Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-1988 Planning MinutesMmUTBS OF THE PIAMNING COMMISSIOH MATING HELD EDGIiST 15, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the abo^e date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Jahriion, Bellows, Moos; Cohen arrived at 7:05 p.m and Brown arrived at 7:20 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Goetten attended and CounciImemberjCa11ahan was also present. #1309 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. TO 7:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that applicants were seeking an after-the-fact application for approval of hardcover and excavation within the 75* setback area and the flood plain. This matter had been reviewed back in 1985 by the Planning Commission and City Council. Krutzig Builders • as issued a building permit and advised that hardcover within the 75-250* setback area exceeded the 4,725 s.f. allowed in that area. Krutzig filed a variance application which was denied. However, because of various engineering designs submitted with that application, the builder did receive approval to build a 900 s.f. deck in the lakeshore yard, which was not considered hardcover. The Resolution stated that certain drainage changes had to be made which involved the installation of swales along both sides of the property. The swale on the south lot line had to be one foot lower in elevation than the east property owners* driveway elevation. Mabusth stated that the City had never approved the drainage on the property. There have been no problems with the swale on the north side of the property, but there has been trouble with drainage on the south side of the property. Upon inspection of the property, Mabusth noted that the south swale does not conform to the specifications set out by the City Engineer. Applicants have installed an excavated pond in the lakeshore yard, with a plastic underliner. There are boulders outlining the pond which have filter fabric underneath them. There is also fill that has been placed within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka . There was some discussion on behalf of applicants and the Commission members regarding who was responsibile for the existing drainage problem. It was determined that Lyman Lumber MINOTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TING HBIJ) AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING FILE #1309 CONTIN1 should be the responsible party. The applicants were not aware of the drainage problem and were told that everything had been handled. Kelley asked applicants if they were familiar with Orono's ordinances pertaining to land within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Applicant stated that they discovered the ordinances when the project was nearly complete. The applicants' landscaper was present and stated he had worked within the City of Orono before, but did not realize that ^t was necessary to obtain a grading permit to install a pond. The landscaper stated that he did not change the grade in the flood plain. Mabusth indicated that there were changes in the grade when fill was placed on the south side of the pond. Kelley recommended tabling the application so the applicants could work with the City Engineer to correct the problem. Applicant stated that there is something wrong with government when people can purchase a piece of property with no indication that it is located within a flood plain. They had no idea there would be restrictions pertaining to 75* within the lakeshore. Bellows stated that she felt the applicants' agents involved with the purchase of the property were not thorough. Applicant stated that they were aware there was a swale and a runoff problem, but they did not know that they required City approval to correct the problem in the manner they chose. Applicant stated that they lost two 20* pine trees due to root rot. Last summer they had significant dead grass and mosquito larva. They felt that the best way to deal with the unsightliness and runoff was to install the pond. This solution is working. He stated that he wished he had known that Lyman Lumber was supposed to correct the problem, it would have saved them significant money. There are currently two other pine trees that are threatened. They were informed by various landscapers that something had to be done immediately to channel water away from them or they would lose them also. Applicant stated that he had brought some of the filter fabric that underlies the boulders with him. He offered to demonstrate for the Commission members how it allowed water to run through. He could not understand how the use of such fabric would not be acceptable to the City. He stated that this fabric was a new product. There were no comments on behalf of the Commission and applicant stated that he would not take the time to demonstrate. Applicants' neighbor to the south, Douglas Lohmar, stated that he wanted to correct the misunderstanding on behalf of the Planning Commission. A certificate of occupancy was given to the a person renting 1629 Bohn's Point Road, prior to Nelsons purchasing the home. Mr. Lohmar complained about the drainage and the certificate of occupancy was voided. The City Engineer came out and agreed that water was not draining off of the Lohmar's driveway. A 1' trench and a large area of the front yard were dug to alleviate the problem. All of the drainage MIHDTBS of the PLANNIIIG COfOCESSIOE TIHG HELD AOGUST l5, 1988 ZONING FILE #1309 CONTINI water collected in those areasr however^ it still did not solve the problem. In his opinion, the fill that was brought in along the edge of the water to the stone wall was the reason for the problem. Mr. Lohmar is a civil engineer and he took transit readings of the level of fill and determined that there is 9" of fill at one point in front- of the rock wall. When the house was built, all of the excavation was piled up in front where the house now sits and the whole frozrt area was built up with 4* of dirt. Later it was discovered that the dirt had to be removed, but in doing so, 0~9” of dirt was left behind. Mr. Lohmar is only concerned with drainage. He felt that what the Nelsons have done is the best possible solution to the problem and has improved the site 100%. Mabusth noted a certificate of occupancy could never have been issued to the property because of several building code violations and the drainage problem along the south lot line. A certificate of occupancy was issued only after Lyman Lumber, actual owner of the property at the time of issuance, executed an attested disclaimer assuming all responsibility for the corrective drainage work. Kelley reiterated his desire to table the matter until more research could be done to solve the problem. He would like a report from the City Engineer stating the best possible solution to the drainage problem. Mabusth asked for specific direction regarding the five points set forth in the August 11, 1988 memo. Kelley addressed each of these five issues. Bellows stated that there was a need for a demonstrated hardship pertaining to the pond. One major issue to be addressed by the City Engineer is how much impact restoration of the yard to its original state will have on the entire area. Applicant presented pictures showing the elevation of the berm on the adjacent property which is 3 or 4 times higher than his and asked why that was acceptable. Bellows explained that the difference is due to the Nelsons' berm lying within the flood plain. The issue is alteration of land within the flood plain. The issue of the vegetation was discussed. Mr. Nelson stated that he has no access to remove the other 20* pines should they also die. Bellows suggested that should the Nelsons plant vegetation in the flood area, they choose vegetation that can withstand excessive water. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows to table #1309. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays^O, Motion passed. #1310 HOWARD F. EISIHGER 3245 WATZATA BOULEVARD REHBIiAL COHDITIOBAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HBARIH6 7:25 P.M. - 7:42 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Tne applicant was present for this matter. Kelley stated that he was not in favor of recommending approval of this matter. He was*‘concerned with the increased traffic on Highway 12 due to the trucks hauling the fill to Mr. Eisinger's propertyr especially during school hours. If approved, he would like time restrictions placed on the hauling to correspond with peak school traffic. Kelley's other concern was the dirt left behind by these trucks. Cohen inquired as to the length of time the hauling would take. Kelley stated that it seemed as though Mr. Eisinger had already had a significant amount of time to complete this project. Mabusth explained that the permit was issued in June, 1987 and expired in June, 1983. Mr. Eisinger had appeared before the City Council to get an extension of the permit until October, but then discovered that he would need to renew the permit because the October deadline would not be sufficient. Brown asked what had caused the delay in the project. Mabusth explained that Mr. Eisinger had difficulty in obtaining the fill. Bellows asked whether Mr. Eisinger had a guarantee that he would be supplied with the quantity of fill he had requested. She wanted to see the establishment of guidelines for staff on limitations that deposited soil can remain in an undisturbed state. Mabusth stated that a determination would have to be made as to how long it would take to haul 100,000 cubic yards of fill. Kelley suggested tabling the matter until more information could be provided. Johnson disagreed, stating that this matter had been before the City for nearly two years. He would like to see it resolved so the work can begin. The benefits of having the dumpsite capped*off and the drainage directed away from it have already been shown. Johnson stated that the Watershed District would be Issuing a grading permit and would specify some guidelines as to erosion control and seeding. Mabusth stated that her real concern involved the issue of how long the fill could remain ungraded and unseeded. Kelley asked if they could delay making a recommendation for another month. Mabusth asked Mr. Eisinger for his opinion on this. Mr. Eisinger stated that he would like to see this matter resolved as soon as possible. Mabusth stated that staff and the Planning Commission need to know the length of time the fill can remain unseeded and how steady the supply of fill will be. Cohen asked when applicant anticipated beginning this project. Mr. Eisinger stated that he anticipated starting in October. Kelley stated that the Police Department should be notified that 4,000 tandem trucks w.ould be hauling fill prior to the 4 ffIHUTBS OF tBB PLAHHISG COIOIISSIOII NSmiSe J^OGOST 15, 1988 Z0HIH6 FILE #1310 COMTIlfaBD project beginning. Mr. Eisinger stated that he did not think traffic would be a problem. Kelley stated that there should be additional signage on Highway 12, and/or perhaps an additional passing lane installed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table #1310. Motion, Ayes*5, Johnson«Nay. Motion passed. #1321 TOM HAISLET 950 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD HORTH CLASS III PRBLIMHIARY SUBDIVISIOH PUBLIC HBARIN6 7:45 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Applicant was present for this matter. Applicant explained that the School District could not do anything further with regard to purchasing the parcel as a whole. In order for the School District to acquire this property, it was necessary to break the parcel into four lots which could be acquired one lot at a time. It is their intention to purchase Lot A this year and purchase the remaining Lots before the contract expired. Other municipalities have done "an administrative split”, which means the parcel is not really subdivided in light of it eventually being purchased as a whole. Kelley asked why applicant did not proceed in this manner. Mabusth explained that the School District could not create any kind of a lease or contract to transfer land unless it was done through a division, per Orono subdivision regulations. Haislet noted the School District could not enter into a longterm investment, which would be required if the parcel was purchased as 'a whole, but rather must be able to liquidate the property quickly should the School District require any additional funds. Cohen asked applicant what would happen should the School District not purchase the property. Bellows stated that she would be leary to grant the School District this type of a subdivision, when they had recently failed to follow through on a similar matter. Mr. Haislet said that the School District would be in default of the contract as stated if they should fall to fully comply. Cohen asked whether the purchase agreement pertained to the entire parcel. Mr. Haislet said that the purchase agreement required that the first lot be sold to the School District, and the remaining Lots be leased at a set price and acquired at a time when the School District had the funding available. Cohen wanted to see the purchase agreement. Applicant stated that the purchase agreement is being negotiated between the attorneys for the sellers and the School District. MIHOfSS OP THB PLANNIHG COMHISSIOH TING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING FILE #1321 CONTINUED Mr. Haislet asked what language the Planning Commission would like to see in the purchase agreement. Cohen inquired as to who currently owned the property. Mrs. Albin Theis introduced herself as being one of the sellers. She confirmed that the information about the purchase agreement was correct and that the two parties were trying to reach a compromise on a few issues, but for the most part, the parties were in agreement. She felt confident that the School District did intend to purchase the entire parcel. Bellows stated that this whole procedure could be eliminated if the School District would agree to do a subdivision of the entire parcel. This would allow the City to have some control over the property should the School District not purchase Lots B, C and D. Mabusth clarified that they would need to provide the City with a plat that would show a dedicated road. Mr. Haislet stated that the Lots were set up