Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2022 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Scott Kirchner,Commissioners Chris Bollis,Bob Erickson,Dennis Libby,and Jon Ressler(arrived at 6:02); Commissioners Matt Gettman and Mark McCutcheon were absent.Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart,City Planner Melanie Curtis,and City Planner Laura Oakden. Chair Kirchner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18,2022. Bollis moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 18,2022.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA21-000076 YARDSCAPES,INC.-LINCOLN DANFORTH, 1720 BOHNS POINT ROAD, REQUESTS HARDCOVER AND 75-FOOT LAKEYARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden stated the Applicant is proposing to reconstruct failing retaining walls within the 75' lake yard setback with some expansion to the footprint. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka with a large slope along the shoreline;the existing retaining walls are made of concrete and the new proposed walls will be boulders to match the neighboring walls.Ms. Oakden said most of the walls will following the same footprint as the existing walls with some slight variations.The Applicant is hoping to proactively prevent any further erosion and stabilize the area. Staff finds there to be practical difficulties for allowing the Applicant to rebuild and install new retaining walls within the lake yard. The retaining walls would support and protect the slope. Staff would recommend adding additional screening of the walls to preserve a natural,vegetated view from the lake.Ms. Oakden noted one letter of support was received. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Melissa Santrach, 1700 Bohns Point Road,lives in the house right next door and sent the letter. She urged the Commissioners to allow this as they can see the condition of the existing concrete wall. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. Ressler is familiar with this property and it seems manageable,prevents erosion,and he is in support of Staffs recommendation. Page 1 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved,Bollis seconded,to approve LA21-000076, 1720 Bohns Point Road,Variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. LA22-000001 TIM& LESLIE OARE AND JOHN& MICHELE ABBOTT,2941 CASCO POINT ROAD AND 2967 CASCO POINT ROAD,REQUEST HARDCOVER VARIANCES,A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR A GUEST HOUSE,AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE AS PART OF A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT COMBINATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 2965 CASCO POINT ROAD. Tim and Leslie Oare, and John and Michele Abbott,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information.Ms. Curtis stated the Abbotts and the Oares purchased 2965 Casco Point Road(referred to in the Staff report as the Swenson property).The Abbotts have lived at 2941 Casco Point Road for a number of years;the Oares recently built a new home at 2967 Casco Point Road.They hope to split the property and combine each portion with their lots.An administrative boundary line adjustment(officially called a Subdivision Exception)can be completed by Staff and recorded by the owner to combine and move the lot lines if no new non-conformities are created or an existing non-conformity is not increased.Variances for hardcover for both lots are requested,a lot area variance,and a conditional use permit(CUP)supporting a guest house for the Oare property are requested.The Applicants propose a net decrease in hardcover of 22 square feet.However,the hardcover for the parcel to be owned by the Abbotts will increase from 22.96 to 27.5%,and the Oare property hardcover square footage increases and will exceed 25%.The currently non-conforming-sized Oare property will become conforming within the district with respect to lot area and lot width. The Abbott property will conform to lot area while lot width will remain the same and will acquire the detached garage;the Oares will acquire the Swenson home and wish to maintain the full functionality of the existing home to serve as a guest house.A guest house use in the LR-1C district requires two times the district minimum acreage. In this case,a minimum lot area of 1-acre is required for a guest house use in addition to a CUP.The resulting lot area for the Oare property is proposed to be 0.73 acre.They are also requesting a lot area variance from the guest house acreage requirement as part of this application.They have applied for the Subdivision Exception application(#LA21-000078)with the hope that the requested variances will be granted and the lot can be split between the two parties.Ms.Curtis showed the proposed hardcover removals on screen,noting the City Engineer had comments regarding the new driveway to serve the guest house and indicated that City Code would only allow one curb cut per property so the second driveway cannot be approved by Staff.Comments from neighbors are included. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that the elimination of a non-conforming lot is a positive improvement from an average lakeshore setback perspective, as well as the overall reduction of hardcover between the 3 properties.The hardcover variance requested may be supported by practical difficulty as an improvement from the existing condition,however the new driveway hardcover proposed(on the Oare lot) is not supported,nor is it permitted by code. Staff does not find practical difficulties exist which support the requested lot area variance to permit a guest house use. Staff recommends denial of the lot area variance for the guest house use and denial of the CUP for the guest house.The Oares are permitted to maintain plumbing facilities in the existing house with a restrictive covenant addressing the use as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities.As the building is currently a fully appointed home, Staff recommends the Commission discuss whether or not modifications to the existing home are appropriate under this scenario.Regarding the requested hardcover variances, staff recommends denial of the hardcover variances for the Oare property.The Oares should consider making the following changes: 1.Elimination of the proposed driveway/parking area on the Oare property; Page 2 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. 2.Removal of the existing lakeside"Swenson"deck on the Oare property;and 3. Removal of at least 340 square feet of existing patio hardcover on the lakeside of the "Swenson"house. Staff recommends approval of some level of hardcover variance for the Abbott property,however encourages removal of any hardcover that exceeds the minimum necessary to serve the property. John Abbott,2941 Casco Point Road,noted the Oare parcel is very narrow with 20 feet of lakeshore.The parcel was associated with the Oare property a long time ago and at some point the decision was made to split that guest house off and make it into a separate parcel.He noted a 20 foot lakeshore is very narrow to keep a boat and shared historical disputes that resulted in a variance granted to allow a dock on the property. The Swensons did not abide by that but it was tolerated by neighbors. When the Abbots and Oares found that the property was for sale,they realized it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to remedy the situation of a congested area.The Applicants would like to work with the City to accommodate the request to split the parcel.He shared they are not doing anything to change the property but divide it up, remove the dock,and remove hardcover. Leslie Dennis Oare,2967 Casco Point Road,supports what Mr.Abbott just said.They felt it was an opportunity to eliminate a non-conforming property with an inconsistent lakeshore setback and eliminate the dock and the 50-page dock permit with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. She apologized if parking spots were an issue noting they thought it was a good opportunity to provide more parking but they would not be needed. She clarified the hardcover on the new parcel would drop,and as Mr.Abbott mentioned, the guest house was originally part of her property and they would also eliminate a large section of sidewalk between the garage and existing house.The patio is an extension of the house with a built-in firepit and stamped concrete and would be very difficult to remove. The Applicants feel they are making positive changes by removing the non-conformity and hope they can move forward. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Chair Kirchner can support the spirit of what is trying to be accomplished,however they would also be eliminating a non-conforming lot to then allow for a guest house on a non-conforming lot that does not meet area requirements. Bollis thinks it is a unique opportunity to go back in time and make this how it should have been before it was split off. Regarding the guest house,he noted the one acre rule and clarified that the house could stay but would not be labeled or allowed to be a guest house. Ms. Curtis replied it would not be allowed to be a dwelling but would be like any other accessory building such as a pool house,office, detached garage, or workout room. The one acre rule comes from the desire to not increase the density of the district. Bollis stated one could argue that this decreases the density because they would be eliminating it as a private residence. Ms. Curtis shared that the density stays the same. Page 3 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated he could get behind a guest house on less than one acre,and said it would be nice to create some off street parking without an additional curb cut.In general he likes the spirit of the application. Ressler agrees they are improving the position and asked if they tore it down to rebuild as a carriage house,this would be conforming as an accessory building. Ms. Curtis replied in the affirmative. Ressler agrees with Staff that the lakeside deck and walkway close to the shoreline be removed. He appreciates the Applicant removing the curb cut and agrees with Bollis on the parking and not allowing it to spill out onto the street.He noted even though the stamped concrete is beautiful to see,if the Applicant could remove that and propose an area that does not need a new curb cut to allow for additional parking they could see if there is support from the City on that.Ressler could support hardcover for parking if it did not