HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 1 - J - ( .7-722)
0 COUNCIL
Er PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.. . .:. .'... .
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. ii/v7,/,!..,,,i--, 1,/1c Fh.:il
, 1
2. N■179-1-IS4 (rC";1170,1114(-.N7 -4°1 ??(.1)Idt--52- I 3i \- -7,PC-Akz-- 04(..--& 0 Z- N
3. A-z_.).._ L,,,i4,:1::_ L__ (/4A.t.,cf,.-„ ii ) OZ - 2)04;4
4. 4v1 ,._, C-,p4r_m.11.- ( ml( U L
5 _ 41 1 b 7573
6. 7t4 i
7• 1>z,,f eA 6-„,..„4„....4k 4ciA,,,- 1 ,,,Fekt..-..,,,,, tio-, — itisi
8.
9. .e ' -
10.
11.
)
12. Pd .- FA\c-i-kAiiLAc. K 33.-,2 Wqm1,...4.
13. \ L' y,... \?1(titor)•,.,
4 11) , (0,ter4 CA .)17 i
2
14; ' 6(t -.::1 6 C`,1"- ICt5---)- i.te-o-i-C), _ i);--: r9 — ‘95:i6C:
15.
XADataUdministrative SupporA(Fonns-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra
Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn,Jeanne Mabusth, Stephanie Zugschwert,
and Jule Hannaford. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and City Planners Wendy
Bottenberg and Jennifer Chaput, and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Commissioners' Janice Berg and Cynthia Bremer; and Council Representative Mayor Peterson were
absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1)#02-2855 KEVIN GARNETT,450 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD,RENEWAL
CUP/VARIANCE
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2855 Kevin Garnett
450 Orono Orchard Road, renewing a variance and conditional use permit to permit construction
of a new"guest house"on the property,subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant
in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the
principal structure and their non-paying,guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house
could not be used for a home occupation.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#2)#02-2850 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE,VARIANCE
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2850 John and
Patricia Walker, approving a rear yard setback and hardcover variances in 75-250' setback zone to
construct a deck on the rear of the residence located at 1318 Spruce Place.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#3)#02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, CUP/VARIANCE 6:40-7:18
P.M.
Kevin Manley,the Applicant, and Eduardo Suarez of Gustafson Design, Inc. were present.
Gaffron explained that on December 9, 2002, the City Council reviewed the application including the
various unresolved issues aside from the retaining wall request and provided direction,much of which
will be addressed at the February Planning Meeting.
At this time, Gaffron reviewed the three proposed boulder wall landscaping plan options for the
Commission. He explained that each of the options incorporates a stairway system to provide continued
access to the lake, and a"first flush"drainage system behind the top of the boulder wall to allow retention
and natural filtration.
PAGE 1 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued)
Option 1 creates a half-oval depressed area at elevation 937.5 next to the house,then re-establishes the
pre-existing walkout elevation with a `step-up' wall 3-6' lakeward from the house. Gaffron noted that an
underground drainpipe is proposed to remove runoff from the depression area next to the house, outletting
just below the crest of the shoreline boulder wall.
Option 2 omits the depression area,but establishes a slope starting at the walkout door elevation dropping
to 937.0' at the shoreline boulder wall. While this avoids the depression area, Gaffron indicated that it
does little to re-establish the pre-existing grade levels.
Option 3 also omits the depression,but establishes a slightly flatter lawn slope than Options 1 or 2, and
somewhat changes the shape and orientation of the lakeshore stairway. Again, Gaffron noted that this
Option does not re-establish the lakeshore yard elevations that existed previously.
After reviewing the three Options, and their hardcover impacts, Gaffron reported that staff and the City
Engineer concluded that only Option 1 meets the goal of restoring the flat part of the lakeshore yard back
to the pre-existing walkout elevation. However, Gaffron stated there may be no plan that puts back the
sideslopes to their pre-existing grades without adding more retaining walls or reducing the soil instability
inherent in the former slopes. In discussion with the applicant with regard to drainage, Gaffron pointed
out that gutters and downspouts would be added to the house to catch rainfall and direct it past the
depression.
Gaffron stated that another aspect of Option 1 is that it provides vegetative screening across the facade of
the house to help soften and reduce the vertical nature of the amount of house wall exposed to lake view.
Whereas,none of the Options proposes tree plantings that would further soften the facade as viewed from
the lake.
Other than the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, Gaffron identified 6
issues for consideration by the Planning Commission in reviewing the proposed boulder wall/landscaping
plan.
According to Gaffron, if the Planning Commission concludes that the boulder wall system is appropriate
for restoration of this site, staff would recommend approving Option 1,with the addition of gutters and
downspouts,because it brings the walkout level elevation back to what it was originally. Gaffron noted
that, from a precedent standpoint, staff would prefer that the sideslopes also be restored,however,the
negative aspects of such restoration may outweigh the positive maintenance and stability aspects of the
more gradual slopes resulting from Options 1-3.
Gaffron further identified three items for inclusion in any motion made by the Planning Commission,
including strict adherence to the revegetation and planting plan to ensure adequate screening or softening
of the wall system as well as the building facade, and to provide long term soil stability; second,
construction of the boulder wall system be performed by a highly qualified contractor and/or under direct
supervision of the same; and third, adherence to the required grades, and proper construction of the"first-
flush" system and installation of gutters/downspouts to result in the degree of water quality control the
plan intends to accomplish.
Chair Smith asked what restoring the side slopes would mean to the erosion problems.
PAGE 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued)
Gaffron indicated that, from an equity standpoint, applications have been repeatedly denied to do grading
to construct walkouts in this neighborhood . In fact, an application to create a walkout on this property
was denied 4-5 years ago,however,now the work has been done and the City is striving to restore the
property to some semblance of what it was. Gaffron explained that the building inspector felt that none of
the Options does enough to restore the property to what it was originally, since permits were never
applied for which would allow the grade change in the first place.With regard to hardcover,all three
Options have similar impact.
In regard to protection of the lakeshore, Chair Smith asked which Option the City could support.
If the City were trying to retain the existing shoreline character of the neighborhood, Gaffron felt that any
of the three Options would do.
Chair Smith asked if the Commission found the proposed plantings acceptable. She inquired whether
native species or additional trees were suggested.
Suarez maintained that most of the plantings would be of a native variety,woody, grasses,and dogwoods.
He pointed out that few properties have trees near the shoreline.
The Commission agreed the proposed plantings with added trees would be acceptable.
There were no public comments.
As a matter of equity,Hawn indicated that her first choice would be to see the property restored to its
original state. She maintained that the application for what now has been done anyway,had been denied
just a few years ago. At this juncture, Hawn believed it to be in everyone's best interest to maintain a
stable landscape and could support staff's recommendation.
Mabusth stated that, she too, could support Option 1 of staff's recommendation, however,had concerns
about the runoff near the "bowl" area. She also wished to see trees in various areas of the yard in order to
break up the vertical expanse.
Suarez reiterated that gutters and downspouts would be used to direct runoff away from the depressed
area. He noted that trees could be added to the corners of the lot nicely.
Mabusth asked if the neighbor's concern regarding safety and height of the retaining wall had been
addressed since the last meeting.
Suarez assured the Commission that the tallest wall would be only 4' tall.
Gaffron acknowledged that the slope would now be closer to the neighbor's property,with
less vegetation than there was previously.
