HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1996 Planning Commission MinutesORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Elizabeth Hawn,
William Stoddard, Lili McMillan. Janice Berg was absent. The following represented the
City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Zoning and
Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan was
in attendance. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGSIPUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
( #1) #2170 LARRY H. NELSON, 3335 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - SUBDIVISION
OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 7 :01 -7:07 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for
property located on Crystal Bay Road. A 1980 deed transferred a portion of the adjoining
railroad property with applicant's homestead parcel but the subdivision was not approved
by the City. The City would have denied the division informing the property owner to
• apply for a subdivision application. The applicant has owned the property since 1992 and
would like to clear up the title and has filed the required Class I subdivision application.
Applicant's homestead parcel consists of 5500 s.f and the railroad property will add 901
s.f. Mabusth said the Staff has no problem with the application as presented.
Larry Nelson was present, along with an attorney representing First Security Title, Mike
Sabodi. Nelson said he filed a quit claim deed with Hennepin County but it was rejected.
There is 16.67' in question with the application. The document acquiring the property was
completed by the past owner and the railroad.
Mabusth added that she had spoken with a representative of Rail America, who was told
to contact the City if there were any problems or concerns from the railroad. No further
contact was made.
There were no public comments.
Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement
for Larry H. Nelson involving the property located at 3335 Crystal Bay Road and the
property originally owned by Burlington Northern and now Rail America, subject to the
condition that applicant's surveyor provide an amended survey designating Lot 7,
"Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach" as Parcel A and Parcel B
providing the description of the portion to be divided from the railroad property as
• described on the survey, Exhibit F.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #1 - #2170 Larry H. Nelson - Continued)
Schroeder inquired if the City should be concerned with the sheds located on the railroad
right -of -way. Mabusth said that was between the railroad and Nelson to resolve issue of
shed and a portion of a retaining wall on the railroad property. Nelson said the shed was
located there when he purchased the property, and the only question at this time was the
16.67'. Sabodi noted the railroad has deeded the 16.67' property to the previous owner,
and this action has no affect on the structures in the right -of -way.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #2) ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.44, SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4 AND
SECTION 10.45, SUBDIVISION 4 - B -5, LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS DISTRICT AND B -6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -
PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 -8:40 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Gaffi-on reported that the proposed zoning amendment came from two directions, one
being the rezoning for the Grace Baptist Church property from LR -1C to B -5, and the
Hwy 12 Land Use Committee consisting of three Council members and two Planning
• Commissioners reviewing the B -6 zone. The Planning Commission had suggested the
removal of several permitted or conditional uses that were not pertinent to today or the
particular locations. The Commission had briefly discussed eliminating the permitted use
of "tobacco shops" and the conditional uses of "home and garden equipment rental" and
"kennels ". Gaffron said it was suggested that when the B -5 was reviewed, the B -6 area of
Hwy 12 also be reviewed as it pertains to drive -thru restaurants, which is a conditional use
under the B -6 zoning.
Gaffron reviewed the purpose of the B -5 which is to "provide a district for businesses that
supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding
neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an
inordinate amount of hardcover.." The intent is to limit the hardcover and curtail traffic
problems.
Gaffron reviewed the areas of B -5 zoning in Navarre near CoRds 15 and 19. On the west
end, there is the Shoreline Service Center, which is an auto repair shop, Furniture
Minnesota, and one residence. Further east is the Navarre Dairy Queen, the Lake
Minnetonka Animal Hospital, two properties owned by Lowells Auto Parts, a print shop
and an office. Across the street is a small professional office building. The other B -5 is
the recent property rezoned from LR -1C, that being the Grace Baptist Church.
• Stoddard asked what direction the Council gave. Gaffron said the Council has not
discussed the B -5 issue.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #2 - Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Gaffron reported that the permitted uses are primarily service and retail and typically are
not open 24 hours. He reviewed the current list noting the proposed removal of the
tobacco shops. Gaffron said a tobacco shop was not an inherent bad neighbor but
suggested it might be a good fit in the same zoning district as a liquor store, which is
allowed in the B -1 and B3 zones. There are no tobacco shops in the B -5 at the present
time; and therefore, it would not deprive any current business of that use.