require additional curb cuts. He agrees with Staff's decision and would be supportive for most of this but not as it is applied.He thinks it would get too messy to do an amended vote to approve rather than to recommend denial as submitted with the feedback he has provided. He noted that for the consideration of the City Council. Erickson thinks it is admirable that the effort has been made to acquire an additional non-conforming property and re-divide it and that is commendable.Unfortunately,it creates some other problems such as hardcover. It leaves him in a bit of a quandary. Libby noted it is complicated. He finds some contradictions with the idea that another curb cut could facilitate additional parking but does not align with Staff recommendations. He thinks the additional conditions in paragraph number 7 are all prudent and should follow suit if the Applicant was to accomplish, in spirit,what they are trying to do.Libby stated it is a catch-22 in a way because it does not meet Code yet the recommendation of Staff does not support having a second curb cut so they are at an impasse.He cannot add anything constructive as an additional recommendation and thinks they need to see how the City Council looks at this. Chair Kirchner does not support the existing house being used as a guest house. They have heard statements about congestion issues and leaving an additional dwelling unit does not alleviate that congestion. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA22-000001 Tim&Leslie Oare and John& Michele Abbott,2941 Casco Point Road and 2967 Casco Point Road,Hardcover Variances,a Lot Area Variance for a Guest House,and a Conditional Use Permit for a Guest House as Part of a Boundary Line Adjustment and Lot Combination of the Property at 2965 Casco Point Road. Ms. Oare said Casco Point Road does not have curbs and asked what the definition of a curb cut is. Ms. Curtis replied it is a driveway access. Ms. Oare clarified if a relative came to visit in the summer,they could not stay in the house. Chair Kirchner replied not without a conditional use permit. Page 4 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Abbott stated that home has existed as a home for a very long time and there is not a new guest home being created here,rather they are only trying to maintain what is there in a much-improved situation than existed before. It becomes challenging because they want to see it improved and if someone else had bought it, it could have been a rental house.The use of the home will be far, far,far less than it ever could have been in its prior history.He clarified they are asking for something less than what exists today as part of the improvement. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. LA22-000005 CHARLES WELF,2590 WATERTOWN ROAD,REQUESTS A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOME ADDITION. Staff presented a summary packet of information.Ms. Oakden stated the Applicant is requesting a 46 foot front yard setback where a 50 foot setback is required. The property consists of roughly 3.83 acres with a house and 3 out-buildings. The Applicant is proposing to demo the existing detached garage on the north side of the home and build a new addition to the south side of the home. The proposed addition will be one story and include storage,a 3 stall garage and a mudroom.The current detached garage is located to the rear of the home and is in close proximity to the septic infrastructure. The Applicant is proposing to place the new garage addition along the front of the home 46 feet from the front property line where 50 feet is required.The property is over 2 acres in size and exempt from structural and hardcover limitations. The Applicant designed the addition to protect the existing trees located along the front of the house.The addition will be screened from the road with the existing landscaping located along Watertown Road.The Applicant has identified the existing conditions of the current home location, location of the septic system, and the existing established trees as practical difficulties supporting the variance. Staff finds there is inherent difficulty with the existing locations of the home,utilities and trees on the property limiting the buildable space.However,the Applicant has alternatives for expansion which could conform to the setbacks.To date no public comments have been received. While the variance is relatively modest,the practical difficulty standards have not been proven so Staff cannot support the application. Chad Schlawin,9391 Partridge Road,Minnetrista,noted the Applicants are his in-laws and are out of town tonight, so he is representing them. The Applicants have gone through several iterations of layouts and plans without affecting the septic system and according to the architect this is the prime location for an addition. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Chair Kirchner agrees with Staff that although it appears to be a relatively minor variance, other options exist for the addition to be done without exceeding the 50 foot setback. Ressler agrees and said approving this would set a precedent for others, similar to the last application.He is hopeful that the Applicant can revise their plans to be within the setback requirements and still make it useful for them. Erickson noted the Applicant did some positive things in protecting the immature trees on the east and moving structures away from the septic system to the south. He thinks overall it is an improvement to the Page 5 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. property to have an attached garage.He agrees with the Commissioners in observing that there are options which could fit within the setbacks. Libby agrees with Erickson, noting with 4 feet in the variance he thinks other options should be looked at. Erickson moved,Bollis seconded,to deny LA22-000005,2590 Watertown Road,Variance for a Home Addition.VOTE:Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. LA22-000007 ALMA HOMES,LLC,65 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH,REQUESTS LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Curtis stated the Applicant is requesting approval of lot area, lot width,side yard setback,and front setback variances in order to build a new home on the property.The property is situated within the RR-1A zoning district where 5.0 acres in area is required. The property is substandard with respect to area and width.The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a new home in a similar location as the existing home. They are requesting setback variances due to the site's topography,applied setbacks,and the existing shared driveway configuration. They are proposing a home with an attached garage and a rear deck within the front yard setback. The two accessory buildings behind the home are proposed to remain. Ms.Curtis stated the required front setback results in pushing the home further back into the sloped area of the property and closer to the wetland which is not conducive to the type of soils that will support the home,nor is it consistent with the neighborhood.The existing septic system is proposed to being reused.The Applicant is proposing to situate the home 51.7 feet from the front property line where a 100 foot setback is required and a 46 foot setback currently exists with existing buildings.The home will actually be about 70 feet from the roadway and will conform to the north side yard setback at 62 feet and the setback from the south lot line will be 48.8 feet where 50 is required.Both setbacks will improve the existing condition. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are practical difficulties in the size and width of the property,the sloping topography,and existing conditions supporting variances for a new home. Staff recommends approval. Eric Gronberg, 65 Stubbs Bay Road,has talked to neighbors on each side who have both said they were okay with the proposal.He noted they are trying to make it more conforming. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Chair Kirchner generally agrees with Staff on this,noting the topography and sloping create some challenges.He can support the application. Bollis asked if this is consistent with 15 Stubbs Bay Road,which the Commission previously approved. Curtis replied it is very consistent,although she does not know if it is exactly the same setback as it was a smaller lot. Ressler is struggling with it,noting it is positioned better than the neighboring property but it seems that it could be more conforming than proposed. Page 6 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson tends to lean towards Staff's recommendation. The Commissioners asked the builder if it is possible to adjust the south setback a couple of inches to meet the 50 feet. Ethan Kindseth,Alma Homes,noted the challenge in moving the structure further back is getting into soils that are not conducive to carry the structure and there are a lot of mature trees down the slope.They tried to keep as many trees intact as possible and with the wetland boundaries they are restricted on where the existing and proposed septic sites can be located. He clarified they are a bit restricted on usable areas. Bollis struggles with it the more he looks at it.This seems like a tight area with the topography. Ressler thinks there needs to be more demonstrated as to why it must be built where it is proposed. Kirchner agrees. When he heard that the soil was not buildable he assumed that there was engineering soil boring done with a report but that is not the case.He would also like to see further evidence of why it is not possible to move the structure further back. Erickson said in hearing the extreme grades, soil conditions,and septic situation his opinion is that there are significant practical difficulties and he would support the application as presented. Ms. Curtis put the soil map from the wetland delineation on screen,noting she is not a soils professional. She shared that two-thirds of the lot is categorized as predominantly hydric soils and the upland is partially hydric. Bollis clarified seeing the soil map changes his mind and he can get behind the application for the same reasons as Erickson. Libby asked the builder whether this is a candidate for soil amendment,amendment to elevations, or bringing in appropriate soil to be sure this is a solid base for the construction. Mr.Kindseth said part of the challenge is that so much of the building envelope is wetland and it is a tough battle to not impact the wetland.They would also have to clear-cut the slope and tree cover to do it. Mr. Gronberg shared that the neighbor to the south is a little bit closer than that setback. 