so they have a frontage road. He added that the School District's ultimate goal is to purchase Lots C and D. The agreement is being set up so the School District must purchase A and B before they can purchase C and 0. Cohen stated that he could not presuppose that the parcel would be used strictly for school use, because the next school board may decide that they do not want to purchase the land. He stated that school districts in general are usually under financial constraints and it would not be unlikely that this land acquisition may be deemed unnecessary at some future date. Cohen reiterated that he would vote no until he had reviewed the purchase agreement. Be 1 lows inquired as to why there was a problem doing a plat. Mr. Haislet stated that time was the major reason. Mabusth said that it would require two more months of review time for approval of a plat. Johnson inquired as to whether or not a restriction could be included in the agreement that would limit to whom the property could be transferred should the School District not purchase the entire parcel. Cohen asked Commission members to envision the worst scenario; the School District purchased Lot A, but then decided that they have no funding to purchase B, C and D. Mr. Haislet stated that it would not be in the best interest of the School District to do that because they are signing an obligation for a ten year lease for those three parcels and will pay interest on them right up to the end of the agreement. Cohen asked how much they would be paying. Haislet stated $35,000.00 per year for leasing the three Lots. Orono's policy states that if there are more than two lots, there must be an interior road and an access has to be achieved through a single curb cut. Johnson asked whether the Planning Commission or the City would see any land use application that the School District put forward. Applicant asked what he would need to do to get approval of the subdivision as currently proposed. Mabusth stated that he would need to show an interior road that would provide an east/west connection and provide A Miwms OF THE FLAHHIH6 COMmSSIGM TING HELD A06UST 15, 1989 ZONIHG FILE #1321 COHTIW access to all new residential development. Johnson said that the School District could vacate the road if they do not need to use it when the four parcls are acquired by the School District. Kelley stated that he would like to see a topographical nap of the area, along with other planning criteria. Moos asked if it would not be most beneficial to the owners to have the parcel platted in case the School District did not follow through with the purchase of the entire parcel. Kelley asked whether the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the information as presented and forward it to the City Cou .cil. Applicant stated that he wanted them to vote and send the matter to the City Council. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend denial of the request for a variance on the grounds that the request does not meet the required standards. The Planning Commission recommended that the parcel in question be properly subdivided to ensure that future planning needs of the City are met reg:;rdless ot the disposition of the property. Motion, Ayes*5, Johnson*Nay. Johnson suggested that the Commission approve this matter conditioned upon restrictive covenants as to transferance of the remining parcels B, C, and D. #1311 JOHH a SnSAH PUBDT 1975 FAGERHBSS POINT ROAD VARIAHCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Purdy were present for this matter. Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking variances for the purpose of adding a screen porch to their home on the lakeshore side. The Purdys were granted a variance back in 1985 to put an addition on the street side of their home. Applicants are in need of a hardcover variance as well as a variance to encroach in the average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback. The Purdys had a 5 year plan at one point that has since been revised. The existing hardcover calculation in the 0-75* zone is 15.4% and does not include the permeable fabric underneath the rockbeds. Applicants are requesting an increase in hardcover to 17.3%. In the 75-250* zone, the requested increase in hardcover is 19.9% from 19.1%. Kelley asked the applicants if they would like to present MIHUTBS OF THE PLARNIIiG COMMISSIOH MEBTIH6 HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 Z0EIM6 FILE #1311 COHTIHUED their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think that the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible to any of their neighbors, and would not interfere with any of the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal configuration of their home, the addition, as proposed, is necessary. Their house is 80 yea^s old and there is no other logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the addition would not be detrimental to the lake, nor to the neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen porch would be virtually invisible from the lake, and would aesthetically improve the house. She stated that they needed the added bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to the south of them is built on the road. This made their property inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties. Bellows asked applicants if they had considered building the addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the plan, but there is a large counter area in the kitchen that would limit access to the porch and bathroom. The only other possible access would be through the family room, but that would limit the light in the kitchen and not be as aesthetically pleasing. Bellows stated that she did not see a hardship in this matter. Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan would allow access to the bathroom from the living room and dining room and access to the porch would be through an existing door. This would not be possible if they built the addition on the kitchen side of the house. Mrs. Purdy added that the proposed plan would allow them to view the lake from their porch, which is a rightful benefit of living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley asked if applicants would then request to add a deck to their proposed porch. Mr. Purdy stated that they had no future plans to add a deck to their 3*-season porch. Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their requests in 1985 included an extension to the garage and house. Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a I'season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give them the required space they need. Mrs. Purdy added that they rea.’.ly need the bathroom. They currently have only one bath and a half and have no bath on the main level. Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the original plan had all of the additions on the south side. Mrs. Purd:/ stated that after they had added the family room, they 8 MIHOTBS OF THB PUUmiWS COMMISSIOll TIHG HELD AUGUST 15, 198i Z0NIV6 FILE #1311 CONTIHUED discovered there was a greater need for the S-^season porch and bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom. Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members have a real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season porch. They look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy stated that they agreed with that. Cohen added that the bathroom only confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why. Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the addition in an area where they should not be building at'a 11. She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time with the deliberation; a 3-season porch is in fact an addition to the house. Kelley inquired as to the original size of the house when it was purchased by the Purdys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front. Cohen stated that he empathized with applicants' situation, but he felt that there was no demonstrated hardship and was afraid of setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stated that in their proposed 5 year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent structures to the house than what they were now seeking. What they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the reverse precedent-setting argument and were told it did not matter what had previously been done, each case was looked upon individually. Gaffron interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the existing house, that would be unusual for Eagerness Point Road. All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15 years have been done behind the line of the existing house. Bellows stated that that was the problem, especially since there were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to remove. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend denial of the variances for #1311, based upon setting a precedent for encroaching into the lakeshore setback area. Kelley added that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added that the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron MIVOTBS OF raS PLAMHIN6 COIMZSSIOV MBBTIBG HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 •JZOHIHG FILE #1311 COETIW asked applicants if they would prefer tabling this matter so they could present a revised plan at a later meeting? Applicants wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the matter as currently proposed. Motion, Ayes*€, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1312 WILLIAM J. LAUER 3165 WORTH SHORE DRIVE VXJRXAIICB PUBLIC HEARIWG 8:25 P.N. - 8:30 P.JI. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted . Applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicanr was seeking approval for a hardcover variance for an addition Lhat will not encroach in the average lakeshore setback or 75' lakeshore setback areas. The variance would allow a 1.89% hardcover increase in the 75-250' setback area. The project will not require major excavation or land alterations. Bellows asked for readable plans. Mabusth stated that the sketch showing the proposal was staff's sketch. An updated survey showing the driveway was not submitted with the application. Bellows admonished the Zoning Department for accepting incomplete plans. Applicant stated that he was not aware that the City required any further information. Mabusth noted for both applicant and Commission members that the land use application clearly states that a survey is required. Kelley suggested revising the variance application. He wanted to change item #4 under "Required Submittals” to include the language "current and proposed”. Mr. Lauer stated that he had reviewed the staff's drawings and felt that they were correct. Mabusth stated that the applicant showed 245 s.f. more hardcover than staff's calculations. Johnson asked if the 1.89% hardcover increase was based upon staff's calculations? Mabusth stated that the percentage was based upon applicant's calculations, staff's percentage was less. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of #1312, per staff's recommendations and option B regarding conditions of approval. Cohen asked Mabusth what percentage of hardcover needed to be removed from the 250-500' zone. Mabusth stated that applicant could remove 1.89% hardcover by removing accessory structures in the 250-500' zone. Mabusth asked applicant if he was familiar with the language preceded with an asterik that stated that the hardcover variance was MIHDTBS OF THE PLAMHIHG COMHISSIOH HSBTIHG HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZOHIHG FILE #1312 COHTIH1 needed even though applicant was maintaining the saune amount of hardcover. This was because applicant was proposing new construction in the 75*250' setback area and the setback area already exceeded the allowed 25% of hardcover. Kelley placed applicant on notice that there could be no additional hardcover in the 75*250' zone other than what had been approved. Notion, Ayes*6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1313 RICHARD ELLER 2655 SBADYWOOD ROAD VARIAHCB PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. * 8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were nc ted. Applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was requesting some changes to his existing patio area. Currently there is a second story deck over a grade- level concrete patio. Applicant's proposal involves removal of the entire second story deck and construction of a 4' wide walkway at the upper level along the lakeside of the house that would connect to a new deck above a new screen porch. He would also construct a grade-level wood deck over the existing concrete patio. Kelley asked if there would actually be a reduction in hardcover? Gaffron stated depending upon the Planning Commission's decision, there could be a small decrease or a net trade-off in the total amount of hardcover. Bellows asked if applicant was proposing a screen porch or a 3-season porch. Applicant asked for a clarification as tc what differentiated one from the other. Bellows stated that a screen porch would not be closed in wlf^ storm windows, it would remain open. Applicant stated that he would building a 3-season porch. Gaffron explained that the difference between the Purdy and Eller applications was that the Purdy application called for a new addition encroaching toward the lake. The Ellers are proposing to reduce the existing upper level deck and build a porch directly underneath it. Bellows stated that what applicant is proposing is an aesthetic improvement. Kelley concurred with this and asked whether the net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' was in fact 128 s.f. Gaffron stated that was correct. Applicant said that he would not increase the hardcover if that was the request of the Planning Commission. Kelley stated that he would like applicant to decrease the hardcover percentage. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING FILE #1313 CONTINUED Bellows S'tated tihat she would like see an overall decrease in hardcover because applicant is adding a structure. She said she would hold fast to her definition of a porch with storms being an additional structure. Kelley stated that based upon staff's calculations, hardcover totalled 29.6%. Johnson asked whether applicant was only going to remove 3* from the concrete patio. He suggested removing more than that. Applicant stated that would be acceptable. JSaffron stated that if you just looA. at trade-offs in round numbers, they are close. Kelley suggested using 27% in the 0-75'. Gaffron stated that in the 0- 75' zone 1% would equal approximately 91 s.f. which would be 10' by 10'. Gaffron asked if the recommendation was a 32 s.f. reduction overall? Bellows stated that the odd shape of the proposed deck was making it difficult to translate the percentage . It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the variance providing that the hardcover in the 0- 75' zone did not exceed 29.6%. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1314 GERALD ROULETTE 3775 BATSIDE ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted• The applicants were present for this matter. Gaffron explained that the Rowlettes were proposing to construct a sunroom on the north side of the existing house. The sunroom would be located so it would fill an indentation along the outside north wall of the house. The applicants were granted variance approval in 1976 for the addition of a garage, rooms and deck which extended partially into the 0-75' zone. The approval was conditioned upon removal of a 20'x 20' concrete patio and replacing it with redwood. This has not been done. Applicants are currently seeking a street setback variance where the standard for this 2-acre zone is 50'. Kelley stated that he had no problem with the sunroom, however he did not like the fact that applicants had not complied with the removal of the patio, per the 1976 variance approval. He stated that based upon that, he should vote to deny approval of this request. He asked the applicants if there was a specific reason why they had not removed the patio. Mr. Rowlette stated that since 1976 they have removed other hardcover structures that would equal removal of the 20' x 20' patio. He stated that he did not remove the patio because they get an ice build up in that location and ice cannot be chipped off of a redwood deck without ruining the deck. Kelley asked applicant for his opinion as to MIHUTBS OF THE PLANNIHG COMMISSION i:«K-TING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING FILE #1314 CONTIN1 removing the concrete patio at this time. Applicant stated that he would still have the same problem with the ice. Mr. Rowlette stated that the only reason they are in need of this addtion is due to a new road being built directly across from their kitchen. The addition will act as a screen from headlights shining in their house from this new driveway. Bellows stated that she had a prcbjlem with the appropriateness of using the greenhouse addition as a screen for incoming 1 ght. Applicant stated that the addition would be made of a dark plexiglass material. Applicant stated that he had a problem understanding why there should be any concern. They were not asking to add to the hardcover and asked why he needed approval to perform this addition. Bellows stated that the existing house was so far outside of the boundaries. They had already put one addition on and now they were requesting another addition. Mrs. Rowlette stated that the addition was merely a rounded glass window that extends 4 1/2* from the house. It is being added to fill an existing space on the outside wall of the house. She asked what more the Planning Commission would need to see. Brown asked applicants whether they need the entire concrete patio to take care of the ice build-up problem? Mr. Rowlette stated that the patio was in two pieces and he could remove one part of it. Kelley stated that understood the problem of trying to chip ice from a wood surface. If applicants would be willing to remove the^ portion of patio, he would approve the addition. Bellows reiterated her concern about using a window to screen light. Kelley asked applicant how a plexiglass window would prevent headlights from shining in their kitchen window? Mrs. Rowlette stated that the window would be a reflective, darkened glass. Mr. Rowlette added that they would install trees and bushes inside the greenhouse which would add to the screening affect. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Brown, to recommend approval of the addition of the 4 1/2* sunroom, subject to the condition that the patio on the south side of the house be removed up to the felt line, which is equal the location of the deck and runs parallel to the house. The patio must be removed before the permit for the sunroom is issued. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1315 COUNTRYSIDE MANOR HOMEOHNERS* ASSOCIATION INTERSECTION OF fflLLOM DRIVE AND COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 P.M. - 8:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing ware noted. MIHDTBS OF TBDB PLANimiG CQIQfISSI(»l imiG HELD AD60ST IS, 1988 ZOHIVG FILE #1315 COHTIW The applicants were present for this matter. A Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this was a request for a setback and height variance for a monument that exceeds the allowed 3 1/2* height. Mr. Phil Miller stated that he was comfortable with the findings and recommendations o/ the City regarding their proposal. They are proposing to "dress up” the intersection of Willow and Countryside. The Homeowner's Association has never been satisfied with the appearance of that area. The variance would allow them to erect curved brick walls on each side of the intersection and light fixtures on top of each end post. The end posts will exceed 3 1/2*. He was hopeful that staff would confirm that the monuments were clearly outside of the 30* triangle and should create no visibility problems. He understood that if the road is maintained by the City in the future, therr would be City snow plows on the road and a hold harmless agreement would need to be drafted. Kelley assumed that the City had initially approved Countryside Road and the issue of the island was not brought up at that time. Mabusth disagreed, stating that correspondence in the file would show that the City would not guarantee that the Island could remain should the City take over the Road. Countryside Road is currently classified as a public dedicated roadway and once it connects with Old Crystal Bay Road, it will be maintained by the City. Mr. Miller stated that he understood that the City of Orono aind each of the homeowners had extensive communications with the original developer. The City and the Homeowner's Association have similar feelings as to the Community in that regard. They want to go forward and make the area as attractive as possible. Their proposal should meet all of the required safety standards and they wanted the Planning Commission to act as staff recommended. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the required variances, per staff recommendations and requirements. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1316 GARY BARR 3034 CASCO POIMT ROAD VARIAIKSS POBLIC HEARIH6 8s58 P.M. - 9:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE PIAHHING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 19»8 ZONING FILE #1316 CONTIN1 Clint Gables of American Builders £ Associates, was present on behalf of applicant. Gaffron explained that made reference to a letter he had received from Mr. Ian Booth, a neighbor of Mr. Barr's, opposing the garage addition. Kelley read the letter, which spelled out the reasons of opposition, aloud. Mr. Booth's reasons included the fact that Mr. Barr already had-a 3-car garage, Mr. Barr has a renter in the existing garage, and Orono has ordinances pertaining to the subdivision of property for the purpose of renting living space to individuals. Gaffron explained what Mr. Barr was seeking in his application. There is an existing house and 3-car garage that has a loft-type unit above it. Mr. Barr received approval in the late 1970's to install two pliimbing fixtures in that loft when it was built. Mr. Barr would now like to construct a second garage for the purpose ot storing old classic cars. His proposal is to construct a 34' x 28' garage directly behind the existing garage which would require a 3' setback. He would like to rebuild the back wall of the existing garage so it would also be a wall for the new garage. He would like to put a shop area above the new garage. A setback variance would be required for attaching an oversized structure to an existing structure that exceeds 1^000 s.f. The second option would be to locate the existing garage and the proposed garage adjacent with one another with a 10' separation or an 8' separation. This plan however may result in the loss of some mature trees. Staff had recommended some alternatives. One would be to reduce the size of the proposed garage which would allow it to be built in two different luuetions that would save the trees. Kelley stated that this proposal was awfully ambitious. He asked Mr. Gables to present his information. Mr. Gables addressed the issue of hardship. Mr. Barr collects classic cars that are expensive and need to be housed. He also needs living space for a caretaker of the cars since he is a pilot and is frequently away from home. It was Mr. Gable's understanding that Mr. Barr's brother-in-law inhabits the upper level of the existing garage for the purpose ^>f security. The second hardship would be that Mr. Barr will be married shortly which will result in the addition of two more automobiles requiring storage. Mr. Gables expressed what, in his opinion, were the hardships in this matter. One would be the runoff, two would be the depreciation to the land due to the destruction of the trees. Mr. Gables stated that plan A would cause the least amount of damage to the environment and would be the most aesthetically pleasing. Plan A would effectively deal with the natural runoff of the land. It would also provide the greatest redv.ction in hardcover. Plan B and C would require more excavating and the removal of several mature trees. They would also not deal with runoff as well as Plan A. mHUTBS OF THE PIABHING COMMISSIOH TING msu> AUGUST 15. 1988 ZONING FILE #1316 CONTINUED Kelley Inquired as to the number of cars currently being store in the garage that were o%#ned by Mr. Barr's brother-in-law. Mr. Gables replied that the brother-in-law did not park in the garage. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to recommend denial of application #1316. Cohen stated that he concurred with Kelley's recommendation for denial. Mr. Barr was not even listed as a resident of Minnesota on the property list. The list showed that Mr. Barr o%med three lots and his address was shown as being in Florida. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1317 DUANE AND NANCY GLEff 1135 BROHN ROAD SOUTH T A WCBS PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. - 9:15 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. N \ The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Glews were seeking a side setback and a street setback variance for construction of a 2-car detached garage. The proposed structure protrudes 34' in front of the principal structure. Mabusth stated that the County Inspector advised staff that they would approve the use of the turn around as long as there is no additional encroachment into the road right-of-way. The turn-around would work if a cut is made in the bank at the southeast corner of the garage. The majority of the trees would be untouched. The Glews are to notify the adjacent property owner to the south ten days prior to excavation. Drainage will not be changed since the garage will be raised approximately 1 1/2' higher to direct drainage toward the county drainage ditch along the roadway. The existing drainage to the rear of the garage will be taken care of by an existing catch basin. The hardships would be the severe limitations of the site and the unusual pie-shape of the lot. Cohen stated that he would have no problem approving this matter but he wanted to see the plans for the proposed garage. Mabusth explained that the Commission members were each given a specification sheet which states the type of construction, and the maximiun height. The garage is being constructed by Gorco and they do not provide elevations. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend MIHUTBS OF THE PIAHHIHG COMMISSIOT 114 :•TIH6 HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZOVISG FILE #1317 COBTXH1 approval of application #1317, per staff recommendations, findings and conditions. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays>0, Motion passed. #1318 SUAD H. AZAHARl 1745 FOX STREET VARIAHCS PUBLIC HEARIBG The Affidavit of Publication miid Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1318 until the next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can be present. #1319 XAREM FULLER 4055 ELM STREET REHBI9AL VARIAHCB PUBLIC HBARHI6 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1319 until the next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can be present. #1320 DR. AHD MRS. ROBERT BRAIIDBIIBURG 719 MIHHETONKA HIGHLAHDS LAHE VARIAMCE PUBLIC HBARIHG 9sl7 P.M. TO 9:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking approval of hardcover variances to reconstruct a screen porch and existing deck on the lakeside of their home. The existing deck was constructed approximately 10 years ago with untreated wood and is in poor condition. They would like to replace the structures in the same location but with a different configuration. There would be a revision to the existing walkway. The replacement structures will encroach no further into the view line and will be invisible from the neighboring property to the northwest. There is virtually no increase in hardcover in the 7.5-250* zone. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. MIHDTBS OF tHE FLANHH^ COffMISSION TIHG HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZOHIHG FILE #1320 COBTIHUED Bellows stated that she was concerned about the fact that applicant was actually building a 3-season porch, rather than a screened-in porch, as indicated in the application. Gaffron stated that there had never been any distinction w«da between a screened porch and a 3-season porch prior to this meeting. If the Planning Commission intended to continue to separately classify the porches, he wanted to knew the criteria for each classification. Bellows stated that the 3—season porch changed the type of hardcover, especially in cases going from a deck to a porch. Gaffron stated that in the past they have treated screen poj^ches that had a roof exactly the same as 3—season porches with regard to hardcover. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend of #1320, provided the hardcover percentage remain the same in the 75-250* zone. Due to professional association with applicant's agent, Johnson abstained from the vote. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1322 SKETCH PLAH REVIEff SID REBERS 715 BROffH ROAD HORTH \ REZONING, COHDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SUBDIVISIOHS Applicant was present for this matter. Mr. Peter Jarvis introduced himself as the spokesman presenting this matter on behalf of Mr. Rebers. Mr. Robert Kost and Mr. Steven Pflaum were also present, as was Mr. John Shardlow, who represented the City Staff. Mr. Jarvis explained that the Rebers proposal was strictly for review and preliminary feedback. He was hopeful that the matter could be scheduled for a Public Hearing for rezoning and preliminary plat by September 19th. The proposal originated back in May, 1987 and the presentation would include the history of the plan so the Planning Commission could see how the plan developed to its current state. He wanted the Commission to focus only on the northerly portion of the parcel, which will be devoted to single family lots. Mr. Jarvis showed the location of the parcel. There is Currently a large stand of mature maple trees on the property. On the easterly boundary, there are semi-mature pine trees that Mr. Rebers planted 16 years ago. The soil on the property is predominately clay and loamy soils. The site slopes 60' back to the northwest and about 50' to the northeast and 60' to the southeast. The present zoning is RR—IB, with B-1, commercial zoning, all along the frontage. Steep slopes are a relative measure for the property. They are going to lay a roadway system that would require no grading, except the minimum amount beyond the edge of the street. There are access limitations along the easterly boundary due to the high point on Brown Road. There are locations that would be very inappropriate due to sight distance. 18 iiliniCTS OP THB PIANHING COMMISSION TING HELD AOGUST l5, 1988 PTOimg SUBDIVISIOH PROPOSAL CONTINUED Access could take place off of Brown Road or Pine Ridge Road» which is dedicated and paved right to the westerly property line. There is no public right-of-way on the north, but considerable access opportunity along Wayzata Boulevard where there is currently 3 curb cuts to the commercial area and one that services the farm house. Brown Road would be the major access opportunity to the site, back to Wayzata Boulevard and County Road 8. ^ A single family, detached sub-division, clustered around one cul de sac, with a design character unlike anything else in Orono is what Mr. Jarvis is currently suggesting. They are proposing cul de sacs with large islands, allowing the vegetation to remain undisturbed. There would be a large buffer area around the perimeter of the project to guarantee inperpetuity that there will be no disturbance within a minimum of 50* of their residence, which is over and above and anaddition to any setback standards that would be self-imposed or required in terms of Orono's standard setbacks as part of the zoning. They have discussed and concluded that they wanted to put in a Class 2, grass or wood chip, path that would link every single lot. It would be a jogging or walking trail. They would also like to put in a road system that would range from 24'to 26’ wide with trees as close to the back of the curb as possible to maintain the environment. In looking at design alternatives for the single family detached, they were very concerned about the frontage. It was recommended that they abandon any commercial or retail development, due to the degree of slope along Wayzata Boulevard and the character of the land adjacent to it. As an alternative, they would nestle a small multi-family structure in the woods. He showed the proposed 44-unit, two story structure. There would be an underground parking facility that could also accommodate guest parking and rental storage for boats to avoid any outside storage. There ./ould be a requirement for sanitary sewer and water availability would be necessary regardless of whether the land was utilized as commercial/retail or a multi-family structure. The site plan showed two outlines for proposals for sanitary sewer. One showed the code setbacks for the requested rezoning, which at this time is 35' in front, 35* in back, 10* on the two sides. They purposely wanted to be more limiting than that and stay with the larger 50* in the front, 50* in the back and 30* on either side. They wanted to investigate the impact of doing a traditional non-sewered, residential 2-acre lot development. He showed a typical 2-acre lot without sewer with the saune setback standards. The bottom line is that on 25 lots with City sewer the entire area of disturbance is approximately 175,000 s.f. However, 15 lots with septic systems and the same average house size and driveway length, would create an additional 83,000 s.f. HamtBS OP THE PLAHHIHG COMMISSIOH MEBTIHG HELD AOGOST 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIOM PROPOSAL CONTINUED of land disturbed. The reason why this proposal was not presented earlier was due to the fact that they were waiting for the Highway 12 Corridor Study to be completed. However, in light of the fact that Mr. Rebers hoped to be building by winter, they have broug forth the proposal dealing with on'’v ♦‘he northern portion ot the parcel. Then when the zoning is completed along Highway 12, and there is a final resolution on both water and sanitary sewer, then they would request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed concept, rezoning and preliminary plat to the City Council conditioned upon a sanitary sewer system that would either be built and paid for by Sid Rebers as part extension through Orono, or purchased in terms of a trade-off from Long Lake. The project is not conditioned upon water; they would prefer city water, but it is not a requirement. Cohen inquired as to the size of the lots. Hr. replied that each lot would be approximately 11/4 ®®^®® ff? would sell for $90,000.00 to $150,000.00 each. The houses will retail from $300,000.00 to $800,000.00. Kelley stated that he had been waiting for the calculations showing the difference between land usage of city sewer vs. mound systems. He pointed out that the land use did not include a secondary mound system should the first one fail. Pine Ridge was his other concern. Bellows stated that she was expecting a different presentation in terms of the degree of restrictions placed upon each building pad. She felt that unless there '^®^^® ®P®®^^f« covenants, future owners could cut down the ^tees. She Is in favor of the development as it is being proposed, but is afraid that it will not remain as proposed «“J'®ss restrictions are placed on each lot. She is also concerned ^^®^ ^^^ht-of-way problem for the road. She has consistently felt that too many dead-end