The other possible changes in conditional uses were "home and garden equipment rental"
and "kennels ". There are no rental businesses in the B -5, but there are in the B -1,
including Minnetonka A -1 Rental and possibly the hardware store. Gaffron questioned
whether kennels were appropriately placed in the B -5 zoning considering the noise
involved adding that noise could also be a problem at rental centers with the sounds of
engines starting early in the morning, etc.
Gaffron reported that off - street parking was also suggested for elimination from the B -5
District. Former Planning Commissioner Peterson bad expressed concern with parking
being provided for businesses at another property. The Navarre municipal parking lot
located in the B -1 District has been used for Lord Fletcher's employees and possibly by
others as well. Gaffron reviewed possible language changes proposed. It was noted the
• code as it relates to principle properties and related off - premise parking defies
interpretation. Parking should be listed in all commercial districts as an accessory use.
Gaffron suggested the off - street parking be a permitted accessory use when accessory to
and on the same lot as the principle use.
•
Lindquist said he had a problem with looking at the zoning in a piece -meal fashion and
preferred a more comprehensive study. Gaffron said it was Staffs recommendation that a
more comprehensive review take place, especially in the B -5 District.
Lindquist inquired about the B -6 zoning along Hwy 12. Gaffron said a study has been
conducted of that area. Schroeder asked if this would not also be piece meal. Gaffron
said the B -6 change suggested by the Committee was relatively straight forward. Smith
asked if this should be reviewed in a work session.
Schroeder asked what the driving force was behind the change to the B -6.
Callahan responded that the Council was not particularly interested in changing or
studying the B1 -B5 zones, though were not necessarily opposed. He said the change to
the B -6 was for a particular purpose.
3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
0 ( #2 - Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Hawn noted that there was no particular danger leaving the zoning as it currently stands in
that the issue of drive -thru restaurants was a conditional use and would require review,
while tobacco shops were a permitted use. She noted that the off - street parking relates to
all of the zones.
Callahan responded that the off - street parking for the most part required a business to be
on the property. He said he did not understand the need for the permitted use, citing off -
premise parking being permitted at the Art Center for the nearby marina. Gaffron said all
of the parking code sections would be reviewed.
Lindquist asked Gaffron to review the B -6. Gaffron indicated the B -6 revision would
affect one item only. The B -6 includes office, banks, libraries, motels, and Class 1
restaurants (sit -down type). All drive -thru type uses are conditional uses. The committee
suggested that a drive -thru bank would be acceptable but a drive -thru restaurant would
lend itself to more options including fast food. The Committee suggested drive -thru
restaurants be eliminated.
Schroeder questioned why this use should be eliminated and inquired if the level of traffic
was a factor. Gaffron said there were a number of reasons, one of which could be the lack
• of wanting a fast food restaurant along Hwy 12. Gaffron said it does not mean fast food
restaurants are bad, but reasons should be defined as to why this conditional use would
not be permitted. Lindquist said the committee decided that eliminating the conditional
use would eliminate future requests for such uses. Schroeder was informed by Gaffron
that the B -6 zoning along Hwy 12 only involves the Otten properties and potentially the
Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road area on the north.
Lindquist asked if there were any public comments.
John O'Sullivan asked if the reason behind the proposed change to the B -6 was fast -food
restaurants or the drive -thru itself. He noted another city eliminating fast food restaurants
and the change precluded the use by businesses that might have been desirable. O'Sullivan
said there were certain types of dining that emphasized take out food, and the elimination
of drive -thrus would hinder this application, citing examples of LeeAnn Chins, Culver's,
and others. O'Sullivan said if eliminating fast food restaurants was the goal, maybe the
definition of fast food needs to be determined.
Stoddard said O'Sullivan made a good point in that the Commission cannot change life
styles. Stoddard suggested retaining the conditional use as only two areas are affected and
a reason of lack of accommodating the traffic could be a factor in future applications.
Stoddard asked if the areas could not handle the traffic. Gaffron said traffic was not
necessarily an issue.
4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
( #2 - Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Lindquist brought up the issue of drive -thru versus fast food. Hawn responded that she
was not prepared to define what fast food is or is not. Stoddard said he preferred the
conditional use because of such problems with definitions. Smith said there could be a
concern with an applicant not understanding why such a conditional use could not be
allowed and eliminating the use would eliminate the possibility of such a future problem.
