Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1996 Planning Commission Minutes• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 21, 1996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Charles Schroeder, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, Lili McMillan, and William Stoddard, and Sandra Smith arrived later in the meeting. Dale Lindquist was absent. The following represented the City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council Member Huff were present. Acting Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS ( #1) #2178 NATHALIE GRAY/ROBERT AND LORRAINE RODEN, 460 AND 480 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7 :00 -7:04 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Robert and Lorraine Roden were present, along with an attorney, Kevin Dunlevy, representing Nathalie Gray. • Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement involving a 15'x177' corridor east of the Gray property. Deeds were exchanged in 1971 reflecting this change but taxes have never been corrected, neither do Hennepin County maps indicate the change. The applicants would like to clean up their titles and get the taxes adjusted noting the division will have no impact on either property. Mr. Dunlevy commented that the tax split problem was not noticed until recently. He noted that the County allowed the deeds to be transferred and recorded in 1971. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Nathalie Gray and Robert and Lorraine Roden involving the properties located at 460/480 Orchard Park Road with the condition that owner of Parcel A apply for the legal combination of the 15' corridor with the homestead parcel at the City offices prior to the subdivision being sent to the County for filing. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #2) #2186 JAMES PFLEIDER AND YVONNE COOK, 509 AND 511 NORTH FERNDALE ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:46 -7 :48 P.M. • The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • ( #2 - #2186 James Pfleider and Yvonne Cook - Continued) The Applicant, James Pfleider, was present. The application is for a lot line rearrangement, whereby Pfleider would acquire a parcel from Cook,which he now maintains, in an equal exchange of property to Cook. Mabusth said Staff was concerned with septic setbacks but Steve Weckman inspected and confirmed the 20' setback from the newly defined lot line. Both lots will maintain two acres in area as required by code. The applicant had no comment. There were no public comments. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for James Pfleider and Yvonne Cooke involving the properties located at 509/511 North Ferndale Road with the conditions that owners of Lots 4 and 5 apply for the legal combination of the smaller parcels and adjacent homestead parcel at the City offices prior to the subdivision being sent to the County for filing. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS • 0 #2175 FRANK AND SUSAN KOUBSKY, 4785 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:48 -8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for variances for street setback and hardcover in the 250 -500' setback area. Staff reviewed the memo and advised applicant submit an amended plan in response to issues raised in memo. With the additional information obtained, Mabusth said there are now no excesses in either hardcover or structural coverage now proposed at 12.2 %. The 24'x30' garage addition is located in the required rear street yard. Since it is a thru lot, a 35' street setback is required. The applicants reviewed the concerns regarding the access from unimproved Park Avenue, which would involve obtaining a new address. They have determined that they are unable to make immediate changes and are not inclined to close off their access from North Shore Drive at this time. A new proposal has been submitted that includes a 24'x24' garage and a 12- 1/2'x24' deck and staircase to the south of the garage addition. The deck would be attached to both the house and the garage. This would eliminate the street setback variance but would require a side setback variance of 2'. The garage addition meets the • setback to the rear. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #3 - #2175 Frank and Susan Koubsky - Continued) The new proposal would result in hardcover in the 250' -500' setback of 33.7% for a 3.7% variance. Allowed in this setback is 30% hardcover, and it exists at 21.2 %. The structural coverage limit is met. It was noted that the grade level deck is not included in the structural coverage facts as there is no railing and it is at grade level. The garage is proposed at 576 s.f. The 17'x39' driveway (663 s.f ) could possibly be reduced in size to 14' wide. or 490 s.f drive. The sidewalk is 80 s.f. The deck is 421 s.f. and 200 s.f of new hardcover for a total of 3930 s.f. Schroeder asked the applicants why they would keep the front drive. Koubsky said the drive is a direct access to the house, and the garage is heated along with the basement. There is only two bedrooms in the house, one of which would serve as an entrance to the new garage. Once the proposed garage is up, the lower garage would be turned into the spare bedroom and entry area. The existing drive would allow access to get parts and such to that area. The applicants are unable to do all of the work at the same time due to budget constraints. It is their plan to remove the front driveway but it will take several years. Hawn asked when the new garage is to be built and how it will be used. Koubsky said there is only one door to the existing garage now and is only used for one car. In the • beginning, the new garage will have no direct access to the house. There is a doorway to the back of the garage. LJ McMillan asked if the sidewalk was necessary. Koubsky said it would allow access to the house. McMillan asked if there was any problem with remodeling the garage now to convert it to living space. Koubsky noted a furnace located in the lower garage now as well as hot water heater and the considerable amount of remodeling that would be required. Berg asked if the driveway would be reduced in width. Koubsky noted that the driveway will be 14' wide and landscaping will be removed at 210 s.f. Mrs. Koubsky said it was their intent to move the garage back in order to keep the site line. Stoddard noted with a 3.7% variance in hardcover in the 250' -500' setback, if the driveway was reduced and landscaping removed, the hardcover would meet the requirement. Mabusth asked when the address change would be done. Koubsky said they had no time frame and were meeting with the neighbors. Koubsky said it is his intent to remove the driveway and make a 3- tiered landscaping area for aesthetics. Their plan for the total remodeling is 5 years. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 i ( #3 - #2175 Frank and Susan Koubsky - Continued) When asked about neighbors comments regarding the remodeling, Koubsky said Gwen Gables was in favor of the proposal and Mr. Olson would like the garage moved back. It was noted that Mr. Olson's access is off Park Avenue with a Tonkaview address. Hawn asked if the Koubskys were comfortable with working within a time limit for the driveway removal. Koubsky said he was willing to work with that but noted his budget restraints. Time limits may be set as part of the conditions. Stoddard asked about removal of the shed. Koubsky noted their lack of storage space but said they would be willing to remove the shed as it is in the right of way. McMillan commented that she was of the opinion that the garage was in a good location but had concern with allowing two driveways to remain. The safety factor with access from North Shore Drive was noted. Mrs. Koubsky said it is unsafe during the winter due to its steepness but has been improved upon. Schroeder suggested one year for removal of the driveway. Koubsky said it would cost $4,00045,000 to remove it. Mabusth said the driveway can be barricaded by berming or fencing if cost for removal of bituminous drive is of issue. Schroeder said the Planning • Commission was more interested in removal of hardcover. Mabusth reiterated the safety issues involved and the need to cease access from North Shore Drive. This would involve a change in address to also occur. It was noted that the City cannot legally deny access from the County Road. Stoddard suggested removal and reseeding of the driveway. Mrs. Koubsky commented that there was the ability to add on to their present garage but they were trying to accommodate the changes desired by the City. The Koubskys said it would be different if their house was larger. During discussions, Stoddard said he would like to work with the applicants. Hawn said five years was too long to wait for the removal of the driveway. Hawn said she understood the need to do the remodeling in stages but was not comfortable with allowing two driveways to remain within the steep topography of the property. She also noted runoff to be a concern. Schroeder saw the plan as sensible but also questioned the timing and expressed concern over two driveways remaining. The issue of safe access is of considerable concern for the City. Access is difficult in winter. Mabusth said it had been her understanding from early discussions with applicants that the driveway was going to be removed and the address changed to Tonkaview. It was noted that if the applicant added a stall to their current garage, it would still use the same access which is not a desirable solution. Koubsky noted that the ditches were removed in the roadway causing the access to become safer. • 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #3 - #2175 Frank and Susan Koubsky - Continued) Mabusth advised that if the North Shore Drive access is no longer a problem for applicants that they take time to explore their options before building garage addition at north side of residence. Schroeder suggested a time limit of 3 years. Koubsky asked for additional time to review the options. Stoddard did note that they would have the time between this meeting and the Council meeting to review the plans. Koubsky suggested the application be tabled. Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2175 at the request of the applicant to allow additional time to consider the length of time for the project and to obtain cost estimates. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #4) #2176 DANIEL S. PERKINS, 55 LANDMARK DRIVE - RENEWAL OF ANNUAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 7 :05 -7:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the renewal application proposes for removal of 200 cubic yards of peat material from two wetland areas on applicant's property. Approval was granted for the first removal from the smaller of the two ponds in 1995. This application is for the second phase involving 200 cubic yards of peat removal for the winter 1996 -1997 season. Mabusth noted that access would not be from either Landmark or Bayside but from the Butterfield's property to the north as in the first application. Schroeder read into the minutes a letter submitted by the applicant requesting an amendment to the proposal for shorter periods of time to simplify the procedures from every year renewal. Mabusth questioned whether this would involve a change in the amount of removal. Perkins said the amount of 200 cubic yards would not be changed as this has been determined to be the amount that is usable in the time period. Applicant wishes to amend the current proposal to 200 cubic yards each year for a five year period. Perkins said he would reapply if a change is required. He noted that in the past two years, only one digging took place. McMillan inquired how many dump trucks was needed to remove the fill. Perkins said two different sized trucks are used, and the removal is completed in one day. McMillan also inquired if he crosses the Luce Line trail. Perkins said that the Luce Line was crossed and Butterfield has property on north side of the Luce Line and is allowed to mine peat on his own property through a permit gained from the DNR. Butterfield has legal access • over Luce Line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 i(#4 - #2176 Daniel Perkins - Continued) Stoddard inquired if wetlands permits were in line. It was noted that the Corps of Engineers has given permission, but it is not in the jurisdiction of the DNR. In that case, Stoddard said the only issue would be that of the length of time involved in issuing the permit. He noted that the Council has approved an annual review. Schroeder alluded to the minutes of the Council meeting where the application had been approved in 1995. The Council had thought an annual review made sense. Mabusth reviewed Council's concern regarding major changes in federal and state regulations and felt an annual review is most appropriate. Perkins responded that the removal would not be done annually but only every other year. McMillan questioned the slope and banks of the pond noting that there was a steep drop off. Perkins was of the opinion that there was a tapering to the bank. McMillan commented that when the pond dries, there will not be a gradual slope. Hawn voiced concern with a straight edge to the pond with water in it and questioned whether it would be hazardous if used as an ice rink. Perkins said the water level is usually to the edge of the pond. McMillan suggested that the slope was not 8:1. Mabusth asked if there were any cattails. McMillan noted the pond to be that of type 2 citing no cattails planted. Perkins said he did plant duck root. Mabusth questioned planting when not completed. Perkins said it was done by Butterfield. Hawn asked Perkins to work with Butterfield to • correct the slope. Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the conditional use permit and variance based on a Council review of every other year with applicant correcting the slope per the permitted varying slopes of 5:1 and 8:1. McMillan and Perkins discussed how the correct slope may be obtained. Mabusth noted with the last digging from this pond, the correct slope should be able to be obtained. Mabusth informed Schroeder that the current permit is for the mining of 200 cubic yards to peat for the winter 1996 -1997 season. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #5) #2179 THERESA NORSTED, 2811 CASCO POINT ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:18 -7:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 •( #5 - #2179 Theresa Norsted - Continued) Mabusth reminded the Commission that the applicant had tabled her application in order to reconsider her needs after receiving Commission comments and Staff information. The property in question is located on the curve of Casco Point Road. The proposal is for hardcover, structural coverage and setback variances for the construction of a deck addition and a detached garage. In response to Staff s recommendations, the applicant has submitted an amended proposal consisting of a detached garage with an outside stairway and a two story 7x10.5' deck on the lake side of the residence. Neither structure would be located in front of the average lakeshore setback. With the amended application, a side setback variance would be eliminated. The two stall garage would have an upper level storage area. The applicant had originally planned on an interior access with pull down stairs but had thought it would interfere with cars parked in the garage. The plans call for a 5- 1/2'x3 -1/2' deck at the upper level of outside staircase. The location of the garage would be as in the first plan submitted but there is a structural coverage drop from 15.7% to 15.6^. The hardcover proposed at 32.8% is amended to 28.5% in the 75' -250' setback. Staff commented on the location of the garage doors on the adjacent lots. The property to the west has garage doors facing away from street. On the east side, the door is to the street side and only 3' from the street. The applicant's garage is proposed at an 18' street setback with traveled road located 20 -22' and located 3' from the side lot line. With the F overhang, however, it would be considered at 2' from the side lot line. Mabusth added that the building inspector found no need for special fire wall requests for the garage at the proposed side setback. Norsted was in favor of the location of the garage due to mature trees on the property. It was noted that two mature trees would be lost if the garage were located nearer the residence. The garage is also in the same general area as the previous garage. Stoddard noted that there is less hardcover with the front entry. Council's denial of front entry doors in a similar proposal was noted. Mabusth informed the applicant and Commission that the side staircase was not shown on the survey. She voiced concern with affecting a tree located near these stairs. Norsted said she was informed by a tree expert that it would not interfere with the root system of the tree. The applicant added that the outside staircase was her preference. McMillan asked outside stairs to the basement. Norsted said she was willing to remove the three concrete steps, 3'6 ", as trade in order to gain approval of her proposal. 0 There were no public comments. 7 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #5 - #2179 Theresa Norsted - Continued) In discussing the front placement of the garage doors, Mabusth informed Stoddard that trees would be lost otherwise and there would be a major increase in hardcover if changed to a side entry. The 18' proposed setback is also an improvement over that of the neighboring garages. In discussing the side setback at 2' with the garage overhang, it was noted that the neighboring garages are 1' from the lot line and no specific requirements or concerns have been noted by the building inspector. Norsted said she also spoke with her neighbors. All agreed that the trees were a valued asset. Stoddard asked Norsted if she would consider a smaller garage. Mabusth noted that Norsted had been willing to remove a grade level patio in order to maintain the 24'x24' garage size. The Planning Commission did not encourage the garage to be moved closer to the street in order to lessen the hardcover. Hawn noted the room to maneuver allowed safer access. The issue of the outside staircase instead of an inside staircase was discussed. The staircase adds 35 s.f of additional hardcover. Hawn suggested a pull -down staircase along the back of the garage. Concern was voiced over how it would change the roof • style. Norsted was concerned with the ability to move around inside the garage and with the look of the garage. Mabusth noted that hardcover and structural coverage would be reduced if the staircase were moved inside the garage. The storage area is not planned for heat or plumbing. McMillan suggested the pull -down staircase be located between the two stalls. Stoddard asked if Staff recommended the side staircase. Mabusth said it was not discussed with applicant and is part of the amended plan. She noted there is no side setback variance with the amended plan for the deck addition. The hardcover variance is 3.5% and structural coverage at 0.6 %. The grade level patio was not counted as structure but was reflected in the hardcover calculations. Berg asked if the applicant would consider a 22'x22' garage. Norsted asked if it would help if the staircase with deck attached to garage was removed from the proposal. Schroeder noted that the purpose is to stay at or below the structural coverage allotment. Schroeder also informed Norsted that it was likely that she would end up with an interior staircase due to the difficulty in the winter in accessing the storage by an outside staircase. Schroeder commented that if the outside staircase was removed, he would be inclined to support the proposal. There were no public comments. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • ( 95 - #2179 Theresa Norsted - Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2179 for side and street setback, hardcover, and structural coverage variances for a two level lake side deck and a 24'x24' detached garage with an interior staircase only with doors facing the street side. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #6) #2180 PEGGY AND FRANK PICHELMAN, 2920 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:27 -8 :51 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application involves major additions for a home located on Casco Cove, a cul -de -sac consisting of 6 -7 homes. The house is a single story rambler similar to others in the neighborhood built in the 1960's. The improvements proposed consist of a 24x24' attached garage in the street yard, located 8' from the street where a 30' setback is required. To the lakeside, a 13'x14' deck and 16'x24', 3- level, addition are proposed, a family room on the main level with lower level basement with an atrium upper level. There are two options for an access drive. Option 1 would involve the garage • doors to the street side, and Option 2 would involve doors facing to the side. The second story proposed over the single story residence meets the setbacks and is behind the average lakeshore setback, as are all of the improvements proposed at the lakeside. The proposal calls for a structural coverage variance of 3.4 %. Hardcover in the 75 -250' setback is proposed at an 11.7% excess with Option 1, where the doors are to the street. Hardcover excess would be at 14.6% under Option 2, with doors to the side and driveway in the street yard with a back -out apron (see Addendum F -1 and F -2). The street setback is 8; although, the actual traveled road is 5 -6' beyond that. The applicants had no comments to add at this time. During public comments, Mike Barrett, 2912 Casco Point Road, located across the street from the applicant, commented that he had not heard directly from the applicant regarding this proposal. He said he received notification from the City and saw the posted sign. Barrett said the improvements to the lakeside or inside of the home were acceptable to him. However, he is very concerned with the garage. He understands the desire to have two stalls instead of one, but he sees no space for the larger garage without sacrificing home space. He is concerned with the proposed garage being only 8' from the street, which would be situated differently from others in the cul -de -sac. Barrett feels the garage improvement may be too ambitious for the lot. He said he could not visualize the garage without setback or architectural violation and noted it would cause the loss of two mature is trees in the yard. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • ( #6 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) Schroeder clarified that the correct notification procedures were followed. Mabusth said the concern was with the lack of notification from the applicants. Luann Powell, 2916 Casco Point Road, whose home is next door to the applicant on the north side, said she has lived there for 24 years. She reported having a major concern over looking at a whole new structure (24'x24' garage) on the property. In her opinion, it would change the uniformity of the cul -de -sac. Powell said she liked the plans for the lakeside but found difficulty with the plans for the garage as well as the amount of hardcover. The addition would cause her yard to become shaded resulting in difficulty in growing any vegetation. Schroeder inquired what the side setback was for the improvements. Mabusth informed him that the side setback is 10, which meets the requirement. Powell said she also is concerned that the improvements would cause poor sight lines for accessibility. She added that there is a tuck under garage. She also noted that the children currently residing there do not live there year around. Powell said she would consider giving T to the applicant for a larger side garage. This would allow her kitchen not to look out on a major structure. Powell also noted there were two mature trees that would isbe lost under Option 2. Barry Glassman, 2914 Casco Point Road, lives two doors away from the applicant. He noted, when looking at the contour of the property, the garage and cars would now stick out into the road. Glassman said the improvements would obstruct the views of the Powells. He felt the lakeside improvements were all right as the house is tucked into the property at that side. Mr. Pichelman was asked to remark. Pichelman said it was not his intent to offend anyone. He said they have not lived in the area long and had some crises which caused time to be of essence. Pichelman said it was his intent for the plans to fit in with the legalities of the City. Pichelman said there was already an 8' line from the end of the garage and 14' to the bituminous. Mrs. Pichelman noted that they had considered coming out to the side to lessen any problems for the neighbors, but were concerned with a 3' side setback. The garage to the lakeside has only access to the lakeside and is used for storage only. Schroeder noted that the applicant would like to work with the neighbors. Mrs. Powell said she would be willing to work with the applicant but did not see how the improvements could happen. Hawn said she was inclined to wait until the neighbors and applicants have spoken before • further review as the proposal may change as a result. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • ( #6 - #2180 Frank and Peggy Pichelman - Continued) Mabusth informed the applicants that the next review would be November 18. She added that a side stall garage would fit in better with the neighborhood. Schroeder asked if the addition in front of the average lakeshore setback could result in a smaller garage to lessen the hardcover. Mabusth concurred that there would be a possible reduction in the structural coverage. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2180 for further deliberations of plans for a garage to fit in with the neighborhood and reduce hardcover. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #7) #2181 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:51 -8:53 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present, along with Architect, Gary Frazee. Schroeder excused himself from review of this application. Hawn chaired the review. • Mabusth reported that the renewal variance was approved in November, 1995, and would P p expire November 27, 1996. The applicant did not feel there was time to begin the work prior to that date and has asked for an extension. The approval was for the razing of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. The property does not meet the 1/2 acre zoning standards and proposes a 9 -1/2' side setback at both north and south side lot lines. The structure is located in front of the average lakeshore setback, which is impacted by the existing home on property to immediate north that is located 200' from shoreline. There are no changes proposed in current application. • The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. When inquiring about the average lakeshore setback, Stoddard was informed by Gary Frazee that there was a problem with calculations when attempting to remodel the existing home. It was determined that the best option was to rebuild. The current home and neighbors home were noted to now touch the side lot line. 11 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( 97 - #2181 James Nystrom - Continued) Mabusth noted that the hardcover in the 75 -250' setback would require a 10% variance and a 30% variance in the 250 -500' setback, due to the limited area in the 250 -500' setback area. The existing driveway at 1250 s.f has a major impact. Mabusth informed McMillan that a new garage would be built in the street yard and would result in a reduction of hardcover for the driveway. Frazee added that the garage currently loads to the side and major removal of asphalt would result from the doors facing the street. Stoddard received confirmation from Mabusth that the proposal is the same as what was approved in 1995. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2181 for variance renewal. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #8) #2182 HERBERT TERRY OLSON, 3640 BAYSIDE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:59 -9:23 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jane Olson was present. • Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to construct a detached garage. The existing garage is currently located adjacent to CoRd 84, and the applicant proposes to rebuild at same substandard street setback 6' to the east. A private sewer clean out was located by Staff just to the northeast of existing garage. If retaining walls are proposed around newly located garage, the sewer line would be impacted. • Mabusth said she received a call from Mrs. Olson on this date, who informed her that the purpose of rebuilding the garage was due to the fact that the walls of the existing garage serve as retaining walls of adjacent steep banks. The Olsons would like to rebuild the garage and excavate around the garage in order to have retaining walls. The property is considered a through lot as well as a corner lot requiring a 50' setback from three sides of lot. There is also steep topography to contend with. There is an accessory structure at the northwest corner of the property. Mabusth said an application for a side setback variance in 1986 for a proposed addition was never proceeded with. Mrs. Olson said the addition was built but moved to the north side of the home where no variance was required. It had been requested at the Planning Commission during that review that with the large size of the property, another area not requiring variances could be found where the addition could be built. The Olsons thought it over and made the change. 12 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #8 - #2182 Herbert Terry Olson - Continued) Mabusth said the Olsons would like to locate the garage at the 9' street setback. The Staff was concerned and had the Engineer review it finding that two tiers of retaining walls will not fit in the existing elevation with the location of the private sewer line. There is also concern over backing out into the County roadway, especially in light of the steep elevations to immediate west. Mabusth said they also looked at the drive coming in from the east (Stubbs Bay Road). When asked to comment by Schroeder, Olson said they have lived there for 20 years and have adjusted to where the garage is located and prefer that location. Olson said the slope and landscape is a big consideration, and they like the look of it as it now stands. McMillan asked about a concern with the garage being at the same elevation of the house and blocking the view. Olson said the prime view is to the south. She noted, if the Commissioners were concerned, guests, service, and emergency vehicles use the long driveway. During a recent remodel, the driveway was used to remove debris and access the home, which would not happen if the garage was relocated to the end of the driveway. McMillan asked Olson to consider the garage being tucked into the northwest area of the property adding that she understands there is a slope but there is one by the garage now. Olson said in front of the current garage, it is level now, and would have to excavate around it. Mabusth said the excavation would be close to 8' with 4' at the first tier of retaining walls, and then another 4'. Mabusth also said there is concern with drainage and not having enough room, and the possibility of relocating the sewer line. Hawn asked about shoveling of the steps in the winter time. Olson said it was hard but she is used to it. Hawn noted this would not be the case if the garage was near the driveway, but Olson said the driveway was long. Stoddard asked why a CUP was required. Mabusth explained that it was due to the lot being a through lot requiring a 50' setback at both the front and rear setback lines. She noted that the lot being a corner lot also creates a hardship for the Olsons. Schroeder asked Olson if she understood that the sewer line would have to be relocated. Olson said she did but would rather relocate the sewer line than relocate the garage. Mrs. Olson asked if she was unable to move the garage, what requirements would be involved in repairing the garage. Mabusth said the garage was non - conforming and needs major repair which requires a variance. Mabusth added that the garage roof also needs replacement. Olson said the rebuilt garage would not serve as a retaining wall for the bank. Olson said when the property was sold, the house would probably be taken down. Mabusth asked Olson if she found the garage to be convenient. Olson said it was very convenient. 