acknowledgement forms from the neighbors on each side of the
property.
The applicant asked for an opinion on what could be done to the property. Most of the
Commissioners voiced that it was their belief that very little could be done to the property.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #I1) #2067 BRUCE AND TERRY CLARK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:59 -11:00 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants were present.
Gaffron displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for extending the
existing attached garage.
22
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #11 - #2067 Bruce and Terry Clark - Continued)
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2067. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #12) #2068 PAT AND KATHY SMIEJA, 4040 WATERTOWN ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:00 -11:06 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaiiron reported that an application was proposed in 1994 by the previous owners for two
additions including a 3- season porch. This application is for a lower level garage with one
level of living space above it, plus the 3- season porch. The property is a corner lot located
in a 5 -acre zoning district. The code requires a 100' setback from Watertown Road,
which is functionally the front of the property but is technically the side street. A 50'
sideyard setback is required north of the house and 100' from Orono Orchard Road. The
lot area, excluding the right -of -ways is 1.28 acres The setback variance to the rear results
from the proposed addition at 32' and 46.8' for the 3- season porch. The setbacks from
Watertown Road are proposed at 25' for the porch and 5 P to the house corner where 100'
• is required. The house will remain at 3 bedrooms and not require any expansion of the
mound septic system. The well is being replaced on the property.
Rowlette asked about the status of the property located to the north containing wetlands.
Gaffron said it has recently been sold. He noted a buffer area between the two properties.
Smith questioned why the addition would be set back rather than brought out even with
the existing house. The applicants said it was to maintain a view from the kitchen area.
There were no public comments.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2068 for side street and
side setback variances with the conditions as noted. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #13) #2069 CINDY AND STEVE HARRIS, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:06 -11:09 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants were present.
•
23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #13 - #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris - Continued)
Gaffron reported that the application was a request for a variance to construct a swimming
pool in what is technically the front yard of the property located between the road and
existing house. The code does not allow for such a structure in this area. The residence
and pool would be located in the center of a 25 acre parcel, 500' from the road, and
located in a 5 acre zoning district.
Gaf -ron said Staff would request an as -built survey once the pool was constructed as the
barn on the property is not shown on the current survey.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2069 with the request for the
as-built survey upon completion of the pool. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #14) #2071 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD -
AMENDED VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:09 -11:12 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
• Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicants.
Gaffron reported a request to amend the prior approval for excavation in the 0 -75' zone to
rehabilitate a tunnel with retaining walls to the greenhouse. During the repair, it was
found to be in need of waterproofing, which would require the need to excavate and
remove an elm tree. This was not included in the plan previously submitted to the City.
The applicants agree to mitigate the loss of the elm tree. It was noted that the tree would
have been a detriment to the tunnel if left in place. Applicant noted 2 maples were
proposed to replace the elm.
There were no public comments.
Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2071 for excavation and
after -the -fact tree removal based on Staff conditions and with tree mitigation. Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
( #15) #2072 GRAYDON K. NEWMAN, JR.,1655 BOHN'S POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:12 -11:18
P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicant was present with his landscape designer, Dale Gustafson.
24
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
i
( #15 - #2072 Graydon Newman, Jr. - Continued)
Gaffron reported that the property is located on Bohn's Point and contains a house and
carriage house. The application is for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances and land
alteration permit in the 0 -75' zone to allow reconfiguration of lakeshore access walkways
and shoreline improvement to include sand fill and boulder wall improvements. The
existing deck platform located at the shoreline was found to be encroaching into the
neighboring property. The proposal is to remove the deck platform and construct a new 5'
wide walkway laterally in the 75' zone leading to the dock, which will be moved over into
the applicant's property. The application is also to support the existing stone wall with
additional stone and add another course of rip rap with sand and plantings between the rip
rap and wall. The Engineer suggested removal of hardcover pavers. The rip rap is
located all along the property. The plan calls for the additional stone in a smaller area.
The deck itself will not be replaced.
Smith asked why a 5' instead of a 4' walkway to the dock. Gustafson said it was in order
to use the existing heavy modular materials. Schroeder asked if 4' would work in this
application and was told it would.
Gustafson noted the rip rap alone is not enough to maintain the shoreline on a busy day on
the lake. The stone pads keep the waves from eroding the area and undermining the rip
rap. It was his opinion that only way to help would be to add another course of rip rap.
Smith said the present configuration seems to be working for the maintaining of the
property.
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2072 with the walkway
amended to a 4' width and to leave the patio blocks in place.