Mabusth questioned whether staff found the stairs over the riprap acceptable and Public Service Director
Gappa had no issue with the east side stairs.
PAGE 3 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued)
Gaffron stated that the lakeside stairs would lead to a dock system and that staff found that acceptable.
The street side steps were not an issue.
Fritzler stated that his questions had been answered and that he would support Option 1, as long as the
City could be sure the work was completed as promised.
Chair Smith indicated that she could support the construction of a boulder wall system versus keystone
for aesthetic reasons. With regard to the inspector's comments, Chair Smith agreed, however was
concerned about the future of the property. She also believed more trees were needed and that a timeline
should be provided with ways to monitor the progress.
Rahn asked if Option 1 restored the side yards. He indicated that if staff were satisfied with Option 1 as
proposed, which restores the property the closest to the original state,he could support that as well.
Gaffron stated that Option 1 would not restore the side yards as proposed. He believed that by restoring
the original 3 or 4:1 slope,you might gain something,but cause the need for double retaining walls as
reflected in old photos.
While she could support Option 1,Zugschwert indicated that she could not see sacrificing the future of
the property by requiring the side yards be restored.
Chair Smith was troubled by the fact that,had the application for this grading and retaining wall work
been before the Commission prior to being done, it would have been denied.
In order to keep the shoreline as safe as possible,Hawn agreed that the City had now been put in the
terrible position.
Hawn moved to recommend approval of Application#02-2854,Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerness
Point Road,granting an After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit for land alteration
and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline as per Option 1 of the staff's recommendation,along with
a schedule detailing the timeline for completion of various pieces of the project,plus additional
planting of trees on the property,and subject to staff recommendations as per the staff report dated
January 16,2003.
Hawn asked if regularly scheduled inspections should be done during the process.
Although he wished someone from the City could visit the site on a regular basis, due to limited staff,
Gaffron indicated this realistically couldn't be done.
Fritzler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6/1,Chair Smith dissenting.
Chair Smith stated that she would like to see the property much more closely restored to its original state.
PAGE 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE,2817 CASCO POINT ROAD,PLAN REVISIONS 7:19-7:45
P.M.
Wesley Byrne,the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major
additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing
residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot
area/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation would remain,
without structural repairs. Gaffron felt that during the February 2002 review, it was not clear that the plan
as approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet.
Gaffron continued that a condition of the approval was that if it was determined the existing foundation
was required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals would be withdrawn and a new variance
application submitted.
After being issued a building permit in June of 2002,the building inspector only recently noted that while
the additions were progressing, the second story of the residence has now been completely removed,
including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Furthermore, Gaffron noted the inspection
department questioned the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story wall with
substandard setback, to which the applicant has hired a structural engineer to review the situation.
Gaffron pointed out that replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly
requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. In addition,the removal of portions of
the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation,triggers the need for further City
review. Gaffron questioned whether the remodeling/addition process has resulted in removal of so much
of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild,requiring all setbacks to
be met. He also questioned whether allowing the second story to be put back in the substandard setback
should be an option at all.
Byrne stated that his intent from the beginning has been to work with City staff. He acknowledged that,
in hindsight,he should have considered bulldozing the entire home and started fresh, as many new issues
continue to arise. The structural engineer looked at and discovered some obvious rot issues and repair
work that needed to be done. At this point,Mr. Byrne asked the Commission to grant him a setback
variance, as it would be very costly to change the design now. Had he realized this a year ago,Byrne
stated he would have designed the home differently.
Chair Smith noted that the February 2002 Minutes address the need to readdress the foundation issue at a
later date if it became an issue.
Byrne reiterated that had he known the foundation would become an issue he would have done things
differently.
Rahn was surprised that the foundation stability had not been addressed earlier,prior to or during
construction. He stated that, in his view, this project is a rebuild and was a rebuild from the start. The
only thing he was not clear on was the need for a raised roof,which he felt, further encroached into the
side setback by massing the encroachment.
PAGE 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, Continued)
Byrne indicated that the design with the 8' roofline as part of the plan has remained the same throughout
the project.
Had the Commission understood the raised roof at the time, Rahn believed this would have triggered the
need for another variance. He questioned why there always seems to be the need for an after the fact
variance with rebuilds.
Hawn inquired whether the tight side-loading garage was ever considered to be a problem.
Gaffron indicated that the driveway retaining wall would need to be 5' from the lot line for maneuvering
in and out of the garage and driveway.
Kelly Wolvey, 2815 Casco Point Road, stated that she and her family moved in last April and have no
concerns or issues with the addition. She added that they were happy to see Byrne improve his property
and did not have concerns that it fell 4' from the property line. As this was unintentional on Mr. Byrne or
the City's part, her only concern was, if Mr. Byrne were forced to redo his plans,the home would have
little character and be extremely long to fit on the lot in order to meet setbacks.
Fritzler also viewed the home as a total rebuild and asked what would be required if the applicant were
forced to go back to square one.
While Hawn concurred, she empathized with the applicant's unintentional error.
Mabusth pointed out that staff and building inspectors had looked at the project all along with him. She
felt the City was a bit remiss,now after many months into construction, only revisiting the topic now.
Byrne acknowledged he is seven months into construction,of which now he is delayed and will be costly
to him.
Whether or not the foundation needs to be repaired or rebuilt, Rahn questioned if the applicant could
maintain the original 5' wall height versus the proposed 8' wall. Since the City is constantly dealing with
massing issues,he believed holding the construction to what it was originally could be an acceptable
compromise.
If the applicant were denied the variance, Zugschwert asked what he would have to do next.
Byrne stated that, as he understood it, he would have to remove 4' from his first floor and lift up the porch
room over the basement. Gaffron added that, as well as,redesigning the baths, stairways, etc.
As blame existed on both sides,Hannaford found it difficult to force the applicant to redesign his whole
plan due to misunderstandings.
Hawn concurred with Rahn to keep the knee wall at 5' versus 8'.
Gaffron drew a jog on the overhead to reflect the revised setback and wall height.
PAGE 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, Continued)
Hannaford clarified that, all the City was asking for was the applicant to redesign his plan to reflect a
small jog on the second story.
Rahn moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve Application#02-2753,Wesley Byrne, continuing the
Variance for 2817 Casco Point Road allowing the work to continue with no further variances than
what was prior approved,with wall and foundation repair/replacement to bring it back to no larger
than its pre-existing state.VOTE: Ayes 6/1,Hannaford dissenting.
Hannaford was not in favor of requiring a redesign by the applicant.
NEW BUSINESS
(#5)#02-2856 ANDREW AND TRACEY RASCHER,4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE
7:46- 7:50 P.M.
Andrew Rascher, Applicant, and a representative from Home Depot, were present.
Planner Chaput explained that the applicants have requested variances from the average lakeshore
setback,the 75' structure setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and for hardcover in the 0-75'
lakeshore setback zone in order to replace an existing second story deck attached to the residence. The
existing deck is rotting and has become a safety issue for the owners. Currently,the deck encroaches 71'
into the average lakeshore setback and is 67' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka.
Chaput pointed out that issues for consideration include the fact that the deck has existed for many years
and the proposed deck will not increase the existing square footage of hardcover, change the setback from
the OHWL nor the average lakeshore setback. She added that the deck would continue to provide a
landing for two sliding glass doors located lakeside and would not infringe negatively any of the
neighbors' views of the lake. Chaput reported that staff recommends approval of the variances necessary
to replace the existing deck.