15 Stubbs Bay came to the Planning Commission and was approved with the same slope and terrain, only without the wetland behind their property.He clarified they are trying to improve some of the setbacks for the neighbor in the front lot. Ressler asked about the setbacks on the south side and if it is possible to move those couple inches. Mr. Gronberg shared there is a culvert on the north side and tree cover;he noted it is the only place they can have any kind of roadway to get a mower into the backyard because of the slope on the other side of the house. Ms.Curtis asked how the septic gets pumped. Page 7 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gronberg shared they put a snake down from the road as they cannot come in and turn around. Ressler clarified that he is in support of this and thinks the City Council would like to see a demonstration of the tree cover and a better understanding of the practical difficulties. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA22-000007,65 Stubbs Bay Road North,Lot Area and Lot Width Variances,Side Yard Setback and Front Yard Setback Variances.VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN PRESENTATION 5. LA22-000002 JIM HILLIER, 1245 ARBOR STREET, SUBDIVISION,SKETCH PLAN. Staff presented a summary packet of information.Mr.Barnhart shared the Applicant is requesting sketch plan review on a proposed subdivision that would subdivide a 0.634 acre parcel into two equal lots.The property is in a two acre zone and each lot is proposed at .14 acre with sanitary sewer and served by a well. Staff does not support the subdivision as proposed primarily because it is inconsistent with zoning ordinance which requires a two acre minimum lot size and 200 feet of frontage and neither lots meet those requirements. The only setback met is the front at 50 feet,the side yard, side street,and rear yard setbacks are non-conforming based on the proposed house pad. Staff is looking for feedback tonight and there is no public hearing. Jim Hillier, 1224 Briar Street,is looking to take what was historically four platted lots,was divided into two parcels, and was then combined into one.They are looking to put it back to the two parcels with two separated PIDs. The history of the neighborhood was 50 feet by 140 foot platted lots,so 80%of the lots in the neighborhood are between 7,000-11,000 square feet.These lots would be roughly 14,000 square feet.In looking at the neighborhood there is a post office, school,art center,and in Mr.Hillier's perspective it was not designed to be two acre urban estates. To keep it as a larger parcel one would want to put a larger home on it and he does not want to do that,noting he bought the lot next door and built a new home where there was once a dilapidated home.He noted they would like to do the same thing with these two parcels to improve the neighborhood and meet some goals of the Comprehensive Plan which is to create affordable housing,and upgrade older neighborhoods with empty lots. Kirchner understands the overall thought process based on neighboring homes.However he does not think it is appropriate or productive for the Planning Commission to support this as it goes against the Comp Plan and current zoning districts. Bollis asked if this goes against the Comp Plan. Barnhart replied no.The zoning ordinance is consistent with the Comp Plan and the Comp Plan guides the City for large lots.There are certain pockets within the community that have not developed under that goal. In 2018 discussions and review of the Comp Plan this neighborhood was specifically talked about and the potential for changing the land-use for it because of the development pattern.The City Council at that time said no,the goal is larger lots in this area as well,and they elected not to increase density in the area. Ressler thinks the Applicant makes a good point regarding density but the time to have that discussion is when the Comp Plan is updated. He noted they have seen the same thing with the Casco Point area Page 8 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 22,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. zoning. The Planning Commission does not have the jurisdiction to approve because it is not a sub- dividable lot. Libby shared that these kinds of changes become moot because it is really difficult to approve a sub division where there is already a non-conformity.He thinks it will be an uphill climb for the Applicant. Erickson cannot support this sub division and agrees with Ressler that anything like this should be preceded by a discussion of the Comp Plan. UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 14,2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart shared that the two items the Planning Commission discussed in January were a CUP for a permanent dock and the text amendment related to park dedication,both of which the City Council approved on the Consent Agenda. The CUP at Summit Beach did not go forward because the Planning Commission tabled it. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. ATTEST: = mer,gair /11421e Mceo-rife Page 9 of 9