Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1999 Planning Commission Minutes ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Jay Nygard. Commission Daniel Kluth was absent. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Item #1 follows Item #8. Item #2 follows Item #3 NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2496 PATRICK AND JEANNE O'FLANAGAN, 3895 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES. 6:33 p.m. -6:48 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavid of Publication were noted. Patrick O'Flanagan,Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the Applicants are proposing to locate an existing detached garage onto their property. Because it is an existing structure and not designed to be attached to the residence, it is difficult to attach it to the residence on the property. The proposed detached garage is to be • located six feet from the side lot line where ten feet is required. Gaffron stated the Applicants are also proposing to construct two decks onto the existing residence. The proposed decks are to be located on the south side of the house and the west side of the house. Variances are needed to side yard setback of an accessory building, rear yard setback, and crowding principal building. Gaffron remarked that the proposed hardcover is 33.7 percent and is under the allowable limit of 35 percent for this lot, which is comprised of 6,032 square feet, and is located within the LR-1C zoning district. Gaffron noted that the Applicants have included a statement of hardship. O'Flanagan stated the garage was given to him by some friends but he is not able to relocate the garage on his property without a variance. Smith stated she does not have a lot of concern regarding the rear yard setback, but expressed concerns regarding the variance needed to the side yard setback. Smith inquired whether a portion of the deck could be reduced to allow for the required ten foot setback. O'Flanagan commented that the main entrance to the house exists in that area. Stoddard inquired whether the neighboring property owner has expressed any concerns regarding this application. O'Flanagan stated the neighbor has indicated that he does not have any plans to develop that portion of his property to his knowledge. Smith commented that that property may be developed in the future and that the ten foot setback • is required for emergency vehicle access. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#3) #2496 PATRICK AND JEANNE O'FLANAGAN, 3895 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES. 6:33 p.m. -6:48 p.m.—(cont.) Hawn inquired whether there were any fire code issues that exist with location of the garage near the residence. Gaffron stated that if the structure was located within five feet of the residence, a fire wall would need to be constructed. Gaffron remarked the bigger issue for the Planning Commission to consider is the access to the rear of the property. O'Flanagan stated a fire hydrant is located in front of his residence and that there is ample room on the neighboring property for emergency vehicle access. Hawn commented that a small lot does not constitute a hardship under the City's ordinances. O'Flanagan stated that the lot is very narrow and there is no other possible location for the garage. Lindquist stated he also has concerns regarding the side yard setback. There were no public comments. Gaffron inquired how high above grade the deck to the rear of the property would be constructed. O'Flanagan replied the deck would be three to four feet above grade. Gaffron inquired whether a railing would be constructed around the deck. • O'Flanagan stated a railing would be constructed around the deck. Smith noted that the improvements would be within the total structural coverage allowed on this lot, but suggested that the Planning Commission look at the side yard setback issue more closely. Hawn commented she does not see a hardship other than the fact that the lot is small. Lindquist inquired whether the garage could be located closer to the street. Gaffron stated there would need to be a 30 foot setback from the street. Stoddard commented he does not have a problem with this application. Smith commented that this lot is not currently serviced by a garage. Smith inquired whether any members of the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the proposed decks. Lindquist stated he in his view he does not have a problem with the decks. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission was approving this application based on the small lot size. Stoddard commented that that is a bigger issue than what is before the Planning Commission tonight. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission is routinely asked to approve variances for small lots and that this issue should perhaps be addressed. Smith noted that the total structural coverage is under the allowable limits and that the Applicant • is not able to place the garage in a different location. 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#3) #2496 PATRICK AND JEANNE O'FLANAGAN,3895 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES. 6:33 p.m. -6:48 p.m.—(cont.) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2496, to allow for the location of an existing detached garage and two decks on the property located at 3895 North Shore Drive, and to permit a crowding principal structure variance to allow a six foot wide deck to be constructed between the existing residence and the proposed detached garage where ten feet is required,to permit a side yard variance to allow the accessory structure (detached garage)to be located six feet where ten feet is required from the side lot line, to permit a rear yard variance to allow construction of the proposed 8 by 18 foot deck on the south side of the residence 24 feet from the rear lot line where 30 feet is required, subject to inspection by the City Building Inspector of the footings or slab on grade for the garage. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH,2490 OLD BEACH ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant,was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attorney-at-Law, and Gary Mueller, Landscape Architect. Gaffron stated this application was reviewed at the May 17th Planning Commission wherein the Planning Commission advised the Applicant that the proposed restoration plan was not appropriate 4111 consulting the Applicant was directed to submit a revised plan after consultation with Staff and the City's consulting forester. Gaffron stated that the Applicant submitted a revised plan prior to meeting with the City's consulting forester, which incorporates a single retaining wall at the base of the slope along with replacement of a small number of trees along the sides of the property. The Applicant's landscape architect and the City's consulting forester discussed the proposal, and concluded that their individual strategies for restoration of this property are quite different. Gaffron noted that it is the City's goal to have the lakeshore restored to a wooded, natural appearance as quickly as possible, and while the Applicant's plan is a good landscape plan, it is not a restoration plan. Gaffron reviewed the City's consulting forester's comments and recommendations regarding the restoration of this property, noting that a total of 17 trees with a stump diameter 12 inches or greater were removed from the lake side of the residence,with the value of the removed trees being estimated at$48,000. It would generally be unreasonable to expect restoration costs to exceed this amount. Bedker is recommending that 29 trees of two inch caliper on a 25 inch average spacing would be needed to eventually replace the 14,450 square feet of lost canopy,with larger 4.0 to 4.5 inch caliper trees being placed at the top of the slope to soften and obscure the roofline of the existing residence as viewed from the lake. Bedker is also recommending that the majority of the existing stumps and root systems remain in place to stabilize the slope, as well as hand planting of the trees to avoid disturbing the soil. Bedker has indicated that the retaining wall at the base of the slope is not necessary for stabilization of the slope. Gaffron stated the Applicant is proposing four birch clumps at the base of the slope and a half-dozen maples along the two sides of the site, along with other proposed shrubbery along the edges of the lot or on the lake side of the retaining wall. • Gaffron noted that the Applicant's revised proposal makes no attempt to, over time, restore the site to its original appearance in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code which states: Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 III (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—(cont.) will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip-rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. In addition, retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission has the option of denying this application, and sending it on to Council, noting that the revised landscape plan does not meet the restoration goals of the City; or this matter could be tabled to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan in accordance with the City forester's recommendations. Reznick commented that the Applicant's revised plan was submitted in May but that the City's forester was not provided with the necessary information until this past Friday. The Applicant's landscape architect was not able to meet with the City's forester due to the short time period before tonight's meeting. Reznick stated that the four inch diameter trees are too large to bring in to be planted, and that the Applicant should not be penalized by having to plan trees in excess of$48,100. Stoddard remarked that the Applicant is not being requested to plant trees in excess of$48.100, II noting that the forester states that it would be unreasonable to expect restoration costs to exceed that amount. Reznick stated in his opinion the value of the trees removed should not have a bearing on what is being proposed for restoration and is irrelevant. Nygard stated that the number of the trees cut down is completely relevant, noting that it is against City's regulations regarding clearcutting of property. Reznick stated the issue before the Planning Commission is what to do with the property now and that the Applicant should not be requested to plant more trees than what was removed. Reznick commented that a majority of the trees to be replanted are located within the site line from the house to the lake and that the property owner does have a right to trim the trees located within the sight line. Reznick stated that the trees removed were removed to provide a view to the lake. Luzaich commented that their revised plan is a compromise by providing reforestation as well as providing a view of the lake. Luzaich stated that the amount of trees recommended by the City's forester to be planted are excessive and that the trees will need to be trimmed to provide a view of the lake. Luzaich remarked that he would also like to plant vegetation along the slope rather than let weeds grow. Smith stated that the forester is recommending natural vegetation on the slope and that some reconciliation of the two plans needs to be accomplished. Mueller stated that the revised plan was submitted shortly after the last Planning Commission meeting and attempts were made to follow the directions of the Planning Commission as far as replanting of the trees, noting that the trees and shrubs that were selected are intended to blend in • and look like they belong along the lakeshore,which was one of the objectives that the Planning Commission had stated at the last meeting. 