Mr.Rascher pointed out that the existing deck is rotting and has been a safety concern for his family. He
currently has a mesh netting in front of the railing to ensure safety, as the railing itself is not stable.
Mabusth noted that that no impact on neighboring views would be caused by the replacement.
There were no public comments.
Fritzler asked if the lower screening would remain and what materials the deck would be made of
A representative from Home Depot,explained that the lower screening would remain and the upper deck
would be a rail craft system with metal and glass panels.
PAGE 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #02-2856 ANDREW AND TRACEY RASCHER, Continued)
Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded,to approve Application#02-2856,Andrew and Tracey Rascher,
granting the 71' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback,structure 65' from the OWHL
of Lake Minnetonka,and 806 s.f. (5.12%)of hardcover in the 0-75' hardcover zone variances in
order to replace an existing second story deck attached to the residence located at 4705 North Shore
Drive.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#6) #02-2857 CYNTHIA PIPER, 1125 SPRING HILL ROAD, CUP 7:51 -7:57 P.M.
Daniel Gaudette, of Steiner and Koppleman, was present representing the applicant.
Chaput reported that the applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit a guest apartment within the
primary residence. A building permit has been issued to construct a new residence on the property and
the applicants are aware that the guest apartment must have Planning Commission approval before
construction begins. Chaput pointed out that the apartment would be located above the most westerly of
the two garages for the use by guests. Interior access would be obtained by a spiral staircase in the
mudroom on the main floor of the principal structure,the second access is from an exterior door leading
up a stairway, located on the front of the garage. This interior access must be considered the guest
apartment's primary access. Chaput continued that adequate parking exists, as does septic system.
Chaput indicated that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a non-rental guest
apartment, conditioned upon three points noted in the staff recommendations section of the report.
Gaudette stated that the applicant accepts all of the conditions noted in the staff report. He added that the
primary access to the apartment and its guests would be the exterior access,whereas, the mudroom area
spiral staircase would supply a second entrance.
Chair Smith questioned whether staff had issue with a spiral staircase.
Mabusth stated that spiral staircases are safer today than many years ago and save in economy of size.
There were no public comments.
All of the Commissioners felt the application to be reasonable.
Fritzler moved, Chair Smith seconded,to approve Application#02-2857, Cynthia Piper,granting a
Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest apartment within the primary residence
for the property located at 1125 Spring Hill Road,subject to the three conditions cited in the staff
recommendations section of the staff report dated January 9,2003.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#7) #02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH,332 WESTLAKE STREET,VARIANCE 7:58
-9:08 P.M.
Blake Bichanich,Applicant, was present.
PAGE 8 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, Continued)
Chaput reported that the applicants are requesting lot area, width, and setback variances in order to
construct a new house in the same location as a house exists today on the property. In order to rebuild a
home on this property within the same dimensions as previously granted, variances would be needed for
side yard setbacks, 11' to the south and 19.3' to the north where 30' is required, a lot width variance for
100.28' where 200' is required, and lot area variances allowing 1.34 acres where 2 acres are required.
In 1993,Resolution#3231 permitted the applicants to construct additions to the existing home with side
yard setbacks of 19.3' to the north and 12.7' to the south where 30' is required after two parcels were
combined to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Chaput explained that,by current Zoning
Ordinance,the existing house is non-conforming and any new structure should be constructed as close to
conformity as possible. The proposed plan eliminates a detached garage,which is currently situated over
the lot line and onto the neighboring property and proposes an attached garage 10' from the lot line.
Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be part of the principal structure,requiring a 30'
setback instead of 11' for a detached garage.
Chaput identified 7 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and stated that if the
Commission felt the applicant should be able to maintain the setbacks permitted from previously
approved variances on the property to construct a new house,the application should be granted.
However, Chaput stated, if the Commission felt that the new house should be built to meet the required
side yard setbacks and not set a precedent for future redevelopment in the area, the application should be
tabled to allow the applicant to present an altered plan.
Hawn asked if the shed by the lake was ever permitted.
Bichanich indicated that the shed had been existing on the site when they purchased the property.
Chaput pointed out that it was acknowledged in the 1993 Resolution that it was existing non-conforming
and that it could be looked at in the future.
Chair Smith asked what the shed was used for.
Bichanich stated that he used it mostly for lake storage of water equipment and toys.
Mabusth stated that the applicant should be advised that,to be consistent with what's been done in the
past with new construction,the City asks that the non-conforming structures within the lakeshore yard be
removed.
Chair Smith added that the applicant could investigate a lock box in lieu of the storage shed.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith asked the Commission where they stood with regard to lot area and lot width variances, as
these are usually something that cannot be altered easily.
Mabusth stated that this lot has more area than the three remaining lots on the street.
PAGE 9 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, Continued)
Fritzler stated that he felt new construction should be required to conform to setbacks,which are 30' from
either side.
Chair Smith concurred, stating that the applicant could build a deeper more narrow home.
Bichanich stated that his intent in combining the two properties was to be allowed to do more with the
overall parcel. He pointed out that the property was inappropriately zoned LR-1A, 2 acres in the first
place, since no other properties in the area meet this standard. He indicated that,had the lot been zoned
LR-1B,the property would need to meet a mere 10' side yard setback, and been a more appropriate
zoning fit for Westlake Street. He argued that there is little value or incentive for people to combine lots if
the City further limits the buildable area of those combined lots. He pointed out that people might be
better off with a 50' wide lot and apply for a 4`-side yard setback.
Mabusth asked if the applicant could center the proposed residence on the property.
Bichanich stated that he could move the home 15' off of either side yard, adding that the neighbors are
delighted to have garage removed from their property.
Rahn stated that, in his opinion,the house was not designed to fit a long narrow lot. He felt the most
lenient he could be would be to allow setbacks 2/3 the distance of the requirement since the lot itself is
2/3 the requirement. Rahn believed that the applicant could do a better job of conforming to the lot,
however, he could accept 20' side yard setbacks.
Bichanich asked how this philosophy would work for 50' lots.
Rahn reiterated that he did not think a 100' lot should be allowed to be as close to the lot lines as required
by a 50' lot.
Chair Smith asked whether the Commission saw a hardship for this application.
Mabusth asked if there were similar lots on the lake in Orono that were long and narrow like these on
Westlake Street.
Gaffron indicated that the most similar situation he could think of would be the residences along Tonkawa
that are zoned 1 acre.
Hawn stated that she would like to encourage people to combine lots and provide incentives to do so,
therefore,had difficulty with this application. She felt she could support a 15' side yard setback.
Chair Smith stated that she was not opposed to the proposal,however, questioned the precedent it could
be setting.
Gaffron pointed out that these lots would be somewhat unique, in that they fall within a 2-acre zone. He
added that the 50' lots are required to meet a 10' setback in 1/2 acre and 1 acre districts.
PAGE 10 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH,Continued)
Mabusth agreed, stating that this is one of the only areas left in a 2 acre zoning district where you have
50' wide lots.
Bichanich stated that he could accept a 15' side yard setback on either side, and believed the true hardship
will befall the neighbor to his south.
Mabusth stated that she could accept a 15' side yard setback.
