Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1995 Planning Commission Minutes• PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE C, � 1 4-% 1 ❑ courrcn. [4 PLANNING COMNIISSION ❑ PARK COMNIISSION ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2. A(4,' 1 � 5. 6. 7. Q 9. 10. 11. 12. 4i, 15. 091395.4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 16, 1995 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, Charles Schroeder, who arrived after Items #1 and 3 were discussed and Item #6 was tabled. Candace Rowlette and Sandra Smith were 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 Member Goetten were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #2076 ROBERT ROBERTSON AND WELDON H. DUNN, 3535/3565 WATERTOWN ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7 :01 -7:04 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for a division of a smaller parcel. The parcel to the east is less than the required 2 acres with the wetland with a slight encroachment into parcel B. Parcel A will be 2 acres and parcel B will remain at 3 acres. There would be no encroachment of the septic site areas. The division line follows a fence and along a natural division created by higher elevations. A dedication of right -of -way via quit -claim deed for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road is required. Peterson asked the Applicants if they were familiar with the Staff recommendations, in particular, the right -of -way dedication and survey, and received confirmation of this. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2076 with conditions 1 -4 as noted. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #2) #2078 JENSEN HOMES, INC., 405 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 -8:11 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Contractor, Mr. Jensen, was present. is ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is for a 2 -lot subdivision of a 10 acre parcel. The north lot is 7+ acres and Lot 2 is 3.5 acres. The property is located within two zoning districts, LR1A to the north at 2 acres, and LR1B to the south at 1 acre lots. The lot lines encroach both districts and setbacks are subject to the respective zoning. The driveway serves a parcel to the west, the Knight property, which is located in the LR1B zoning district and is 3.5 acres in size, and could be further subdivided. Mabusth located the MUSA line. The property located to the west is within the MUSA, and the subject property is located out of the MUSA. The existing septic is non - conforming and will need to be replaced. Staff has asked for two septic sites for the northern lot. All four sites would be a mound -type septic system. The issue of the driveway is a concern for this application according to Mabusth. Traditionally, Staff would ask for an 30' outlot for the shared driveway, but this is not a back lot/front lot configuration. Another application under sketch plan review on this agenda involves a property to the southwest of this property and proposes the vacation of Oak Street and Clyde Place roadways with Linden Avenue to remain. This vacation may have an impact on this particular application. If the two rights of way are to be vacated, how is the City to maintain public access to property to west of subject property. Existing driveway easement would not meet access standards for development of 3 lots. Mabusth reviewed various options for achieving access to western property, all involving the subject property. Staff has been notified that Bennett would not be in favor of any changes nor of the granting of any more right -of -way for Linden Avenue. Jensen said the applicant would also be opposed to the driveway outlot. The owner would have a problem dedicating land from her property where the subject property would not receive a benefit and only a negative impact on a future building site. Peterson asked how it would be viable to gain access to the property. Jensen said the applicant would propose access without a cul -de -sac encroaching the Bennett property. He does not wish to create a plat and give up any portion of the property. Jensen said connecting Linden with the existing easement would only serve the Knight property. No future subdivision is proposed and the applicant would like to do private plantings on the south property line. Barry Knight said he does not understand the terms used and asked for clarification on what was an outlot and what platting suggested. Mabusth replied that an outlot would enable the shared access drive to be seen on a plat map where easements are not designated. Both areas of driveway outlots and easement driveway are deducted from lot area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 ( #2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth asked Jensen how wide is the easement shown on the deed. Jensen said the width of the easement was not described to his recollection, only the width of the road. Knight said it was his impression that a dimension was listed, but not the 30' spoken of Jensen clarified that with an outlot Bennett would retain ownership and and Knight's easement would be within that outlot. The easement would also be excluded from the buildable area. Knight inquired about setbacks from the outlot. Mabusth said the setback would probably be 10' and noted that 35' would be the setback if it was a private or public road. Jensen noted that there are only two viable drainfield options and was concerned with. any alternate site. Hawn commented if the vacation was to the benefit of the three applicants of #2077, why not have any access on the properties of that application instead of on the Bennett property. Mabusth said the Planning Commission could ask for the exact dimensions of easement, and if the Planning Commission felt it would be unfair to take an easement from Bennett that should be stated in your recommendation. Peterson asked why Bennett would be opposed to the outlot configuration if it serves no hardship to either setbacks or drainfield and is two independently owned parcels and serves the Knight property. Mabusth said it would affect the property as the side setback would be measured from the north lot line if the outlot as opposed to the south lot of proposed lot 2. There is no setback from an easement drive. Mark Gronberg said the registered survey shows two tracts. The outlot would just trigger the driveway serving two properties. He noted that it was always designated a driveway and would not result in any change. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would allow the area in question for outlot designation to remain as a driveway easement. Mabusth said Knight wants to keep the driveway easement, but this easement could never serve a future division of the Knight property. Lindquist commented that the solution does not aid the Bennett property. Lindquist said the applicant is asking whether the property can be subdivided. He asked if the City can force an outlot or leave as an easement. Mabusth said the area can be left as an easement, but the area of the easement must be excluded from lot area. Lindquist suggested leaving the area as an easement. 