HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1997 Planning Commission MinutesORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR AUGUST 189 1997
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth
Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lill McMillan. The following represented the City Staff:
Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaflron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City
Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Goetten
was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW
( 01) #2275 TED AND M'YRNA WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH -
SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC BEARING 7:03 -7 :15 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request to divide an existing 11.66 acre lot
into two lots, Lot i and Lot 2 with Outlot A. She indicated that the property is unusual in
• that it is an existing lot that is platted to water. The property meets the zoning
requirements for the specific zoning district. The question remains whether the outlot in
Shadowood should be opened for access to Lot 2. Staff recommends it not occur as there
is sufficient area along Outlot A. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval with
conditions as noted for screening and retention of the loop driveway on Lot 1 _
Mr. Wolf said he was not aware of the recommendation for screening and questioned
where this would occur and for whose benefit. Van Zomeren explained the reasoning for
the screening. Wolf said he did not care to have screening to protect views from his
property and noted there were bushes on the neighboring property screening that area.
Wolf noted the large mound system and trees on the back portion of the property. With
the house located far back on the property, Wolf did not understand the reasoning for the
screening request. Van Zomeren said Staff wanted to ensure that screening was in place if
the property were to be developed.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•( #1- #2275 Ted and Myrna Wolf - Continued)
Lindquist said he would like to see screening between the two lots. Wolf questioned
whether the City does not want him to be able to view the lake. He inquired how high the
screening would have to be. Lindquist said screening normally includes adding trees.
Wolf asked about the trees currently on the property. Lindquist said the Commission does
not specify what type of trees. Wolf asked when this must be addressed. Van Zomeren
noted that the subdivision code notes the screening requirement. She read page four of
that subdivision code citing the need to include screening. Van Zomeren noted the
topographical elevations on the property and informed the Commission that an inventory
of the trees on the property has not occurred.
Lindquist asked that an inventory be taken of the property prior to the application going
Wore the Council. Wolf responded that the lots contain acreage and are not small in size.
Lindquist said the request would be subject to Staff approval but the inventory should
include the area within 50' from lot lines.
Smith asked for Van Zomeren's opinion regarding taking an inventory. Van Zomeren said
it is difficult to only "eyeball" a large lot and wants to ensure that vegetation is not
eliminated and screening is added. Van Zomeren felt an inventory would give Staff
direction.
• Smith asked if screening is required for the outlot. Van Zomeren said the applicant's lot
would mainly be impacted; and if the applicant did not wish to have additional screening at
that location, Staff would agree. Wolf noted that there is a garage on that side of the
property.
There were no public comments.
Smith asked Commissioners for their opinion regarding an additional driveway or if the
continuation of the loop driveway was satisfactory. Lindquist noted that the driveways
were far apart. Van Zomeren indicated the distance was 120'. Berg and Lindquist said
they would be supportive of the additional driveway.
Schroeder questioned whether the back lot is 150% of the front lot. Lindquist said Lot 2
is to the rear. Van Zomeren noted Lot I is about 4 acres. McMillan inquired whether the
acreage includes dry buildable. Gaffron said it did.
Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2275 subject to an
inventory of the vegetation on the property and approval of screening plan between Lots 1
and 2. Access is to be provided by Outlot A and not an extension of Outlot B. Vote:
Ayes 7, Nays 0.
• (Item #2 follows item #3)
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
0 ACTION ITEM
( #3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES -
PUBL1C HEARING 7:15 -7:30 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Gaffron reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances to
construct a new residence on a small lot located at 3551 Livingston Avenue. The lots in
this area were platted in the early 1909s before zoning codes were in effect. There is an
existing house on the property. The zoning district requires 21,780 s.f in lot area and
100' width. The property is 6,725 s.f. and 50' wide. Required setbacks are 30' front and
rear and 10' side. The house is within the 500 -1000' setback of the lake where 35%
hardcover is allowed. The lot is allowed 1500 s.f structural coverage.
Gaffron indicated that the existing house is in poor condition. The applicant plans to
remove the house and either rebuild on the lot, as a building site, or sell it as vacant land
or sell the lot to add to a neighboring property. There are no house specifications as of
yet for the site. Because of that, Staff reviewed the lot area and zoning requirements and
• calculated what a conforming residence might include. An example would be a 28x36'
house with a 24'x20' attached garage for total Iot coverage of 1488 s.f Adding a 16x30'
driveway (480 s. f ), 3'x32' sidewalk (96 s. f ), l Ux 18' deck (180 s. f. ), and 10'x 10' shed (100
s.f.) would result in 2344 s.f of total hardcover or 34.90/a. A garage as noted would be an
endload facing Livingston Avenue at the front setback line.
Gaffron reported that no adjacent land is available to increase the lot size. The homes in
the area are on mainly single lots. The example residence would be in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. Gaffron recommended approval subject to the structure
meeting all zoning codes with approval of lot area and lot width variances only. Gaffron
said the existing shed would be removed with the house and recommended removal within
90 days of variance approval.
Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, noted she has lived at that address for 17 years.
She indicated the house in question is vacant and is concerned with the potential size of an
new residence for the property. Cuff said she currently is unable to view the existing
house with the tree coverage. Lindquist explained to her that the property would be
allowed a 1500 s.f house but no other variances beyond that allowed.
Hawn was informed the current house is 720 sT Gaffron noted this is one -half of the
footprint allowed.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
(#3 - #2253 David Reinhold - Continued)
Schroeder asked for verification that the lot is buildable. Gaffron said in his opinion it
was, noting denial of its buildability would limit the applicant's options. Gaffron noted
that there is an existing house on the property. He indicated that a set of conditions would
be required for approval regardless of the structure itself before anv permit is allowed.
Schroeder was told that the Commission typically reviews a specific building plan for this
tvve of variance request.
Stoddard asked why the application was on the agenda. Gaffron said the applicant needed
verification that the lot is buildable. He noted as long as other standards are met, the
request is only for lot area and width variances.
Schroeder asked if the approval could not be obtained at time of the building plan
application. Gaffron informed him that the applicant wanted the confidence that the lot is
buildable.
Commission questioned whether they could approve with reviewing a plan. Gaffron noted
that a similar situation was recently approved for lot area variance only without a building
plan in order to allow the current owner to sell the property. Hawn noted that an approval
would clarify the situation for a potential buyer. Berg indicated that if the plan meets all
• other requirements, the application would not have to be reviewed again.
Hawn indicated that a neighboring property owner wanted to speak with the applicant.
Schroeder noted that there is more value in the land if it is buildable.
Smith asked what the preference was of the applicant for the property. Reinhold said he
preferred to sell the lot. Smith indicated she agreed with Hawn that the best scenario
would be to sell the lot to the adjacent neighbor.
Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2253 for lot area and lot width
variances subject to Staff recommendations 1-6 as noted.
Smith informed the applicant that it was important to note that if a residence was built, no
other variances would be approved.
Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
0
NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW
{ #2} #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITE HEAD, 1220 LYMAN
AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7 :30 -8:28 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Tracy Whitehead was present along with surveyor, Walter Gregory.
Gaffron reported that the application was reviewed as a sketch plan at the June meeting
and direction was given by the Commission at that time. The property abuts Lyman
Avenue, which becomes a private road with an easement as it moves eastward. The
driveway serving the existing house is on this easement. The current four -lot plan has a
revised access location. The proposal includes vacating a dedicated 20' right -of -way
which abuts the Luce Line. This right- of -wav appears to have no value to the City. The
utility companies were notified. Staff is awaiting response to see if any easements are
required. There is a 10' perimeter drainage easement that will be required. Gaf -ron
indicated that Staff recommends approval of the vacation.