Confused by the rationale,Fritzler stated that when property owners have long narrow lots,you should
design and build a long narrow home to fit the parameters of the lot.
Mabusth maintained that all encroachments must meet the side yard setbacks, including fireplace
chimneys, overhangs, air conditioning units, etc.
Chair Smith asked what staff would recommend.
Gaffron indicated that it was difficult to find a hardship for new construction on this 100' lot, although it
would not set a precedent for the other 50' lots along the street.
Chair Smith acknowledged that the Commission seemed to concur that some additional side yard setback
would be allowed.
Zugschwert indicated that she would vote to support the proposal as submitted.
Hannaford found it difficult, given the size of the lot,to throw out an arbitrary number for the side yard
setback. He stated that it is clear the zoning is inappropriate and a variance should be allowed.
Chair Smith recognized that these situations require the Commission to examine them on a case by case
basis.
Zugschwert pointed out that these variances were allowed in 1993, and questioned why the Commission
felt the need to create new standards right now with this application.
Hawn asked the applicant whether he could accept 20' side yard setbacks from the Commission.
Bichanich stated that he could accept a 15' side yard setback requirement.
Hannaford moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve Application#02-2859,Blake and Mary
Bichanich,granting lot width,lot area, and side yard setback variances as proposed for the
property,given the variances that were approved in 1993 and the unique hardships that this is one
of the last 100' lots in this 2 acre zoning district.
Hawn stated that the dimensions of long and narrow constitute a hardship, even though there is still quite
a bit of land to build on.
PAGE 11 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH,Continued)
Bichanich stated that the current home is 70' wide and the proposed will virtually sit in the identical
position as the existing home except for moving the garage off the property line.
Rahn stated that the application is for new construction versus the additions and remodels of 1993.
VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 4, Fritzler,Hawn,Chair Smith,and Rahn dissenting.
Hawn stated that she would support the home being centered on the property.
Rahn reiterated that a 40' wide building pad and very deep lot did not constitute a hardship to him. He
believed the issue was that,unfortunately, a wide house was designed for a narrow lot.
Gaffron reiterated that the applicant had been faced with meeting impossible standards since the lot did
not match the zoning code. He added that, over the past 20 years,people have purchased multiple lots
and combined them to build bigger homes giving Orono a multitude of lot sizes.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to approve Application#02-2859,Blake and Mary Bichanich,
granting lot area and lot width variances,and side yard setbacks of 20' on either side of the
residence because it is a long and narrow shaped lot in order to construct a new house on the
property located at 332 Westlake Street.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to vote on this motion or table the
application.
Bichanich indicated that he would prefer the Commission table the application. He reiterated that he had
combined two non-conforming lots in an effort to bring them more into conformity 9 years ago, whereas,
what he has found is that he would have been better off keeping two 50' lots. Knowing what he does
today, he questioned what the incentive for anyone would be to buy two lots for combination,thereby
doubling their land cost, for a mere 25%more house.
Chair Smith stated that they would table the application and encouraged the applicant to redesign the
home and garage to meet a minimum 15' side yard setback on either side.
Hawn withdrew her motion.
Mabusth stated that as it stands, it feels as if the house was not designed to fit a long narrow lot.
After further consideration,Bichanich felt that a 60' wide home could be acceptable and asked to move
forward with the 20' side yard setbacks.
Chair Smith stated that they could move the application forward to the Council without seeing it again if
the Commission agreed.
Although he would vote favorably if the applicant chose to accept 20' setbacks,Hannaford reiterated that
mandating a 20' setback sounded arbitrary.
PAGE 12 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, Continued)
Zugschwert felt she could support the 20' setback without seeing the application again.
While he would accept a 20' side yard setback on either side,Fritzler maintained that it be inclusive of
everything, chimney, air conditioning unit, overhangs, etc.
Chair Smith asked if staff would be comfortable with the Commission not seeing the application again.
As long as it was understood everything would be within the setback requirements, Gaffron indicated that
there would be no real need to bring the application back before the Commission.
Bichanich asked if 1' overhangs would need to meet setbacks.
Gaffron reiterated that they would count as encroachments in a substandard setback zone.
Bichanich explained that, aesthetically, the standard overhang should be allowed outside the building
envelope.
Hawn asked how large the overhangs were in the proposed construction and whether the Commission
could support standard overhangs.
Bichanich stated that the overhangs vary from 1-4' for architectural interest.
Rahn stated that he could support 2' overhangs on either side of the home encroaching into the 20'
setback, but not 4' on either side.
Hawn stated that she would be alright with 4' overhangs encroaching into the side yard setback.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve Application#02-2859,Blake and Mary Bichanich,
granting lot area and lot width variances,and side yard setbacks of 20' on either side of the
residence with a maximum of 4' roof overhangs on either side encroaching into the side yard
setback areas, subject to removal of the existing shed in the 0-75' hardcover zone and because it is a
long and narrow shaped lot,in order to construct a new house on the property located at 332
Westlake Street. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Fritzler dissenting.
Fritzler indicated that he could not support a 4' overhang encroachment into the sideyard setback.
(Recess from 9:08-9:15 P.M.)
(#8) #02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS,INC., 1955 HERITAGE DRIVE,VARIANCES 9:15-
10:04 P.M.
Todd Gorr,Applicant, was present.
Gaffron summarized the applicant's request for lot area and side setback variance for construction of a
new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. Technically,he added that a front yard
setback would be required as well.
PAGE 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, Continued)
Originally, a 1 acre zoning district,the zoning was changed in 1975 to 2 acre minimum and well and
septic serves the property. Gaffron explained that the applicant recently purchased the property intending
to tear down the superstructure and re-use the existing footings and slab foundation. A lot area and
setback variance is required to replace the 4-stall garage in the substandard side setback abutting the
Dakota Rail corridor. Gaffron continued that the house will be enlarged to incorporate a second story,
including a"bonus room"above the garage, which adds a second level of encroachment to the side
setback.
Gaffron pointed out that, from staffs perspective,there is little hardship to support the side setback
variance, since the garage could become 3 stalls instead of 4. He noted that the house/garage could also
be reconfigured to provide for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, while meeting the 30'
setback. He added that the applicant had provided a second survey,which indicates a proposed
house/garage location,which meets the 30' setback, should the side yard be denied.
For zoning purposes, Gaffron pointed out that the publicly used and maintained cul-de-sac existing upon
the SW corner of the property had been deleted from the lot area calculation. Therefore, a line 10' from
the edge of the pavement of this portion of the `public road' must be used as the front property line for
front setback determination. Although there is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of the cul-de-
sac,the City Engineer in his 1999 County Road 15 Traffic Study suggested that a future method to make
15 safer would be to eliminate the Heritage/15 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brown
Road
South across the rail corridor. Gaffron noted that such a rerouting would eliminate the cul-de-sac and
hence the setback issue.
While the existing and proposed house appear to be setback approximately 39' from the wetland, Gaffron
acknowledged that the wetland has not been formally delineated. He felt it would be appropriate to have
the applicant get the wetland boundary delineated prior to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the
required setback.
Gaffron reported that the current residence per the original plan is considered as a 4-bedroom home and
the existing septic system has served it well,but its actual design capacity is unclear based on the lack of
information from the drainfield replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a conforming
system,which has been functioning well under the prior owner's usage pattern. Gaffron maintained that
it is unlikely the property contains an alternate site meeting setback requirements from lot lines,
structures, wells and wetlands. While it might be reasonable to allow the new structure to be reconnected
to the existing septic system for the time being,the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant
should work toward getting sewer connected as part of the rebuild,rather than forcing the cost onto a new
buyer should the old system fail.
