Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2000 Planning Commission Minutes • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Jay Nygard, and William Stoddard. Commissioners Elizabeth Hawn and Daniel Kluth were absent. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Barb Peterson was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2569 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN AND WILLIAM WALDRON, 1860 FOX STREET, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 p.m. - 6:43 p.m. Mark Buetow, Caretaker for the MacMillans of 1860 Fox Street, appeared. • Weinberger stated the City became aware in February or March that there had been excavation of a pond located on 1700 Fox Street. The pond was actually constructed by the property owner to the south in a cooperative effort between the two property owners. The survey indicates the pond is actually located across the east property line, with Craigbank Associates being the owner of the second property this pond has impacted. Weinberger stated an after-the-fact conditional use permit is required, with no variance being necessary for the pond since it is not located within a City protected wetland. Weinberger noted some portions of the wetland are possibly located within an area considered to be Type I wetlands, which does require a wetland permit. Typically the Watershed District will review these applications following preliminary approval by the City. Weinberger stated since the land alteration is greater than 500 cubic yards and the dredging occurred over a property line, a conditional use permit is required. Weinberger indicated since the area has been dredged and not filled, the pond will not impact drainage in the area. Should the City approve the conditional use permit, the wetland shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property to serve as an advisory to the current and future property owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. City Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant applies for a land alteration permit. 2. A protective covenant is filed in the chain of title of the affected properties as an advisory to property owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. 3. A final as built survey indicating finished elevations of the pond is submitted to the City and • accepted by the City Engineer. 4. Verification that a MCWD permit has been approved for the pond construction. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 • (#2569 Duncan MacMillan, continued) Mark Buetow, 177 Meadow Lane, Long Lake, indicated he has been employed by the MacMillans for the past 11 years as their caretaker. Smith inquired whether he wished to add anything to Staff's report. Buetow indicated this project was basically a beautification project to clean up the area. Smith inquired what future plans the applicant has for this area in terms of how it will be maintained and what type of vegetation will be planted in this area. Buetow stated the Applicant would like to keep this area fairly natural, with some steps being taken to prevent the banks from eroding. Buetow indicated they are willing to work with City Staff prior to commencing any future work in the area. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to enter into an agreement regarding the vegetation in this area. Weinberger stated typically the City allows the natural vegetation to restore itself in the area, which a majority of it has. Weinberger indicated the granting of easements in the area would also protect it from future vegetation removal and land alteration. Smith commented the City of Orono likes its residents to have a respect for the natural environment and to avoid the placement of rocks along the banks. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would have any problems with the conditions listed in the report. Buetow indicated he was fine with the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard inquired what the City's policy was concerning Item 5 under the Wetland Alteration Guidelines. Weinberger indicated the pond has been constructed in a low area located within the wetlands and probably does not meet all the criteria. Stoddard commented he does not understand how they can excavate a small portion of a larger wetland. Weinberger stated the wetland is a non-protected wetland as defined by the City of Orono. City Staff will need to check with the Watershed District whether they have any issues with this pond. Gaffron stated the City generally will not approve a conditional use permit for a decorative pond in a City-protected wetland unless such pond is designed to meet minimum wildlife habitat specifications. Gaffron stated since this is a non-protected wetland, the guidelines would generally not apply to this pond. Stoddard requested that Item 5 be reviewed in the future. Smith encouraged the Applicant to keep this pond as a natural vegetative area. • Buetow indicated he does not have a problem with that. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 • (#2569 Duncan MacMillan, Continued) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2569, W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1860 Fox Street, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to allow for after-the-fact dredging of a pond in excess of 500 cubic yards, subject to the four conditions outlined in the April 17, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#4) #2578 DAVID AND LORRAINE LUNDBERG, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE -VARIANCE, 6:44 p.m. -6:52 p.m. David and Lorraine Lundberg, Applicants, appeared. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 26 by 26 two story garage addition to the existing residence. The addition will consist of a two stall garage on the first floor and a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The proposed addition will tie into the existing first and second story floor plans with the bedrooms located on the south end of the residence. The proposed garage addition will use the existing driveway. Bottenberg noted the property is serviced with sewer and a private well, which dictated the locations • of the garage addition. The well is located on the north side of the house and the sewer line runs parallel to the driveway. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 60 feet from the adjoining property line. The property is located within 1000 feet of Long Lake. Bottenberg stated the addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 6.6 percent, where 4.5 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. The addition will also result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 500-1000 foot setback area to 12.5 percent, where 12.6 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed. A variance to the side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 11 feet where 30 feet is required. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance for side yard setback. Lundberg indicated they currently have a one car tuck under garage and one bathroom. Lundberg stated they would like to construct the addition to accommodate a growing family. Smith inquired what will happen to the shed that exists on the property. Lundberg stated the one shed in the back will be removed. Lindquist inquired whether a letter from the neighbor has been submitted on this application. Lundberg stated Tim and Julie Harrison did sign and submit a letter to the City. Bottenberg concurred that Tim and Julie Harrison did submit an acknowledgement letter. • Smith indicated the letter from Tim and Julie Harrison acknowledges that they have had an Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 • (#2578 David Lundberg, Continued) opportunity to review the plans for the proposed improvement and understand this letter is not requesting them to approve or disapprove this project but merely to confirm to the Planning Commission and City Council that we are aware of the plans for this project. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented that the Planning Commission cannot conclude that the neighbors are in support of this project but are merely acknowledging that they are aware of the proposed project. Lundberg stated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project. Lindquist stated he would like a letter in support of this project before the application appears before the City Council. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2578, 900 Dakota Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit the construction of a 26 by 26 foot two story garage addition to the existing residence, subject to the submittal of a letter in support of the project by Tim and Julie Harrison. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2579 JAMES AND CANDANCE KEMNA, 1110 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH -VARIANCES, 6:53 p.m. -7:10 p.m. James Kemna, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit an addition to the front of the house and outdoor porch that would encroach further into the 50 foot front yard setback and into the 30 foot side yard setback and variances to permit an addition to the detached garage that encroaches into the 15 foot side yard setback required for accessory structures of 750 to 1000 square feet. Weinberger indicated the lot consists of approximately one-half acre in the RR-1 B zoning district, which has a minimum two acre lot size. Weinberger stated the addition to the front of the residence would bring the front of the residence approximately 22 feet from the roadway. The entire addition and existing house is within the 50 foot front yard setback and the 35 foot side yard setback. The additional 240 square feet that is proposed would change the footprint of the building to over 750 square feet, which requires that the building must meet the minimum setback to the property line of 15 feet. The variances being requested would permit a front yard setback of 23 feet where 41.1 feet exists and 50 feet is required, and also to permit the addition within the 30 foot side yard setback. The existing house is 8.2 feet from the west lot line. No encroachment closer than 8 feet is proposed. The second variance is to the side yard setback to permit a building over 750 feet. Code requires a 15 foot setback for buildings over 750 square feet. The 24 by 10 foot addition would expand the building to 816 square feet, thus requiring a 15 foot setback. The third variance required would be to permit the building to be located closer to Willow Drive than the average distance of the properties located around it. The intent of the ordinance is to keep the buildings in a conforming look within the neighborhood and not block the view of the adjoining residences by having a residence located • closer to the street. Weinberger noted the lots in this area are smaller in size and generally do not meet the front yard setback. This encroachment into the front yard setback would result in a Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 • (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) residence significantly closer to the street than the residences surrounding it. Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not exceed what is allowed for structural coverage and meets the hardcover requirements since the property is located within the shoreland setback area. The Applicant has indicated a hardship due to the growing demands of his family and the need for additional living space as well as the proposed location of the addition being the most logical place for the addition. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances to permit additional structure ahead of the existing setback due to the encroachment into the front yard setback and enhancement of a non-conforming building. Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence in order to allow room for a dining area, which his present residence does not have. Kemna stated his daughter is visually impaired and is in need of a lab setup at home, and due to the small size of the bedrooms, they need to add additional living space to the residence. Kemna indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who are not opposed to the addition. Kemna stated they are proposing the addition in this location to avoid the necessity of rearranging their entire floor plan by going out the back of the house. Kemna stated he would like to expand his garage in an effort to avoid the need for a storage shed. • Smith commented the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to be able to address his needs, but noted the Applicant will need to address City Staff's concerns. Kemna stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the encroachment. Kemna indicated he has not had any plans prepared due to the costs involved. Kemna stated his residence is located at the end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted his property was originally constructed in 1932. Smith recommended the Applicant consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated he is in agreement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the house. Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to compromise on the size of the structure. Lindquist stated in his view any addition to the house would need to be constructed at the rear of the house in order to preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and to avoid having a residence located significantly closer to the road than the surrounding residences. Lindquist suggested the Applicant discuss Staffs recommendations with his builder. Kemna indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his house, he would be forced to change his entire floor plan. • Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indicated she would like Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 • (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) to see a plan that brings the project closer into compliance with the front and side yard setbacks. Stoddard stated he is in agreement with Lindquist and that the addition needs to comply with City Code as much as possible. Weinberger stated the Applicant would need to meet the 15 foot side yard setback for the garage since the proposed garage is over 750 feet. If the garage is under 750 feet, the Applicant would need to meet a 10 foot setback. Nygard commented