The property for the 4 -lot subdivision totals 8.79 of dry buildable with 2.32 acres of
Orono protected wetlands. Area credit would be granted for two wetlands delineated per
• Wetland Conservation Act rules that do not show on the Orono map and are designated as
Basins B and C. Lots 1-4 each have at least two acres of dry buildable.
An issue brought forward at the sketch plan review was the narrow corridor for access to
Lots 1 and 2. The back lot configuration requires Lots i and 2 to have three acres; one
lot meets that requirement, one does not. Gaffron noted the currently proposed road and
cul -de -sac results in Lots 1 and 2 abutting a roadway, eliminating the need for the three
acre minimum.
The plat drawing correctly shows the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30' side setbacks.
Lot I would have a 50' side setback for added buffering to the neighboring residence.
The proposed road would be 24' paved with an 80' circular paved cul -de -sac. This will
impact the neighboring property but there are possible ways to mitigate. It does, however,
result in a substandard side street setback for the neighboring property. Gaffron suggested
possibly moving the road over to meet the 50' setback.
Another option according to Gaffron would be to not build it as a roadway. Gaffron said
the neighboring properties were not expecting a road to come through. Gaffron said an
outlot would allow for expansion of a private road in the future if needed. There are a
number of issues regarding the cul-de -sac. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would not meet the 200' width
• and require lot width variances. Gaffron indicated the grading plan shows the option to
bring a driveway down the east lot line to the platted roadway for Lot 3.
5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
0 (#2 - #2279/ #284 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
There are two septic sites determined for Lots 1, 2, and 3 but only one for Lot 4. From
the City perspective, Lot 4 would then not be buildable. The applicant has asked for
consideration of platting the lot for future development when sewer is available. Staff
does not recommend this option. Gaffron noted that the revised layout for septic sites
does not match the testing performed in 1990. Lot 1 site is accurate but Lot 2 does not
match. Lot 3's alternate site and Lot 4 site differ. There is also an administrative review
needed to approve the septic system setback from the ponds in Lots 2 and 3. There is
normally a 75' setback. The inspector preliminarily noted he is not concerned, however, as
the sites are higher than the wetlands. The Type 1 wetland in Lot 1 is small and would
allow for septic sites up to the edge of the wetland but not into the wetland.
Gaffron reviewed the issues regarding specific lots. Width variances are required for Lots
1, 2, and 3. Drainfield setback from the pond is an issue for Lots 2 and 3. The problem
with the drain field setback for the principal septic site in Lot 1 is most likely solved
according to Gaffron. However, there is no alternate site for Lot 4. The 26' wetland
separation requirement will require a variance for building of the NURP pond. Gaffron
indicated that he has received the wetland delineation report. There is concern regarding
the septic site locations for Lots 2 and 4. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to give
the applicant direction regarding whether Lot 4 is buildable. Gaffron said the review in his
• opinion is an extension of the sketch plan review at this point, since Lot 4 clearly does not
meet minimum septic requirements.
LJ
Smith asked for clarification on where the Luce Line horse trail is located and what the
DNR setback is from the trail. Gaffron indicated there is a 100' right -of -way and showed
the location of the center line. He said the trail is 50-60' from the north lot line. It was
noted that there is no special City setback requirement from the trail and none imposed by
DNR.
Hawn was informed that the DNR has not responded to the application.
McMillan was told that the DNR has been notified of the request for vacation.
Whitehead apologized for the incorrect information on the septic site locations. She
indicated that the setback requirements will be met. Whitehead said she understood the
Commission would like to see a cul- de-sac for emergency truck staging if necessary. She
said there was not alot of discussion regarding the plan itself. Whitehead indicated she
knew the wetland delineation was necessary. Whitehead felt she has met the concerns of
the Commission regarding the cul- de-sac and will widen the curve on Lyman Avenue.
There are two large oak trees impeding this from occurring but Whitehead said they could
be removed.
6
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
( #2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
Whitehead indicated that they attempted to present a plan with few variances required but
the topography has created some problem. It is their desire to preserve the nature of the
neighborhood. Whitehead said the neighbors will notice the road going in but will not be
able to view the houses as they will be located back on the lots. Whitehead said the
setback requirements will be met except for the drainfield on Lot 2. The 200' width
requirement is difficult to meet with the creation of the cul -de -sac. The alternate septic
site location for Lot 4 would be located underneath where the cul -de -sac is to be located.
She asked the Commission to give consideration for approving Lot 4 for building in the
future when the sewer is connected. Whitehead asked the Commission to assist in
expediting the application so she can sell her current home and move.
Margret and Brano Stankovsky indicated they live in the substandard sized lot that is next
to the proposed subdivision. Stankovsky said he has spoken with the applicant. He
indicated it would not be appealing to have a 50' wide roadway at a location 31' from his
home. Stankovsky said this would add to the substandard condition of his property and
decrease his value. Stankovsky indicated that while the new lots would meet the required
setbacks, his own property would not be protected by a 50' setback. He noted there is no
mention in the plan for screening of the road to reduce noise from traffic. He also was
unaware of the pitch of the roadway as noted and is concerned with runoff. He felt the
• change would aid runoff but is concerned with snow being plowed closer to his property.
Stankovsky said he is concerned for his septic system.
is
Stankovsky requested the Planning Commission consider requiring that the road be placed
at least 50' from his property, that buffering next to the road occur, and that an effective
drainage plan be required. Stankovsky would like to see minimum variances approved.
He noted he has requested to purchase additional land from the Whitehead's in order to
meet the 2 acre zoning requirement.
Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman, lives east of the subject property. He is concerned with
Outlot B changing the character of the neighborhood. He feels the application should be
allowed only minimal variances. Palmer does not understood how Lot 4 could be
conforming and believes the subdivision should consist of three lots only.
Hope Pesek, 1235 Lyman, lives south of the subject property. Pesek feels the large
turnaround and driveway is inappropriate for the area. Pesek suggested the use of the
abandoned area for the cul -de -sac. She asked what the purpose is for an 80' road.
Gaffron explained the cul-de -sac would allow for fire truck staging and easier snow plow
maintenance.
7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
( #2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt it should only be expanded
10' with the access located as originally planned to reduce the size of the road. He feels
the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a two
lot subdivision. He feels the main hardship is to the Stankovsky oronerty. He believes
economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and
does not view lack of sewerine as a hardship.
Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property. She is concerned with the
impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway easement for
her property. Gaffron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot
extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots i and 2. The ramification of this
scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to
this, such a drivewav would be devastating to the land due to the basin and steep stoves of
the area. Gaffron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He
indicated the driveway could be rebuilt and a cul-de -sac placed to the northwest but would
have major impacts on the neighborhood.
The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said it
was intended to mainly avvly to Lakeshore lots and is geared for more dense
• neighborhoods. Gaffron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance,
which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and
cul-de -sac in order to eliminate the back lot situation.
•
Stankovsky questioned whether a 50' wide driveway would be required. He noted that a
50' road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety.
Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site.
Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the
middle of the site and would be difficult to do.
Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3 -lot subdivision. He said
he cannot approve the elan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the
problems regarding the cul -de -sac, driveway, and wetlands. Smith and McMillan agreed
with Lindquist.
Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4
even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work
as presented in his opinion.
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
S
(#2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the changing
of the cul- de-sac to a shared drivewav would enable her to gain the alternate septic site for
Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning
whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from
Gaffron that it would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area
variances are tvnically not anoroved for new mbdivision
Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for
Lot 4, noting that even with Outlot B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged
that the alternate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway.