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 III (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH,2490 OLD BEACH ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—(cont.) Mueller stated that the property owner should have the right to have a view of the lake, noting that the forester's plan does not allow that view and would create more of a wall of vegetation. Mueller remarked that he made numerous attempts to contact Paul Weinberger in an effort to obtain the name of the City's forester and was not able to reach him until June 7th. Mueller stated he was not able to contact the forester until June 11th and was informed that he just received the information regarding this application the other day. During the conversation with the forester it was apparent that the forester was not provided with the revised landscape plan by the Applicant. The forester's plan was not received until the 14th, which did not allow time for the Applicant to meet with the forester and to develop a revised plan based upon his recommendations. Mueller remarked that there are discrepancies in the number of trees and the size of the trees that were purportedly removed, and that these issues will need to be worked out before another plan is revised. Mueller commented that the Applicant's landscape plan was designed to meet the spirit of what the Planning Commission had recommended at the last meeting. Stoddard commented that the Planning Commission wanted the Applicant's landscape architect to meet with the City's forester in order to develop a plan that would be agreeable to all parties and is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Stoddard stated he would like Mueller to meet with the City's forester in order to address some of these issues. Hawn stated that there are some deficiencies in the Applicant's landscape plan which need to be addressed, and suggested that Mueller meet with the City's forester to discuss these issues. • Hawn noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for restoration of the canopy that was removed. Lindquist stated that it was clear at the last Planning Commission meeting that the City was looking for restoration of this area, which is still the City's goal for this property. Luzaich remarked that in his opinion this landscape plan does meet that objective. Reznick stated that the revised landscape plan does include vegetation and trees that are indigenous to the area as was specified by the Planning Commission at the prior meeting. Reznick inquired where the term reforestation is used in the Code, and what is the City's authority to require restoration. Hawn stated that the City's goal is to re-establish what was removed,which is something that the City has required in the past in similar circumstances. Hawn stated that the Comprehensive Plan is merely a suggested code of property conduct and not a criminal code. Stoddard stated that some of these issues should be handled by the City Attorney and City Council. Smith commented that the City has applied the same restoration concept to other similar situations in the past. Gaffron stated that this happens approximately once a year and that it has been the City's practice to require reforestation of the area that has been cleared. Gaffron commented that it is not realistic to expect the property owner to replace the larger trees with similar trees of the same size. There were no public comments. ill Reznick distributed photographs of the neighboring properties to the members of the Planning Commission. 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH,2490 OLD BEACH ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—(cont.) Smith inquired who was responsible for the costs of the forester. Gaffron stated that his fees would be charged to the Applicant. Berg commented that she has lived in that area for approximately 20 years with the area existing as depicted in the photographs for that entire time. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission can either vote on what is before us tonight or table the matter to allow the Applicant time to meet with the City's forester. Luzaich stated he would like to negotiate a plan that would be acceptable to all parties. Hawn remarked that it is difficult to negotiate a plan that would be acceptable without the City's forester being present. Hawn stated in light of the disputed facts, it would be best if the Applicant's landscape architect met with the City's forester. Hawn noted she was not in favor of the Applicant's proposed landscape plan. Stoddard commented that the forester's recommendations should be followed. Smith stated she cannot approve this landscape plan as presented. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to act on this plan tonight or to table the matter, noting that if the application proceeds to the City Council and is denied, the • application would come back before the Planning Commission. Reznick requested that this item be tabled temporarily to allow the Applicant time to discuss his options. (This item was tabled at 7:46 p.m. and follows Item#4) NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#4) #2497 GAIL S. BRINER, 1760 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCE, 7:46 p.m. -7:59 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gail Briner,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the Applicant is proposing to rebuild an existing rotting deck, which has been removed. The new proposed deck will be in the same location and the same size. The deck area lies within the 0-75'lakeshore setback area. The hardcover amount for the lot will not increase with the new deck, which is at 11.94 percent. Gaffron stated that variances are required to the lakeshore setback to allow the proposed deck to be located within 75'feet of the lakeshore and to permit hardcover in the amount of 11.94 percent in the 0-75' lakeshore setback area to permit the construction of the proposed deck. The amount of hardcover allowed in this area is zero percent. The hardcover will not increase because the proposed deck is to be the same size as the one removed. • Gaffron inquired whether there will be a railing on the deck. 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 III (#4) #2497 GAIL S. BRINER, 1760 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCE, 7:46 p.m. -7:59 p.m.—(cont.) Briner stated there will not be a railing. City Staff recommends approval of the application since it is replacement of an existing deck. Hawn inquired whether the proposed new deck exceeds the old deck. Briner replied the deck is in the same location and the same size as the existing deck. Briner stated the deck was constructed approximately 25 years ago and has deteriorated over the years. Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with this application. Smith inquired whether the deck could be reduced somewhat to lower the amount of hardcover in the 0-75'setback. Hawn inquired whether the amount of rock could be removed to lower the hardcover in that area. Lindquist noted that the Applicant is merely replacing an existing deck. Smith stated the Planning Commission in the past has reviewed these properties whenever a new application is submitted in an effort to see what other steps could be taken to bring the property more into compliance. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to reduce hardcover somewhat. Briner stated the rock and plastic have been there since she purchased the property in 1967. IIISmith stated by removing the plastic and rock, it would allow the runoff to go directly into the ground rather than into the lake. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic removed under the rock. Gaffron remarked that the rock comprises 570 square feet of hardcover. Briner's contractor commented that they could remove the rock and plastic under the deck. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved,Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2497, 1760 Shadywood Road,to allow the Applicant to rebuild an existing rotting deck, and to grant a lakeshore setback variance to allow the proposed deck to be located within 75' of the lakeshore and to grant a hardcover variance to allow 573 square feet of hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback area to permit the construction of the proposed deck, subject to the rock and plastic underlayment being removed under the deck and plastic removed from under the rock that is not under the deck. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD -AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Reznick stated that they would like the Planning Commission to vote on this application tonight. • Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2492,2490 Old Beach Road,for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for a retaining wall, 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 1111 (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH,2490 OLD BEACH ROAD -AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—(cont.) and recommend to the City Council that the Applicant and the Applicant's Landscape Architect meet with the City's Forester in order to revise a new landscape plan for consideration by the City Council which is more in accordance with the recommendations of the City Forester in order to allow this item to be expedited. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Smith and Berg Opposed. Smith stated she was opposed to this application due to the lack of direction being given by the Planning Commission to the City Council on the revised landscape plan that is to be submitted. Berg stated that the Planning Commission should vote on the plan that is to be presented to the City Council. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#5) #2499 THOMAS AND MARILYN SWANSON, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES, 8:03 p.m. -8:16 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Thomas and Marilyn Swanson, Applicants, were present. • Gaffron stated the Applicants are proposing to assemble a temporary screen enclosure, 10'by 17' on an existing deck. The screen enclosure will be assembled in the early spring and taken down in the late fall. The screen enclosure and existing deck are located within the 0-75'lakeshore setback. The structural coverage would increase with the screen porch, however, the hardcover amount does not change. Gaffron stated that a lakeshore setback variance is required to allow a 10' by 17'screen porch on an existing deck to be located within 75'of the lakeshore and a hardcover variance to allow 1,973 square feet, or 21.5 percent, in the 0-75' lakeshore setback area where zero percent is allowed. Gaffron remarked that one item for consideration by the Planning Commission is determining when something becomes permanent as opposed to temporary. Swanson stated that they would like to assemble this screen porch to allow them to sit on their deck during the evening hours. Swanson remarked that the contractor is installing these screen porches throughout the metro area. Mrs. Swanson noted that the roof of the screen porch would not support the snow during the winter and would need to be removed. Swanson commented that the structure is designed to allow removal of the screens, noting that the structure itself is placed on top of the existing deck. Smith stated in her opinion this structure should be considered permanent. Gaffron noted that City Code does not permit structures within the 0-75' lakeshore setback. • Lindquist commented that this structure should be treated as permanent. Smith noted that the Applicants are slightly over on their hardcover amount but that structural 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#5) #2499 THOMAS AND MARILYN SWANSON, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES, 8:03 p.m. -8:16 p.m.—(cont.) coverage is fine. Smith stated that the City would not be able to monitor that this structure is removed in the fall and that this structure should be considered as permanent. Lindquist stated he probably will not support this application due to adding more structure in the 0-75'setback. Smith inquired whether there was other hardcover that could be removed in that area. Mrs. Swanson stated that the dog house and concrete pad has been removed. Swanson noted that the contractor does charge a small fee for removing and installing the screens. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2499, 1740 Shadywood Road, to allow a 10' by 17'screen enclosure on an existing deck, and to grant a lakeshore setback variance to allow a 10' by 17' screen porch on an existing deck to be located within 75'of the lakeshore and to grant a hardcover variance to allow 1,973 square feet of hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback area where zero square feet is allowed,with the understanding that future applications for additional hardcover, especially in the 0-75' setback, on this property will not be looked favorably upon by the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Lindquist Opposed. • Lindquist stated he was opposed to this application because it increases the structural hardcover in the 0-75'setback and is not consistent with previous votes by the Planning Commission on similar applications. Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission is allowing this structure to remain on a permanent or temporary basis. Smith stated this structure should be considered permanent since the City should not be expected to monitor whether the screens are removed in the fall. Gaffron asked for confirmation that the Applicants would be permitted to install the structure as proposed but are expected to remove the screens in the fall and are not permitted to alter the structure in any other way. Smith stated that the motion approved a screen porch only and does not allow the Applicant to modify the porch by adding glass or other materials to make it anything other than a screen porch. (#6) #2500 ORONO SCHOOLS, 795 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 8:17 p.m. -8:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Neil Lawson, School District, Scott McQueen,Architect, and Bruce Brahm, School District, were present. ill Gaffron stated Orono Independent School District#278 is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a media center addition on the northeast side of the High School which would be one-story in height. The Planning Commission and City Council did review a site plan showing the proposed 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#6) #2500 ORONO SCHOOLS, 795 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 8:17 p.m. -8:22 p.m.—(cont.) location of the Media Center when the Conditional Use Permit and variances were granted to permit a new parking lot arrangement on the site. Gaffron stated the proposed media center meets all required setbacks for the RR-1 B zoning district and would be located approximately 180 feet from the Old Crystal Bay Road right-of-way and complies with the height requirements. City Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Lawson commented that the previously approved site plans did not show as much detail for the media center, which will house an area for computers and a resource area. Lindquist moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2500, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North,for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the Orono School District to construct a 7,800 square foot media center addition to the high school. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2501 CITY OF ORONO, 3601 BAYSIDE ROAD -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:23 p.m. -8:46 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. • Gaffron stated the City of Orono has maintained a municipal dock and walking path for many years on the north end of Stubbs Bay. A recent survey on an adjacent property has determined that the dock and path leading to the dock are not located on City owned property, but rather on the adjacent property to the east. The City of Orono has a 30'wide platted right-of-way leading from Bayside Road to Stubbs Bay shown as 'Oak Street'of the Bay View Park Addition. Gaffron stated the City would like to relocate the dock and walking path within the undeveloped Oak Street,which will require filling a small amount of wetland for the path. The City has maintained this dock for public use since it was originally constructed in the 1950s or earlier. The City was unaware until recently that the dock was not located on public property. Gaffron remarked that filling of more than ten cubic yards within the shoreland area of Lake Minnetonka requires a conditional use permit. The total fill for this project is 21.11 cubic yards of fill,which would create a base to accommodate a walking path to access the dock. A hardcover variance is also required to permit 180 square feet of hardcover within 75'feet of the lakeshore setback where no hardcover is normally allowed. The proposed project would also require a permit by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for filling of the wetland. Under the Wetland Conservation Act, the City is allowed to fill up to 400 square feet if the City demonstrates the project has no other alternatives to avoid filling of a wetland. Gaffron noted that there are no residences located immediately adjacent to the dock and this project should have a minimum impact on the adjoining properties. The dock is for pedestrian use only, not for boat storage,with no parking allowed on Bayside Road. City Staff recommends approval of this application. Gaffron stated while the access was closed last year, the City received numerous calls expressing interest in the public access, and the City would like to maintain that public access. • Hawn inquired why a longer dock could not be installed rather than filling of the wetland. 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#7) #2501 CITY OF ORONO, 3601 BAYSIDE ROAD -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:23 p.m. -8:46 p.m.