he does have a problem with granting the variance since the hardship is supposed to be created by the land. Kemna commented he has a limited amount of land available to work with between the house and the garage. Berg commented she understands the Applicant's dilemma and the difficulty of trying to construct the addition at the rear of the house. Smith pointed out the Applicant will need to consider the possibility that Willow may eventually be widened or have shoulders added, which would lessen the setback from the road to the residence even further. Smith stated the Applicant has the option of having the Planning Commission table this application • to allow the Applicant to revise his plans, or vote on the application. Smith noted due to the comments by the Planning Commission members, it appears the application will be denied. Weinberger noted the time limit on this application will not expire prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to submit a letter requesting the 60 day time limit be waived in the event he needs more time to develop new plans. Kemna indicated he would like his application to be tabled. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2579, James and Candace Kemna, 1110 Willow Drive South, to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith recommended the Applicant work with City Staff on these issues. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2585 THOMAS AND KATHLEEN McCAFFREY, 4265/4355 CHIPPEWA LANE, SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 7:10 p.m. -7:28 p.m. Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey, Applicants, were present. Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. • Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.80 Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.80 (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, Continued) acres from the property located at 4355 Chippewa Lane to 4265 Chippewa Lane. The existing 4355 parcel is a legal conforming lot consisting of 6.92 acres and having a lot width of 370 feet. The transfer of 1.8 acres will result in a 5.12 acre parcel meeting the minimum lot size for the zoning district. The proposed lot division would transfer approximately 125 feet of frontage to the adjacent parcel, leaving only 245 feet of frontage where 300 feet is required. The second lot is almost one acre in size, with the transfer increasing the lot size to 2.80 acres. The lot would have 327 feet of frontage on Chippewa Lane. Weinberger stated with the lot line rearrangement, the buildings would now meet the setback requirements for the zoning district but would continue to be below the minimum lot size for this zoning district. Weinberger stated the lot line rearrangement is being proposed in this location due to the location of some septic sites on the 4265 parcel west of the house. The sites are located within the area to be transferred to the adjacent property. Additional testing was not completed on the property to identify additional sites on the lots. It is possible the septic sites could be relocated to another site • on the property. The second parcel also has two septic sites available near the east property line for the 4355 lot. Weinberger noted the proposed lot line rearrangement does not increase the density between the two lots. Under the existing zoning, no future subdivision is possible. The lot would require a variance for lot width since the lot would become substandard. The lot line rearrangement would result in the 4355 lot being reduced in lot width to less than 300 feet and make it nonconforming. Weinberger noted some of the other lots in this area do not meet the 300 foot frontage requirement. The Applicants are also proposing to create a ten foot wide walking access to the Luce Line Trail for the 4265 lot. City Code does not address creating lots with walkways to access public land. Weinberger noted they have not heard any opposition to this walkway from the DNR. McCaffrey stated they are attempting with this lot line rearrangement to bring the lots more into compliance with the five acre zoning concept. McCaffrey stated they were only informed of the 300 foot frontage last week, which came as a surprise. McCaffrey stated out of the seven lots on Chippewa Lane, only one complies with the required frontage and one with the required acreage for this zoning district. McCaffrey stated he is unsure what the intent of the frontage requirement is. McCaffrey noted they have spent a considerable amount of money on surveys, title searches, and septic testing on this lot line rearrangement. Smith inquired why the Applicants are proposing to do this lot line rearrangement. McCaffrey stated they want to preserve their natural aesthetics. McCaffrey stated the Shemaneks are planning to retire and sell their property in the near future, which would allow for expansion of • their lot as well as legal access down to the Luce Line. McCaffrey stated they also need to acquire some additional land to the west in order to accommodate a mound septic system in the future. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, Continued) Joyce Shemanek encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this lot line rearrangement, noting they are doing something which will help their neighbor. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented that the City will still end up with two non-conforming lots regardless of how the lot is rearranged. Smith inquired whether this would become a flag lot in the future. Weinberger stated based on the existing five acre minimum lot size requirement for subdividing in the RR-1A District, the updated Comprehensive Plan is not proposing any changes to the density in this area. Stoddard noted the Planning Commission has approved a walkway path down to the Luce Line in the past. Weinberger stated the DNR usually has concerns when people propose to remove trees down by the Luce Line in order to construct a walking path and gain access to the trail. Weinberger stated that should not be an issue in this case. • Smith commented that the City should be advising Applicants that are proposing to construct a walkway to the Luce Line that they are not entitled to remove any trees or vegetation within the DNR's easement. Weinberger stated the Applicant has been informed of the DNR owned property in this area. Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2585, Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey and Fred and Joyce Shemanek,4265 and 4355 Chippewa Lane,for a subdivision lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2587 RICHARD R. RUDD, 4575 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUBDIVISION FOR PLATTING A PUBLIC ROAD ADJACENT TO A PROPOSED SIX LOT PLAT LOCATED IN CITY OF MEDINA, 7:29 p.m. -7:48 p.m. Kris Rudd, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to plat a segment of a road that is intended to be a public road over a lot located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard West. The total length of the road located in Orono would be approximately 450 feet, ending in a cul-de-sac at the east end of the property. Weinberger noted this lot is adjacent to the City of Medina. Weinberger stated the entire concept for this development involves having access off of Town Line Road, which is located in the western most part of Orono, with a double road entering the development, going through the Rudd property, and ending in a cul-de-sac. Issues relating to access have been raised in the past relating to properties located to the east of the proposed road. • Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) Currently the four lots located in Orono are all served by a shared driveway that has existed for some time over the Burlington Railroad. Weinberger stated the road has operated in the past with a license agreement between the railroad and the properties. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether there has ever been legal access given to the property owners, which in essence means the railroad could shut the access down if they so choose. Weinberger indicated the railroad is not proposing to shut the access down at this time, with an objective of Mn/DOT to eliminate direct driveway access to Highway 12. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide driveway easements to the cu-de-sac, with two lots to the north having access to the road via easements. This option would eliminate the access over the railroad to Highway 12. Mn/DOT is also proposing to close the intersection between Town Line Road and Highway 12 due to safety concerns, which has not been approved at this time. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide access to a proposed six lot plat in Medina and to the four existing lots in Orono. The Medina property is zoned for single family residential use, which will be served by City sewer and water. No utilities will be extended to properties in Orono. Weinberger stated the City still needs the following information: 1. Final grading and erosion control plan set. 2. Stormwater calculations for the drainage area that will drain towards the pond in Orono. 3. List of all easements that are recorded on the Rudd property. 4. Easement documentation indicating legal access to the Slaughter and Hickey properties over • the Fraizer property. 5. Final construction plans for the road. 6. Final plat drawing for recording the right-of-way. 7. Applicant shall dedicate to the City an easement for the NURP pond. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plans. Rudd stated Weinberger has given a good summary of the issues involved in this application. Jane Slaughter, 4545 Wayzata Boulevard, stated she is in favor of the road but would like to see the road extended somewhat. Slaughter stated she will need to maintain a longer driveway with her neighbor, but is still in favor of the road. Slaughter stated the railroad is required to give a 30 day notice if they intend to close that access, which causes some concern because her property would then become legally landlocked if that access is denied. Slaughter commented she has been turned down by 13 title companies because the lease agreement is not legally recognized. Weinberger stated these lots do not have direct access to what would be considered a public road, and without the access across the railroad, there is no way to guarantee long-term access to the properties. Representatives on behalf of the railroad have indicated they are not in favor of providing a permanent easement to open this up as a public entrance due to safety and maintenance issues. Weinberger acknowledged this access does potentially create a hardship for the neighbors in that their properties could eventually become landlocked unless some other access is provided. Weinberger stated the railroad has indicated they are willing to leave this access open until another access is provided. • Weinberger stated it is not the objective of the Planning Commission to discuss long-term access Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) to these properties, which is being addressed by the platting of this road. Weinberger stated the issue before the Planning Commission is whether the platting of this road within the development is appropriate. Smith commented that what is being proposed makes sense, noting she is sympathetic to the landowners that could potentially be landlocked unless easements are provided up to this new road. Weinberger stated the property owners would need to obtain private easements from the other property owners to gain driveway access. Smith noted that Lot 4545 would need to obtain an easement from Lot 4555. Weinberger stated they currently do have easements over a portion of that lot, but would be required to obtain additional easements all the way across to Town Line Road prior to the road construction. Smith commented that there appears to be a 20 foot easement already in place connecting to the new road. Slaughter stated there also is a 33 foot easement that exists. Weinberger stated there is documentation showing almost overlapping easements which would provide access back to the property as well. Weinberger stated there apparently is a cartway which • exists in this area, which has never been legally recorded and was never used. Weinberger stated there is a 33 foot easement from 1910 which could provide driveway access as well. Berg inquired what easement Slaughter intends to use, the cartway or the 33 foot easement. Slaughter stated she would use the easement along Town Line. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is simply approving that section of road that is being proposed tonight and does not really have any jurisdiction to hear any other issues relating to easements or the railroad access. Smith commented that there appears to be some options for the property owners relating to access, but noted the Planning Commission is not in a position to hear those matters at this time. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2587, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard, Subdivision for Platting a Public Road Adjacent to a Proposed Six Lot Plat Located in the City of Medina, subject to the seven conditions contained in the May 15, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#6) #2580 TIMOTHY PATTRIN, 1360 RAILROAD AVENUE-VARIANCE, 7:49 p.m. -7:55 p.m. • Timothy Pattrin, Applicant, was present. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2580 Timothy Pattrin, Continued) Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 624 square foot attached garage addition to the north side of the existing residence. The property is located on the corner of Railroad Avenue and Spates Avenue, with the existing driveway being utilized to provide access to the proposed garage. A variance to the street side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 23 feet where 50 feet is required. The proposed garage will be located 23 feet from Spates Avenue, which is not a heavily traveled street. Bottenberg stated the existing garage will be remodeled into a master bedroom/bath, laundry room and a quarter bath. The property is serviced with a well, which is located on the east side of the residence. The garage will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 9.76 percent where 6.94 exists and 15 percent is allowed, which is well below what is allowed. The garage will also result in an increase of overall hardcover coverage to 29.9 percent where 23.7 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed, which is also below what is allowed. City Staff is recommending approval of the street side yard setback. Pattrin indicated he has no comments regarding his application. There were no public comments relating to this application. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2580, • 1360 Railroad Avenue, granting of a variance to street side yard setback for property located at 1360 Railroad Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2581 JOHN AND KRISTIN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET-VARIANCES, 7:55 p.m. -8:40 p.m. (Berg is not present in Council Chambers) John and Kristin Gehring, Applicants, were present. Neil Trainor, neighbor, was present, and Tom Palm, neighbor, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence in approximately the same location on the lot. The proposal involves moving the new residence back a few feet to be more in alignment with the adjacent properties and bring the residence more into compliance with side yard setbacks and structural lot coverage. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has indicated a desire to work with City Staff on this matter and has submitted a number of plans in order to bring the proposal more in compliance with City Code. A variance to lakeshore setback is required to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore where 75 feet is required. A second variance to hardcover in the 0-75 feet setback is also required to permit 26.7 percent hardcover where zero percent is allowed and where 26.3 percent exists. Another variance to hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback is also required to permit 26.2 percent of hardcover where 25 percent is allowed and 24.7 percent exists. The new residence will also result in an increase in structural coverage to 15 percent where 13.4 percent • exists and 15 percent is allowed. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Staff has indicated to the Applicant that an average lakeshore setback variance is not required; however the location of the proposed residence does not meet DNR minimum recommended standards for General Development Lakes of 50 feet. Gehring stated there are five other properties with approximately the same setback from the lake, and that their request is basically to make their residence stay at the same basic setback. Gehring indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who have not expressed any concerns. Smith noted a letter has not been received from the DNR regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the DNR has been informed of this application. Bottenberg stated the DNR has been informed of this project and has not expressed any concerns. Gehring stated at the time they constructed their garage in 1995, they did work with City Staff and attempted to put together a comprehensive plan on this property. Gehring commented they were told that their plans for what they were proposing in the future were somewhat irrelevant because they were not in a position to approve everything at that time. Gehring noted they have taken steps in the past to keep hardcover to a minimum, such as reducing the width of the driveway and a smaller width sidewalk, both of which are below standards. Smith inquired at what setback the Applicant is proposing to build his residence. • Gehring stated they are proposing to build 42 feet from the lake, which is the average of the two adjoining properties. Gehring stated the property to the south has a ten foot deck plus three foot stairs at the rear of the residence, which reduces the setback to the lake. Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia Street, stated the corner of the house as it exists now is located 1.6 feet from the property line, noting he would be very much in favor of squaring up the house and widening the access to the lake. Palm commented his property was constructed 39 feet from the lake, with a ten foot deck. Palm stated by allowing the Applicant to construct at 42 feet from the lake, it would bring the residence into alignment with the other adjoining properties and improve the drainage in the area. Palm indicated he is in support of this project. Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, indicated he recently purchased this property from his parents who lived in the residence for quite some time. Trainor stated a majority of the problem with the setback has resulted from the lakeshore eroding over the years, noting that approximately ten feet of lakeshore has eroded away over the years. Trainor stated the location for the proposed residence is good due to the alignment with the other adjoining properties. Smith inquired why the Planning Commission did not require Palm to meet the 50 foot setback at the time he constructed his residence in 1995. Palm stated no one was in favor of a two story building, which would block the neighbors' view at the 75 foot setback, so the Planning Commission elected to allow the house to be built at 39 feet to make it more in alignment with the other homes in the area. Stoddard commented he has concerns with the amount of hardcover proposed in the 0-75 foot • setback as well as the amount of hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback. Stoddard stated the Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Applicant may need to look at reducing the amount of hardcover. Gehring inquired whether he was being asked to relocate his garage to reduce hardcover. Smith stated the Planning Commission on new construction generally requires the Applicants to comply with the structural and hardcover requirements. Smith stated the Applicant should attempt to lower the hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback to 25 percent, which is what is typically allowed on new construction. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission should consider whether the hardcover should exceed what is existing in the 0-75 foot setback. Lindquist stated his preference would be to locate as little hardcover as possible in the 0-75 foot setback, but in this case due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood, it would not be logical to move the house further back from the lake. Lindquist noted the cabins in this area have existed for approximately 100 years. Gehring commented that these lots are all 50 foot lots, which means you are limited in what you can do with the lot. Nygard indicated what creates a hardship is the topography of the land. Stoddard stated he would like to see the residence constructed closer to the lake than the • required 75 foot setback due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood. Stoddard indicated he would like to see the hardcover in the 0-250 foot setback reduced. Stoddard noted this is new construction, and suggested the Applicant consider his options. Gehring commented they have attempted to limit the size of the house while still being able to have four bedrooms. Gehring stated in his view the narrow lot width creates a hardship as well as the high water table, which does not allow for construction of a basement. Stoddard stated the Applicant would be allowed 2,200 square feet of living space under the structural coverage limits. Nygard inquired whether the sidewalk from the garage is necessary. Gehring stated the garage is located 100 yards from the residence. (Berg returns at 8:15 p.m.) Lindquist stated the Applicant is allowed 15 percent structural coverage. Stoddard stated he does not have a problem with the proposed structural coverage but would like to see the amount of proposed hardcover reduced in the 0-250 foot setback. Stoddard commented the intent of the hardcover limits is to help protect the shoreland. Stoddard stated the Applicant is allowed 2,212 square feet of hardcover in the first two zones. Nygard commented that people also tend to add additional structure in the future, which the • Applicant should also consider. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Lindquist stated in his view the Applicant should not exceed what is existing now on hardcover and structural coverage. Gehring stated the residence originally was a cabin and was not constructed as a year-round residence. Gehring stated the residence does not adequately serve a family a four. Gehring stated at the time they built the garage, they were not given much direction from City Staff at that time. Mrs. Gehring stated their current house is 30 feet wide along the lakeshore and 44.7 feet deep. The proposal is to build the new residence at 30 feet wide and 45 feet deep, which in essence squares the house and centers it on the lot. Lindquist commented he does not want to see any increase in hardcover or structural coverage over what currently exists, with the residence being lined up with the other residences in the neighborhood. Gehring stated they are requesting an increase of 13 square feet in the 0-75 foot setback and 138 square feet in the 75-250 foot setback, which basically is the size of a small bedroom. Smith indicated that the Planning Commission does require other Applicants to reduce the amount of hardcover and structural coverage proposed. Gehring stated they are basically requesting the same amount of hardcover as what exists on the Palm property. • Palm noted the Applicants did make attempts to reduce the amount of driveway and sidewalk at the time the garage was constructed. Nygard stated the Applicant will need to address the hardcover and structural coverage issues. Smith commented the Planning Commission appears to be comfortable with the 42 foot lakeshore setback, with hardcover being limited to what currently exists. Gehring noted they have reduced the amount of hardcover that exists on the property from what it was when they first purchased the property. Smith stated the Planning Commission can either act on the application tonight or table it to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. Smith commented it appears the application will be denied as proposed. Gehring requested the Planning Commission act on his application tonight. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application#2581,John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street, based on the plans presented, with the understanding that the application would be approved if the amount of hardcover proposed is reduced from 3,535 square feet to 3,484 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. Stoddard recommended the Applicant continue to work with City Staff on this application. Stoddard stated based on the ordinance and the precedent that would be set, the Applicant needs to comply with the hardcover and structural coverage limits. • Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Smith noted the Planning Commission has acted on what is before them tonight. Weinberger commented the City Council may elect to send it back to the Planning Commission if the Applicant submits revised plans. Gehring commented his understanding was that his application would be approved if the hardcover is reduced. Lindquist stated his motion is recommending approval contingent upon the Applicant reducing the amount of structural coverage and hardcover to what is presently existing on the property. Stoddard inquired whether the Planning Commission should reconsider the motion. Nygard moved, Stoddard seconded, to reopen the discussion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. Gehring requested to amend his application to reflect the amount of hardcover currently existing. Smith stated in the past the Planning Commission has recommended approval of applications where there is only a slight reduction in hardcover or structural coverage required with the understanding the Applicant will work with City Staff to revise his plans to bring it into conformance with the Planning Commission's directives. • Smith indicated she would like to poll the Planning Commission members to see whether that would be appropriate in this case. The majority of the Planning Commission indicated they would be agreeable to making approval contingent upon a reduction in the amount of hardcover and structural coverage proposed to what currently exists on the property. Stoddard indicated he would not be in favor of making approval contingent and would prefer to see the Applicant continue to work with City Staff prior to approval. Lindquist indicated he would be willing to make a motion to allow 3,484 square feet in hardcover and 2,150 square feet in structural coverage, which is what exists now. Nygard requested the Applicant limit the amount of structural coverage on this lot to 2,150 square feet regardless of the location of the new residence. Gaffron commented the Applicant is looking at reducing approximately 51 square feet of hardcover. Bottenberg stated an error was made in the calculation of hardcover and the amount existing is 3,384 square feet rather than 3,484 square feet. Lindquist noted the amount of hardcover to be reduced would be 151 square feet rather than 51 square feet. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2581, • John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street,with the understanding that the new hardcover will not exceed the existing 3,384 square feet and that the structural coverage Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) will not exceed 2,150 square feet, and to grant a variance to the lakeshore setback to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Nygard moved, Stoddard seconded,to rescind the motion recommending denial of this application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Weinberger noted that typically the Planning Commission has required any hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback be applied to the other setbacks. Weinberger inquired whether the approval would be subject to the condition that there would be no further hardcover allowed on this property. Weinberger noted the Applicants are not at the 35 percent maximum amount in the 250-500 foot setback. Smith indicated that a restriction on further hardcover would be a condition of approval. Nygard stated the Applicant will not be allowed any additional hardcover on his