Whitehead asked how it would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said it
would become one lot. and the shared drivewav should be at least 50' from the
neighboring property. Whitehead said a 50' setback is not required. Gaffron confirmed
that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. flit was an outlot
driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50'. Schroeder noted there is ample room
to meet that setback.
Whitehead said the Stankovsky's home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan
• was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31. She said the 1.13 acre
Stankovsky lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder
indicated that this is a separate matter but acknowledged it should not have occurred. He
was informed that the Stankovsky house was built 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a
3 -lot subdivision, the Stankovsky's should be able to acquire additional land from the
Whitehead's. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the
drivewav would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the
northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep.
•
Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8
meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to
occur. Gaf -on suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission
meeting for Council consideration at the September 22 Council meeting.
Gaf -ron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200'
width reauirement under the 3 -lot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this
could occur.
Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as
noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with their neighbors. Smith
agreed with Schroeder.
9
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
( #2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots 1, 2, and 3 with
septic sites, residences, and driveways shown to scale for review at the September,
Planning Commission meeting.
Whitehead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her
she could send a reoresentative. Whitehead was informed that the clan should be able to
be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could be
accommodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public
hearing.
Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2279/2280 for a 34ot
subdivision for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote:
Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot I or Lot 2. Gafiron said he would
recommend the driveway be platted as a separate outlot for the westerly 20' with a 30'
width for the shared driveway for Lots I and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2
is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75' setback for
the house and push it into the wetland area. She would then need 45' to get the driveway
. in to meet the 26 separation. Gaffron informed her that he felt the house location as
noted should meet the setback.
•
Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the
consideration of the back/front lot issue. Gaffron indicated that the applicant is typically
responsible to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by precedence.
Gafiron noted the City Engineer had indicated that the road would require upgrading with
more houses built. Lyman to Smith Avenue is currently narrower than the standard
allows.
Hawn indicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house
was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would
result in the loss of about 20 trees.
McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should be required. Ga£fron said it would
help in olacement of the driveway if the Planning Commission requires its relocation.
McMillan asked that this be included as well as vegetation for the Stankovsky's if the
driveway is placed by their property. Gaffron asked if the vegetation map should include
both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and
what will be required.
10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18- 1997
(#2 - #2279 / #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued)
McMillan indicated that the cul- de-sac had been proposed in 1991 for a turnaround for
four homes. She noted that the question brought un at that time was the need to assist the
homes in the area. She said the circle area at the east end of Lyman was two- thirds
dedicated and the missing niece could be obtained. Schroeder said the applicant should
not have to solve the problem of others. Whitehead indicated that Highway 12
reconstruction will take a nortion of the nronertv near the east end. McMillan said that
portion is not known at this time. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Gaffron on
this issue.
Whitehead indicated that her homestead parcel is separate from the other tax parcel and
asked if she could separate the four lots with house from the total land to enable her to sell
her home now. She was advised to work with Gaffron on this issue as well.
ACTION ITEMS
.4 =A6,5'
(#4), CK RICE, 2700 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC
H G 8:28 -8:35 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
• The cant was resent.
Apph p
•
Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is a corner lot requiring front yard
setback requirements on both Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. The application is a proposal to
construct a deck. The existing footprint and building pad were noted. A kitchen addition
was built in 1958. While a permit was issued for the addition. it did not meet the 35'
setback as it is 30' from the Lydiard Avenue property line. An existing patio door will
lead to the proposed deck. The request will result in a reduction to the side yard setback
adjacent to the street where there is a topographical change. The 50' Lydiard right -of -way
is not developed to that width. Van Zomeren said there should be no negative impact
from the deck on adjacent property's views.
Rice said the northwest corner of the residence is the natural area for the deck placement
due to the kitchen location. The deck will also enable the applicant to view the lake from
the vantage point.
During public comments, Janice Berg, who lives by the applicant, said she had no problem
with the deck reauest.
It
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
•
(#4 - #2253 Rick Rice - Continued)
Smith said she did not see any hardship for the deck. Van Zomeren indicated that the
building oad and house location on the lot would be the hardship. Smith felt the partv
who built the home should have realized the potential problem. Smith said approval
cannot be gained for all locations where an addition makes sense and sees no compelling
hardship.
McMillan asked if the home was built prior to the setback requirements. Rice said the
home was built in 1951. Van Zomeren said there would have been less of a problem at
that time with the deck location.
Stoddard said he would support the deck request noting the applicant was trying to take
advantage of the lake views and each application is reviewed case by case_
Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2255 for
construction of a deck requiring rear and side yard setback variances. Vote: Ayes 6,
Nays 1, Smith.
( #5) #2264 JANET C. I£)ERNAN9 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HEARING 8:36 -8:56 P.M.
• The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailin g were noted.
•
The Applicant was present along with representative, Alan Christy.
Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the July Planning Commission meeting
for review of the condition of the foundation and use of existing oortions of the house.
Gaffron indicated that the building inspectors have determined from the plans that 400/9 of
the existing house will remain, resulting in a final product that is 20% old house and 80%
new house. He said the code does not specify a minimum percentage of use of existing
structure in order that it be considered as an addition/remodel rather than as total
reconstruction. Gaffron informed the Commission that the applicant was approved one
vear ago for additions to the existing house. Changes in the vlans for a total replacement
would require further review and approval due to the substandard lot not meeting area and
width requirements.
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
( #5 - #2264 Janet C. Kiernan - Continued)
Gaffron reviewed the approvals made in 1996 for average lakeshore setback, existing side
setback, and trading of 0 -75' hardcover to allow terrace area to remain. The plan
submitted to obtain a building permit is different from that application with the addition of
a bump -out window in the 75' lakeshore setback and a 3- season porch in the side setback.
Initially, applicant indicated that the plan would result in a complete removal of the
existing residence, but this has since been revised to omit both the bump -out and 3- season
porch, and save 40% of the house. Additional bulk of the additions would be in the
average lakeshore setback, which is a substantial difference from the past plans. The
original footprint of plan A additions did not encroach f rther into the 75' setback or side
setback. Plan B also did not encroach further into the 75' Lakeshore setback or 30' side
setback but had a different character and style and would encroach the average lakeshore
setback. Gaffron said the question was then whether there would be any impact on the
neighboring property. The neighbor has indicated that the plan would not affect his home
due to topographical differences. Gaffron said, in looking at the plan as a remodel, the
nature and extent encroachments differ somewhat from the past approval, but it would
meet the hardcover from the 1996 approval.
Kiernan was asked whether she preferred plan A or B. Kiernan said she would prefer plan
B.
• d noted that changes would occur with the garage and curb cut. He noted the
Stoddar $ g ag
garage would be smaller than that approved in 1996. Gaffron said the garage would not
be an offset and the City Engineer feels the access location is an improvement.
Alan Christy showed pictures to give a good illustration of how the land sits. He indicated
the plan would enable trees to be saved and not impact neighboring views. Smith was
informed by Kiernan that no trees would be removed in the 0 -75' setback.
There were no public comments.
McMillan was informed by Kiernan that she would prefer to work with the existing
foundation. Kiernan said a tear down with removal of porches still resulted in being in
front of the average lakeshore setback. Kiernan indicated that the foundation was stable
noting it to be 1' poured concrete.
Stoddard said he concurred with Staffs recommendation #2.
Schroeder felt there was still the issue of whether the construction was new. Gaffron said
the issue is one which Staff wrestles with all the time as there are no specifics regarding it
in the code. Gaffron would like to see the Council and Planning Commission consider
adding percentage features in the code to determine at what point remodeling/additions
is become new construction.
