Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2022 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon,Commissioners Chris Bollis,Dennis Libby,Jon Ressler, Scott Kirchner and Bob Erickson. Commissioner Matt Gettman was absent. Representing Staff were City Planner Melanie Curtis and City Planner Laura Oakden. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Erickson moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16,2022 Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of May 16,2022.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000024 SHARRATT DESIGN,3350 FOX STREET,REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE USE.(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Mike Sharratt,Applicant,was present. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item,stating the Applicant wishes to construct an addition over the existing detached garage to function as a guest house. The property is just over 7 acres in area within the LR-1A zoning district and the minimum required for a guest house is 4 acres,a conditional use permit(CUP)is required,the existing 1,300 square foot building is conforming with respect to size and location. Staff recommends approval of the CUP conditioned upon the property owners' agreement to the standard guest house covenants assuring it will not be used for a home occupation,rented, or leased. Staff further recommends an additional condition of approval that the existing 5 bedroom septic system be upgraded appropriately to serve the number of bedrooms in the guest house. Ressler asked if the City changed something regarding guest houses. Curtis replied in the negative,noting nothing has happened yet which is why they need a CUP. Mike Sharratt,464 2"d Street in Excelsior,is the architect and noted it is pretty straightforward, simply adding 1/2 story to the top of the existing garage to create guest quarters. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA22-000024,3350 Fox Street,Conditional Use Permit for a Guest House Use,as applied with Staff recommendations.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. Page 1 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. 2. LA22-000026 AL AZAD, 165 BEDERWOOD DRIVE,REQUESTS FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A GARAGE ADDITION. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Al Azad,Applicant,was present. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item,noting in 2021 the Applicant received variances in order to redevelop the property.However,due to high material and labor costs,they have adjusted their plans.The Applicant is now requesting variances from the front 50 foot setback and side setback in order to construct a garage addition in line with the existing home's interior layout.The side property line abuts Luce Line right-of-way which extends into the property approximately 7.5 feet.The existing home is set 7.3 feet from this right-of-way encroachment line and 14.9 feet from the property line.The addition will encroach into the railroad easement by 3.1 feet creating a setback of 4.4 feet from the northern property line where a 10 foot setback is required. Staff finds the zoning district requirements,the existing lot size and width,and the unique configuration of the property having no actual road frontage create practical difficulties. The existing detached garage is constructed right up to this property line within the railroad easement and the new garage is shown within the existing garage foot print.The DNR has received a copy of the Applicant's plans and Staff is awaiting their feedback on this application. Staff recommends approval. Curtis noted the Applicant should use care in improving the existing driveway to connect the new driveway assuring the improved driveway area remains within the established driveway easement shown on the survey.Feedback from the DNR will be provided to the City Council along with the Planning Commission's recommendation at the July 11,2022 meeting. Ressler noted it is currently encroaching on a railroad easement and typically they are not supportive of going into easements,yet Staff recommends approval. Curtis replied Staff approval is based on the existing garage and the improved setback the new garage addition will provide from the property line. Erickson stated an easement is not the same as a setback.Rather an easement is something granted from one property owner to another and in this case it is a State trail administered by the DNR. They are the beneficiaries of that easement and from a jurisdictional standpoint Erickson questions the City's ability to approve something that conflicts with State property. Curtis replied that is the reason at this time Staff recommends approval pending feedback from the DNR. She spoke with the Parks and Trails Supervisor earlier in the day that was going to review the plans and provide feedback which has not yet been received. In the conversation,the Supervisor indicated the way the DNR addresses building encroachments within their building areas is to issue a lease to the property to allow that use. Erickson thinks it is important for the City to have some consistency and there have been other Applicants with encroachments in the Luce Line.He believes they required them to remove any encroachments on the easement,and spoke about an application regarding a shed.Another concern is looking at the plan there is an 8 foot space between the garage and the house,it seems if they put the garage right up against the house that would take care of the 3 foot encroachment. Curtis thinks there are some windows the owners are trying to preserve on that side of the home. She believes the shed encroachment Erickson is talking about was actually a Dakota Rail improvement which Page 2 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. is Hennepin County governed so the City defers to the County to proceed with a removal if they so choose. Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Drive,said the garage is not in good shape and they are trying to rebuild it where it was as the property was built in 1946. Chair McCutcheon asked Mr.Azad if he would consider moving the garage closer to the existing home. Mr.Azad replied yes,they might be open to that.He also called the DNR and has not heard back from them. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Bollis would like to see the garage out of the easement but if the DNR is okay with it,he would also be fine with it as it is making the situation better.He would be willing to vote yes pending DNR approval. Kirchner stated this is not something he can support for many of the reasons Erickson noted regarding encroachments and easements.Even with DNR approval he does not believe it is a good practice as a Commission to approve projects that create an encroachment.He cannot support the item. Ressler said similar to lake yards that have tight setbacks where one is able to rebuild like-kind,the City prefers to improve those positions and he is seeing that here.He recognizes Kirchner's points that this is an easement so it is not quite that simple.However,Ressler follows Bollis in recommending approval contingent upon DNR providing their blessing. Libby cannot comfortably support this having experience with proprietary real property asset ownership of both the DNR and Dakota Rail.He has seen decisions go either way(not at a City level)but it would appear that the Dakota right-of-way encroachment into railroad property is more DNR park land;he noted they have categorically denied,refuted,refused, and actually caused loss of historic buildings and accoutrements because there is a standing policy in their legal department that they will not allow it. If this is truly real property asset owned and controlled with a decision made by the DNR,there is still another governing authority that will have to decide.From past experience he cannot support this application as it is an encroachment,whether it is historic or"grandfathered"in. Curtis asked for clarification from the Commission: if the encroachment into the easement is not acceptable,they still have al0 foot setback from the side and for the Applicant's sake she'd like to know whether the Commission is supportive of that encroachment. Kirchner stated he would be fine with the setback,however he has an issue with the encroachment. Bollis and Ressler agreed. Chair McCutcheon thinks there is an opportunity to change the design and not be inside the encroachment which would be more likely to be approved. Page 3 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner moved to deny LA22-000026, 165 Bederwood Drive,Requests Front and Side Yard Setback Variances for a Garage Addition as applied. Ressler clarified his position that he is in support of the application as applied for the merits mentioned. He is in support of a"lesser version"of this.He appreciates Staff clarifying they seem to have majority support for everything except the encroachment onto the easement.He feels even if denied that feedback should carry some weight to the City Council. Erickson seconded.VOTE: Ayes: 5,Nays 1 (Bollis). 3. LA22-000028 PETER ESKUCHE WITH ESKUCHE DESIGN,2605 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,REQUESTS VARIANCES FOR BUILDING,HARDCOVER,AND RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE 75' LAKESHORE,SIDE YARD,WETLAND BUFFER,AND LOT AREA IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME.(STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN). Peter Eskuche,Applicant,was present. City Planner Oakden gave a presentation on the item, stating this is a project for a new home with a request to demolish the existing home and rebuild. She gave background on the surveys noting the site is unique because Lake Minnetonka is on the south side but is also present on the side,along with a pond and inlet which creates quite a large 75 foot setback.The new house will be a building,hardcover,and retaining walls within the 75 foot setback variance requested, sideyard variance request, lot area variance request,and a wetland setback request. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances associated with the construction of the new home; Staff does not support the wetland setback variance as it pertains to an entrance monument proposed location.The existing structure is 18 feet from Lake Minnetonka at the closest point on the lake yard and 50 feet on the inlet side/sideyard.The Applicant is proposing a new home further back from the lakeshore at 36.5 feet from the lake and 53 feet from the inlet.The proposal includes the removal of hardcover on the west and south side of the property and to minimize the inlet encroachment the Applicant is proposing to push the house closer to the shared property line on the east. The Applicant has worked to design the home to try to improve current setbacks and maintain some of the same footprint of the existing home.Minnehaha Creek Watershed was contacted and they require a low floor opening of 933.5 which was shared with the Applicant.Oakden stated the property currently has entrance monuments which could be maintained;the new location of the entrance monuments are roughly 5 feet from delineated wetland where 25 feet is required. Staff finds the inlet is a practical difficulty supporting the variance and notes the Applicant is working to improve the site by building within the existing foot print and moving the house away from the existing setbacks,and reducing the overall hardcover. Staff finds the wetland buffer variance to allow for the monuments is a convenience and not necessary for use of the property and does not support that variance. She has included a variance request from 2019 that has since expired.The Applicant submitted two neighboring signatures with acknowledgement and those are also included in the packet. Staff recommends approval for the proposed variances for hardcover,building,retaining wall,and the 75 foot lake yard,75 foot setback, sideyard setback,and lot area. Staff recommends denial for the proposed setback for the new entrance monuments as practical difficulty standards were not met. Ressler asked if there is a survey identifying the existing monument. Oakden replied the red indicates the existing monument and the blue is the new proposed monuments. Page 4 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler asked if Staff would support the monuments being rebuilt in the current location. Oakden replied home owners are allowed to maintain what they already have and if they wanted to rebuild the existing monuments in-kind or smaller that would be done with a building permit.Any new expansion would trigger the need for variances. Peter Eskuche, 18318 Minnetonka Boulevard,Deephaven,noted they received previous approval of the project on a bigger scale and have since reduced the project. He stated French Creek