Lindquist suggested Staff review what other cities have done in order to gain ,a. better
definition of fast food if the issue was indeed fast food versus drive -thru. Lindquist
suggested tabling the matter and scheduling a work session. Smith said she was also
concerned with increased traffic. Gaffron noted that hours of operation and signage might
also be issues of concern.
Callahan reminded the Commission that the moratorium on Hwy 12 was scheduled to end
on October 28, and the committee would prefer to have an amendment adopted or action
taken prior to that date. Gaffi-on said a work session could be scheduled prior to the next
Planning Commission meeting and further review could then be conducted at the October
Planning Commission meeting. Schroeder asked to see a review of the issue of traffic
versus uses.
• Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table review of the B -6 District. Vote: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table the review of the B -5 District subject to a
complete review of the B -1 thru B -5 Districts. A study could occur at a later date with
further direction from the Council. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
ACTION ITEMS
( #3) #2169 MICHAEL RENARD, 1185 TONKAWA ROAD - RENEWAL
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:08 -7:30 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present, along with Builder, Tom Betz.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
( #3 - #2169 Michael Renard - Continued)
Mabusth reported that the application was a renewal variance involving an average
lakeshore setback variance for 4' and hardcover variance in the 75 -250' setback proposed
at 26.7% based on the removal of a 168 s.f shed as required by the City in 1990. An
amended survey shows the 4' encroachment which was shown in three previous reviews at
1.5' but more accurate survey information confirms additions location. There is no change
in the footprint. The new footprint at approximately 15.5x26' is slightly smaller than
original proposal. The upper level extends over half of the lower level footprint of 15x26'
with the T bay extension. The improvement includes an expanded dining room, living
room, and foyer on the lower level and a master bedroom at the upper level.
Renard asked the Planning Commission to consider the inclusion of the 12x14' shed which
he valued at approximately $12,000. He said the application was originally agreed upon
with a previous owner who had no need for the shed. He said he uses the shed for bikes,
etc. Renard said he understands the concern for hardcover and the proximity to the
lakeshore and would be willing to remove plastic across the front in the landscape area of
about 300 s.f. He said this would allow relief from his hardship and add value to his
property and still be in keeping with the spirit of removal of hardcover close to the
lakeside.
• Hawn questioned the sight line of the neighbor noting no problem with one story but a
concern with a two story home. She noted the windows located on this side. Renard said
he spoke with his neighbors, the Smiths, who were shown the plans and signed the
acknowledgment letter. Mabusth said the letter was in the file. She added that both
neighbors on the north and south signed the letters and had no complaint with the
application. Renard also noted that the improvement proposed is smaller than that
requested by the previous owner. Hawn asked if Renard was willing to remove the
concrete picnic area. Renard said he would be willing to do so if it meant he could keep
the shed.
is
6
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #3 - #2169 Michael Renard - Continued)
Lindquist asked what the hardcover facts were. Mabusth asked for a breakdown of the
hardcover calculations and whether it included the landscaping. Betz showed the survey
to Mabusth, who did not have a copy of this particular survey. Discussion was had on the
particulars of the hardcover. It was determined that if the 130 s.f of landscape rock in the
0 -75' was removed, along with 420 s.f in the 75 -250' setback, there would be no need for
a hardcover variance. Schroeder said he was concerned with trading of plastic and rock as
it should not have been there in the first place. The plastic was installed by a previous
owner. Schroeder said the hardcover should be separated showing what does and does
not count. Mabusth said it would not be required if there was no hardcover variance
required in the 75 -250' setback and would only involve the average lakeshore setback.
Schroeder questioned whether this was actually known. Mabusth clarified that the
hardcover total was originally 6142 s.f. or 26.7% where 5707 s.f is allowed. With the
removal of the 420 s.f. of landscape rock and plastic, the square footage of hardcover
would be at 24.9% and not require a variance.
Smith asked why the shed was an issue in 1991. Mabusth said it was because the
hardcover exceeded the allowed at 26.7 %. With the shed removal, the hardcover would
be at 25.5 %.
• There were no public comments.