40 There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth commented that Staff would want the easement defined on the plat. It was again noted it was unclear how much area was designated on the abstract. Gronberg suggested looking at the traveled road. Lindquist said designation of the number of feet for the easement would be required. Knight suggested the application be tabled until all parties involved in the two applications can meet and discuss a solution satisfactory to all parties. Schroeder suggested tabling the application until the facts of the later application were made known. Jensen asked if the original deed does not specify an easement width, if it could be approved subject to the survey by Gronberg of the roadway. It was noted that the easement and roadway need to be designated as the numbers may differ. There was also concern if the septic site was in the easement. Jensen noted the easement would only benefit Knight and not the general public. He also asked if the approval could be based on what the deed shows as the easement. Peterson said without knowing the size of the easement, the Planning Commission would need to table the application. Lindquist said the Commission also needed to gain information on the other properties in question. i Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2078 subject to determining the size of the easement and the knowledge of the other affected application. Knight commented that he would also like to hear the facts of the other application and suggested that application be tabled also. Mabusth replied that Application #2077 is a sketch plan review only and no motion would be needed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( 0) #2031 BRUCE R KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:04 -7:09 P.M. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a division of two lots of a 6 acre homestead parcel. The preliminary survey has been completed. Principal and alternate septic sites have also been determined for each lot. The future owner of the 4 acre lot will need to understand the impact of an easement on lot area. The existing driveway location can be shared by the east lot. No variances would be required. 0 There were no public comments. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #3 - #2031 Bruce Kelly - Continued) Peterson asked Kelly if he understood the Staff recommendation and the need for Park Dedication fee on the new lot and a drainage easement. Kelly said he was not familiar with these requirements and was concerned with the process. He asked that the application be approved and moved forward. He did not wish to discuss the application further. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2031 with conditions 14 as noted. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Schroeder, who was not present for the entire discussion. (#4) #2441 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD - AFTER -THE- FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:11 -8:19 P.M. The applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application was an after - the -fact application for excavation of street yard which followed a recent variance application. The current application involves the creation of an additional curb cut, two tiers of retaining walls, and placement of JW approximately 150 to 200 cubic yards of fill in east side yard and rear. Mr. Sauer, a neighbor to the east, voiced concern with the filling and any impact runoff would have on his property where the drainage flows into. The application was tabled to gain the City Engineer's input on the drainage issue. Mabusth said Cook reported that there was no perceivable impact from the filling. Mr. Sauer was notified and asked to attend this meeting if he had any further concern. Sauer was not in attendance. Mabusth said a 3:1 slope was impossible to obtain for the east side yard. The yard has been graded at a 2:1 slope and planted with crown vetch. A special seeding and erosion blanket will be laid to hold the dirt in place until the plantings take hold. • Mabusth said a catch basin was originally discussed. There is now drain tile in place which will collect the runoff from road into a trench, then flows underground and directed out to the rear yard. Staff recommends approval with the City Engineer to reinspect when 1) final grading is completed before stormwater improvements are installed and 2) after seeding. The Applicant noted that alot of detail has been reviewed with the Engineer. Mabusth informed the applicant that it was important that the Engineer is called in to reinspect at these critical times. 5 u • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#4 - #204I Phil and Darcy Otto - Continued) Schroeder inquired and received confirmation that Sauer had no further objections. Otto said he has not spoken with Sauer since the last meeting. The owner to the east, according to Otto, has given his approval of the plan as he has not responded to Staffs letter. Lindquist asked if the applicant was still parking his boat on the curb cut. The applicant said he stores the boat off site. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2041 for an after - the -fact conditional use permit with Staff recommendations 1 -4 and final grading approved by the City Engineer. The owner is to arrange for inspections by the City Engineer before seeding and after seeding. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #5) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY,1035 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8 :19 -8:28 P.M. The applicants were represented by landscaper, Matt Laue. Ga#fron reported that the proposal has been revised. The initial proposal was for a retaining wall located at the base of the slope with fill behind it. Another boulder wall was to be constructed at the top of the hill with grading and fill to flatten out the area. The property has a steep bank to the Lakeshore. The house on the property is fairly new. There are presently 3:1 and 2:1 slopes. The applicants are concerned with poison ivy on the slopes. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission has previously rejected the idea of grading to eliminate the poison ivy. Planning Commission suggested elimination of the lower boulder wall. Gaffron asked Laue about the drain tile found on the property. Laue said it begins on the upper stair to the front and exits by a tree. He sees no function for the tile and feels grading above the slope will do a better job in eliminating erosion. Another issue of concern was with the portion of the 0 -75' area lined with fabric covered by mulch. Gaffron said this was hardcover but there may be a good reason for the material to exist. There are no hardcover calculations for the property. If approval is recommended, hardcover calculattions will be needed for the existing and proposed walls and fabric. The only other existing hardcover in the 0 -75' is the stairs and tops of boulders. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 #5 - #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley - Continued) Gaffron said if the Planning Commission was in favor of the revision, clarification should be provided on what walls could be erected and what fill or grading could be done. The applicant was notified that it was not the intent of the Commission to recommend any grading in the slope area containing poison ivy. Lindquist said he was concerned with hardcover in the 0 -75' but was in favor of the walls near the house. Peterson said he did not recommend any retaining wall at the bottom of the hill and was undecided on recommending the boulder wall at the top of the hill. He understood the applicant's attempt in addressing concerns of the property. Although he was not in favor of the retaining walls, he would give his approval for their construction. Laue commented that the fabric was only in the area behind the retaining wall. It is his intent to remove the fabric as the mulch will accomplish the same purpose. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval limited to the boulder wall at the top of the hill only due to erosion problems. The approval is subject to the removal of the fabric throughout the property. No grading is allowed down to the shore line. a Hawn inquired if all of the plantings as originally described would still occur. Laue said the plantings as designed will be planted. He was unsure of what plantings would be done on the slopes. Peterson emphasized that while planting on the slope was okay, no grading could be done. Laue suggested, when asked, that the poison ivy be removed by leather gloved hands during cold weather. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #6) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 20TH MEETING) Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2059 per the request of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( 0) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE RENEWAL - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:28 -8 :31 P.M. The Applicant was present. 0 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 S ( #7 - #2061 Arne Wasberg - Continued) Mabusth reported that the new owners of the property have filed to renew the original variance application. Peterson asked Mr. Wasberg why he would wish to do so. Wasberg said he purchased the house in February of 1995 and wants to refurbish the house. In order to do so, it would require a variance. This renewal would allow him time to develop a plan. Mabusth noted that the applicant has removed all of underliner hardcover on the property. It was noted that the 2 -story improvement was not to encroach the lagoon any further than existing structures. The approval included a deck. The applicant has advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive and relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. They would plant evergreens along North Shore Drive to provide a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. Mabusth further added that the applicant's plan was improvements to the home would not be as ambitious as that of the previous owner. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2061 because it had been approved in the past. Even if changes were made, Schroeder noted the changes would be to the better. SThere were no public comments. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #8) #2065 MR. & MRS. SAMUEL MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 DOUGLAS PINE LANE/WILLIAM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:31 -8:58 P.M. The Applicants were present. r s • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Gaffron reported that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was discussed and tabled awaiting review by the Long Lake Fire Department regarding how the vacation of Scotch Pine would affect the ability of the fire department in fighting a fire on these properties. New exhibits as part of this package include a review of the City's policy and philosophy regarding public roads, the BRW Fire Protection review of the traffic and environmental conditions, and a revised preliminary plat. The Marfields and Hills would share a driveway from the existing cul -de -sac with each party increasing the size of their parcels with the vacation of the road. The vacation and replat would enable the Hills to have a continuous piece of property to the lake. Mr. Toles would access his residence through a new driveway from CoRd 51. There would occur some narrowing of the driveway serving the Marfields and Hills. Mike Brown of the Long Lake Fire Department was in attendance and reported on the concerns of the fire department. Brown said the department requires a certain road width to allow for staging for trucks to get past each other. The roadway also needs to be able to handle 40,000 lbs. of equipment. Brown said with the street as it is, there is room for the fire department to operate. The trucks would not be able to access the portion of the driveway to the Toles residence. The Hill property with driveway as proposed will allow the street to remain the same with the entry area narrower. The Marfields, while asking to narrow their driveway entrance, have been asked by the fire department to maintain the road at a wider width, which will enable fire trucks and their RV to gain access to the house. The fire department would like the driveway to the Toles residence to be wide enough to enable personnel to walk around the area. Brown said he would need a road width of 16' able to support a weight of 40,000 - 50,000 lbs. This would be asking more than required by the City, and he would accept the same as a City street. The City code requires a road to handle 46,000 lbs. Brown noted that this is the first time the fire department has been asked what needs they have for a private driveway. Peterson asked Brown, if he had a choice, would he keep the road as it now exists. Brown said he is not in favor of cul -de -sacs as the residence becomes cut off once the equipment is set up. The fire department would benefit from gaining a wider road, and he is in approval of eliminating the cul -de -sac and the proposal as revised. Hill noted that the revision involves maintaining some of the driveway blacktop. Gaffron reported that besides the fire issue, there is the issue of subdivision performance standards. The properties contain three building sites and access to the lake. By today's standards, three lots in a rural zone require a private road. Gaffron said he is concerned with moving standards backwards with approval of this application. The applicants have provided a response on why they feel the proposal is appropriate and unique to the surroundings. 