—(cont.) Gaffron remarked that the cost and liability may be the determining factors in the decision to fill the wetland, noting that the Public Works Director is not available tonight to answer those questions. Lindquist commented that those questions should be addressed to see if other alternatives exist to filling the wetland. Nygard stated that the snowmobilers in the area have harmed the shoreline in the past, noting that rocks have been placed along the shoreline to prevent further erosion. Hawn inquried whether there were any public comments. Renae Mueller, 222 Bederwood Drive, stated she has lived in that area for ten years and that people throughout the years have enjoyed that public access. Mueller stated that she has submitted a petition requesting that improvements be made to that access, and inquired whether an L-shaped deck could be installed as well as a bench and picnic table in that area. Mueller remarked that she would be willing to donate the picnic table and to patrol the area to insure that debris is picked up. Smith commented that it sounds like Mueller would like to have this area turned into a park,which is really not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. • Gaffron stated that there is only a small area available for a picnic table, and that this is probably an issue for the Parks Commission. Hawn inquired whether the dock needs to be handicapped accessible. Gaffron remarked that the Planning Commission could approve this project and recommended that it be reviewed by the Parks Commission. Lisa Olson, Stubbs Bay Road, commented that she has approached the Hennepin Park Commission and the Orono City Council with concerns regarding a long history of trespassing in that area, and that she would like to see this area remain more private. Olson requested that Item #9 from the City's Comprehensive Plan be read into the record. Hawn stated Item #9 states that the lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline proetection will be encouraged. Olson stated that this area experiences a significant amount of water runoff down Stubbs Bay Road and that the wetland is needed to filter that water before it goes into the lake. Olson commented that the quality of the deck is poor and that no garbage can is located in the area, with little or no effort on the part of the City as far as cleanup of the area. Olson encouraged the Planning Commission to maintain the wetland as is. Berg commented that the dock needs to be relocated so it lies within City-owned property. • Gaffron stated the City is attempting to establish a walkway to the City-owned dock, noting that the Public Works Director is not available tonight to answer these questions. 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#7) #2501 CITY OF ORONO, 3601 BAYSIDE ROAD -VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:23 p.m. -8:46 p.m.—(cont.) Stoddard commented he would like to have these issues addressed and that perhaps this matter should be tabled. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the public access to Stubbs Bay be maintained. Lindquist stated without a survey, the Planning Commission is not able to determine whether the dock is located on City property. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application#2501,3601 Bayside Road,to allow the Parks Commission and City Engineer to review this application to determine whether an alternative to filling the wetland exists,whether the dock needs to be handicapped accessible, and to determine the correct location of the dock and walkway. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#8) #2498 MOLLY AND DRAPER JAFFRAY,2620 FOX STREET-SKETCH PLAN Molly and Draper Jaffray,Applicants, were present. • Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting a Sketch Plan Review for a two-lot subdivision for property located at 2620 Fox Street in Orono. The existing 4.1 acres is developed on one residential site with access being gained from Fox Run. The proposed lots would create a property boundary along an existing drainageway,which will minimize the amount of drainage easement area to be dedicated. Gaffron stated that the septic testing must be completed on both properties resulting in two sites on each lot. Jaffray stated that septic testing has not been completed on the property. Gaffron stated the proposed lot arrangement would result in Lot 1 being comprised of 2.085 acres and Lot 2 being 2.018 acres. Gaffron noted that no drainageways or wetlands have been subtracted from this gross area, and that this area lies within the RR-1 B Zoning District, which has a minimum of two acre lots. Jaffray commented that the drainage issues need to be addressed more closely, noting that the Public Works Department recently completed some work on the existing culvert in the area. Gaffron remarked that traffic along Fox Street is expected to become heavier in the future, especially if a stoplight is installed at Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 at some future date. Gaffron stated the primary issue for the Applicant to consider is how much available acreage will be left once drainageways or wetlands have been subtracted from the total acreage, noting that not enough information has been obtained at this point to make that determination. Stoddard remarked that if the lots are smaller than two acres, it would be unlikely that this • subdivision would be approved. Gaffron stated that the City has not approved subdivisions with substandard area lots in the past. 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 III (#8) #2498 MOLLY AND DRAPER JAFFRAY, 2620 FOX STREET -SKETCH PLAN —(cont.) Stoddard recommended that the Applicant discuss this project with the Minnehaha Watershed District to determine whether it has been delineated as a wetland and what the Applicant's options are concerning the wetland. Jaffray stated that he has a person interested in purchasing a portion of this property, which is the reason for the subdivision. Gaffron commented that perhaps a small section could be acquired from the adjoining property owner should the lots be less than two acres. Gaffron recommended that the Applicant meet with City Staff to discuss these issues further, noting that there is a possibility that the Applicant may not be able to proceed with the subdivision if the lots are less than two acres. Lindquist noted that a two acre minimum is required for this zoning district. Hawn suggested that the Applicant have the septic sites tested as well. OLD BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#1) #2488 GREGG KLOHN, 4455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -VARIANCES Gregg Klohn,Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated this application was tabled at the May Planning Commission meeting to allow the IIIApplicant time to review other