Schroeder said he was reluctant to allow the shed since the Council in 1991 recommended
its removal with the same basic numbers presented. Lindquist noted that the structure was
proposed larger at that time. Mabusth said there was also more hardcover and the
updated survey was not available. Mabusth said the removal of plastic and rock would
result in a 1.8% reduction from 26.7% to 24.9 %.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2169 with the
understanding that all plastic on the property would be removed along with the cement
pad located in the 0 -75' setback. The application would only involve a variance to the
average Lakeshore setback, and the shed would be allowed to remain. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays
0.
( #4) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 -7 :54 P.M.
The Applicant was present.
Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the request of the applicant at the
August 19 meeting of the Planning Commission. He noted that the application has been
40 revised by the withdrawal of the boathouse from the application.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
0 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued)
Mrs. Jundt said the intent was non - structural in regards to the boathouse and repair only
would be done due to a hole in the roof from a large tree branch that fell on it this past
year. Lindquist asked Mrs. Jundt if she had a problem with the total removal of the
boathouse. Jundt said she would be reluctant to remove the boathouse due to its historical
significance. Gaffron said caution would need to be taken regarding a repair permit for
the 1930's boathouse with the value versus the cost of repair. Smith clarified that the
boathouse would not be deleted from the application, and there were no plans to remove
the boathouse from the property. Gaffron informed the Commission that the City would
have to review the repairs proposed.
Jundt questioned why there was a concern when only repairs were planned. She was
informed that structural repairs cannot exceed 50% of the value of the boathouse when
ordinances made such structures nonconforming' in 1975. Mabusth said she spoke with
Jundt's attorney, Tom Crosby, who noted the cement piers, which are part of its
construction and were found to be in good condition. He was informed that additional
information would be required if the integrity of the foundation was questioned. A
window will be added but the roof slope would remain the same. Jundt said she
understood the concern when asked by Lindquist. Lindquist clarified that if any repairs
exceed 50% of the value, the code requires the boathouse to be removed. It was
40 determined that more information would be required before this issue could be resolved.
Gaffron reported that the proposal includes improvements east of the main house to the
underground grotto, a retaining wall, and repair of the stairways. One set of stairways has
a gap which will be connected. This stairway is located 5 -10' from the shoreline. Another
centrally located stairway will be repaired and restored. The retaining wall will be repaired
along with the grotto. Gaffron said the existing 4 walkways extend 650' in distance and
questioned whether there were more than enough stairways. He noted the code allows for
stairs to the lake but does not mention how many sets of stairs per property.
The improvements to the grotto will consist of cosmetic changes with the addition of a
stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, addition of a decorative light, restoration of
existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Gaffron noted
that since the grotto was underground, it is not considered hardcover. The hardcover
calculations are at 0.7% in the 0 -75' setback with the exclusion of the hardcover in the
public right -of -way. Additional hardcover of about 1% is proposed in the submitted
calculations in the patio and deck area but no specifics are provided and will need
clarification. Mrs. Jundt said restoration was only planned at this time, no additions.
Smith asked if there were improvements to the grotto. Gaffron said the changes were
cosmetic only.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
(#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued)
McMillan asked if there would be changes to the vegetation. Jundt said the plans call for
trimming only.
Gaffron said the code normally asks for a staircase to come straight down in order to keep
the hardcover to a minimum. The stairs now angle down across the slope and are partially
hidden by vegetation.
Smith noted that the number of staircases was previously reviewed. It was determined
that if the property was broken down into parcels that the number of stairways would be
acceptable.
Hawn commented on the uniqueness of the property and the fact that only restoration was
being performed, not new improvements. Hawn said she spoke with the gardener who
said he used the far stairways alot in his work and the restoration would increase the
safety. Hawn said she had no problem with the restoration.
Jundt said it was their intent to return the property to what it once was and not change it.
She said she had questioned whether the boathouse should be restored and was informed
that it should be as it has historically value. She informed Mabusth when questioned that
additional damage could occur if the repair was not made. Mabusth said, although the
cost of repair may exceed 50% of value, she would be inclined to allow the repair because
of the uniqueness.
Stoddard asked how the valuation was determined. Gaffron said the assessor's value was
usually taken from 1975 records. However, no value was established for this building in
the records. A value for a comparable building of its size could possibly be used.
Lindquist asked whether the Commission was including the boathouse or not in this
application. Mabusth said there was a need to allow the structural repair to the roof, but
the applicant would have to come back with more information on the foundation.