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Marfield read these findings into the minutes and are part of this package. He noted that Scotch Pine is the one 3 -lot cul -de -sac that drains into the lakeshore, and it has been a 20- year effort to gain the grass and trees back to the property. Marfield said this was the only 3 -lot cul -de -sac with one lot in two parts divided by a road. Due to its location, the public is attracted to the road in order to gain access to the lake, yet there is none. Marfield said all three applicants are supportive of the proposal. He also noted that other properties in the area have more than one driveway access, where these properties have only the one access. Gaffron said another standard issue is with 3 lots currently abuting a public road and now Marfield's property will abut only an outlot. Gaffron said this creates a back lot configuration. He also noted the lot size being substandard with 1 acre lots in 2 acre zoning. Easements are also an issue. The existing utility easements would need rededication if changed. A letter from Minnegasco asks if Scotch Pine is vacated, an easement for their facilities should be granted over the existing roadway. NSP is not in favor of the proposal, but Gaffron is of the opinion that the easement could be worked out with NSP. • Gaffron noted that a drainage plan has been provided, but it has not been reviewed as of yet by the City Engineer. A catch basin would be eliminated and runoff would flow over land as area is reverted back to grass. Engineer's review would be required prior to presentation to the Council. • Gaffron said the neighbors to the east, the Levy's, ask for a 15' setback for the new driveway to the Toles property. GafFron said this was not a code requirement except that no grading is normally allowed within 5' of the lot line. Toles said he would honor this request. Gaffron voiced concern over the possibility of setting a precedent by approving a proposal which is in contrast to what is being currently asked of other subdivisions. Gaffron noted that CoRd 51 is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a parkway, which functions as a collector. The code for collector roads does not require new lots to use an internal access, but the comprehensive plan suggests that this be done when it is possible. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission should make specific findings of uniqueness if they approved the proposal. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utility easement for possible future needs of the City. He asked what opinion others had if approval for the proposal was given while maintaining the easement for the cul -de -sac. Toles said the parties of the application would need to discuss the matter, but he was of the opinion that if the cul -de- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it again to blacktop in the future. Marfield said he was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blacktop in the future, and he would be uncomfortable with maintaining the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked Staff if these properties were a possible candidate for a loop road but was told by Gaffron no. Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these properties and noted the undesirability of a cul -de -sac except for fire department use, which is disputable. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2065 as revised for the removal of the cul -de -sac and addition of a driveway from the Toles residence to CoRd 51 with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos, specifically, reduction in hardcover, result of fire department review which showed no increased risk, with approval S by Mn/DOT for additional curb cut, approval for vacation of Scotch Pine with conditions as noted, approval of replat, and rededication of utility easements. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, for reasons of setting a precedent and desire for maintaining the cul -de -sac easement for future access if needed. • ( #9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE,1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:58 -9:11 P.M. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application was before the Commission at the last meeting for a number of variances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on Shoreline Drive. The lot is small and does not lend itself for rebuilding. The house and garage currently has a carport and is covered with a flat roof. The original proposal was for a second story with a 10:12 pitch roof. From the lake side, the house was proposed at a ground -to -peak height of 46' but technically did meet the code height limit. The Planning Commission's earlier review concluded that the proposal was too ambitious for the lot. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER l6, 1995 ( #9 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Gaffron said the revised proposal calls for hardcover removal with cutting back the driveway area. The revision would alter the foot print area with the addition of a garage stall and an entryway area. The sharp corners would be cut off and an area would be bumped out. There would be no second story. Some additional height would be gained from a 10:12 pitch roof over the entire structure. The residence would encroach past the average lakeshore setback. A side setback variance would be required as the garage would be located within the 30' setback. The new setback is proposed at 16 where it now exists at 8'. The bump out is located at 19' from the side lot line. The entry is within the 0 -75' zone. The house would encroach 13' past the average setback with the new roof. Gaffron noted that the house located to the north of this property is on low topography and would not be affected by this proposal. The house to the south has minimum view over applicant's house now and would no longer have any view of the lake with this proposal. Gaffron reported that the lot coverage with this proposal would be at 15.37% where 15% is allowed. Hardcover in the 0 -75' zone exists at 39.18% and is proposed at 36.14 %. 25% hardcover is allowed in the 75 -250' zone and exists at 15.96% and would be decreased to 9.25 %. The hardcover for the driveway portion serving the neighbor is not • included in the calculations. No height variance would be required with the new roof proposed at a ground -to -peak height of 35.8'. The applicant said it was his desire to minimize the impact of the house on the property and neighborhood while still gaining a house up to today's standards. Hawn inquired what would become of the broken asphalt on the property near the shoreline. Waade said it will be removed and replaced with pea rock, which he understands to be non - hardcover. Lindquist asked about the open area between the house and garage. This would be expanded for the master bedroom. When inquiring about the size of the garage, Lindquist was told the garage would be increased to a 3 -stall from its present 2 -stall configuration. Schroeder was concerned with reduction of rock/plastichardcover in the 0 -75'. Gaflron said the entryway area included rock and plastic which was not noted in the calculations. It was noted that the 4' overhang would be eliminated and replaced with 1 -1l2' overhang, which has not been figured into the calculations as eaves are not defined in the code as whether they are actual hardcover. Hawn gave her support of the proposal noting the applicant's diligence in keeping • additional hardcover to a minimum while gaining the desired space. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 ( #9 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Schroeder noted that the proposal was an improvement, but asked what it would take to reduce the lot coverage down to 15 %, or a 100 s.f. reduction. The applicant responded that it would be difficult to condense the plan any further and still maintain a decent floor plan. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2066 subject to Staff recommendations with removal of the excess bituminous material in the yard, protection of the septic system, removal of hardcover as noted, and an inspection of hardcover removals prior to pouring of the footings. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, who acknowledge the applicant's attempt to reduce hardcover but was of the feeling it was still too ambitious a proposal for the lot. ( #10) #2074 JOHN AND KRISTEN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 -7:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. • The applicants were present. The application consists of two parts. Mabusth reported that the first part involves a conditional use permit and variance to install 2' timber wall along the Lakeshore bank. Ice movement in early spring has created problems along this shoreline. The wall is similar to the wail on the Palm property to the north. The Engineer has reviewed the application. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is not a permanent solution to the erosion problem and has encouraged the applicants to consider rip rap. The applicants do not wish to lose their sandy beach, which would occur if rip rap was installed. There is no room to alter the bank itself with only 41' to the residence from the Lakeshore. Staff said the wall will work but not permanently. Mabusth reported that the second part of the application is for the installation of a 25'x30' detached garage located in the street yard of the property. The garage would meet the 10' side setback. The doors of the garage would open to the street. The garage would be placed 51' from Concordia, where 30' is required. Mabusth said thatthere is concern with the flood plain being encroached by the structure. The majority of drainage in the Concordia neighborhood drains to this area and includes the Palm property. Runoff flows eventually to West Arm. The applicant confirmed with a new survey that the flood plain is encroached by at least half of the structure. The Palm's garage would be flooded if compensatory or matching excavations are not completed. If this is true, permits would be required from both the Corp of Engineers and the Watershed. 13 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) It has been suggested by Staff that a retention area be created to hold runnoff to eliminate the possibility of flooding. Spot elevations will be provided by Gehring. The portion of the garage area which is in the flood plain will require a matching excavation at the same area to offset the encroachment. Mabusth said that the setback requirements for the garage will be met. There is an excess of hardcover in the 0 -75' zone of 24 + 0/o. The hardcover limit will be met in the 75 -250' zone. No removal of hardcover is proposed within the 0 -75' setback zone. A shed on the property will be removed. Lindquist asked what the elevations were, and where the pond would be built. Mabusth said the flood plain is at 931.5', and the garage would be located between 93 1.5 and 931'. The pond would be located on the shared lot line between the Gehring and Palm properties. Schroeder asked if both parties were in agreement on the building of the pond. Gehring said he met with Palm and another neighbor, Mrs. Traynor, who has concerns with drainage in the neighborhood. A make -shift pond was built this summer by installing a • pipe from under the Gehring and Palm property. It was tested and found to be a workable solution. The grading proposal suggests using a pipe for drainage to flow into and lead to a neighborhood swale. The pipe tested was 4 -6" wide. Mabusth commented that the engineering plan would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and the MCWD. • Schroeder asked what the normal size is of a 2 -car garage. Mabusth said it is usually 24'x24'. Lindquist noted that the proposal is for a 3 -car garage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they had considered building a smaller garage with the amount of hardcover that is located in the 0 -75' zone. Gehring responded that the size of the garage enables him to keep all equipment inside, such as a trailer, instead of sitting out on the property. It is also his opinion that a 3 -car garage is standard today. Gehring said the driveway has been minimized. He noted that the shed is to be removed, and no hardcover will exist between the garage and the house. Peterson informed the applicant that approval of the garage would affect any future changes to the property. He noted that many older homes are being removed and new homes built. If this were the case on this property with the larger garage and the hardcover issue, the applicant would have difficulty in gaining approval for a larger house. The applicant responded that if a new house were to be built, it would be the same size and the 15% lot coverage limitation would be considered. He noted that there is no variance required at this time for lot coverage. 14 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder noted that the lot coverage is at 15% now. He is concerned with intensification of the structures on the property. Schroeder said the applicant may wish to consider moving the structures back on the lot and noted that the 3 -car garage is limiting the applicant for any future building. Schroeder commented that many people feel a 2 -car garage is a right in Minnesota but was not convinced that a 3 -car garage was the standard. Berg commented that a 3 -car garage was becoming the normal size for a garage. The applicant responded that the size difference between a 2 -car and a 3-car garage is minimal. Hawn noted that keeping utility vehicles within a garage is a good idea. Peterson asked for the Commission to look at the application in two parts with the first issue being the retaining wall. Tom Palm, owner of the property to the north of the applicant, commented that the temporary pipe used to alleviate pooling of water was 4" in size. A ditch was dug which moved the water toward the larger swale. It