PAGE 14 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS,Continued)
Gaffron identified 6 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and indicated that staff would
recommend approval of the lot area variance. On the other hand, Gaffron stated that staff would
recommend denial of the side setback variance and approval of the front yard setback variance relative to
the alternate plan. He continued, that staff would recommend the new home be connected to municipal
sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system at completion of construction and that the
applicant be required to have the wetland delineated prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure
it meets the minimum wetland setback.
Although he had submitted an alternate plan, Gorr stated that he would prefer to retain the 4-stall garage.
With regard to hardship, Gorr maintained that LR-1A is an inappropriate zoning district for small lots,not
to mention,the limitation posed by wetland encroachment on this property. As he would be building over
the existing foundation with no room for a basement, storage would be limited,therefore Gorr requested
he be granted a 4-stall garage to offset this limitation. Adding storage behind the garage might encroach
into the pool area.
Chair Smith suggested,relative to the garage, to merely construct a deeper garage for storage.
Gaffron reminded the Commission that the applicant would need to maintain a 10' setback between the
pool and structure.
Gorr maintained that building a deeper garage would cut into the limited usable yard and cost more to
redo the foundation.
Chair Smith pointed out that not having room to store your belongings was not considered an acceptable
hardship.
Neighbor Lenny Dayton, across Heritage Drive to the south, asked how high the two story home would
be.
Gaffron indicated that the home met height standards at a proposed height of 27'.
Dayton inquired whether the size of the home was of issue, since the footprint appears to be much smaller
than the proposed construction.
Chair Smith stated that the size of the home did not seem to be in question.
Gaffron noted that the home will be significantly larger than the original 36X45. Additional spaces of
18X30 with bonus room above the garage and 40X 23 would be constructed.
Dayton asked what the proposed setback to Heritage would be.
Gaffron indicated that the setback would be measured 10' back from the cul-de-sac, and that the applicant
was asking for a variance to be 28' instead of 50' from the setback.
While Chair Smith stated that she saw no problem allowing the lot area variance, she felt there was
inadequate hardship displayed to support the side setback.
PAGE 15 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS,Continued)
Mabusth suggested that the applicant keep the black top for additional parking next to a three-car garage.
Gorr stated that, in his view, the proposal was not new construction since he was using the existing
foundation.
Hawn disagreed, stating that in the Commission's opinion,this was new construction. She wondered why
some variances would be acceptable and not others.
Mabusth stated that she had no difficulty supporting the front setback since the City put in a public road
on their private property. She added that the proximity to the trail behind the property also causes an
issue.
Hawn agreed, viewing the cul-de-sac as something of a hardship that had been imposed upon the property
owner.
Gaffron reminded the Commission that potential did exist for the cul-de-sac to go away some day in the
future, however,he pointed out that the trail could be replaced by light rail as well.
Chair Smith asked the applicant how he felt about connecting to municipal sewer.
Gorr indicated that he would prefer to keep his septic sewer system as it has been considered a
conforming system, adding that rather than an alternate septic site he would consider connecting to
municipal sewer as the alternate.
Chair Smith asked if the system were currently conforming
Gaffron indicated that the system was built for a 4-bedroom home and will still be used for a 4-bedroom
home on a larger scale. He questioned what impact the usage pattern might have on the future sewer
capacity and indicated that no one could predict what impact the additional use might cause.
Assuming the applicant was building the home to sell it and assuming the sewer was conforming, Chair
Smith questioned whether the applicant should be allowed to continued to use the current sewer system
and merely make the new buyer aware that they will be purchasing a 20 year old septic system with their
new home.
Hawn stated that the City could not force the applicant to hook up to City sewer if their current system
was conforming.
Rahn felt they applicant should be connected to City sewer if available during the rebuild.
Gaffron pointed out that replacing a septic system could run approximately$10,000-$15,000. Since no
one could estimate how long the current system would last, Gaffron stated that to connect a force main
system to a new line for City sewer would likely be similar in cost.
Mabusth agreed that now would be the time to connect.
PAGE 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, Continued)
Hawn stated that, in new construction,the City typically asks for two septic site locations,whereas this
property does not have it.
Gaffron indicated that due to a lack of an alternate site is the reason why City staff recommends the
connection now.
Hawn asked why the home did not have a basement and whether it could.
While other homes in the neighborhood have basements, Gaffron could not say why this one did not. He
offered that the wetland might have impacted the ability to construct a basement.
Gorr stated that the City Sewer Inspector had indicated that the existing system was conforming.
Although a second site is not available, Gorr reiterated that City sewer would be the alternate.
Chair Smith asked if the wetland delineation would be done.
Gorr stated that this would be a future issue to be addressed in the spring or when construction permits.
Gaffron stated that staff would suggest a caveat to the motion be that no deck is built until the delineation
is finished.
Fritzler asked what type of slab the garage sat on.
Gaffron indicated that, while the house sits on 12"block, he was unsure of the garage foundation.
Fritzler pointed out that going to a three-car garage, could reduce the side lot, as well as front yard,
setback requirement. He believed the garage should be cut back to three.
Gaffron agreed, stating that the applicant could make up for the fourth stall by extending the garage
deeper.
Chair Smith stated that the consensus seemed to be that the Commission would support the staff
recommendations.
Based on the original plan, Gorr noted the garage stood on 8"block and 20"footings.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission was ready to make a recommendation based on staff findings or
it could table the application if the applicant so chose.
While Gorr indicated that a 12X12' addition off the back of the garage did not thrill him, he did not wish
to have his application tabled.
Chair Smith asked the Commission if they were comfortable making a recommendation and allowing
staff to work with the applicant to make the necessary garage adjustments.
The Commission agreed.
PAGE 17 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2860 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, Continued)
Chair Smith moved,Rahn seconded,to approve Application#02-2860, Sunstate Concepts,Inc.,
based on staff recommendations to grant a lot area variance,deny a side setback variance, approve
the front setback variance relative to the `alternate' plan but not for the original proposal that
requires the side setback variance, a further recommendation,that the new home be connected to
municipal sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system at completion of
construction, and completing a wetland delineation prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck for
the property located at 1955 Heritage Drive.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Gorr asked if he were being required to hook up to municipal sewer, even after being told by the City he
was not required to do so, if the current system was conforming. He felt this was contrary to everything
he had been told.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission recommendation to City Council would be that he connect to
City Sewer prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. As there was not an adequate second site
found for sewer,the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to connect the new construction to
municipal sewer.
Gaffron stated,to be fair,the applicant likely has a second issue with the City, since he had also been told
incorrectly by staff in the past that he would not have to go through this process for a lot area variance to
rebuild on the existing foundation,which was not the case.
Gorr stated he was told twice he would not need to ask for the lot area variance by staff, first early last fall
by Weinberger and then Bottenberg late fall. It was not until more recent meetings with Gaffron that he
was informed otherwise, after purchasing the property.
Rahn stated that, since Gorr had asked to be moved along to Council,this is only the Commission's
recommendation and he could plead his case and the inconsistencies to Council when he meets with them.