13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
( #5 - #2264 Janet C. Kiernan - Continued)
Schroeder moved to approve Application #2264 per Resolution No. 3761 approved in
1996 subject to a plan tailored to plan B as noted. Gaffron indicated he would prefer to
have the site redrawn prior to the application review by Council. He informed Kiernan he
would like all information shown on one Man with the chaniaes made. Gaffron reviewed
Resolution No. 3761 regarding the addition, roof revision, 3.9% hardcover in the 0 -75'
setback. and a slisaht increase in hardcover in the 75 -250' for a 27.6% total.
Schroeder asked if plan B falls into the parameters of Resolution No. 3761 without the
specific numbers on the plan. Gaffron said those calculations would be necessary.
Schroeder asked if the application can be passed on to the Council without those
calculations. Gaffron said the plan with calculations would be required prior to the
Council review.
Gaffron questioned whether the Planning Commission would like to review the
calculations prior to Council review or if this can be reviewed by Staff.
Hawn questioned the terrace in the 0 -75' setback. Gaffron indicated that the approval was
subject to other removals.
• Stoddard noted the past approval and present approval showed compliance with a 27.60/6
hardcover limit in the 75250' setback. He said he would be satisfied with the Staff
reviewing the plan prior to going before the Council.
Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2264 for plan B option
which falls within the broader parameters of Resolution No. 3 76 1. The approval is subject
to plan B review by Staff meeting standards and conditions prior to Council review. Vote:
Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#6) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY, 4640 TONKAVIEW LANE -
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING $:36-
9 :32 F.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Van Zomeren reported the application was reviewed at the July meeting. She reviewed
the lot and uronosed earaae. The revised elan would include a height variance as the
principal structure is approximately 13' and the proposed garage height is 24'. Variances
would be required for the garage located in front of the principal structure and for side
• yard encroachment. A conditional use permit would be required due to the accessory
structure being located on a through lot.
14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
0 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued)
Van Zomeren said Staff would recommend elimination of the side yard variance. She
indicated the garage cannot be located elsewhere on the property and the height problem
is due to the low height of the principal structure.
Hickey had no comments to add at this time.
Berg asked hickey why the garage had to be so high. Hickey said he needed two levels to
enable him to have the necessary storage space he desires and for a shop area.
Smith asked if there would be a loft or a true second story with stairs. Hickey said he
would like to fit stairs in somewhere or have pull down stairs. The original 40'x30' plan
had stairs included inside.
Lindquist asked the applicant if he would be able to shift the garage location to meet the
side setback. Hickey said he could.
Lindquist asked the size of the accessory structure. Van Zomeren said it would be 988 s.f,
McMillan asked the applicant if he would be satisfied with Staff s recommendation. It was
• noted that the recommendation included a 13' height. Hickev responded that if he were to
place the structure on the west side of the house, it would be lower but would have a
steev driveway. Hickev said the houses in the area are two stories. and his Dian would be
consistent with those in the neighborhood.
�J
Lindquist noted with the side yard setback met, the height would be the remaining issue.
Hawn asked the height of a typical garage. Van Zomeren said it would depend on the
pitch. She noted the height is measured to the mid -point and not the peak of the roof.
She estimated a typical garage is about 13' high as measured by the City's interpretation of
height.
Stoddard said several similar applications have been approved for height variances. Based
on that, Stoddard said he would support the request for a height variance.
Van Zomeren showed where the 24' high measurement would be estimating the peak at
about 28'. She did not have the slope measurement.
Stoddard said a lower peak would enable the roof line to be lower. Gaft'ron said these
calculations would need to be reviewed.
15
NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
•
( #6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued)
Lindquist informed the applicant that the application might possibly be denied and
uuestioned whether he could be satisfied with less. Hickey said the soace as nronosed
would be packed as it is planned. He questioned whether Wildhurst could be considered
as the front of the house. Lindquist questioned whether this would have anv effect. Van
Zomeren said it would not because it would still be a through lot.
Van Zomeren referred to the Holzer application which had a 9' high principal structure
and received a height variance for the accessory structure. She indicated there was also
less bulk to that structure and more screening.
Hickey asked if it would make a difference if the structure was attached to his house.
Berg questioned why he would suggest this. Hickey said the hardcover requirement
would be met and have the same look as the back of the house with two stories from being
located on the hillside. Van Zomeren said the height allowance for an attached garage is
2 -1/2 stories or 30'. Van Zomeren said there would be no room to construct an attached
garage with a 988 s.£ fmtnrint.
Lindquist again asked the applicant if he could be satisfied with less structure. Hickey said
he needs the garage space and has alreadv shrunk down the size of the structure.
Hawn uestioned whether the applicant could have a two-story structure without the 28'
q PP rY
height. Hiickev said he was not an architect but thought he could reduce the cement
blocks to reduce the height. He estimated a IV lower level and 8' upper level.
Stoddard suggested it could be reduced to a 22 -1/2' height.
Lindquist noted the Commission could not design the structure for the applicant. He felt
the 22 -1/2' height would probably not be acceptable.
Hickey asked the height of the peak with one story. Stoddard said it would be about 13'.
Hickey noted that past variances have been granted for such structures. Schroeder
clarified the code and noted the Commission was attempting to assist Hickey in obtaining
what he desired.
Berg reiterated that the second story was the issue. She felt one story was high enough
for the property. Hickey said he needed a loft area.
Van Zomeren reviewed the first and second plans of the applicant and the change in the
bulk and mass of the structures. The original plan's roof fine mitigated some of the height.
Lindquist said a height variance was still required with that plan, however. Smith noted
the attempt is to gain the second storv.
16
C7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
(#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued)
McMillan said she would support the Staff recommendation. Hickey said that
recommendation includes the removal of the shed which he does not want to remove. He
noted neighboring sheds and the shed being in existence since 1956. Hickey said without
the second story. he would need the shed. Van Zomeren clarified where the 13' height is
measured.
Van Zomeren said there is also the problem of where the shed is located. Hickey said the
shed sits on a cement slab and is surrounded by foliage eliminating it from view. Stoddard
questioned where the shed is in its conformity to the code.
Hawn said she would like to consider a slightly higher garage height. Stoddard said he
would be satisfied with a 22 -1t2' height. Smith questioned how it would be calculated.
McMillan said the problem is what type of second story and where to draw the line.
Hawn said the elan is not offensive to the neighbors and second stories have been
permitted. She felt if the second story was allowed, the shed would have to be removed.
Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2270 for a detached garage
for a height variance with overall peak maximum height of 22.5', 15' side setback, and
footprint of 988 s.f and elimination of existing shed. Stoddard noted the first story could
• be 8. 7' second storv. with 1' joist snacine in- between. and 6.5' roof joist for a total of
22.5' peak. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Berg, McMillan. Motion passed.
•
( #7) #2271 CHAD NILSSON, 3210 NAVARRE LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC
HEARING
The application review was postponed at the request of the applicant.
(#g) #2272 WYATT MOE,1230 SPRUCE PLACE - VACATION, LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:32 -9:46 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Nancy Moe was present, along with representative, JoEllen Hurr.
Gaffron reported that the application has been revised and amended to reflect the
additional vacation of the dedicated public right- of -wav and park and variances for lot
area, width, and hardcover. The City is not using the right -of -way and park areas, and the
Planning Commission previously aereed that the vacation would make sense. The
vacation is subject to Staff review of what portion to retain for Spruce Place. The
application includes the subdivision of a lot fine rearrangement.
17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
( #8 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued)
The survey has not yet been revised but plans include City maintaining a 40' right -of -way
from the center line of Spruce Place. The vacation is from a line northward in exchange
for rededication of another portion. The two lots would become about the same size. The
plan calls for the north lot to decrease from about 39,000 s.f. to 30,000, or .7 acres. The
southern lot would increase from 10,300 s.f to 21,000 s.f., or .5 acres. These lot sizes are
typical of other lots in the area.