There were no public comments.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who felt the concrete blocks should be removed.
( #16) #2073 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE -
VARIANCES /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:18-11:45
P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants were present.
25
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued)
Gaffron said the application is for a number of projects to update the property to include
the replacement and enhancement of additional retaining walls of keystone -type product 1-
2' lakeward from the wood walls, which are T to 4' in height. The property is located on a
channel to a lagoon area and contains a stairwell to the lake side. The proposal also calls
for replacement or enhancement of retaining walls to support the driveway. The Engineer
was concerned with the wood walls being left in place, which would eventually rot.
The second part of the application is for an entryway over the existing front steps to ease a
drainage problem. This would add 100 s. f. of structural hardcover to the property.
The third part of the application is for the addition of a 10'x16' deck and a 10'x33'
enclosed porch area, to be located 19' and 24' respectively from the lake. The lot
coverage by structures is proposed at 16 -1/2% where 15% is allowed.
Gaffron reported there is extensive amount of hardcover on the property with the
driveway, existing rock, and patio areas. The 0 -75' zone contains 49.6% of hardcover; the
75 -250' zone contains 74.2 %; for a total of 56.6% hardcover, which is double the DNR
standards. By removing all of the rock and plastic, the hardcover would be reduced to
35% in the 0 -75' zone and to 43% in the 75 -250% zone. Rock would still exist along the
garage area.
Hawn asked what the reasons were for the wall. The applicant said it was to replace walls
that had fallen over and to strengthen the walls. The applicant said it was started by
erosion of the foundation of the garage. Gaffron said the Engineer has recommended
removal of the existing wood retaining walls rather than leaving them in place behind the
new walls.
Hawn said with a new entry and new retaining walls and the three patio /deck spaces
around the house, it was a densely covered lot. Hawn recommended taking the deck and
turning that into a porch instead to reduce the structural coverage. The applicant
responded that there was no first floor family room and was putting a family room where
the lower level and upper level decks were by the garage area so as to not impede the
view. The roof line would remain the same.
Smith agreed that the lot coverage was excessive.
Rowlette commented that the lot was maxed out in lot coverage as it now stands. She
noted the driveway area was large and saw no need for that much space for a turnaround.
26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued)
The applicant said there were two areas where rock could be taken out and add grass and
still do the breezeway as proposed. Any other areas could make it difficult to maintain
with the slope of the lot. Schroeder said the rock removal should be done, and he would
not approve any additional structure.
Rowlette asked to look at what could be done with the driveway. The applicant said a
sidewalk was eliminated, and the new driveway replaced what was there already.
Rowlette added that the hardcover calculations are then higher than what is listed.
Schroeder asked if any of the poured driveway could be removed.
Smith questioned how all the hardcover was approved when 25% is allowed and 74%
exists in the 75 -250' zone. Gaffron noted that he had advised the entry addition contractor
that applicants should not redo the driveway as the Planning Commission would not look
favorably upon new hardcover appearing during a hardcover variance review, but it was
completed without a permit.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2073 limited to the
replacement of the retaining walls by the shoreline, retaining wall and step along the
• garage, and to repair the retaining wall along the driveway.
There were no public comments.
Hawn questioned whether the entry could be added without the addition of any more lot
coverage. The stoop was noted to be a permanent part of the house as it covers the well
pit and is included in the perimeter of the house. It was asked that the overhang not
exceed 4'.
Schroeder said he would amend his motion to allow the entry due to the existing water
problems with the condition that 2x the amount of hardcover would be eliminated
elsewhere and all rock and plastic be removed. No screened porch or new deck would be
allowed. Lindquist seconded. After further discussion, Gaffron noted on the site plan the
areas where hardcover is recommended to be removed.
Gaffron noted receipt of letters from neighbors voicing their approval of the application.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
•
27
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS
( #17) #2043 GORDON J. BUHRER, 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN OF
PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicant was present.
Gaffron reported that the property is located on Fox Street and abuts Fox Run. The
request is to split an existing 4.1 acre lot into two lots, 2.1 and 2.0 acres in size. No
drainageway or wetlands have been substracted from this gross acreage. The applicant
proposes to split the land into an east lot with the existing house accessing onto Fox Run
and a west lot with future access onto Fox Street. The front lot line of the existing 4 -acre
parcel is along Fox Street but the driveway access is from Fox Run. In conceptual plan 1,
the new building site would access Fox Street and front on Fox Street. The existing house
lot would also still front on Fox Street. In plan 2, the only frontage for the existing house
would be on Fox Run. The vacant lot would have additional frontage along Fox Street.