Gaffron reminded the Commission that this issue, of when a remodel becomes a rebuild or new
construction,is still a fluid issue for discussion that the Commission has not come to any conclusion on.
There is no code recognizing 50%, or any other standard,by which to judge when a remodel becomes
new construction. This issue does need to be resolved so that the City can show people, in its Code,that
when a remodel reaches a certain level it becomes new construction or rebuild.
Chair Smith agreed with Gaffron, and stated without a standard in place for documentation,it would be
the Commission's recommendation that the Council consider this as new construction, whereas the
Council may still decide otherwise.
Gaffron stated that this would come before Council next week and asked if the applicant felt he had
enough time to make the alterations since the process came as somewhat of a surprise to him.
Gorr indicated that he could work with staff to have something ready for Council.
PAGE 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, 1940 CONCORDIA STREET,VARIANCES 10:05- 11:20
P.M.
Erik Thompson, Applicant,and Kelvin Retterath,were present.
Bottenberg explained that, once again,this applicant too, was requesting a front yard setback and lot
coverage by structure variances to construct a new second story to the existing residence on the property.
She continued that, currently, there is a second story over 3/4 of the residence constructed at various
times. She pointed out that the footprint of the residence would not be changing,nor its location,
however due to the age and condition of the residence a structural engineer has determined the residence
can handle the additional load of a new second story,but will need some additional footings and shoring
up.
Bottenberg noted that a Variance for hardcover in the 250-500' setback zone was not required, however,
the applicant would be proposing the removal of existing hardcover and structure and adding structure
and hardcover to other locations on the property.
Bottenberg identified 8 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and stated that if the
Planning Commission concludes that the unusual conditions and configuration of the property are
hardships that support approval of the front yard setback and lot coverage by structure variances to
construct a new second story to the existing residence,then a recommendation for approval may be
appropriate.
As he was planning to be married,Thompson explained that he was attempting to make room for a future
family. He commented that his goal was to retain the same character of his home,while making it a bit
bigger.
Hawn asked if a permit was on file for the lean-to shed.
Bottenberg indicated there was a permit for the shed.
John Waldron, 1951 Concordia Street, stated that he favored the remodel and felt it to be an improvement
to the neighborhood. He maintained that the applicant was faced with the hardship of an odd-shaped lot
and should be allowed his application. After speaking to several neighbors,Waldron stated that all were
in favor of the improvements, especially since neither the footprint or hardcover would increase.
Mabusth asked for clarification of the covered deck.
Thompson stated that the covered deck is existing structure, which would be turned into a covered porch.
With regard to the front yard setback for the second story, Chair Smith asked if the addition would be
built straight up.
Although she felt the design was reasonable,Hawn indicated that the Commission has difficulty with
structural coverage in general.
Although the current lean-to structure built right up to the neighbors property line has always been there,
Thompson indicated that it would be removed, as would the current garage-landing roof.
PAGE 19 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON,Continued)
Chair Smith expressed her desire to see the lot coverage numbers decrease.
Thompson stated that he could get creative and would prefer to work to remove the shed instead of
additional house structure.
Retterath suggested they lower the new entry landing in order to remove its size from structural lot
coverage calculations, and instead impact hardcover.
Mabusth stated that she would prefer the applicant remove the shed, which would gain 129 s.£, and retain
the entry landing.
With regard to remodels, Bottenberg pointed out that, consistently,the Commission has found it
acceptable if current hardcover levels be maintained.
Hawn stated that she would support removal of the shed.
Rahn asked if the proposed residence would be taller than the existing home.
Retterath stated that the streetside would remain the same, however, the new height is over the existing
number.
Rahn inquired how the transition from the first floor would be accomplished.
Retterath stated that at least 1/4 of the main floor level would remain intact.
Thompson stated that he has gone to great lengths to remove all the debris, sample wallboard, access
panels to the foundation, etc. in order to allow inspectors to view the joists etc.He added that much of the
plumbing and fixtures would be recycled in the project.
Retterath stated that the ceiling heights will vary on the first floor from 8-9', all else would be changed
and removed to the caps and floorboards.
Rahn questioned whether a structural engineer had looked at the foundation.
Retterath indicated that a structural engineer had looked at the foundation to see what exists and found
that the perimeter was in decent shape with the only necessary change being modifications for a point
load within the current den.
Fritzler stated that, in his opinion,recycling would not make a difference between the evaluation of the
remodel versus new construction.
Gaffron stated that the current characterization of the project appears to be much more now than the City
had deemed before this evening. He questioned whether the Commission ought to consider if this
application is going to be subject to some additional variance later on, as was the first application the
Commission heard this evening.
PAGE 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON,Continued)
Rahn agreed, encouraging the applicant to consider new construction altogether. As indicated by the
applicant earlier this evening, it may have been cheaper in the long run to have started over than try to
remodel. Rahn feared this may the case in this situation as well.
Thompson reiterated that he has gone to great lengths to examine his property to prepare for the remodel
by allowing many experts to view his home and make recommendations. He asked the Commission to
throw him some guidelines to work within and stated that he had heard the discussion earlier making
reference to the `gray zone' of new construction versus rebuild.
Hawn stated that, with new construction,he would be back to the 15% structural lot coverage requirement
he is currently faced with.
Chair Smith agreed that, as stated earlier by Gaffron,this application 'looks and feels' like more than was
ever envisioned and asked for further staff comment.
Gaffron stated that, the characteristics of an addition versus tearing everything down to the cap, all of a
sudden sounds like well over the 50%the Commission had discussed in the past as the threshold for new
construction. Originally,he had envisioned a first floor,with a second floor that would be torn off and
replaced, as well as minor additions. Gaffron indicated that,now from what he heard, all that will be left
is the den area and everything else torn down to the cap. At this point, the questions arise, with over 50%
removal, do you have them move the home or remove the foundation that still has value. Gaffron felt
these questions remain.
Thompson argued that much of the first floor, including the bedroom and den, and its supporting walls,
basement, and foundation would remain, therefore, this is not new construction,nor would new
construction work in this neighborhood.
Gaffron asked if the caps they referred to were those between the basement and first floor.
Thompson indicated that they are talking about certain walls, which would need major reconstruction
with the additions, whereas the floor panels would remain the same on the first floor. He pointed out that
some of the walls are in need of repair currently, or would come down anyway, if he were required to
merely shore them up that could be done also. Thompson maintained that more of the house is being left
alone than they've been led to believe this evening, and financially remodeling is his best option.
Chair Smith asked whether the application should be tabled for a month to allow the applicant time to
consult with and assure staff that this is a remodel versus a rebuild.
Gaffron felt this was unnecessary,he was not convinced they could be certain until the applicant got into
the project whether it would remain a remodel or become more. Similar projects have become more once
applicants have gotten into them and Gaffron indicated that he would rather know that the Planning
Commission is comfortable with the fact that, if it gets to the point where they discover it is more,they
can continue on. On the other hand, if they get to the point that all is left is a foundation and a cap,
Gaffron questioned whether the Commission would want to revisit the application at that point versus
dealing with it now.
PAGE 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, Continued)
The Commissioners agreed they would not want to revisit the application.
Rahn questioned what would be done, if in fact,the house was demolished,would staff recommend it be
pushed back 15' on the property to meet a 30' front yard setback.
Gaffron stated they would still need to meet a 30' rear setback, and agreed to better meet setbacks the
home would need to be pushed back.