Lindquist said he would need more information before he could vote on the issue and
asked for an estimate. Mrs. Jundt said she thought it would be okay to repair the
structure. Gaffron said it was a matter or defining whether and to what extent structural
repair actually is needed. Gaffron said he would want the building inspector to look at the
structure if the boathouse was included in the application. Lindquist said the Commission
would only look at the sidewalk, retaining walls, and grotto, and would not include the
boathouse in this approval.
There were no public comments.
r�
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,19%
(#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued)
Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the restoration and cosmetic remodel to
the grotto, retaining walls, and sidewalks with the condition that the applicant work with
Staff regarding the boathouse.
Smith questioned whether the boathouse affects the retaining walls. Gaffron said the
grotto and retaining walls are together, and the boathouse is totally separate.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #5) #2168 TODD AND DONNA ROOKS, 4190 HIGHWOOD ROAD -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7 :54 -8 :04 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Mabusth reported the application was for a hardcover variance within the 75 -250' setback
area for construction of a 12'x16' deck on the west side of the residence placed over the
aggregate patio. A previous deck was placed in a larger footprint, and the replacement
• deck will be smaller in size. There will be no reduction in the existing hardcover within
75 -250' setback area at 55 %.
•
The applicant said he began to repair the deck, and it fell down.
Mabusth said the applicant asked for direction regarding the possibility of a garage. Staff
reviewed the situation and reported that there was no way to get beyond the residence
with the topography to the rear of the property. Mabusth said there was 8' of the stoop
and 1 T to the right -of -way line. Mabusth asked the size of the existing porch for possibly
using part of the structure for the garage. Rooke said it was about 6' deep. Mabusth said
there would only be room for a one -stall garage, and the right -of -way would continue to
serve as back out area.
Rooke said all of the neighbors in the area have 50' wide lots but depths of about 250'.
The homes are within the first 75' of the property. Rooke said he has spoken with his
neighbors regarding gaining a private drive along the back to put garages to the rear
where no hardcover issue would be involved.
Stoddard suggested coming in from the west side where only an easement would be
required. Mabusth said the topography of the area would probably eliminate that
possibility.
10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #5 - #2168 Todd and Donna Rooke - Continued)
Lindquist suggested the applicant work together with the neighbors and plat the driveway
area.
Gaffron inquired if there was an alley, but Mabusth said no alley was platted. Rooke did
note an alley named Highwood Lane linking Highwood Road with North Shore Drive to
the east.
Rooke commented that a road would increase the property value for the five homes that
would be affected. He also noted that there would be a loss of about 6 trees.
Hawn remarked on the positive aspect of off - street parking if such a road was possible.
Mabusth said a comprehensive survey would be required for a subdivision. She informed
Rooke that it would be an easier solution with a garage in the rear yard and added that all
of the hardcover could be located in 250' -500' setback area and not require variances.
Rooke inquired about the cost and was informed that it would involve a subdivision fee.
Lindquist told Rooke to call a surveyor. Rooke asked where the road would be located in
relation to the sewer. Mabusth informed him that the survey would have to relay that
information.
•
Mabusth informed t h e app li ca n t a n d Commission that t hi s application
would be heard at
the September 23 Council meeting if recommended for approval.
•
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2168 for a replacement deck
with hardcover remaining at 55% in the 75 -250' setback area. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #6) #2171 MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF NORAM ENERGY
CORPORATION, 530 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 -8:48 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kahlstrom.
11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #6 - #2171 Minnegasco - Continued)
Mabusth reported that the request was for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow
Minnegasco to continue the use of a portable vaporizer at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road in
the industrial zoning district. The vaporizer was installed in 1992. In 1995 a one -year
extension was granted by the Council, which expires October, 1996. Mabusth said
Minnegasco had hoped that the vaporizer would no longer be needed but delays in
improvements for CoRd 6 lines has hindered the upgrade plans. Minnegasco believes the
vaporizer will be phased out by spring of 1998.
Mabusth added that the police chief and fire department had little knowledge of the
vaporizer. Since the review in 1995, they were provided information on the vaporizer,
and the police chief watched the filling process involved. He relayed good comments
noting the use of adequate number of employees and care. The police chief informed Staff
that he sees no problem with granting the extension.