Plan 2 avoids the need for a lot width variance for lot 1. The front lot line along Fox Run
is only 19.6' from the existing house where a 50' setback is required. The existing house
• was built in 1968 and required a 20' side street yard setback at that time. Gaffron said the
septic sites reportedly would conform for either configuration of plan 1 or plan 2.
u
There is a buried tile in the drainageway which runs from White Oak Circle to an open
channel to a pond. No easement exists over this drainageway. Staff recommends the
requirement of a 15' drainage easement the entire length of the tile and channel. The
problem with this, according to Gaffron, is, after excluding the area of this easement, the
property would end up with less than the 2 acre minimum for each lot. A solution would
be to redefine the drainageway and retile or rechannel. A perimeter drainage easement
would allow for a credit of 5' or a lot area variance could be granted. Granting of the area
variance with a new subdivision has only been approved twice since 1975, and this
application is not so unique as to justify variance approval. The Engineer has suggested
relocation of the drainageway. A question would be if the dry buildable credit can be
given for the entire 7.5' easement needed in each lot.
Gaffron said hydraulics and drainage calculations are needed to confirm the flood plain
extent, and the City would need to know where the septic sites would be located. No
septic testing has been submitted for the site.
The proposed building site is not shown. The comprehensive plan suggested that new lots
be served by driveways accessing to private roads rather than directly onto public roads.
28
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #17 - #2043 Gordon Buhrer - Continued)
Gaffron said the applicant has suggested that since the pond at the southeast corner is man
made, to fill in the pond to gain dry buildable acreage. The pond is not shown on the
national wetland inventory, but if delineated, it would very likely be defined as wetland.
Lindquist inquired about the driveway access onto Fox Street. Gaffron said there would
likely be good sight distance. It is narrow, not arterial, but should be no problem.
The applicant said the current house faces Fox Street, and he prefers a north south
configuration. He noted two alternate septic sites have been located on both lots,
percolation testing has been done, and approved for a mound system. He asked if access
on Fox Street would gain approval.
Rowlette said the north/south configuration would not work because of the drainage
easement. The easement would be excluded from the dry, buildable area except to add to
the perimeter. A 10' drainage and utility easement was noted to be no good for utilities if
the ground was underwater.
Relocating of the drainageway seemed to be the only solution. This could be performed
• with a backhoe. Gaffron noted that the drainage tile continues to White Oak and on
occasion may be plugged somewhere. The applicant would be better off with an open
channel. The applicant noted that 3/4 of it is now open and the area does dry out.
•
Lindquist noted that if this was not done and no credit received, there would not be the 2
acres needed. He saw no other solution to the problem. If the drainageway could be
moved in order to gain conformity, this could be done. The drainageway could then be
followed for the lot line. After the tile was removed, the remainder should be left as open
ditch.
The applicant noted that the survey for the property had recently been done by Mark
Gronberg.
Hawn asked if the utility easements are excluded from dry buildable area. She was told
they were not if on the perimeter easement.
The Commissioners advised the applicant to proceed as long as the lot area minimum was
met with the rural 2 acre contiguous dry buildable excluding the right -of -way, easements,
wetlands, and flood plain levels. Peterson asked for the applicant to work with Gaffron to
work out the details.
29
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #IS) #2070 L. E. BRUEGGEMAN COMPANIES, 372 WESTLAKE STREET -
SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC
HEARING
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Developer Loren Brueggeman and property owner, Dean Maeser, were present.
The property in question is located on Westlake Street. The sketch plan is a review of a
proposed lot line rearrangement or replat to result in two building sites from a 1.99 acre
group of 3 tax parcels. This property is located in the single family lakeshore residential
2 -acre zoning district requiring 200' width minimums. The home currently on the property
overlaps lots 10 and 11 with a storage -type building on lot 11. Two rental cabins overlap
lots I 1 and 12 but are mainly located in lot 12. The property currently operates as one
single property. One sewer unit was assessed to the existing house but not granted to the
cabins, which are non - conforming and are in need of removal. Council directed the
applicant earlier this year to connect the house to sewer and allowed the cabins to remain
in use for two more years before they must be removed. The cabins are using the septic
system on the property, and the house must be connected to sewer immediately. The cost
of connecting to sewer is $14,000 per unit.