In all of the Commission's discussions of what constitutes new construction,Hawn maintained that this
application falls squarely within the center of the discussion. Admittedly, the standards have not been
codified.
Zugschwert pointed out that the fact that the standards have not been codified is the problem. Faced with
many applicants who have spent money to design plans, she asked what the Commissioners can expect
when they themselves can't differentiate between a remodel and new construction. She felt it too
overbearing at this point to impose a new standard on this applicant.
Retterath pointed out that, in his experience,this is the first time he had ever been exposed to this sort of
invisible fine line that exists between a remodel and new construction.
Because it is not codified, Gaffron stated there is not really any standard they can bring up,however, over
the past six months the Planning Commission has had several discussions about where the threshold is.
He explained that this issue is brought up perhaps three times a year when an applicant wants to remodel
rather than tear down and rebuild an existing home, and it ends up being much more than first proposed.
Clearly, Gaffron stated they need to address all of the issues. While they have addressed the setback,
Gaffron felt they should further address the tear down in a substandard setback and the need for a
variance.
Mr. Walden stated that, while the Planning Commission might be inclined to label a project new
construction when a 50%remodel has been submitted,this assumption may not apply to this application.
He maintained that it is not the applicant's fault when an inspector comes in and tells an applicant during
the remodeling process to remove or change something.
Rahn indicated that was the difference between a remodel complete rebuild and a new construction.
Walden felt there was a difference between an applicant who attempts to start a project one way, as does
this applicant, and an applicant who misleads the Commission by intending to do more than proposed.
Thompson maintained that he had invested a great deal of money and time into ripping into his home to
see what he had and could be salvaged. He argued that others may not know what they have to begin
with,therefore are surprised midway through a project. Thompson maintained that his application was
correct in that this would be a first floor remodel with a second story addition.
Chair Smith asked if there was anything further staff could do to look at his property, or his investigation
of his property, to determine he can do what he has proposed.
PAGE 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, Continued)
While he believed this to be useful, Gaffron pointed out that the City does not have the staff time to
devote to investigating his house,however,they could provide this information to the City for review.
Hawn asked whether the applicant would be comfortable with the Planning Commission saying that,if it
proves the foundation needs to be redone, in stronger language than the earlier application, all bets are off,
the house will have to be moved and the foundation will have to be rebuilt. She felt the applicant should
realize that the consequences could be expensive and time consuming, and the City would be holding
them to new construction.
Chair Smith asked if they could table his application to allow him a month to review his application.
As he was trying to work within a given timeframe, Thompson requested that they work to come up with
a solution this evening.
Chair Smith asked how quickly the applicant could provide the City Planner with his investigative
material supporting his application.
Retterath stated that no formal documents exist to date.
Chair Smith asked if the applicants could create hard copies to accomplish this end for the City's
consideration within a month and discussion be tabled this evening.
Hawn stated she had reservations in allowing the City to get involved and sign off on a given project.
Rahn asked the applicant to provide the staff with something specific from the structural engineer stating
what the repairs are going to consist of to make the foundation provide the proper support. He also
wished to see the project reduced to 15%coverage.
Thompson asked, even if this were possible,whether he could supply his engineer with a code for
rebuilds.
Based on discussions with the City Attorney, Gaffron reiterated that there isn't a set standard currently in
place. He noted that the Commission has had several discussions and has been working on establishing
some thresholds that can be upheld, likely 50-75% in terms of value or mass.
Thompson suggested they consider measuring the threshold based on how much it will cost an applicant.
He stated that he could table the application,but would prefer to know what the City wants now,even
though it may be inappropriate to define the standards tonight.
Gaffron repeated that, while no code exists to date whereby establishing a threshold for new construction,
the reaction he's seen from the Commission tonight leads him to believe this application has crossed that
threshold. Gaffron suggested the applicant supply the City with a set of floor plans identifying what
changes, stays, or goes, so that the City knows what to expect.
Rahn stated this type of`demo plan' would be useful.
PAGE 23 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, Continued)
Hawn asked what would happen if the `demo plan' demonstrates that much more will be removed than
we can accept.
•
Gaffron maintained that the red flag went up this evening once he learned everything but the den will be
removed down to the cap.
Rahn stated that he would still like to see a structural report, even though Gaffron felt it would not
provide any new information, and get back to 15% structural coverage.
Mabusth inquired what the Commission felt their comfort zone to be if walls got removed,would they
still allow the construction to progress.
Thompson reiterated that he would prefer his property not be the test bed of the new threshold discussion.
Gaffron pointed out that in order to get back to 15% structural coverage,the applicant would be forced to
remove house or garage structure.
Rahn asked if 17%was as close as the City could get to the requirement.
Gaffron confirmed that 17%was the best they could do.
Chair Smith asked, once again, if the City finds that this project isn't a remodel, but indeed new
construction,then what.
Since no code currently exists to support the Commission, Hannaford stated that they should approve the
application as submitted.
Thompson maintained that,was there such an ordinance whereby he could base his design, he would be
more prepared to address the Commission's concerns tonight.
Gaffron asked if there was any portion of the existing home within 30' of the street that would be coming
down on the first or second story.
Thompson stated there would not.
Gaffron maintained that tabling the application does nothing for staff,the Commission, or the applicant.
Chair Smith asked if there was any more the Commission could do to assure themselves this is all that
would happen,and this application would not go the direction as the earlier one this evening.
Gaffron suggested staff review the applicants demo plan and structural plan, and hold them to changing
nothing within 30' from the corner of the house to the street.
Hawn left at 11:06 P.M.
PAGE 24 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, Continued)
Rahn felt this would be acceptable, stating the more information that could be provided,the more
comfortable he would be with the application.
After submitting plans to the City and being given one set of directions, Hannaford reiterated that it was
unfair of the Commission to be giving the applicant an entirely new set of directions.
Thompson stated that what the Commission is asking will cost a great deal for him, in that,he would need
to obtain a second set of drawings from a builder. Since there was no law reflecting a number or
threshold whereby he could base his design, Thompson felt it was unfair to base his application on a
feeling of the Commission.
Gaffron indicated that staff could not look at something and decide if they were comfortable with it when
there were no numbers or code to back it up legally. He encouraged the Commission to pass what they
would be most comfortable with tonight and allow staff to review the structural engineer report and demo
plan.
Zugschwert maintained that, legally,the application would need to be considered a remodel since no
numbers or code exists stating otherwise.
Mabusth would support the application as long as no changes were made within 30' of the corner.
Retterath stated that the applicant requests approval for his original submittal.
Gaffron cautioned the applicant that, although the Commission may be prepared to approve the
application,the applicant might be back in 6-9 months.
Thompson stated that, unfortunately,his house may become the focus of this ongoing debate the
Commission has been having a long time.
Retterath reiterated that it is not common to have to deal with Commissioner's and City's feelings and
comfort levels versus defined numbers and codes.
Zugschwert reiterated that the Commission would need to hash through the issues of remodel versus new
construction another time.
Rahn still felt the application should be tabled pending staff review of the demo plan.
Retterath repeated that the structural engineer determined that the house would have uniform loading on
the perimeter, with only a concentrated load point requiring additional shoring up.
Rahn questioned what `shoring up' was exactly.
Gaffron reiterated that the building officials can review the reports and verbalize any reservations to staff,
however, without a threshold a thorough job of evaluating the proposal cannot go any further.