roads. She stated that she could not approve the proposed development unless there is a loop road. Mr. Steve Pflaum addressed the concerns that Planning Commission member Bellows had with regard to ®®^®‘»^i®|Ji“2 covenants for the protection of the existing trees. ®® ®^®^®^ that there would be development agreements. They would contract between the developer and the City of Orono. Those agreements would contain the requirements that would impose the protective covenants on the entire site. The covenants would require, at a minimum, maintenance of not only the perimeter ^^®®® everything beyond the building pad. More discussion is needed in this regard. Bellows asked whether Mr. Rebers would be the only developer allowed to build in the area. Mr. Pflaum stated that the 20 MIHUTBS op TBB PLAHHiHG COMMISSION MBETIIIG HELD AOGOST 15, 1988 • 1*1•PTORPfi SUBDIVISION PBOPOSAL CONTI potential homeowner would need to get their house plans approved by an architectural control committee. This would assure that all houses, whether built by Mr. Rebers or another developer, met certain standards required for building in that development. Kelley asked whether the homeowner's association would be the enforcing body of the covenants, and what the penalties would be for the homeowner who violated any of the covenants. Mr. Pflaum stated that the immediate homeo%#ner was the most concerned party. They would notify the adjacent homeowner or builder of any potential violation. The homeowner has the right of injunctive relief, which would interfere with building and financing. The second level of enforcement would be the City of Orono, which would have separate, legal authority to enforce the provisions set forth there in the contract entered into with the developer. Mr. Kelley asked about a specific situation where an adjacent neighbor would have no objections to a homeowner adding a tennis court outside the building pad. Mr. Pflaum replied that the City should not issue a permit for the tennis court because it would violate the provisions of the contract. Kelley asked about the individual who would cut down a tree within the protective easement location. Mr. Pflaum stated that the individual would be in violation of the covenants and would be breaking the contract with the homeowner's association and the City. Generally the red flag would come from a neighbor who would report the incident. The City could then order the violator to cease and desist. Cohen asked if it would be possible to mark the trees that are not to be removed. Pflaum answ0r6d affirinativoly. Mr» Jarvis statsd ^ha^ in liau of marking each tree, a snow fence or taping would be dene to mark the protective area. Kelley stated that there were some big issues involved with this project. He wanted to get the Planning Commission's feedback on the following key issues; Continuation of Pine Ridge Lane; Johnson thought the plan worked very nicely. Ringer's Woods is basically the same, except for the extension of Pine Ridge Lane. He thought the plan would not require through traffic. Bellow was not absolutely positive that Pine Ridge would need to be the connecting road. Kelley would be satisfied if they could find something that would work with the 33 acres or the total 45 without connection to Pine Ridge# he would not object to deadending Pine Ridge, and having associa'wion to the west vacated and divided up amongst the property owners to the west. Cohen disagreed with Kelley and was concerned about entering or exiting the location should the only access be blocked due to an accident or other reason. Brown was not in favor of connecting Pine Ridge, but liked the aspect of keeping the parcel separate. Moos felt that the connection was not necessary, but wanted to have a loop. In sunraary, Planning Commission felt that connection with Pine Ridge would MINOTBS OF THE PLANHIHG COMNISSIOH MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 pnHTOfi SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL COHTIHI not be necessary. 11 HI Sewer: Kelley stated that they would need to show how many trees would be saved using city water to justify hookup with the Orono/Long Lake interceptor. Gaffron stated that due to the excessive slopes in the area, there would be problems if mound systems were used. Johnson inquired as to what the status of the sewer is at this time. Mr. John-Shardlow referenced a letter from City Engineer, Glenn Cook, wherein it was stated that there %f0xe two options for sewer hookup. One would be hooking up through Long Lake (Joint Powers Agreement) or by constructing a new interceptor line along Trunk Highway 12. More detailed information would be available once the feasibilty study comes back for a public hearing. He said that at this time, it would be safe to assume that the Rebers subdivision could be served by sanitary sewer. Whatever action is taken, should be subject to the types of conditions mentioned under the Special Minimum Requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 Corridor. Bellows and Kelley felt that sanitary sewer was the way to go. Bellows stated that she had a concern involving the access point off of Brown Road. Bob Kost stated that after they had submitted the original plan he and several City staff persons inspected the site and determined that the access should be relocated 50 feet south. Kelley stated that another major concern had been the east/west service road. The current recommendation for the subdivision is to move the B-1 zone parallel to the top of the north zone of the Little Oak Development. This would almost prohibit an east/west frontage road along Highway 12. Mr. Jarvis stated that they were not changing the zoning in that area at all right now. Kelley asked how many feet there were from the back or north side of Little Oak Store to the proposed PUD. Mr. Jarvis indicated it was 50' to the PUD and 125* to the lot. Kelley asked if the 50* would allow for a frontage road to be installed between a lot line and a building. Mabusth stated that 50* would meet road outlot width requirements. Kelley wanted feedback from the Planning Commission as to whether they felt it necessary to allow for the frontage road to go in behind the Little Oak Store. Johnson agreed that would be the best location, rather than in front. Bellows stated that she agreed with that also. Kelley stated that behind Little Oak Store would be the best. Cohen agreed, as did Brown. Mr. Shardlow stated that they have been working with communities on the issue of how to control a subdivision to maximize tree preservation. The Rebers subdivision is the best approach to this. He strongly supports the idea of keeping the size of the roadway to a minimum. He said that the issue of trees inside the building envelope or in an area with a drainage problem will need to be addressed. APPROVAL OP MIHOTBS It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos to approve the minutes of the July 18, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. PLAHVIHG COMMISSIOH BEPHBSEHTATIVB Ed Cohen was appointed to attend the September 12, 1988 Council meeting. ADJOORHMEIfT 10:35 P.M. - The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:35 F.M.