The rearrangement incorporates a portion of the park land. Hennepin County has
determined that since Loma Linda has not been vacated, the park area in question can go
only to the Moe's for vacation attachment. The transfer of property would most likely
involve a quit -claim deed for the portion of property intended to be given to the City.
The resulting lots would still be substandard in size but would meet setbacks for the
proposed new house on the southern property. A hardcover variance to allow 35.7%
would be required for the new house in the 75 -250' setback where 25% is allowed. The
northern lot existing hardcover would conform after the lot line rearrangement at 19.4 %.
A variance would most likely be required for a future garage on the north lot.
An easement would be required for the two existing sewer lines. Location of these lines
• needs to be confirmed. Utility companies have been informed of the application request
but have not yet responded.
There are a number of facilities in and around the property for stormwater management.
There is a culvert with an inlet west of the driveway, leading to the lake. There are
drainageways through ditches and culvert under Spruce Place and from the northwest. 15'
easements will be required for these drainageways. The wetland is very small and is not
shown on any official maps. No recommendation is made for this inconsequential
wetland.
The existing driveway from Spruce Place serves the cabin on the south lot as well as the
northern house. The northern lot could access Loma Linda by a driveway. This option
could be considered under the application.
Issues for consideration include whether a separate driveway for the northern lot should
be required, and whether there is sufficient justification for the hardcover variance for the
southern lot. Gaffron indicated that the variance requests are consistent with the
neighborhood. He asked if there were concerns regarding the vacation.
Hun had no additional comments. She noted that the existing culvert between the north
and south lots was a joint effort between the applicant and City and paid for by the
• applicant.
18
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
•
( #8 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued)
Dave and Linda Wollner were present during public comments. Dave Wollner noted their
pronertv is south of the subiect vronerty. Thev sunoort the application with the transfer of
the corner lot to the City for Spruce Place as they have their driveway over that portion
fnr arrPCC to their hnme
McMillan supported the application. She was in favor of the proposed 40' right -of -way
retention for Cnmire PlnrrP 5hP vnirPtl rnnrern with the ririvPwav nntlinPfi fnr thw
northern lot questioning whether this needs to be determined at this time. Hurr responded
that the applicant currently owns both properties and could grant an easement or use
Loma. Linda for access.
McMillan questioned whether the driveway to Loma Linda would create hardcover
problems. Gaffron said it would entail hardcover in the 75 -250' setback. The drivewav
while contributable to the property would increase the hardcover but most likely not
problematic. He indicated the applicant has the right to a driveway and could have an
easement. He felt if the property was sold, it may be in the best interest to have a separate
driveway. He would support the options for the future.
McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2272/2277 per Staff
• recommendations 1.2. and 3. Vote: Aves 5. Nays 0. Smith and Schroeder were not
present during discussion and vote.
(#9) #2274 BRYCE AND MARY PAT PETERSON, 2829 CASCO POINT ROAD -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9 :4 8-10:00 P.NL
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicants were present.
Van Zomeren reported that the .355 acre lot is in the LR -1C 1/2 Zoning District. The
application is a request to add a 10'9 "x4' bay window in the side yard, It would result in
replacing non - structural hardcover over existing rock with structural hardcover. The 0-75'
setback includes 147 sT of hardcover and no changes are proposed. Replacing of rock
with structure in the 75 -250' setback would result in 60.05% hardcover.
Van Zomeren said she has spoken with Building Official,Lyle Oman, and Building
Inspector, Bruce Vang, regarding drainage, which flows into the side yard. The applicant
has worked with their neighbor in redirecting the drainage, which has contributed to the
hardcover amount. Van Zomeren said she asked Vane and Oman if all of the hardcover
was necessary for drainage and was informed that some of it could be removed but no
• specific direction was given.
19
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
•
(#9 _ #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson - Continued)
An anonymous fax was sent to Van Zomeren regarding the application where it was
stmaested that vermits were not received for all vrevious work done at that address.
Lindquist read the fax into the minutes, and a copy is included in the packet.
Schroeder asked if the letter could be verified. Van Zomeren said she did not receive any
nhnne rAk rrnsirdino the .4nnlirntion anti is nnPxvnrp of tarhn wrntQ it Rhp .1i.i inAil-at.-
that the proper permits were obtained for remodeling in 1986.
Bryce Peterson said he has spoken with his next -door neighbor who supported the project.
Peterson said their lot is small and has a modest home. He eniovs the neighborhood and
would like to have a bayed area for sitting as there is no formal dining room. Peterson
indicated that the rock area drains away from the lake. He proposed the suggestion for
removal of hardcover near the garage area.
Tyre were no public comments.
Lindquist noted the presence of a large amount of plastic under landscaping. He
questioned the drainage flow direction and whether plastic could be removed. Van
Zomeren indicated that while some plastic could be removed, she did not know the
• location where the hardcover was necessarv.
Lindquist questioned whether the necessary hardcover was on the east side of the
vrooerty. Brvice Peterson said he is a landscave architect and could answer that Question.
He noted where it was possible to remove hardcover by the garage. Peterson said the plan
is to cover the rock area which cannot be removed due to drainage concerns on the west
side of the residence.
Schroeder asked about the shed by the lake. Peterson said he uses it as a boathouse. It is
made of block with wood and the block retains the soil.
McM flan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2274 with removal of
hardcover as indicated by the garage in an amount of even exchange for additional
structure, 43 s.f. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 4.
( #10) #2276 BRENT AND JULIE WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10 :00 -10:46 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicants were represented by Mr. Paul Larson, real estate agent for the owner, and
property owner, Mrs. Walton.
•
20
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•( #10 -#2276 Brent and Juke Walton - Continued)
Van Zomeren said the application begun as lot area and lot width variance request and
also became a variance request for structural coverage and hardcover. There is an issue
with the current sanitary sewer and driveway access. The water line will be required to be
relocated. Van Zomeren indicated that the worksheet is correct.
The property is located in the LR -IC, 1/2 Zoning District. Van Zomeren indicated that
Dunwoodv Avenue is platted at l00' width but is not built to that width. The subiect
property is .29 acres and 50' wide, where I00' is required. The proposed structural
coverage is 16.62% where 15% is allowed. There is no hardcover in the 0 -75' setback.
Van Zomeren said she has met with the purchasers of the property. There are railroad ties
at the shoreline which will require cleaning up. She informed the purchasers that thev will
need to inform City Staff what will be done in the 0-75' setback, if anything. The 75 -250'
hardcover is proposed at 3.352 s_f.. or 37.96 %. where 25% is allowed. The 250 -500'
setback hardcover meets the requirements.
Van Zomeren reviewed the proposal. She indicated a 20' easement would be required for
the sanitary sewer line. A legal description is necessary. There is a drivewav vrovosed
from a 2 -car garage to Dunwoody Avenue. The neighboring property has a loop
driveway. and Van Zomeren is concerned that the proposed drivewav is problematic. The
is water line comes from Shoreline Drive and should be changed from where it is currently
located. The plan was received by owner;s representative, Paul Larson.
•
Van Zomeren said Staff is asking the Commission to consider the elimination of the
proposed driveway and redirect it from Shoreline Drive. She indicated that if the
neighboring property to the south came in with any application, she would propose that
thev eliminate their loot) drivewav, to reduce hardcover.
Van Zomeren reviewed the necessary variances for lot area, lot width, structural coverage,
drivewav acces& easement. and relocation of water line. Van Zomeren said the first elan
is 42.86 s.f over on structural coverage. The second plan calls for 16.621/6 structural
coverage.