possible locations on his property to rebuild his damaged garage. The Applicant, upon review of different options and meeting with staff, has indicated that he would like to stay with his original plan. The location of his well and a power pole make it difficult to locate the garage on the northeast section of the lot. In addition, if the garage were to be located on the northeast section of the lot, a turn-around area would be needed,which would increase the amount of hardcover. Gaffron noted that Applicant has indicated he will remove an existing shed when he replaces the garage which changes the proposed hardcover amount in the 200-500'area. The existing hardcover is 32.8 percent and the new proposed hardcover is 34.2 percent. Variances to side yard and rear yard setbacks as well as hardcover are needed. Klohn stated that the non-conforming shed would be removed. Smith inquired whether City Staff had a recommendation concerning this application. Gaffron stated it is City Staff's recommendation that this application be denied. Klohn remarked that he did review other possible locations for the garage but that no other suitable sites exist for the garage. Hawn commented that she has a difficult time with this application in that other choices could be made concerning location of the garage. Klohn stated that he could construct the new garage in the same location as the previous garage. • Hawn stated that the new location is not a significant improvement. Berg commented that in her view the garage should be located further back. 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#1) #2488 GREGG KLOHN,4455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE—VARIANCES—(cont.) Klohn stated that he does not want to lose additional trees, noting that he lost some during the windstorms last year. Lindquist stated the Applicant can request that the Planning Commission vote on this application as presented tonight and proceed on to the City Council, or he could request that this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan. Lindquist commented in his view this application will probably be denied by the City Council and then the Applicant would need to submit a new application. Gaffron stated the Applicant could elect to submit a new application to construct a new garage in the location of the previous garage. Klohn inquired whether that option would be available at the City Council level. Gaffron remarked that that option would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Klohn commented that short of removing trees and doing excavation, no other suitable site exists for location of the new garage, and that he would like to replace what he previously had. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them tonight. Klohn requested that the Planning Commission act on his application as presented. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded,to deny Application#2498, 2620 Fox Street,for a • 14' by 24' garage due to the proposed location of the new garage being too close to side yard and rear yard setbacks as well as exceeding the allowable hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setback. Klohn stated he had previously been approved for that amount of hardcover. Hawn commented that this is a new proposal and that the previous permit has elapsed. Lindquist stated that the allowable hardcover is 30 percent, with this application requesting 35.3 percent. Hawn stated that hardcover is approved per design or application and does not carry over from previous applications. Berg commented that the Applicant chose not to build that much hardcover in regards to his previous application. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 Berg moved, Lindquist seconded,to approve the minutes of the May 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Smith Abstained. (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL • MEETINGS ON MAY 24, 1999 AND JUNE 14, 1999 Stoddard stated he attended the June 14th City Council meeting, noting that the application 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 21, 1999 • (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 24, 1999 AND JUNE 14, 1999—(cont.) regarding the residence on Ferndale Road was discussed. Gaffron commented that the residence is partially located in the 100 year floodplain. Stoddard stated that the Applicants decided to remove the entire structure and do a rebuild. Stoddard commented that the Planning Commission needs to have clearer direction on what constitutes a rebuild. Gaffron stated if more than 50 percent of the residence is new, then it should be considered a rebuild, in his opinion, but the City has not established a policy on this. Stoddard requested that Gaffron review what other communities do regarding rebuilds. Berg stated she attended the May 24, 1999 City Council meeting, noting that the application by Renckens/Winston was discussed, noting that the Applicants did not want the road going through their property. Gaffron stated that application was denied, noting that the Council felt the 50'outlot should be required. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 28, 1999 • AND JULY 12, 1999 June 28, 1999 -Smith July 12, 1999- Nygard (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith commented on the letter received from Edmund Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, and inquired whether someone from City Staff could discuss this issue with him. Smith stated that the brush site utilized by Long Lake has been an issue for some period of time now. Gaffron stated that the property is located in Long Lake and is not owned by the City of Orono. Smith stated that she would like City Staff to discuss this issue with Rydell to let him know of the steps that have been taken by Orono to help correct this situation. Smith commented that perhaps some better landscreening could be utilized. Hawn suggested that perhaps this issue be discussed with Long Lake. (#24) ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved, Berg seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. • Elizabeth Hawn, Chair 15