Mr. Kahlstrom said the project was in place at their plant, but they did not have total
control over matters involving CoRd 6. He noted that the supply from the west serving
Orono is not adequate to meet the needs of the area. The supply is increasing with the
installation of the main project next summer. The vaporizer is needed for one more year
for use in 1997 -1998.
•
Lindquist asked Kahlstrom if he saw an problem with the vaporizer being phased out b
q any p gP Y
spring of 1998. Kahlstrom did not.
•
McMillan asked what was done with the excess at the end of the season. Kahlstrom said
there is no excess as there is no on -site storage. The gas is brought in by tanker and then
driven away.
Schroeder asked how many vaporizers were in use and if there were any problems.
Kahlstrom said this was the only one of its kind in the Midwest and it has presented no
problems. There is a liquid gas facility in Burnsville used by the tanker and for use as a
portable pipe line. The natural gas is shipped in.
Smith noted that the information says the vaporizer is only used three to four times a
season. McMillan and Mabusth reported that it was used 19 times last year. The colder
temperatures were a factor.
Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit
for an additional year with the vaporizer phased out by May 31, 1998, Vote: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #7) #2172 GERALD AND NANCY BLOMS, 4195 FOREST LAKE DRIVE -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:48 -9:00 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the applicant previously received an area variance for residential
construction on what had been a vacant lot, and consistent with the surrounding lots. The
applicant now seeks a lot coverage variance for the construction of a 12'x14 -1/2' deck
resulting in a 1.1 % increase. Structural coverage is currently 15.7 %, where 15% is
allowed. Elevations were shown. The deck addition is to the existing deck and maintains
the 32' setback. The 12' extension is towards the street side. The foundation plan was
shown.
Smith asked if a wood patio was to be added since there is a concrete pad now. The
applicant said the concrete has cracked. Mabusth said the grade level deck is acceptable
and not included in the structural coverage. The upper level deck is included as it will
have a railing and is at a 6' grade.
Nancy Bloms said she was surprised to find a zoning code for structural coverage. She
• said her property is consistent with those of the neighborhood. Bloms also asked that her
application be presented at the September 23 Council meeting.
Stoddard asked for clarification on the lower deck. Mabusth said the structure is included
in the hardcover calculations, which presents no problem as the property allows 30% and
is below that figure.
There were no public comments.
Hawn acknowledged that there would be no impact on the neighbors but noted that the
coverage was over the limit. Hawn said it was her inclination to ask that the records note
no additional structure would be allowed on the property. She also voiced concern that
such notations are not passed along to future owners. Bloms said she would not want
such a limit to be noted as it might limit the value of the property. Bloms felt a 15%
structural coverage on 3/4 acre was minimal and unrealistic. Hawn responded that when
limits are not set, the neighbors keep adding new structure. She noted the ordinance is
there to help maintain space in keeping with an open space philosophy.
Schroeder said Bloms remarks have some merit as coverage is less than some of the
neighboring properties. He was concerned with noting on record a limitation as the
Commission is unable to bind future bodies and was unenforceable.
13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( #7 - #2172 Gerald and Nancy Bloms - Continued)
Smith said such notation puts property owners on notice, was not considered a penalty,
and went with the property, not the individual, and was consistent with the code. Smith
said the Commission attempts to apply the code consistently and fairly, and the neighbors
would receive the same treatment. Smith said she was in support of noting on record a
limit on future structural additions.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve the construction of an upper level deck
extending the structural coverage to 1.6.8% with the additional language that it is the
Planning Commission's opinion that the property has reached its maximum lot coverage
and asks that any further request for structure be denied. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #8) #2173 BENNETT CHARLES DOWNEY, 2675 SHADYWOOD ROAD -
AFTER- THE -FACT VARIANCENARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:01 -9:13
P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant, Chuck Downey, was present along with new owner, Gary Hegenes.
• Gaffron reported that the previous owner, Rolla Martin, had applied for a variance for a
tennis court but withdrew the application in 1985. A 1986 addition added 90 s.f for a
total of 7890 s.f., which included the driveway for the neighboring property. In 1990,
Martin proposed an additional expansion of the house on the west side. While in review,
Staff found additional hardcover that had not previously been present and exceeded the
25% allowable in the 75 -250' setback area. Martin then withdrew his application. It was
found that the gazebo was located 5' from the garage where 10' separation is required.