Lindquist reviewed the amount of structural coverage including 1350 sT for the home,
600 s.f for the garage, for a total of 1956 s.f. 15% would be 1913 s.f. for a 42.86 s.f.
overage. Lindquist asked Larson if the plan could be scaled down to meet the 15%
structural coverage. Larson said it could be done. Larson noted that a prior resolution
( #3689) conceptually approved the property for two double units with variances granted;
one of which included 48% hardcover. Lindquist informed Larson that the Plannirm
Commission has to review this new application.
21
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONMSSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
0 ( #10 #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued)
Larson said he would like to see access from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated that a
driver has to look to the east to null off onto Shoreline and with sidewalk located there. it
creates a problem. He feels Dunwoody is safer with less traffic and people are slowing
down at that point anticinatine their turn. He indicated the curb cut was designed by the
City and Hennepin County and approved for the lot. Van Zomeren said this was
incorrect. It was questioned whether the neighbor was usine the curb cut for this
property. Stoddard suggested it be surveyed. Larson said the survey does not show it.
He indicated the curb cut for 2405 Dunwoody is there but is overgrown.
Van Zomeren said the problem with the loop is the inability to come out facing Dunwoody
and be in a position to make a safe right turn. She recommended a change to that loop.
She suggested the property be walked and Hennepin County review the situation. She felt
the new Ulan would create a safer access. Larson said he would agree to the elan if
approval is received. He indicated the driveway is not designed to meet the roadway and
would require changing for the other property. Lindquist noted that the other property is
not being reviewed.
Discussion was had regarding the driveway. Larson noted Staff recommends an approved
turnaround. Van Zomeren said an extension would out a car out onto Shoreline Drive.
• Lindquist noted the question needs clarification and asked if the addition to the drawing is
shown. Larson said he would fax the water and sewer line locations and work with the
City to get the house plan on the drawing as well.
•
During public comments, Louis Oberhauser, former owner of 2425 Dunwoody and
current owner of 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, said he is the former owner of the property
with the loop driveway. He indicated when the sewer was installed on CoRd 15, it was
located 35' from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated the driveway flares out to serve 2405
Dunwoody. He said it would not work as drawn as it would have to be brought out to the
corner of the lot.
Stoddard asked Oberhauser whether he thought access onto Dunwoody was safe.
Oberhauser said he never had a problem.
Berg questioned whether the curb cut along the lot line from Oberhauser was inaccurate.
Stoddard auestioned which prooertv the curb cut was on. Van Zomeren said the current
owner of the neighboring property, Mr. Withers, objects to access by 2405 Dunwoody
onto the loop but he understands the curb cut to be on City property. Schroeder said both
driveways are on City right -of -way. Berg acknowledged the need for a turnaround as
well. Van Zomeren said the right -of -way must be shown on a survey and where the
driveway would be located.
22
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
0 (#10 _ #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued)
Berg suggested the applicant come back with a reduction in the size of the house and a
survev with the curb cut shown with a turnaround. Stoddard auestioned whether the
Planning Commission needs to review the application again. Berg said she would like to
see it. Lindquist said he was not comfortable with anprovine the annlication without
looking at the driveway.
Oberhauser said the driveway would come out where the curb cut is. He indicated the
drivewav was designed by the Citv to flare out and serve both properties. Lindquist
responded that without a survey, curb cuts are not always placed where they should be
and wants to verifv it.
Mrs. Julie Walton noted that a turnaround would add to hardcover. Van Zomeren
explained the difference between structural coverage and hardcover.
Berg asked Gappa if he recommended access to Shoreline. Gappa said with a driveway
turnaround access to Dunwoodv Avenue should be satisfactorv. Schroeder said he could
not imagine not combining the two driveways. Lindquist said they need to be shown side
by side. Oberhauser explained that they were side by side.
• Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2276 for lot area, lot
width, hardcover variances with relocation of water and sewer line and structural coverage
not to exceed 15 %. The driveway must include a 20'x20' turnaround subject to review
and approval of curb cut by Gavva adiace t to the vroverty at 2425 Dunwoodv and
joining subject driveway on the city right -of -way. Hardcover in the 75 -250' setback is to
be capped at 3,750 s.f A revised survey must be submitted prior to Council review
incorporating these parameters showing any tree removal. Vote: Ayes 4, Stoddard,
Hawn, Schroeder, McMillan; Nays 3, Lindquist, Smith, Berg. Motion passed. Lindquist
voted in the negative as he would like to see the application with changes as noted. The
application will be reviewed by Council at their September 8 meeting.
•
( #11) #2278 PATRICK MIDDLETON, 720 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HEARING 10:46 -11:08 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present along with Paul Woodruff of Wood -N-Nail.
23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•(#11 - #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued)
Van Zomeren reported that the plan was to originally remove the deck and redesign it for
more sunlight into the lower level. The survev was shown. The variances reauired
include side yard, 75 -250' hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and Lakeshore setback.
The new deck would further encroach into the 75' setback and average lakeshore setback
than the existing deck. The 75 -25Y hardcover currently exists at 48.61% and proposed at
40 170/. whprP 7.5 0/a is allnwM
Middleton said the stairs and Landing are included in the encroachment. Van Zomeren
indicated that the hardcover calculations must be verified. Schroeder asked if the surveyor
was asked to calculate the hardcover. Middleton said it was based on calculations
provided by Van Zomeren. Van Zomeren said she thought the survev had been redrawn
and deck measured.
Lindquist noted that hardcover is being eliminated. He indicated there is a drainage issue
concern. Lindquist felt there is a problem with the deck location being only 6 from the
side yard and into the 75' setback. He indicated he would like to see the correct hardcover
calculations as well. Van Zomeren clarified the problem with the surveyor. Lindauist said
the drainage runs down the lot, affecting the neighbor as well, running under the deck and
m,igt he widrevgM
• Woodruff indicated that new retaining walls will be built to address the problem.
Lindquist asked where the water will go. Woodruff said the water will run over the walls
noting the water flow could not change. Lindquist said he would like the City Engineer to
review the plan and determine a long range solution. He also indicated that he has not
seen any plan on how the boulder walls will be built. Van Zomeren said this would be
required for the building permit.
•
Lindquist asked what hardcover will be removed. Middleton said the cement patio will be
removed. A total of 740 s.f + hardcover will be removed. Woodruff received
confirmation of agreement with replacement of grass for hardcover by Lindquist.
Lindquist asked to see the whole plan. Woodruff noted that these issues were not
previously mentioned.
Middleton indicated that the drawing does not show where the stairway is located. The
deck as drawn comes inside the stairway. Woodruff said the survev included all stairways
and sidewalks. Van Zomeren asked if the survey was certified. Woodruff said he believed
it was certified. Lindquist asked to see the survey reporting he has not seen it. Hawn
clarified that the steps are closer than the proposed deck. Middleton said they were and
were close to the lot line noting the hardcover being removed.
24
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
•
{ #11 - #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued}
Lindquist indicated that additional information was necessary and gave direction for
receipt of 1) up-to -date survey with hardcover. where existing hardcover is located and
where hardcover is proposed; 2) confirmation of hardcover calculations including the 0-
75' setback: and 34 drainage review by City Engineer.
Smith noted that the hardcover calculations are relevant as no additional hardcover was
stipulated when the garage approval was received in 1988. Middleton informed Smith
that the hardcover was being reduced. Smith said it must be clarified with the information.
Woodruff questioned whether the hardcover calculations on the worksheet were not
acceptable. Lindquist said he was not sure if thev were accurate. Berg clarified the
benefit of an accurate survey noting no hardcover is allowed in the 0-75' setback and the
deck is located in that area.