property. (#8) #2582 FRANCIS AND SUSAN ANN KOUBSKY,4784 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -VARIANCES, 8:40 p.m. -8:48 p.m. • Francis and Susan Koubsky, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to remove the existing access at North Shore Drive and construct a garage/room addition and deck at the northeast corner of the existing residence. The deck will replace an existing one that will be removed. Access to the property will now be via "Park Avenue(addressed as Tonkaview Lane) along the north lot line due to the steep topography at North Shore Drive which makes access during the winter months a hazard for both the Applicants and the motorists who drive on North Shore Drive. City Staff is recommending the Applicants change their address to Tonkaview Lane with the relocation of the access to the property. Bottenberg noted the garage/room addition meets all required setbacks except for the street setback at the north lot line, which will require a variance to permit a front setback of ten feet where 35 feet is required. Bottenberg noted the structural coverage and hardcover on the lot is increasing but is still below the allowable limits. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance for front yard setback and the relocation of access to"Park Avenue". Staff is further recommending that the neighborhood erect a nameplate sign on Tonkaview Lane. Smith indicated she did view the site. Mrs. Koubsky stated they have real safety concerns in the winter due to their steep driveway and a • blind spot that exists, which is the reason for the relocation of the access. Koubsky stated the survey shows that the road is located ten feet from the property line, which is incorrect. Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2582 Francis Koubsky, Continued) Lindquist commented the Planning Commission understands that where the roads are platted are not necessarily where the roads are actually located. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission needs to look at where the platted roads are in determining the setbacks. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard moved, Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2582, Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky,4784 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to a front yard setback and relocation of access to"Park Avenue". VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gaffron stated the neighbors in this area need to look at the issue of addressing, with the residents located on Tonkaview and Park changing their address to a Tonkaview address rather than a North Shore address. Gaffron stated City Staff could send a letter out asking if the residents are interested in making that change. Smith noted that was a staff recommendation which was not included in the motion. Gaffron stated City Staff will pursue this issue further. (#9) #2583 ROXANN BEISCH, 3436 LIVINGSTON AVENUE-VARIANCES,8:48 p.m. -9:05 p.m. • Roxann Beisch, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to remove the existing detached garage and construct a new garage, with the existing garage being located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The Applicant has stated a hardship exists in that the current garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties, which causes the garage to become unuseable following a rain storm. In the winter months the ground swells with frost and the doors cannot be opened. Weinberger stated the option of filling in the low portion of the property was discussed, but this option was not pursued since it is the only location between the two properties that collects water runoff and should probably remain in order. The Applicant is proposing to construct the new garage approximately 12 feet off the property line, which places the garage ahead of the low area and allows for a foundation or slab underneath the garage. This location would allow the garage to remain dry and shorten the length of the driveway. The garage would be located five feet off the side property line. The logic behind requiring at least a five foot setback is a result of the Code requirement to maintain a minimum setback to all other structures of ten feet. The adjacent garage is currently located three feet off the property line, and if replaced in the future, it should be located five feet from the property line resulting in a ten foot separate between the two buildings. Weinberger stated the proposal would require some additional hardcover on the property for a total of 43.4 percent in the 500-1000 foot lakeshore setback. The Applicant is proposing to remove 328 square feet of hardcover. • City Staff is recommending reducing the size of the existing rear deck. Staff is also recommending approval of the application. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2583 Roxann Beisch,Continued) Smith inquired what the dimensions of the garage are. Weinberger stated the proposed garage is 20 by 14 feet or 280 square feet. Weinberger pointed out that this lot is not as deep as the other lots in the area. Smith inquired whether the new garage would be adjacent to the garage on the other property. Weinberger stated the new garage would be located further up from the other garage. Beisch stated the front of the garage is even with the overhang on the back side of her house. Beisch stated she does have a question relating to the side yard setback, noting the garage would still be 18 feet from the adjoining residence if it was located three feet from the property line. Smith stated the City needs to maintain proper distances between structures in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Beisch indicated her back door is in the middle of the deck, and if the deck is reduced to the size requested, it would only leave her 19 inches to step out and go down the steps. Weinberger stated it is calculated to be approximately 4.5 feet wide from the edge of the deck to the house. • Beisch stated she would be okay with that. There were no public comments regarding this application. Beisch noted the adjoining property owner will be constructing a new driveway, which will drain the water towards her property. Lindquist suggested the City Engineer review the drainage in this area. Beisch inquired whether the five foot side yard setback could be reduced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require the five feet side yard setback. Smith commented that the Planning Commission appears to be in favor of the five feet rather than the three feet side yard setback. Beisch indicated she was fine with the five feet. Weinberger commented the adjoining property owner was attempting to utilize the existing footprint and had some other setback issues in the back yard. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2583, 3436 Livingston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit construction of a one-stall detached garage to be located five feet from the property line based on Applicant's statement of hardship,and subject to the size of the rear deck being reduced to the size indicated on the site plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#10) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER,4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 9:05 p.m. -9:20 p.m. Andrew and Tracy Rascher, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback. Since retaining walls are considered hardcover, a variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback area. Bottenberg indicated the proposal would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, with the City Engineer recommending that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the retaining walls can be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances and conditional use permit for repair of the existing retaining walls in the 0-75 foot setback area, but denial of the proposed new retaining walls based on the goals and policies cited in the City of Orono's Community Management Plan. Jeremy Bakken, Builder, stated due to the slope of the back yard all the way down to the lake and the old deteriorating condition of the existing walls, in his opinion it would be more cost effective to build new walls rather than repair the existing walls. Bakken stated the amount of grading involved in the repair is equal to that which would occur with construction of the new walls. Bakken stated the existing walls are not controlling the drainage and are unsafe. Rascher commented they would like to replace the existing walls due to the fact they are very unstable and do not do the job they were initially constructed to do. Rascher stated they would like • to build some retaining walls which are more stable. Smith inquired whether they have had a chance to look at the letter from the City Engineer. Bakken stated they are not proposing to change the existing grade until they get closer to the lake. Bakken stated he would not recommend limestone walls since they need to be replaced periodically and tend to be unstable over time. Mrs. Rascher stated they are attempting to reduce the amount of erosion into the lake, noting that currently nothing is being filtered at this point. Rascher commented the current condition of the steps are unsafe due to the nails which are exposed in the timbers and the unstableness of the flagstone walls. Rascher stated they would like to have a safe access to the lake and remove the safety hazard that currently exists due to the fact they have a young child who will be in this area. Smith stated she can appreciate the safety concerns and the fact that flagstone steps tend to become tippy over time. Smith stated the City of Orono does want people to have safe access to the lake, but that there are some limits that must be imposed on what people can construct. Smith stated since she is not an engineer, she cannot comment on the structural issues, but that the Planning Commission tends to take into account the recommendations of the City Engineer when deciding what is acceptable. Rascher stated they are proposing to decrease the steepness of the slope. Smith stated there are other lots in Orono with steep slopes, and that the Planning Commission must look at the recommendations of the City Engineer. Smith commented she has visited the site and is not totally convinced new retaining walls are needed. Smith stated the City likes to • encourage residents to keep the area as natural as possible and to limit construction down by the Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#2584 Andrew Rascher, Continued) lake. Smith commented the Planning Commission must look at what it will take to maintain what is existing and how to provide safe access down to the lake with a minimal amount of construction. Smith stated it is the policy of the City to stay away from a lot of terraced walls and to leave the area as natural as possible. Lindquist stated he is not capable of determining whether what currently exists is right or whether the retaining walls should be replaced. Lindquist stated he does have a problem with retaining walls being located in the 0-75 foot setback as a general rule, and suggested the Applicants speak with the City Engineer to see if something can be worked out which will be acceptable to all parties. Lindquist stated he would be hard pressed to go against the recommendations of the City Engineer. Lindquist suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicants time to discuss this matter further with the City Engineer. Smith commented that the engineering issues should perhaps be explored further, and agreed that the Applicants should perhaps speak with the City Engineer to discuss his recommendations. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will speak with the Applicant if so desired. Weinberger suggested the Applicants contact Wendy to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. • Mrs. Rascher inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Smith stated the Applicants would probably reappear before the Planning Commission at their June meeting if they are able to resolve the issues. Smith stated the Applicants could request additional time if so needed by submitting a letter asking for an extension of the time limit. Bottenberg indicated the 60 day time limit expires on June 19th, which is the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Rascher requested the application be tabled at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application#2584,Andrew and Tracy Rascher,4705 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 24, 2000 AND MAY 8, 2000 Nygard indicated he was unable to attend the April 24, 2000 City Council meeting. • Smith commented she is not aware of who attended the May 8th meeting. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 15,2000 • (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lindquist reported that Hawn and himself attended a breakfast meeting on Planned Unit Developments, which tended to be geared around California rather than Minnesota. Lindquist stated he was disappointed with the meeting since most of the material covered did not relate to this area. Smith inquired whether the joint meeting with Long Lake was discussed as the previous Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron stated he has not heard back on a new meeting date, noting he has not assembled the requested information at this point in time. Gaffron stated a work session will need to be scheduled to discuss this item further. The Planning Commission directed Gaffron to schedule a work session for Friday, May 26th at 8:00 a.m. Stoddard commented he would still like City Staff to pursue the possibility of having a consent agenda at the Planning Commission level. Smith suggested this item be added to the work session agenda. Gaffron commented that perhaps the agenda could be rearranged to have the less controversial items towards the beginning of the meeting. Gaffron stated City Staff could do a review of the items • before the agenda is set. Smith requested this item be set on the work session agenda. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 22, 2000 AND JUNE 12, 2000 May 22-Stoddard June 12-Smith ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved, Berg seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. • Sandra Smith, Acting Chair Page 21