which runs through the property is the biggest practical difficulty. Regarding the monuments,he noted they are six feet square and they are proposing to remove that which would improve the hardcover around the wetland,as well as increase the distance from the busy road. The main reason they want to spread them out is because it is quite scary to back up onto North Shore Drive so these would be a bit further from the road.Mr.Eskuche could repair the existing monuments but because those were so much bigger,they thought this would be an improvement. Chair McCutcheon clarified it is more of a safety issue in trying to see around the monuments. Mr.Eskuche replied in the affirmative,noting one can barely pull in and still touch the numbers on the gate.Delivery trucks are longer than his car and one feels very unsafe with no choice but to back out onto the highway. This is the reason they are proposing the monuments. Kirchner clarified the existing monuments are 6x6 feet and the proposed new monuments are 2x2feet. Mr.Eskuche replied in the affirmative. Kirchner asked Staff if the Applicants could rebuild where the existing monuments are at 2x2 feet and push to the back"wall"of the existing 6 foot monument to gain 4 feet? Ms. Oakden replied the Applicant could not do that without a variance. They could maintain the current concrete pad and pillar; she noted the City is very literal with in-kind replacement and moving the pillars even two inches upon the existing concrete pad would trigger a variance as it is new massing where no massing exists today. Ressler asked if Staff would recommend approval of the variance applied in that way. Ms. Oakden noted entrance monuments are an accessory use and are not necessary to the principal use of the lot,they have been consistently interpreted as accessory use variances and it is challenging to meet those practical difficulty standards. She does not believe Staff would support a variance to most accessory use expansions which is the hard interpretation of the City Code. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Erickson noted the plan was to have an entrance at the 925.7 elevation which is currently well below the lake level.He also checked the history of lake levels and many times the lake level has been around 930.5.He is glad the Staff report notes this will be contingent upon watershed district approval and they can be assured the watershed district will not approve an entrance that is underwater. Based on his early Page 5 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. experience in an older lakeshore home,the basement floor was a few feet below the lake level with a sump pump that constantly ran and a basement underwater when the power went out. Oakden clarified the elevations,noting the low floor regulation the City has adopted would put the minimum lowest floor at the 932.5 which the Applicant is meeting.The watershed has an additional low opening level at the 933.5 which was communicated to the Applicant.This is a note in the Staff memo regarding that issue. Bollis sees almost every situation getting better which is nice.He is generally in favor and understands the Applicant's idea behind the entry monument and also understands how the Code is written regarding rebuilding in-kind. Ressler can get comfortable with rebuilding the gate so long as the occupied space does not exceed the space the existing gate occupies. If it is becoming smaller that is even better.He noted they must follow the way the rules are written right now but he would be supportive of the gate if it occupies some or all of the space already there,such as the pad. Kirchner and McCutcheon agreed. Libby agrees with Staff.He does see serious improvement to the traffic problem if they received allowance regarding the wetland and moving the monuments away from the thoroughfare. Ressler stated it might be something for the Applicant to consider in raising the driveway so it is more flat and helps the elevation. The Commissioners discussed the monuments, location,and safety. Bollis moved to approve LA22-000028,2605 North Shore Drive,Variance requests per Staff recommendations.He commented that he would be supportive of the monuments moving on the same foundation they are currently on. Libby seconded.VOTE:Ayes: 5,Nays 1(Erickson). 4. LA22-000029 JOHN PETERSON,2880 FOX STREET,REQUESTS A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY.(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) John Peterson,Applicant,was present. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item,noting the Applicant applied for a building permit to construct a 40x24 pole building which had a proposed peak height of approximately 17 feet and defined height of 15 feet.The existing home is a one story rambler with a peak height of approximately 16 feet and defined height estimated at 12 feet. Code states the maximum building height for all buildings is 30 feet defined height and further stipulates that accessory buildings not exceed the height of the principal building.The proposed building will be well below the 30 foot height but is limited by the height of their one story home. The building will be in the back of the home and approximately 10 feet lower than the front of the home.Reducing the height of the building significantly reduces the building's functionality for their use,therefore they have applied for a variance noting the height of the home as practical Page 6 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. difficulty. Staff finds the existing home to be the limiting factor and recommends denial lacking practical difficulty. John Peterson,2880 Fox Street,noted the front of the home is one story and the back it is a walkout with two stories.He noted the defined height in Orono is hard in this situation. Libby asked about the need for the higher-than-average height. Mr. Peterson replied it is mostly for a wood shop the extra height would be for dust collection,ventilation ductwork, and perhaps eventually a car lift. Libby noted City Council has been very consistent on these building heights and Mr. Peterson might be well-served to modify the plan. Mr.Peterson replied there is a third design if this one fails and he has also thought about adding on to the back of the garage,however he does not know what that would cost. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Kirchner's biggest hang up is the identified practical difficulty,that the primary structure is causing an issue to an accessory structure. He does not see that as a practical difficulty. Bollis does not know but would guess the intent of the ordinance is that if one is looking at a flat piece of property they do not want an accessory building towering over it. He noted this will be 10 feet lower than the house and he can see the practical difficulty in that the shed will not be able to be used for the specific use as it must be"shorter"than normal.Bollis thinks it meets the intent of the Code but reiterated he was not here to write the Code. Ressler said,having been in the seat of an Applicant, Staff recommendations carry a lot of weight and following them gives the best likelihood to succeed.His feedback is that demonstrating improvements to situations have been a good example, even tonight. In situations like these,he will always go to the recommendations of Staff as a default because they are far more qualified than he is. Libby commented that denial is based on practical difficulty and it has not been established. Erickson agrees with Staff recommendation for denial due to lack of practical difficulty. Ressler thinks the language in the ordinance is intended to not allow a massive accessory building that towers over the principal residence;however,that is not what this application is as it is downgrade from the principal structure. On a larger scale,he asked if Staff would be interested in exploring how that ordinance is written in the future. Chair McCutcheon would be in favor of looking at a modification to the ordinance. Kirchner moved,Ressler seconded,to deny LA22-000029 2880 Fox Street,Variance request. Page 7 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby clarified with the denial,the Applicant can modify the plan and bring those plans to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. OTHER BUSINESS 5. LA22-000027 AMY SWANSON,4025 WATERTOWN ROAD, SUB-SKETCH PLAN. (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Brian and Amy Swanson,Applicants,were present. City Planner Oakden gave a presentation on the item,noting the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan review on a proposed subdivision that would divide a parcel into a front lot/back lot subdivision. Planning Staff recommends non-binding feedback; Staff does not support the lot split as proposed bevause a non- conforming lot would be created inconsistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.The Applicant is proposing to split the parcel with an existing home and a creek on the property being the lot line. The Applicant would be proposing a 240 foot front lot width where 300 feet is required and 3.65 acres where 5 acres is required per the zoning district.Each lot would have its own septic and well and use of the property is anticipated as single-family residential.Oakden noted potential wetland areas are on the property. Brian Swanson,4025 Watertown Road,stated with the crazy housing market they picture the narrow yet deep property and envision four sections:the first is the area they are proposing to break off,the pine area,the yard and existing home,and a wetland area.They could potentially add some acreage by the property line cutting across the creek rather than dividing the creek although it would still fall short of the five acre minimum. He noted moving the five acres would steal the septic tank from the current house. Mr. Swanson stated they have a second septic site approved for the current property and a primary with two alternates approved for the proposed split.He stated they have not done a wetland delineation yet as they wanted to come to the City first for feedback. Chair McCutcheon noted it is very tough for the City to open a non-conforming lot.He asked Mr. Swanson if they did five acres would it cut into the primary structure? Mr. Swanson replied it would not cut into the house but would cut into the mobile yard and would take the septic tank. Libby noted a wetland delineation manifests a lot more outcome and there is only a limited time to do this. He understands it is a budgetary thing. Mr. Swanson asked if they can prove the wetlands are here and there are two acres of buildable,would that be worth going down the road further? Bollis cannot think of a time the Commission has approved a substandard lot with width and area on a brand-new subdivision and he would not be in support of that. Libby asked if the Applicant has utilized any Hennepin County or federal wetland maps. Page 8 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Swanson replied they did use some of the Hennepin County measuring tools but he has not seen any of the federal overlays. Oakden clarified this is not a public hearing as listed on the Agenda but rather should be listed under Other Business for feedback. Bollis asked Oakden about the required lot depth. Oakden replied she does not know if there is a required lot depth for the front lot but there is one called out for the back lot at the 150%. Staff looks for the dry envelope,two acres dry contiguous,and in this zoning district they have 100 foot front and rear setbacks which will be limiting when dealing with a narrow lot. McCutcheon noted for the Applicant that the Commissioners are trying to brainstorm ways to put a driveway where they could actually split it and change the definition of"front." He told the Applicants the City would want a five acre minimum and adherence to the 300 foot front yard. Oakden clarified in septic areas they require 2 acres of dry buildable so wetlands do not count towards acreage; on this lot they could essentially have 3 acres of wetland with 2 acres dry contiguous and five acres total for the lot size. Ressler noted the issue now is zoning and that is what the Commissioners must follow. Libby noted they have had quite a few cases before them where the guidelines they must use are very finite and can be strict. 6. UPDATE ON JUNE 13,2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Oakden shared Jeremy Barnhart has resigned as Community Development Director and moved on to Eden Prairie. She will be acting in the interim and Ms.Curtis is also available if the Commissioners have questions. She updated on the June 13 Council meeting noting most were text amendments approved on the Consent Agenda. ADJOURNMENT Kirchner moved,Bollis seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. __ ATTEST: Mark McCut•I eon, Chair Page 9 of 9