Smith said she would like to know what the neighboring property owner has to say about
the application. Middleton said he would obtain that information.
Schroeder noted a variance was necessary for the deck but indicated that if the Planning
Commission sees another problem it would have to be addressed.
• Woodruff asked City's view regarding remodeling of the existing deck. Schroeder said a
permit would be required. Van Zomeren noted it would depend on how it was nerformed.
Woodruff said he asked because of the concern for spending a large amount to obtain a
survey. Van Zomeren responded that the problem occurred with the need for a certified
survey and lack of all necessary information. She said any future change would require
the information.
E
Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2278 for additional information as
noted. Vote: Aves 7, Nays 0.
( #12) #2281 HENNEPIN COUNTY, WEST OF TOWNLINE ROAD TO EAST OF
ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -
PUBLIC HEARING 11 :08 -12:13 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was represented by Steve Theis and Joel Settles.
25
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMYSSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
(#I2 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Gaffron reported that the City and Hennepin County Public Works have been reviewing
plans on CoRd 6 including the alignment shift and intersection changes. These changes
will impact certain City protected and other wetlands. He noted that the City Council has
already anoroved the lavout of the road. The issue before the Commission is the review of
the wetland impacts, whether the proposed mitigation is acceptable, and a conditional use
hermit for land alteration over 160' c.v. Gaffron indicated that the iavmit and cross
sections are available for review.
Gaffron reported there have been 7 basins identified as being impacted, 4 of which are on
the Orono 1974 inventory, and require variances for grading and filling. There are minor
wetlands including culverts and creek crossing. Those of greatest concern include a
wetland west of the Hanning driveway, with the southerly 1/3 of the wetland impacted by
filling.
Lindquist questioned whether Planning Commission has any choice but to approve.
Gaffron said there really were not anv choices as to the lavout, since those decisions have
already been made.
Lindquist asked how mitigation for the wetland impacts takes place. Joel Settles said the
• wetland replacement decision is made by the State. Settles said the 2:1 replacement will
occur within the County and probably in with the MCWD, and the City has no say in the
location but might influence it. He said the best influence would be to show where
expansion might take place but the State may not accept those locations.
Smith asked the time frame of that decision. Settles said there is no time frame but after
construction is complete, the County will file a report that will be received by the State
filed by January 15 of the next year. At that time, mitigation locations will be determined.
During public comments, Robert Hanning, 4220 CoRd 6, asked what the purpose was of
the meeting regarding wetlands. He indicated that the City and County have already
approved the road redesign but the public hearing is for public comments and information.
Gaffron indicated that the City requires the County to go through the process as it affects
Orono wetlands and requires a CUP for land alteration over 100 c.y. He indicated the
Council has approved the plan and the application allows for formal conclusions of the
discussion.
Hanning noted if the Council has already approved the road and then hold a public
meeting. he feels it is redundant. Schroeder said the hearing is to gain an understanding
for the reasons for filling the wetlands regarding public safety and environmental and the
necessity for a CUP. McMillan said the review is not to debate the road but to discuss the
• wetlands.
26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
a( #12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Hanning said he does not feel the wetlands need to be filled. He does not feel the road
should be moved reauirine the filling of the wetlands. He said he has not been told what
he will be paid for his property that will be taken. Lindquist was informed that the
wetlands are on private nronerty and not nn the rioht- of -wav Snhrneder agkei if he wag
suggesting he should be paid. Hanning said he was suggesting the wetlands should not be
fillet in
Schroeder asked it if was a matter of public safety. Theis said it was. Hanning asked
about cutting trees down. He questioned how wetlands affect the wells. Schroeder said
the wetlands act as a filter to Lake Minnetonka. McMillan further elaborated that it was a
surface filter.
Sandy Larson, 4286 6th Avenue North, said her concern hinges on the County's applying
for nermits but the Countv has not vet told them what will be done. Theis said the real
estate division has not conducted the appraisals yet for damages to be caused by realigning
the roadway. He indicated the contracts will go out around ,lanuarv_ 1948_ so the nrocess
should begin soon. Theis said this issue does not involve the real estate but agreed that
right -of -entry must be obtained. Theis said construction is planned to begin April, 1997,
and negotiations must take place before that time for right -of- entry. He estimated that the
• real estate appraisals will take place no later than December of this vear.
Berg asked why the CUP is obtained before the details are worked out with the property
owners. Theis responded that the process is as laid out by the Citv.
•
Stoddard asked if the permit is obtained before review by the Corp of Engineers. Theis
said it is easier to deal with the Citv on issues first.
Hawn asked if the County Engineers have met with the landowners. Theis said they have
met with them and have had meetings where some of the vronerty owners have attended.
Bob Brown, who lives on Huntington Drive, asked why the wetland discussions did not
taken place prior to Council action. Lindquist said he had the same auestion. Brown said
if the wetlands are on private property, the people should be notified.
Jeff Broll, 4545 Watertown, asked if the request can be denied. He was informed that the
Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, who makes the official
determination. Schroeder said the Planning Commission is only in a position to deny the
annlication if it is shown the loss of wetlands out weighs the issue of nublic safety.
27
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
i
( #12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Katharine Colgrove, 4264 6th Avenue North, reported that she has the house that goes
down to the pond. She indicated that her septic system is located in the front vard. She
questioned whether taking the wetlands pushes the pond into the septic system. Colgrove
said she does not want the road to affect her sentie system.
Steve Theis acknowledged the encroachment on the wetland. He indicated the County
looked at the drainage and made adiustments so less water drains into the pond to result in
the same pre and post construction condition of storm water going into the pond.
Chuck Larson, 4285 Sixth Avenue North, asked where the water will go if the shoulders
are paved, curbs added, and ponds eliminated. Theis said the pond is not eliminated. He
indicated water will go where it does now. The water flow has been slowed and ditches
flattened. He said the Countv has used Best Management Practice& which are svecific
procedures they must follow. Theis said he would go over the specifics as it relates to
Larson's property with him.
Smith asked if this was the first time the wetland issue was being reviewed.
Larson said he was unaware that wetlands were being taken.
•
Lindquist asked if the County has contacted property owners regarding this issue.
q tY p
Hanning said there has been meetings, noting the last Council meeting on the issue, but
feels the meetings has been inadequate.
Berg questioned whether all the information was available then.
Lindquist asked the public whether they would like to see a meeting held with the County
relating to wetlands. He said this was the oniv vehicle in which to gain further
information.
Theis responded that a shift one way or another of the road would change the impact on
the wetland. He said the property owners understood that filling will occur. He indicated
that the County has already gone over with the property owners where the road is laid out.
The process was not before the Planning Commission in the east.
Mr. Cornelius, 775 Huntington Farm Road, indicated that the County has answered
questions. He felt there was a time when decisions were made rather auick1v and the
property owners did not have a voice. He felt the road changes ended up having bigger
impacts on them when the road was moved the 25'. He said he does not know why the
road was moved and thought the Council rushed through the decision process. He feels
• the Countv has been fair in dealing with the vropertv owners.
28
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
( #12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Lindquist informed the public if they were unhappy with the decisions made by the
Council. they should take the issue un with the Council as the Planning Commission does
not have the authority. Gaffron acknowledged that the residents always have the
opportunity to sneak with the Council.
Cornelius said he feels the discussion regarding the wetlands should have taken place
nreviousiv.
Schroeder noted the issues of consequence have been discussed previously and the
questions answered in the east. Theis said he felt the auestions have been answered.
Cornelius said this was the first time discussing the wetlands, however. Theis said it is not
the first time the wetland impacts have been discussed but is the first time as a quantified
acreage.