13 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #8 - #2182 Herbert Terry Olson - Continued) McMillan asked if there was any more detail on the retaining walls. Mabusth said no detail was known but the design would have to show how much excavation would take place. McMillan also asked if sewer lines can be moved. Mabusth said they could but would be at the expense of the applicant. Mabusth also noted that the sewer lines need clean outs located every so many feet. Schroeder asked Olson if they have thought through the cost involved in relocating the sewer line. Olson said no but did know what the sewer cost them initially. Schroeder said it was his opinion that the application should be tabled to allow for further consideration. Olson was informed of the proceedings whether the application would move on to the Council or tabled and brought back before the Planning Commission. Hawn asked if the Olsons were able to pull out from the garage onto Bayside Road. Olson said there is about 1 -1/2 car lengths prior to entering Bayside, which enables them to look for any traffic. Stoddard said he struggles with relocating the garage in this area when there is room to move it elsewhere without requiring a variance. Berg added that the cost of moving the sewer line is on top of the relocation. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission for direction, whether they would allow the rebuilding of the garage in that location, to enable the Olsons to proceed. Hawn said she didn't understand why the applicant preferred the garage in that location but asked for consideration of safety and of other options. Hawn also asked about any impact on the sewer, the cost involved to relocate the line, and whether the applicant was prepared to pay the cost. McMillan suggested building the garage to the north. She later said it would be a good exercise to consider such a change. Olson responded that it would require more excavation. McMillan asked what makes this garage handy. Olson said she's able to look across the street and stores items in the garage, though not her main reason. McMillan said she favored tabling the application and would like to see the design of the garage if it is to be rebuilt in that area or see a working plan for a garage off of the long driveway. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2182 for further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #9) #2183 CHARLES "BUCK" KRAMER, 2990 SOMERSET LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:24 -10:04 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to dredge open water areas within two wetland areas. The applicant owns three lots within the Old Crystal Bay plat. In review of both sites by the Engineer, no problem was found with creation of the pond in the northwest quadrant of applicant's homestead property, which is of a type 7 wetland. The type 7 wetland in the woutheast and front yard was reviewed by John Smythe of Bonestroo, who is an aquatic specialist. Smythe said he would like to see this type 7 wetland protected and not altered, which would result in loss of several elm trees and sedges found within the wetland. Mabusth noted that this area is not a DNR protected wetland, nor is there wetland located on the City designated wetland maps. Because of this, no variance is required. Mabusth said the applicant desires to have an open water area with the creation of irregular shoreline to encourage habitat with 8:1 and 5:1 slopes. Gustafson and Smythe warned that this may result in the loss of vegetation and a unique type 7 wetland that shows no signs of degradation. • Kramer said his intent is to improve the looks of the area, and he is in favor of preservation. Kramer said he was informed that he could go around existing trees, noting that alot of the trees have been under water for years. Some have already been removed due to the flooding, which Kramer feels will continue. Kramer believes the irregular pond design will protect what is there. Mabusth questioned whether the pond has been designed and if it will be as proposed. She noted that the existing plantings provide a natural buffer from the cul -de -sac. Kramer reiterated that it was his intent to preserve the area with open water, irregular shoreline, use of nursery seedlings, and possibly some new trees. He mentioned working with a nursery firm in Wisconsin. Schroeder asked if the applicant intended to plant evergreens and grass for a decorative pond. Kramer said the plantings would be geared towards wildlife. He also informed Schroeder that it was not his intent to mow the area. McMillan voiced concern with the steepness, noting the difficulty in creating a gradual grade, and with working around the trees without destroying the root systems. Kramer said he would have to be selective but did not agree that the area was steep. McMillan noted that some wetlands dry up in the summer and type 7 wetlands tend to be seasonal. She informed Kramer that tamaracks are a more natural tree for location next to wetland areas. Type 7 wetlands were conducive to more deciduous trees, such as ash. McMillan noted the difficulty in growing plantings in some soils and the need for information. Kramer reported that he has completed 5 or 6 ponds, which have been very successful. is He said he lost about 25% of the trees and kept replacing those lost. 15 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #9 - #2183 Charles Kramer - Continued) Berg asked what the purpose was for the open water. Kramer said it was his intent to attract waterfowl. McMillan reported that he needs to realize what surrounds the area, i.e., houses and dogs, and what privacy is there allowing ducks to be attracted to the area. Kramer said there are ducks and geese now. He added that he moved to the