The property was subsequently sold, and Staff put a notice in the property file that the
hardcover overage and gazebo would have to be taken care of in the future. The property
was then purchased by Downey and sold to Hegenes.
The current application resulted from the notice in the file. Gaffron noted that there has
been one change since 1990. The driveway serving the neighbor with an easement is now
excluded from the calculations for both lot coverage and hardcover. The 5' separation of
the gazebo from the garage still exists, but decks now connect the gazebo. There are no
other variances required. The applicant is proposing to remove rock and plastic near the
driveway and fence.
Hegenes said the decking proposed will allow the deck to be squared off The existing
stairway will be removed, the deck squared off, and new stairs installed. The deck
coverage will be less than what now exists. Hegenes noted that a landscaped area was
• penned in as a deck. He also said some concrete will be removed.
14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
0 ( #8 - 92173 Bennett Charles Downey - Continued)
Gaffron said the hardcover will be under the 25% allowable at 24- 24.5 %. There are no
other variances involved except for the garage and gazebo separation. With the deck
connection, the gazebo and garage have become an integral part of the system. There may
be a need for a fire wall, however.
Gaffron said Staff recommends approval with the hardcover now under the 25% in the 75-
250' setback area with the removals as listed. The gazebo application is after -the -fact and
a building permit is required to ensure that the improvement is correctly built. Gaffron
said the after - the -fact fees should be waived as it was done by the previous owner.
There were no public comments.
Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2173 subject to Staff
recommendations requiring hardcover be less than 25 %.
Downey asked if rocks were considered hardcover if there was no plastic underneath.
Gaf -ron said it was not as long as the pebbles have not been driven on or underlain with
plastic or fabric. The size of the rock was not a factor. As a side note, Gaffron said rip
rap is also not included in hardcover.
• Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0.
Y Y
is
( #9) #2177 BOB MELAMED, 2005 SUGARWOOD DRIVE - REQUEST TO
WAIVE REQUIREMENT OF SUGAR WOODS COVENANT
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present, along with Landscape Architect, Kevin Norby.
Mabusth reported that the application is the first for the current Planning Commission as it
involves an issue with a driveway in the Sugar Woods Development. The City entered
into the covenants in order to stand by the objectives that were set for the development.
The purpose is to preserve trees, and the area in question is within a protected area. The
covenant includes setback requirements, no removal of trees, no fill, and front access
drives were not to exceed 20' in width and were to be in a straight alignment. The two
adjoining property owners have been notified and no comments have been received.
15
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
( #9 - #2177 Bob Melamed - Continued)
Mabusth said the applicant has a somewhat different plan proposed than what is shown in
the packet. The original plan proposes to build within the protected area using retaining
walls and a curved roadway. The applicant's addendum notes the uniqueness of the site,
the topography, and the narrowness of the building envelope. The applicant proposes that
approval be sought from the neighbor to the west, the Simonds, the property owners
receiving the most impact.
In reviewing the pattern of the subdivision, Mabusth said properties with side loading
garage and side driveway have had to come before the City. The Council approved an
abbreviated review for these requests with the Planning Commission having the final say.
If the application were to be denied or a tie vote obtained, it would go before the Council.
Hawn asked if there was a homeowners association. Mabusth said the original developer,
Sid Rebers, is part of the architectural review board. He sent a letter, which is part of the
packet, noting the effort required to save trees, but asked that an agreement be reached
with the neighbor to the west before approval given. Mabusth said she has received no
comment from that neighbor, the Simonds. Melamed advised that he felt they were out of
town.
• Melamed advised the revised plan addresses the concerns of the Staff and results in an
amended plan requiring no fill and a realignment of the house.
Melamed said the trees were located on the plan after the site plan was completed. He
commented that he is also the developer of French Creek, which was designed from the
example of Sugar Woods to minimize the impact of construction on forested area.
Melamed said the number one factor in the design of the development is to minimize the
vehicular exposure to the street and number two factor was saving the trees. The plan
was amended after the trees were located. All but one of the trees over 6" will be saved
with the plan. Melamed said with front loading garage, he would have to clear a whole
swath of trees. He said he has made an attempt to speak with the neighbors and asks that
approval be given based on approval by the Simonds, who he also believes is currently out
of town. Melamed also said he would add 8' Black Hill Spruce if additional screening is
necessary.