Schroeder said he felt Katherine Colgrove should be contacted regarding the issue of
effects on her septic system and health related issues. He asked Colgrove if she has had
the opportunity in the past to discuss these issues. Colgrove said that this was the first
meeting where wetlands were discussed.
• I Commissio and the
McMillan said the drainage plans have not been seen by the Planning n,
N1IRP pond and curb and autter have not been discussed.
•
Theis said the construction limits have already been set by the Council, lust not where the
wetland impacts are as far as septic. He indicated the County would have to replace a
septic system if the construction limits affected the septic. These issues would be worked
out with the property owner. Theis said Colgrove's property has been addressed as far as
the amount of water flowing into her pond is concerned and should result in no change to
her septic system. Schroeder indicated that he still feels the County needs to address the
issue of'Colgrove's system.
Lindquist brought attention to the Staff memo regarding issues noted for consideration
and recommendations made. He asked what conditions are appropriate for
recommendation 95. Stoddard asked that there would be a 2:1 mitigation ratio that would
take vlace within the City of Orono. Lindquist asked if the concerns of the veovle here
need to be addressed further and how this should occur. Berg concurred that the impact
on the property owners is important. Smith said there should be a forum by which this
could occur. Both Berg and Lindquist felt the concerns of the property owners have not
been adequately addressed.
29
NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
(# 12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Lindquist questioned the value of the land taken. Theis said the County and City process
has been gone through and there is a cost share between the two entities. He said
information has been given and handouts available. People have spoken out on the
process. Berg noted the auestion of the septic system. Theis said it would be addressed.
A member of the audience questioned the importance of the wetlands and whether another
Man would have less impact on the wetlands.
Gaffron noted the process has been on -going for over two years. He said the Council has
reviewed the alignments and conclusions have been drawn. He indicated the Council
apparently does not feel the wetland impacts are significant enough for further alignment
changes to be made, resulting in the perception that this current issue is after- the -fact as it
relates to the process. He noted the alignment has to be decided before the specific
wetland impacts can be defined. Gaffron said the wetland acreage impacted needs to be
accepted or changed as part of the application process.
Lindquist said he is not comfortable in making that decision at this time. He asked if the
Commission recommends an additional hearing. Gaffron suggested a list of questions be
drawn as an option.
• acknowledged that the all alignment has been thought through and is set as the
Schroeder gnm gh oug
befit option for the roadwav
C�
Hawn questioned if the main concern shown at the meeting was a result of the 8' road
alignment change.
Cornelius responded that he has learned that if meetings are not attended, decisions are
made quickly and voices need to be heard when the occasion arises. He indicated that the
Council has heard the concerns as well. He questioned whether there is an effect on the
well water.
Lindquist asked about the shift decision. Theis said the shift was decided by the Council
and then made by the County. The shift allowed the County to quantify the wetland
impact, which was unable to be done prior to the alignment determination.
Brown indicated that when the alignment shift was done, the meetings happened quickly
and he missed some of them. He feels he was left out of the process.
Schroeder said the question is whether the Council followed due process, which he feels
they did. He noted that the public can contact Council members at any time.
30
�J
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST ST 1 R_ 1907
(#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Leonard Berg questioned whether he was notified. Schroeder informed him that people
within a certain radius of the nronosed activity is notified. Bern said he found out about
land being taken in December and decisions were already made by that time. Lindquist
infeirmPd him and nthe.rc to rnntart the. rnt inril if them have me oinnc
Lindquist asked what is to be accomplished at this meeting. Gaffron said issues pertaining
to wetlandC are.. rele.vant- be noted the.. nubltr nnegtinnr revardtri4 imnAet on gentir. CvRtefmq
wells and well water, stormwater concerns and where drainage is directed. Gaffron said
he feels these issues have been addressed in the information given by the agencies. Theis
was asked to address these certain questions.
Theis said an application is before the MCWD as far as stormwater is ,concerned. This
wnvild n4o to water nimlity mui emrmwate.r ralretlatinne and analvek arcs inr1111A l and
information available. As far as septic systems are concerned, Theis said they must be
operational. If impacted, the Countv will make the corrections per Citv code. Regarding
the pond, the only place impacted is in the wetland. He said he would check on this.
Gaffron noted the intention of having the Citv Engineer review the stormwater plan is to
review the details. He indicated water level should not change and flowage will be
rherked for the. nond area
• Hawn asked if the Pe ro rty owners should be identifying septic systems on the properties
P
or wait to hear from the r'oiinty Theis resnondeti that if the nronerty owners would like
an additional level of comfort, the mound systems can be surveyed. This is normally
performed as part of the real estate negotiations but can be done now as the systems must
meet City code.
•
Theis said there will only be filling of .8 acre of wetlands and only shallow wells would be
affected. Gaffron said there are likely no shallow wells.
Cornelius noted that he is unaware of where the drainage flows.
Gaffron said the wells are typically 100 -I SY deep. Wetlands provide for some recharging
but the 1/2 acre in the scheme will not impact or change the surface or around water.
Gaffron said he sees no impact on the wells or the ground water.
Lindquist asked if there were any other questions to be answered.
Brown asked if the County was directed by the City regarding realignment of the road.
Theis said thev were. Theis said the wetlands are affected by the widening of the road and
affected on both sides.
31
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997
•
(#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued)
Brown clarified then that the City must approve affecting wetlands that the City has
approval to fill. Gaffron said the Council listens to various concerns. He said the Council
understood there would be impacts on specific wetlands regardless of where the road was
located. and avvarently concluded those impacts are relatively of a lower vriority than the
road alignment concerns.
Joel Settles said while he was not in attendance at all meetings, the Council weighed the
impacts on many issues to try to balance them out.
Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2281 per Staff
recommendations 1-4. Recommendation #5 include the three items noted pertaining to
stormwater, septic systems, and ponding. The people who have any other concerns about
the CoRd 5 realignment and other questions were asked to sign uo_ and Plannina
Commission will recommend another meeting be held with the County regarding any other
questions they might have. Mitigation will be 2:1 per State requirements with the strong
recommendation that mitigation occur within Orono. Settles said the determination will
be made by the State but preference can be stated. He will attach the recommendation to
the report certified to the State. Theis asked the type of meeting and if held by the County
or Council. Lindquist suggested a no,%sible combination of both Council and Countv as a
• public information meeting. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Schroeder asked Settles if the mitigation siting is political in nature. Settles did not feel it
was as such. He noted a number of people have seen the abilitv in selling wetlands. A
member of the public noted tiling down on farm land.
Brown said he appreciated the Planning Commission listening to the concerns. Schroeder
suggested people call Council members if they have issues of concern.
( #13) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
This item will be reviewed at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for
Sentember 12. 1997 at 8:00 a.m.
McMillan asked that information be provided on the background of the Sugar Woods
Develonment_
Stoddard related that the Council asked that the Planning Commission review the draft
drawn by the Park Commission regarding this issue for their recommendation.
Lindquist asked that Park Commissioner David Beal be present at the work session.
32
•
•
U
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
( #14) ROME OCCUPATIONS
This item will be review at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for
September 12. 1997 at 8:00 a.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
( #15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF.HTLY 21L 1997 AND ATTGURT 11. 1997
No additional comments were made.
( #16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
No other issues were discussed.
( #17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 21,
1997 MF.FTING
The minutes were amended to reflect the name change under item #18, page 27,
narauranh 4. for comments made by Conlev Brooks. not Gerald MCCourtnev.
Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meetine of Julv 21. 1997 as amended. Vote: Aves 7_ Nays 0.
( #1S) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO
ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 25,1997 AND SEPTEMBER
5,1997
August 25 - Smith September 8 - Berg
ADJOURNMENT
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 12 :18 a.m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
33