was determined that there were no problems with this solution as the pipe was found to handle a 6" rain with no standing water. Palm saw no problem with recreating the pipe as a permanent solution. He noted it was to his benefit to see that the water has a place to go. Lindquist said he had no problem with the retaining wall. He did note that ice will eventually take the wall out, which would not occur if rip rap was used. Peterson noted that the Engineer did say it was only a temporary solution. The applicant commented that a neighboring property has a similar wall, which has lasted for the past 5 years with no problem. He noted maintenance may be required and is all right with that. Lindquist asked how far back the wall would be built. Mabusth said there is a natural sand beach, and the wall would be 6' from the normal shoreline. Schroeder asked if it should be a concern with the Planning Commissioners if the solution was not permanent if the applicant was in favor of the proposal. Peterson said the area could be left natural. He understood that while the wall works for the neighbor, the Planning Commission needs to rely on the expertise of the City Engineer. He commented that the wall could cause further problems but was not troubled with the installation of the wall. Schroeder noted that the applicant has an incentive to keep the wall in good repair to save the beach area. 15 �J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of the retaining wall with Staff recommendations. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. As for the garage, Lindquist asked if the Commission was able to approve a garage without understanding where the pond would be located. Peterson said he had the same concern. Mabusth said this was a recent issue. Staff is unable to issue a permit without seeing an approved grading plan by the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. The applicant said he was told by the MCWD that preliminary approval would be required from the City before the MCWD would look at the issue. Gehring asked if the City would approve the application for the garage with the condition that the required permits were received from the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. Mabusth said she was not comfortable with bringing the application before the Council with questions unanswered. The applicant said it was his plan to build the garage this fall. Schroeder commented that the City Engineer would need to approve the drainage plans. Peterson said the Council would not approve the garage without the permits in hand from the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. The applicant noted that the meeting of the MCWD was scheduled for October 9, and the Council meeting was scheduled for October 13. Mabusth questioned whether Palm would need to be jointly involved with the creation of the pond. Palm said it was his understanding that his part would be only where the pipe is located. Mabusth said the retaining pond would possibly be located on the Palm property too. Palm said he was unsure of this and thought the pipe would carry the drainage to the swale on his property. Peterson noted that the solution may be a swale, but it was possible that a swale may not be enough, and a pond would be required. Lindquist was of the opinion that the pond should be a joint proposal by both Gehring and Palm. Mabusth noted that Staff will be working with both parties on storm water management. Lindquist asked if conceptual approval could be granted. Mabusth said matching retention areas on the property would be required to compensate for the flood plain. Schroeder said if Staff could continue to work with the application, was the Commission and Staff comfortable with turning the proposal over to the City Engineer in this form. Peterson voiced some concern with the size of the structure. Mabusth clarified that it was not an oversized structure and did meet the required setbacks. The excess hardcover is in the 0 -75' zone and not in the 75 -250' zone. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the construction of the 3 -car garage with the understanding that the application not proceed to Council until it has been approved by • the City's Public Works Director and City Engineer, the MCWD, and the Corp of Engineers. 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 • ( #10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder asked who sets the code for the flood plain areas. Mabusth reported that is is a federal flood plain regulation. Lindquist continued that the application may involve the Palm property. Mabusth said Palm may need to extend an easement to the City. Palm said he would be in agreement to this as he would like to solve the issue together noting the historic drainage problems in the area. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #11) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON, III, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 -9 :18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to allow alteration of 17 cubic yards within the 90 lineal foot section of the shoreline. Ice • movement has created erosion problems for the sand bank ridge. The applicant proposes to restore the bank to a 3:1 slope in order to grow grass. Gustafson has reviewed the application and said it was the best solution. Richter of the DNR also noted his approval and the need for no plantings. This proposal is a natural approach for solution to erosion, and the applicant was commended for taking this aproach. Mabusth said that while the City Engineer has approved the proposal, he noted if the bank is to retain a minimum 3:1, the bank would have to be cut back 5 -8' and would result in the removal of about 34 cubic yards instead of 17. The applicant would then place 8 cubic yards of clean soil to be covered with sod. The applicant noted his preference for this change. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2075 with Staff recommendations 1 -4. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #12) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9 :18 -9:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. 0 The Applicant was present. 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 ( #12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of Willow. The applicant had previously received approval for a setback variance for a garage located in front of the principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a 5' side setback. The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front of the principal structure. The existing garage was placed 6.4' from the side lot line. With the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to more restrictive area and setback standards. The .62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s. f. of oversized accessory structure. The proposed garage would require an area variance of 77 s. f. or 7.7 %. The structure would now require a setback of 30' and is proposed at 6.4. Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true. There are steep topographies on the lot. The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence. The only gentle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for future septic needs. Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot coverage increasing from 13.5% to 18.1%. He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed. Perry said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. iMabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he was going to convert the original garage space to living space. Perry said he did not do so as he and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned. He acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls. Schroeder asked if the applicant was going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the tuck -under garage, one is being restored, and bikes and the like are sitting outside of the detached garage. There were no public comments. Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize structure for a small lot. Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this would be allowed and no variances needed. Mabusth said side setback variance would still be required. Any structure placed in front of the principal structure requires a variance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving materials stored outside. Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now. The applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. Mabusth asked the applicant about the power pole. Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole. 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 ( #12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Hawn said she was of the opinion that 6 stalls of garage space was excessive with 2 -3 stalls being the norm. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2079 due to excessive lot coverage for the size of the lot. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #13) #2080 GREG AND DANA KELLENBERGER, 4045 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 -9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the applicants have two development plans for additions to their residence located in the 5 -acre zoning district. The existing house is located in a substandard location at 5 P where 100' is required for the front /street setback. The 24x24' detached garage shown as Option A would require a street setback. Option B involves an attached garage to the residence requiring a 50' side setback and is proposed at 26'. The front/street setback from Watertown Road would be at 52'. The existing driveway at east lot line can be saved and used to approach the back yard. A second curb cut further to the west has been approved by John Gerhardson. Option A would place a driveway very close to the septic site. The Option B for an attached garage would allow access to the rear of the property along east side. Staff recommends Option B. Peterson asked the applicant which option he prefers. The applicant prefers Option B as it gives them a spot for a patio to the rear of the residence. Peterson suggested the Commission review Option B for the attached garage. It was noted that the deck does not exist on Option B but the covered porch remains. The two -story home would remain but the flat roof addition with a tuck -under garage would be removed and rebuilt in same location. The applicant commented that they have horses and would prefer to keep the existing driveway to use for the horse trailer as it is a safer route to the west being located on a higher portion of the roadway. Mabusth said Gerhardson would need to approve maintaining the two accesses. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2080 for Option B for front /street setback variance of 48' and side setback variance of 24' for an attached garage. If two driveways are to be maintained, they would need the approval of Gerhardson. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #14) #2081 PATRICK AND NANCY WALSH, 1390 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 -9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Walsh was present. Mabusth said that she and Mr. Walsh met today and went over Staff concerns. The proposal at this time is amended from that in the packet as a result of this meeting. The proposal is for two single story additions at the sides of the residence consisting of a mud room/kitchen with eating area, an expanded master bedroom with a walk -in closet and expanded bedroom on the second story, which would encroach the average lakeshore setback by 9' and encroach the 75' line by 9'. The upper level above the garage would be for a recreation room or bedrom located 20' from the street lot line and require a street variance because of the intensification. The hardcover in the 0 -75' zone exists at 11.91/o and proposed at same percentage. Hardcover in the 75 -250' zone exists at 40.2% and proposed at 56.3% for an increase of 774.5 s.f. of 16 %. The stoop will be roofed under the proposal and, thereby, included in the structural coverage. The views and plans were shown to the Commission members. The structural coverage is proposed at 20.1% and with stoop, adjusted at 21.4 %. • The amended proposal reduces the master bedroom by 44 s.f., eliminates the 80 s.f mudroom, reduces the 14 s.f entry, shows removal of 91.75 s.f of plastic, and removal of deck structure with fencing and planter with plastic. The amended calculations for hardcover with 75 -250' area existing at 41 %, originally proposed at 56.3 %, is amended at 51.5% or a 11.2% increase. The 75 -250' hardcover variance would be reduced by 4.8 %. Lindquist asked if there was any change in the 0 -75' zone. Mabusth said there was none and was same as originally proposed at 11.9 %. All new improvements are in the 75 -250' zone. The amended hardcover variance in this zone would be reduced to 26.5 %. Mr. Walsh said he realized the lot was small but so was the house. Any expansion would require a variance. The house is at 800 s.f with a 314 bath, no utility room, and no kitchen eating space. The house is centered on the lot and is a cape code style with a low profile. The additions to each side would balance off the house. The roof on the garage would give the house a higher profile. The proposal is to give the residents more living space. The entry is to aid entry from an icy area. Walsh acknowledged to Schroeder that they have lived in the house for 17 years. There were no public comments. • 20 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #14 - #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh - Continued) Peterson told Walsh he understood the need for improvements but noted the substandard lot by the lakeshore. The applicant said that is why they have tried to keep the improvements to a minimum. Peterson said he would not approve any improvements in the 0 -75' and noted all improvements were to be made in the 75 -250' zone. Schroeder commented that the lot coverage would increase from 15% to 19.9 %. He acknowledged that the additions were not large but that the lot was so small. Hawn said she was undecided. She noted the appeal in filling out the rectangle of the house but questioned whether any improvements should be allowed that increase the size of the residence. Hawn was concerned that paring down the mud room seemed silly. Mabusth said that the applicant read the Staff memo and came in on his own volition to discuss changes. Lindquist said he had mixed feelings but noted the addition was minimal. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2081 as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Peterson, Hawn, Lindquist, Nays, 2, Berg, Schroeder, both commenting that it was too small a lot to consider any additions. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW ( #15) #2077 CHARLES W. HOMMEYER, JEFFREY A. BOWEN, KENNETH B. ROLLAND, 4119/4127/4125 OAK STREET - REPLAT AND VACATION OF PUBLIC ROADS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review is for a replat of 15 lots and the vacation of Clyde Place, Park Ave., and the western section of Oak Street. The replat will create 3 lots. Lots 1 and 2 would share access from Linden Avenue. Lot 3 would use the existing driveway extending from Oak Street. 4111 Oak Street is served from the same driveway. Oak Street is maintained by the City to Oak and Linden intersection, the western end of Oak Street serves 4 properties and is maintained by property owner. With the replat, access for two lots, 4111 and 4119 Oak Street, will be via the driveway outlot. Access to the steep ravine area will be retained via a platted 15' alleyway. Staff questions whether the City should retain a walkway easement from the east to the ravine. 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ( #15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the street vacation application. Parcel A, the Knight property, is located in the LR -1B zone within the MUSA. Knight could ask for sewering of this property as well as subdivide with as many as three lots. If vacation of the only two public accesses to this property is approved, the City must provide access to a public road. The City approved a lot area variance for Lots 14, Block 3. Mabusth said she met with the applicants and found that it may be possible to maintain public access from Linden but with the loss of one small lot. The applicant would give 50' so there would be no need to enter the Bennett property. If a cul -de -sac were to be built, there were several options as to the location. Mabusth said Bennett indicated he would withdraw his application if required to dedicate a cul -de -sac. 20 additional feet will be sought for Linden Avenue. The Planning Commissioners had questioned whether a loop road would be an alternative in this subdivision. Mabusth said the applicants would lose the whole purpose for the replat if they went to that configuration. It is the applicants plan for Lots 1 and 2 to share access up to where Clyde Place is to be vacated and then branch off to their individual homes. Lot 3 would continue to gain access as it does now. • Schroeder asked if the problem with Bennett giving any private dedication was that there was no benefit to his property. He suggested that Knight cut through the easement to give the benefit to Bennett. Knight responded that he did not wish to do so as the aesthetics of the driveway with driving through a canopy of trees would be lost. Schroeder said the alternate would be the cul -de -sac should Knight subdivide. Lindquist clarified that the City needs to provide an opportunity for public access to Knight. Hawn asked if there was not a grandfathering of the existing easement for ingress and egress if Knight were to subdivide. Honmeyer said it would not meet the requirement for public roads. It was suggested that some land be purchased from Bennett. The applicants said they would desire for this to happen. Knight noted that this is why he recommends no action taken until all parties can discuss the applications. Honmeyer said if land could be purchhsed from Bennett, Knight would have his access. 50' is needed for the access but the properties would be dealing with more intense use in the future. There is a possibile division of three lots on the Knight property. Honmeyer said he would wish to keep the back portion of the property as buildable. 0 Lindquist acknowledged that access to the Knight property would need to be worked out. 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 0 (# 15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) • Schroeder said it would be an incentive for all to work out the details and suggested tabling the review to allow the parties involved to meet. Ken Rolland asked why the road needs to be a 50' width, which he felt was not practical. Mabusth asked about the cul -de -sac and where it belongs on the roadway. Staff is coming from the opinion that the cul -de -sac should be located at the true end of the roadway to eliminate driveways coming off of the road in all directions. Rolland said if 50' were not needed, there would be more negotiating room. Peterson said the amount was not set but an idea on the what the width might be is necessary. Rolland emphasized how treacherous the ravine was and considered it a liability. Mabusth said it was appropriate to question whether the City would want to take an walking easement to this ravine. Ann Honmeyer asked how much property would be needed to be purchased from Bennett if he would sell. Peterson said Staff could give directions regarding the amount. Mabusth said the two other sketches could be reviewed not involving the cul -de -sac. Schroeder asked the members to consider how that sketch would affect Bennetts subdivision plans. Peterson said he would prefer the cul -de -sac be located at the end of the development. Honmeyer added that may be no cul -de -sac is needed. Peterson said that was a possibility. The applicants will attempt to meet together with the applicants of #2078 to discuss both applications and how they would affect each other. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #16) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1995 No member of the Planning Commission attended the October 9, 1995 meeting of the Council. ( #17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that private driveways were discussed at a recent work session. Gaffron has begun to formulate a paper reviewing conditions under which variances to the private driveway code would be considered. 23 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 18, 1995 meeting of the Park Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #19) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 13,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Schroeder will attend the November 13, 1995 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at I0:30 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 24