property 1- 1/2 years ago and intends to enhance what is there with the right input from experts. Schroeder asked if Smythe has visited the property. Mabusth said Smythe visited the property on this date and was of the opinion that the ponding should be discouraged as the area has not been degradated and is very unique. He did not see any problem with the pond in the northwest quadrant. Stoddard questioned if the open water area could be created in less than 100 cubic yards of spoils removal. Mabusth said a permit would not be issued as the City would restrict all land alterations within this wetlands as a finding and condition of the current conditional use permit. McMillan asked if there was any problem with a back yard wetland. Mabusth said no. Smith noted that the Commission has reviewed other ponds, questioned if there were • specific requirements, and how this pond compares to those mentioned. Mabusth said the ponds being referred to by Smith were protected wetlands and required a variance. It is not the case in this situation as this wetland is not a designated wetland. Smith noted that the Coffin property is unique and efforts were made by the City and developer to protect it. Smith said she was not comfortable with the information on what the ponds will be like. Hawn agreed with Smith. She would like to see specific drawings on how it will look over time. She also questioned how the ponding could be created without destroying the elm trees. Hawn would also like the updated plans to include what kinds of plantings will be used and where they will be located. Smith added that she would like to know the elevations of the plantings. Smith suggested a wetland specialist could provide that information. Kramer asked what the responsibility was of the Corp of Engineers. Mabusth informed him that it is their responsibility to look over land alterations for unprotected wetlands. She noted that the covenants obligate Kramer to have the Corp of Engineers review the alteration as it was classified during the subdivision. Kramer said the Corp of Engineers had no problem with the pond. Mabusth said they would have no problem until it involves filling. Kramer said he understood that development destroys such land but it is his intent to preserve it. Mabusth informed him that the plan before us would destroy plantings. • She noted the need for more detail as there is concern when equipment is sent into this wetland area. 16 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #9 - 92183 Charles Kramer - Continued) Schroeder commented that one option would be to do nothing as the area is fairly unique as it stands. Kramer agreed that this would be an option. Mabusth noted that there are guidelines to be used for spoils to protect the septic sites and wetlands. She suggested John Smythe work with the applicant. Kramer said if he thought trees would die, he would not go ahead with the plan. Mabusth responded, with the plan as shown, trees would die. Kramer said trees have been under water and will be again. McMillan added that alot of trees do live, some do die, and some become duck blinds, all as part of the natural cycle. Stoddard informed Kramer of the problems incurred with type 1 and 2 wetlands producing purple loose strife. He noted type 7 to be rarer and need to be preserved. He suggested Kramer research wetland consultants, who could delineate what is there and will know what will grow. Kramer asked if it would be all right to add plantings. Mabusth said it would and noted that there was personnel to assist him in that area. Hawn asked to discuss what will be done with the spoils. Mabusth said the spoils would have to maintain a distance of 20' from any wetlands. The key is to protect the septic sites and keep trucks away from those areas by staking it out. Mabusth noted that the 26' • separation from wetlands required by code protects designated wetlands. She saw no problem with the 20' for this area. Hawn noted that for conformity, she was requesting the 26' separation. Mabusth said the Commission can ask for 26. Stoddard inquired about the elevation of where the spoils would be taken. Kramer said Mark Gronberg suggested some spoils be taken to the left side and some to the right side of the roadway. McMillan responded that there is alot of vegetation on the left side of the property and believes the spoils would kill alot of the vegetation. Mabusth added that there is concern with restoration of the ground cover. When asked by Kramer where the City would prefer the spoils to go, Mabusth said the optimal choice would be to leave the site entirely but feels a suitable site can be found on the property once the wetland and septic sites are staked out. Stoddard asked when the applicant intended to create the pond. Kramer said he would like to complete the pond this fall. Stoddard noted that it takes time to delineate, mitigate, and develop a restoration plan. Stoddard said he would agree to the pond in the back yard with more detail received prior to the Council meeting. Mabusth asked the applicant to work with Staff regarding the front yard pond. 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • ( #9 - #2183 Charles Kramer - Continued) Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to grant Application 92183, in part, for a conditional use permit to excavate a pond of the degenerated type 7 located in the rear yard behind the southwest pool and permit the applicant to place spoils 26' from any adjacent wetland on the property having previously located septic and building sites. The spoils are to be confined to the east side of outlot C with suitable erosion control steps taken under the direction of the City Staff. Kramer asked if this prevented him from placing spoils on the left side of the property. Hawn said it did. Schroeder commented that there was enough space and fewer spoils than originally planned. Hawn added that there was suitable vegetation on that lot before building and would require erosion control. Mabusth agreed. Schroeder asked that the motion include a 16 -112' edge around the perimeter of the pond be planted with plantings conducive to a wetland pond. The other type 7 wetland on the property is not to be altered. The applicant is to work with Staff regarding additional plantings. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. • ( #10) #2184 BRIAN CARRINGTON,1920 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:04-10:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the property is located on the north side of CoRd 6. There will be a new residence on the property. The existing residence is proposed to be converted into a storage structure and plumbing fixtures are to be removed. The issue lies in that the existing residence, now becoming an accessory structure, is located in front of the new principal structure and requires a variance. Carrington said he would like to maintain the heating system in order to work in the storage building. The heat would be used only when he is in the work shop refinishing antiques. Hawn asked if this can be done without maintaining water. Carrington said he would like to keep the well for watering the shrubs adding that the water would be turned off during the winter months. Carrington said the structure would be used as work space only. Hawn asked if there were any necessary repairs. Carrington said he would need to • reshingle next year and perform some repair of the foundation supports for the porches. 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #10 - 2184 Brian Carrington - Continued) Smith asked if there was any historical significance to the house. Carrington said, although it was the Wolsfeld property, there is no significance noting the size as being that of a double garage. There were no public comments. Stoddard asked about the well. Carrington said it would be used for irrigation and would need a spigot only on the outside of the structure. A new well is being dug for the new residence. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the variance to convert the existing residence to a storage building to include heat for a workshop and maintain the current well for use as an irrigation system for outside yard use. The other plumbing fixtures are to be removed. McMillan asked if the neighbors were notified. Carrington said he spoke with the adjacent neighbor, who approves, and the City notified others in the neighborhood. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #11) #2185 RICHARD AND MARY JO KOVACEVICH - 1580 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:09 -10 :14 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Jim Jensen. Mabusth reported that the residence was built in 1987 along with the pool. At that time, the open water area of the pool was not considered hardcover. It is now considered hardcover resulting in an excess of hardcover over the 25% allowable. Hardcover exists at 27.18 %. The proposal results in no increase with the placement of improvements over existing structure. The 75 sT of additional hardcover will be matched with the removal of equal concrete area. Structural coverage is at 11.3 %. There is no impact on the average lakeshore setback as there is no structure on the property to the east. Mabusth said there has been no response from the neighbors. Jensen said the 900 s.f swimming pool will hold 9" of water during rainfalls. McMillan added that the pool cover would have to be removed for this to occur. He noted the 870 s.f of excess hardcover or 2.1% in the 75 -250' setback. The home is located 150' from the lakeshore. Jenson said there is good retention on the property and no net change in the hardcover. 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 • There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application 92185 for hardcover variance with no net increase. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #12) ZONING AMENDMENT B -5/B -6 - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 10:14 -10:20 P.M. This application is a continuation of the public hearing on the Zoning Amendment for the B -5 and B -6 Zoning Districts. The changes in the amendment are a result of a September 27 work session. Mabusth asked if there were any questions. Hawn, who was not in attendance at the work session, asked for clarification pertaining to permitted uses. She cited the example of allowing a sit -down restaurant, but not a drive - thru restaurant. Hawn asked what Orono's viewpoint was in respect to serving alcohol in an upscale cuisine restaurant. Schroeder responded that it would require a future amendment of the code. The exclusion is drive thrus would not be allowed under conditional uses either. McMillan inquired if there were any liquor restaurants in Orono. Mabusth said the only one would be Jimmy's Lounge. Mabusth said a Class I restaurant with on -sale liquor • would require a conditional use permit as well as a liquor license. Schroeder alluded to page 1, under Discussion, item #l, where a Class I restaurant is described as a sit down restaurant with no liquor or live entertainment and inquired if liquor was not allowed. Mabusth said the definition came from the existing code. t It was decided that all of the business uses should be revisited and reviewed to consider further changes during this upcoming year. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval of the draft ordinance. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, CHARLES SCHROEDER Schroeder noted no conflicts with decisions made by the Council on zoning issues. 20 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 ( #14 ) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION McMillan reported that the October 14 Council meeting was historic with its unanimous approval of the Alternative 6 proposal by Mn/DOT. This proposal places the new Hwy 12 on the north side of the railroad tracks with major effect on the Orono Oaks neighborhood, east of Orono, and Silver Meadow by Old Crystal Bay Road. McMillan said the railroad would benefit from the elimination of three at -grade crossings and two railroad trestles at Orono Orchard and May Street. Final approvals are to be made in November. ( #15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MEETING Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 16, 1996. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ( #16) PLANNING COMMISION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1996 Mabusth noted that the ice arena issue will be discussed at the upcoming October 28, • 1996 Council meeting if the MUSA application is approved on October 24. r� Hawn will attend the October 28 meeting of the Council. Berg will attend the November 12 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to adjourn at 10:28 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Charles Schroeder, Acting Chair Person 21