PAGE 25 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON,Continued)
Rahn moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve Application#02-2861,Erik Thompson,granting a
front yard setback variance and structural lot coverage variance to make first floor additions and
permit construction of a new second story to the existing residence located at 1940 Concordia
Street, subject to the removal of the shed,and if it looks like foundation replacement is necessary
within the 30' setback that the application be revisited. VOTE Ayes 5,Nays 1,Fritzler dissenting.
Fritzler stated that he still saw this as a new construction project and not a remodel.
(#10) #02-2862STEVEN GRONWALL, 1586 LONG LAKE BLVD.,VARIANCE 11:21 - 11:45
P.M.
Steven Gronwall,the Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was requesting rear yard setback and side yard adjacent street
variances to construct a new attached garage with a second story on the property. After attempting to
explore several options,Bottenberg stated that due to the condition of the existing foundation, location of
the existing residence, and size of the property,the only feasible option was to add a second story. Since a
structural engineer determined that the existing foundation could not bear more weight without being
replaced,the applicant is proposing to remove the existing garage and construct a new two stall attached
garage with a second story. The garage will be enlarged an additional 78 s.f.
Bottenberg maintained that, although the proposed hardcover in the 250-500' setback zone is over the
allowed,the applicant has not used all of the 600 s.f. in the 75-250' setback zone and the City does allow
credit for unused hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones further from the lake. Bottenberg
admitted that, even with the transfer,the amount of hardcover is over the allowed amount and the
proposed is increasing by 78 s.f. There might be other areas to remove hardcover in order to maintain
existing levels.
Rahn asked if they had looked at putting the garage addition at the other end of the property or whether
there would be a conforming location anywhere on the property.
Gronwall stated that they had considered it,however, since the rear neighbor is uphill the backside
addition made the most sense when considering neighboring views. He added that,were he not marrying
and adding children to the mix, he would not be here at this time trying to enlarge his residence.
Gaffron noted that there would not be a conforming location for the addition anywhere on the property
without variances.
There were no public comments.
Gronwall stated that he had spoken with two neighbors who favored his application but could not be
present this evening.
Chair Smith asked how the applicant could decrease hardcover.
PAGE 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2862 STEVEN GRONWALL, Continued)
Gronwall indicated that he could remove a patio slab at the rear of the house and consider removing a
bordered garden elsewhere.
Bottenberg agreed that not much else existed that could be removed to maintain current levels, although
the patio would balance the equation.
Zugschwert moved,Hannaford seconded,to approve Application#02-2859, Steven Gronwall,
granting rear yard setback and side yard adjacent street setback variances to permit construction
of an attached garage with a second story to be located 14' from the side yard adjacent street for
the property at 1586 Long Lake Blvd. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Rahn dissenting.
Rahn felt this proposal allowed too much mass merely 4.5' from the property line.
(#11) #02-2863RICHARD KAIL,3753 CASCO AVENUE,VARIANCES 11:46- 12:02 AM
Richard Kail,Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was requesting lot area and lot coverage by structure variances to
construct a new residence on the property. She pointed out that approximately 4 years ago the residence
on the property burned and all that remains on the property is a foundation and accessory structure
(detached garage). She added that, in 1995, the applicant applied for and was granted a lot area variance
to construct a new residence on the property, which has since expired. Since that time, the ownership of
the subject property changed between family members,the applicant regained ownership and has applied
for variances to construct a new residence on the property.
Whereas the lot area is .37 acres in an LR-1C zoning district where .5 acres is required, and existing lots
of record would be required to meet .4 acres, Bottenberg pointed out that in 1995 the applicant was
granted a lot area variance.
The proposed residence is 2,856 s.f. and a covered porch of 406 s.f.. for a total of 3,262 s.f. (20%).
Bottenberg stated that the lot coverage by structures is over the allowed amount by 847.75 s.f.
Bottenberg explained that staff recommends approval of the lot area variance; however,based on city
regulations staff recommends denial of the lot coverage by structure variance.
Chair Smith indicated that while there would not be an issue with regard to the lot area variance,the lot
coverage variance would likely not be approved.
Kail indicated that if the lower porch were removed, they could eliminate 408 s.f.
There were no public comments.
Rahn asked if the plan reflected a two or three car garage.
PAGE 27 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2863 RICHARD KAIL, Continued)
Kail stated that the proposal reflects a three-car garage, with the third stall constituting storage for the
most part. Kail believed if the neighboring alley were vacated he would be closer to the 15% coverage
requirement.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant could make any further reductions to reduce the structural lot coverage
numbers or if he had adequate hardship to convince the Commission the variance is warranted.
Kail reiterated that if the neighboring alley were vacated he would gain more area. He believed the City
had never filed for the alley and due to the presence of a shed foundation and well in the alley belonging
to this parcel he should be entitled to file for its rights.
Mabusth questioned whether the alley had ever been vacated.
Kail indicated that he was trying to find out who owns the alley, arguing the City did not file for it, and
felt the Council would allow him to vacate it.
Gaffron pointed out that, since the alley was a dedicated plat, the City need not file. In addition, Gaffron
stated that he had difficulty believing the City would ever vacate the parcel due to drainage issues.
Chair Smith maintained that the proposed new construction would need to be reduced to 15%,rather than
the 20%as proposed. She explained that,while the lot area variance would be acceptable,not more than
15% structural lot coverage would be allowed,therefore a revision was needed.
Kail stated that he saw no way to reduce the proposed application to 15%.
Rahn reiterated that 15%is the maximum structural lot coverage allowed.
Chair Smith stated that, if the applicant chose for the Commission to vote on what was in front of them it
would likely be a denial.
Kail repeated that he saw no way to downsize the proposal and asked for a vote.
Chair Smith moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve the Lot Area Variance and deny the Lot
Coverage Variance for Application#02-2863,Richard Kail,to construct a new residence on the
property located at 3753 Casco Avenue.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Smith reported that the Home Occupation project is now in Ordinance form.
Gaffron indicated that the January 29 Work Session topics will include rebuilds versus new construction,
and other topics as noted on the packet cover sheet.
After speaking to Brad Nielsen, Planning Director for the City of Shorewood, Gaffron indicated that their
threshold for new construction is 50%.
PAGE 28 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued)
Zugschwert stated that the City may be faced with legal challenges in the future if it does not set
parameters in ordinance form for new construction versus remodels.
(#12)REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL
MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 9,2002 AND JANUARY 13,2003
At the December 9, 2002 City Council meeting, Gaffron reported that the Manley application was
discussed, as was the Dahlstrom Development proposal. He pointed out that the Dahlstrom group is
having difficulty obtaining MCWD approvals and will be asking for conditional final approval from the
City Council in order to close on February 7, 2003.
During the January 13 meeting, Gaffron reported that the Stormwater Management Plan was adopted and
will begin implementation in the near future. Also,the City will be assisting with fertilizer and erosion
control public education programs.
(#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Upcoming meeting discussions will include the Fire Station in Navarre and sewering the north side of
Long Lake.
(#14)PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 18,2002
Mabusth moved,Fritzler seconded,to approve the Minutes of the November 18,2002 Planning
Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY
27, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 10,2003.
January 27 -Rahn February 10 -Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Rahn moved,Zugschwert seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 12:12 A.M.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 12:12 A.M.
CM
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 29 of 29