Norby said the original site plan required grading for retaining walls. Once the trees were
located, the plan was amended to raise the house 2' to eliminate the retaining walls. There
are now no retaining walls on the driveway side but one located in front of the property,
which will follow the grade and be consistent in height. The height will vary from 1 -1/2'
to 4' to 6' at the corner and may possibly be two walls. The retaining wall will be of field
stone, which is similar to that used by the home to the north. Norby noted that with the
drive at a 14' width, the grade has almost been reduced to zero.
16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
0 ( #9 - #2177 Bob Melamed - Continued)
Regarding the 25' side setback, Norby said it currently is planned at 27' and originally at
32'. The turnaround was at a 90 degree angle but has been changed to save three
additional trees. There may possibly be additional deciduous trees planted in the area.
Norby noted the extensive undergrowth of smaller trees which adds to the denseness of
the wooded property.
When asked by Schroeder how close the neighboring house was, Melamed said the
neighboring house was located more to the east on their lot with the driveway to the west.
Norby added that the neighboring lot was also quite wooded. Mabusth said the setback
would be up to negotiations with the neighbor, the Simonds. Norby said the curved
driveway was a result of tree placement. A 20" basswood in front would be lost if the
garage and driveway were to be turned more towards the front of the house. Without the
encroachment, the applicant said there would be a wide swath of trees cut out of original
virgin forest. The smaller growth of trees on the property are located to the east. It was
then noted that the average setback is 13' to the side of the lot with the closest at 6'.
Stoddard asked how much would be gained if the back out was removed. Melamed and
Norby said a car could not get out of the garage in that scenario. Mabusth added that the
apron could be moved more to the east.
Lindquist asked that Staff review the setback with the Simonds.
Mabusth also noted that she would like to have the City Engineer review the plan to see if
the back out could be brought further east to pull it further away from the side lot line.
Smith asked instead of a straight approach, front load, if a slight turn could be done to get
around the tree without getting into the turn around area. Norby said the 14' driveway
with a front load of 30' narrows down to 20'. Mabusth commented that there would still
be a need for a back -up area. Norby noted that trees would still be lost. Smith said that
would not occur further up. Melamed said the amended plan calls for removal of only one
tree. Smith agreed adding that it was also misleading in that many were lost with the
driveway. Norby said although the solution would physically work, they were also
attempting to eliminate the sight of vehicles and questioned if the covenants would be met.
Smith noted that the covenant also asks for a straight drive. Melamed commented that
many of the houses in the development had curved driveways and is puzzled by the
requirement of straight driveways. Schroeder responded that it was an attempt to limit
impact on tree growth in front yards. Melamed said the driveway across the street, as well
as that of the Simonds, is curved.
Schroeder said the 6' is close but views in support of the plan with Simonds approval as it
is a better design.
17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
•
( 99 - #2177 Bob Melamed - Continued)
Smith said, while some trees are saved, others are being lost, and the plan is somewhat
misleading since the lost trees have not been plotted. Melamed said there is less impact in
this revision.
Lindquist said the design is better than having a 20 -30' opening on the street side.
Melamed noted that he met with the original developer, Rebers, who was in favor of the
curved driveway in order to save trees and with approval from the Simonds.
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2177 for a variance with
respect to the driveway with the neighbor, Mr. Simonds, approving the setback in writing.
The developer and Staff are to determine, along with the City Engineer, whether the 6'
side setback can be improved upon. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
( #10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
• Charles Schroeder attended the meeting. He had no comments regarding the meeting.
( #11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Hawn inquired about what course of action can be taken towards a property owner who
has disregarded conditions of a resolution. Mabusth reported that the individual in
question has been warned of the violation, which involves a safety issue, the building
inspector notified, and the City will issue a tag.
Schroeder asked for a discussion of the issue of structural versus non - structural. Gaffron
said he has studied the issue and written a report. He agrees that revisions are probably
needed to the code. The Planning Commission will view the report once Staff has
reviewed it.
( #12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST
19, 1996 MEETING
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 19, 1996. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Abstain 1, McMillan, who was not
in attendance.
18
r�
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
( #13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
Stoddard will attend the Council Meeting of September 23, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
19