• The applicant decided to pursue a lot line rearrangement or replat of the property into two
building sites. The lots would meet the required setbacks with 50' front and 30' side but
would create a back -lot situation. The potential rights of the owner to have an additional
building site would be much greater if each existing lot was buildable but they are not as
many variances would be needed. If a back lot were created and replatted, it would not
meet the 150°/o requirement. Lot area variances would be required. The lot width as
noted in case 1 is dependent on the 75` line but would probably meet the lot width
required. The lot coverage by structure allowance is limited by hardcover maximums. An
average lakeshore setback variance would also be required.
In the question of a replat, would the City allow a narrow corridor to access the back lot
or would 30' be required as per the code? It is questionable whether two parcels would be
allowed in this 2 -acre zoning. The lots use currently overlaps resulting in the 3 lots
functioning as one property. If a subdivision is not possible, City questions what relief
could be given to the owner. Would it be possible to sell land to a neighbor?
Developer Brueggeman passed out sketch plans to the Commissioners showing two
potential building sites on rearranged parcels meeting hardcover requirements. One site
would contain a 2 -story residence, 3300 s.f., and the second site would contain a 4400 s.f
footprint with a walkout rambler style home, square footage of which would be 4000+ s.f
with both upper and lower levels. Both would be on substandard lots but would be
• sellable according to Brueggeman.
30
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #18 - #2070 L E. Brueggeman Companies - Continued)
Gaffron questioned whether the driveway across the top portion of the property was
included in the calculations. Brueggeman said the parcel contained 49,680 s.f. He
eliminated the area within the 75' zone, netting 28,000. 25% of that figure equals 7000
s.f and took off the driveway for a net amount of 4500 s.f.
Peterson questioned the ability of the property to have two homes on one lot.
Brueggeman said this is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood at this time which
average .7 to .8 acres with the largest at 1 -1 /2 acres. These two lots would be 1.0 acre
and .9 acre in size.
Rowlette said she saw this application as an opportunity to gain a 2 -acre lot in the 2 -acre
zoning district adding that as a single building site, it would be beautiful. The applicant's
concern is with property value and overbuilding for the homes in the neighborhood.
Peterson said he liked the proposal but questioned whether it should be two lots when it is
one to begin with. Lindquist noted that other lots built on were I acre in size.
Hawn asked if the adjacent homes in the neighborhood were connected to sewer. Gafiron
said sewer was available to all of the homes but not necessarily connected.
Hawn asked if any other lots were combined in the neighborhood. There was one other
lakeshore lot that was combined and is a 100' lot. The rest of the Lakeshore lots were
individual lots.
Brueggeman said this was an unusual case with 4 buildings on 3 lots adding that the
proposal would clean up the site. Peterson commented that the cabins have been directed
to be removed anyways regardless of the result of this proposal.
Gaffron noted that the property has existed as a non- conforming use. When the sewer
came available to the property, the non - conformity was brought to a head. Maeser is
looking at the options available. Gaffron added that the deadline of June 1995 for
connecting the house to sewer has yet to be dealt with.
Brueggeman said the rights of Maeser need to be considered by the Commission and
Council, which he felt has not been done. It is his desire to solve the problems.
Gaffron said the property is 3 separate tax parcels. In the sewered zone, it is required to
look at each separately as to their buildability. The current standards do not allow these
lots to be buildable.
31
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER l8, 1995
( #18 #2070 L. E. Brueggeman Companies - Continued)
Lindquist commented that with one parcel, 2 acres in size, with the concerns of the
property and the houses in the area on 1 acre or less parcels, it was his opinion that it
would be difficult to enforce the standards. Lindquist suggested gaining the opinion of the
City Attorney.
It was decided to gather more information, gain the counsel of the Attorney, and ask the
Council for their direction regarding the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
( #19) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 (DALE
LINDQUIST)
Lindquist noted the delay in the start of the meeting due to a lack of a quorum.
( #20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1995
• No representative of the Planning Commission attended the Park Commission meeting of
September 4, 1995.
( #21) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Schroeder will attend the October 2 meeting of the Park Commission.
Gaffron brought to the attention of the lake use committee possible meeting dates of
October 4, 5, or 6.
Gaffron asked that all open space surveys be completed and turned in to City
Administrator Moorse.
Gaffron said Mabusth has suggested a work meeting be scheduled concerning zoning
issues.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
( #22) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST
21,1995 MEETING
Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 21, 1995
Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
32
r�
•
• MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
( #23) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
Peterson will attend the October 9 meeting of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 12:34 a.m. Ayes 6, Nays 0.
.1 4�� 9"
Stephen Peterson, Chair Person
33