Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2000 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandy Smith, Commissioners Jay Nygard,William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners Elizabeth Hawn and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Richard Flint was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. (#1) 2597 DENNIS KRUMP, 25 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH—VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m.—6:34 p.m. Dennis Krump, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the south side of his residence which involves tearing down of an existing dining room that currently does not have a foundation under it. The Applicant would like to construct a foundation and above it a dining room and three season porch in the same location where the deck is currently located. The addition • will be slightly larger than what currently exists because the walls are being bumped out to be in alignment with the existing residence. Bottenbcrg noted the residence was originally constructed in 1963, with the proposed section to be removed being built in 1968. Both occurred before current zoning standards were adopted. Bottenbcrg stated structural coverage is not an issue with this application, with no impact to the adjoining neighbors by the setback. There is not an issue with the well or septic system. The Applicant is requesting variances to the front yard setback to permit a setback of 42' for an addition where 100' is required and a variance to permit a side yard setback of 24.2' for an addition where 50' is required. City Staff is recommending approval of the application. Krump indicated he has no comment regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented he does not have a problem with this application. Smith stated she would prefer to see the side yard setback stay the same as what currently exists. Stoddard commented the Applicant is proposing to increase the encroachment into the setback by 3.3 feet. • PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2597 Dennis Krump, Continued) Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2597, Dennis Krump, 25 Stubbs Bay Road North,variances to front yard setback and side yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to the south side of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) #2598 DOUGLAS J. DAYTON,300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH— VARIANCES, 6:35 p.m.—6:42 p.m. Douglas Dayton, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 12' by 16' addition onto the lakeshore side of the existing residence. The addition will be located 80' from the lakeshore. Mooney Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Lake and therefore a 100' setback is required for the structure. The Recreational Development Lake for Mooney Lake was adopted by the City in 1992. The existing residence is located 83' from the lakeshore. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remodel a bathroom and turn the existing closet into a vanity area. The new addition will be a closet. • The residence was constructed in 1960, before current zoning standards were adopted. The residence is located on approximately 90 acres in the RR-1B zoning district where two acres is required. The property is served with a septic system and well and will not be impacted by the addition. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms in the residence; therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time. Bottenberg noted structural coverage is not an issue in this application, with no impact to the adjoining residences. The Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 80' where 100' is required. City Staff recommends approval of the variance. Smith inquired where the adjoining residences are located in relation to this residence. Dayton indicated on the overhead projection where the adjoining residences were located. Dayton stated he has no additional comments regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard stated he has a minor concern related to the setback variance, noting that the City Council did vote to override the setback recommended by the Planning Commission for the applicant located on Concordia Street. Nygard inquired whether the Applicant can limit the setback to the existing 83'. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2598 DOUGLAS DAYTON, Continued) Dayton stated it would be difficult because of the angle of the house. Smith noted that the residence located on Concordia Street was new construction, where this is a remodel project. Nygard commented the City Council is encouraging the residences and Planning Commission not to further encroach into the setbacks whenever possible. Lindquist commented in his view this is a different situation than Concordia Street. Nygard inquired what the DNR setback is for residential properties. Gaffron indicated the DNR setback is 100' for recreational development. Kluth stated they are looking at a difference of three feet, with no other variances being requested. Kluth noted there are no structural or hardcover issues involved with this application. Nygard commented that normally the land needs to drive the need for a variance. Dayton stated due to the design of the house, it is difficult to put an addition on the north side and would block the view of the lake if constructed on the other side. Stoddard commented in his view the Planning Commission in general should protect the recreational lakeshore as much as possible. Stoddard noted this residence was constructed prior to the setback requirements being adopted by the City. Stoddard cautioned the Applicant that the\ City Council may elect to deny this application or reduce the setback regardless of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Dayton indicated a line of trees currently exists along the bank, with the house being hidden from view during the summer. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2598, Douglas J. Dayton, 300 Sixth Avenue North, granting of a variance to the lakeshore setback of 80' where 100' is required to permit a 12' by 16' addition to the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item Nos. 3, 4,5,and 6 follow Item No. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS JUNE 26, 2000 AND JULY 10, 2000 • Lindquist indicated he attended the July 10, 2000 City Council meeting, wherein the City Council discussed the Woodhill Country Club application. Lindquist stated the Mayor basically indicated PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Continued) that he will not be held hostage by the complaints of the neighbors on this application, and suggested the neighbors attempt to reach some type of reasonable solution with the Country Club. Lindquist commented in his view the neighbors may not be ready to reach a solution at this time. Weinberger stated the Van Eck Hout application has been referred back to the Planning Commission in an effort to find alternate access to the subdivision, with another 60 day extension being granted on the application. Weinberger indicated the Applicant will be submitted a revised plan. It was noted that a representative of the Planning Commission was unable to attend the June 26, 2000 City Council meeting. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 24, 2000 AND AUGUST 14, 2000 July 24— Smith August 14—Kluth (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION • Smith inquired whether there were any other instructions regarding the cameras. Gaffron indicated they would like to have the cameras returned within a month. Kluth reported the joint meeting with the Long Lake Planning Commission went well, with Long Lake requesting that Orono provide them with a list of common concerns. Smith commented it was her understanding they had agreed to share agendas with each other. Gaffron stated it is his belief they are currently providing Long Lake with the agendas for the Orono Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Kluth stated it was the goal of both cities to improve relations between the two Planning Commissions regardless of what happens with the merger and to discuss issues of concern and common interest relating to various items, such as the new Highway 12 corridor. Lindquist inquired if any plans had been decided upon regarding the old Long Lake Ford building. Gaffron stated to his knowledge a decision has not been reached regarding that building. Kluth stated Long Lake was also going to include the Orono Planning Commission members on their mailing list for their city newsletter. • Smith commented she would like to see it included in their packets if possible. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION) Lindquist commented he would like to see more green space in Navarre, if possible. Lindquist inquired whether the old church located in Navarre is going to be torn down. Weinberger indicated the developer has been issued a demolition permit today. Smith commented the Long Lake Snyder Drug is expanding, with the possible addition of a drive-up window. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER,648 TONKAWA ROAD— VARIANCES, 6:56 p.m.— 7:17 p.m. Bob Beutler, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to remove an existing house and construct a new house on the property located at 684 Tonkawa Road, which is located in the LR-1B Zoning District requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width at the lakeshore and structure • setback of 140'. This lot consists of.68 acre. The Applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot having a lot width of 85'. A second variance is also needed to permit a 12' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback for a portion of the new residence. The new residence would be located approximately 100' from the 929.4' OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Weinberger indicated that the lot has a driveway that connects with the lot to the north, with both lots also having individual access to Tonkawa Road. Weinberger stated the shared portion of the driveway would be removed from this lot to reduce hardcover and close the shared portion of the driveway. The Applicant is also proposing to reduce the width of the new driveway servicing this lot. Weinberger stated the proposed residence would be located approximately 100' from the lakeshore, with the existing residence being approximately 80' from the lakeshore. The total encroachment of the new residence would be about 12' into the average lakeshore setback that has been established by the adjacent structures. There is a site line issue with the adjacent property to the north. Weinberger noted the Applicant is relocating the house significantly back from what currently exists and would have a minimal impact on the neighboring residences' view of the lake. Weinberger stated the Applicant has a two-stall attached garage, with the existing garage remaining in the 250-500' setback. Weinberger indicated once all existing hardcover and structures have been removed from this lot, no structures will exist any closer to the lake than the proposed residence. Weinberger noted • PAGE5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER,Continued) the Applicant will not need a variance to either hardcover or structural coverage under his proposed plan. The Applicant is also proposing to remove the existing stairway to the lake, with a narrower stairway being constructed to limit the amount of hardcover in this area. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan today, with the City Engineer not having an opportunity at this time to review it. The Applicant is proposing to construct a small drainage area at one corner of the house to collect all the water runoff from the driveway and the area that currently drains towards the neighbor's residence. City Staff would recommend approval of the application as presented, with approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to permit a 12' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback based on the following findings: 1. Construction of the house in the proposed location places the house 100' from the lakeshore. 2. The proposed location of the house best utilizes the topography of the lot. Using the flat area area of the property would permit a house to be constructed without requiring additional grading beyond what would normally be permitted with new home construction. 3. Impacts to the lakcshore views for the property to the north would be minimal. The existing house is located 20' closer to the lakeshore than the proposed new house. • Weinberger stated the proposal is consistent with the existing development in the arca, with no issues relating to septic. Weinberger noted it is not possible to acquire any additional land to make this lot bigger since both lots are currently developed. Weinberger stated the proposed location of the new residence best utilizes the topography of the lot and takes advantage of the natural drainage channels existing on the property, with minimal grading required. Weinberger stated one concern is the lack of decks or patios depicted on the plan. The Applicant has indicated they would make use of existing enclosed areas rather than construct a deck or patio. The Applicant has indicated he understands the concerns of Staff that the proposed plan does use up most of the allowable hardcover and structural coverage in this area. Staff would not recommend any variances to allow the construction of decks or patios in the future unless the Applicant demonstrates within his final plan that there is additional hardcover available to allow a deck or patio. Smith inquired whether there is an issue relating to easement and access as it relates to the shared driveway. Smith noted nothing currently exists in the record regarding that shared driveway. Beutler indicated that was an agreement reached between the two parties. Weinberger stated there has not been anything recorded on either property. Weinberger stated the adjacent resident has been notified of this meeting. Smith inquired whether the Applicant has spoken with his new neighbor regarding his proposal. • PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, Continued) Beutler stated he has spoken with his neighbor who indicated he does not have any major concerns regarding the proposal. Beutler indicated they have been working closely with City Staff to arrive at a plan that would be acceptable. Beuticr stated in his opinion this plan is a win/win situation, with the four-season porch allowing them to enjoy the climate year-round without the need for a deck or patio. Smith inquired whether there were any concerns that City Staff may have relating to the recently submitted grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated City Staff at this time does not have any major concerns regarding the grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated Staff does have a concern with the long driveway and the lack of a turnaround being provided. The Applicant has indicated there is a way to include a turnaround in this proposal. Lindquist inquired whether that would negatively impact the hardcover on this lot. Weinberger stated the hardcover was calculated based on a larger driveway that what is being proposed and should not be an issue. Weinberger stated the Applicant is aware that he needs to comply with the 25 percent hardcover limit on this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. • Lindquist commented his only concern with this application was the lack of a turnaround and the impact to hardcover should a turnaround be constructed. Beutler indicated he is aware of those concerns. Kluth noted the proposed residence encroaches upon the average lakeshore setback by a few feet, and inquired whether it would be possible to relocate the house out of the setback. Beuticr stated the lot has topography issues, which are solved by pushing the house back a little bit. Beutler indicated the location of the existing driveway is where the new driveway will be constructed, with the dirt then being able to be utilized to correct the drainage problems on this lot. Beuticr stated if the plan is reversed, it would create an additional drainage problem for the property on the other side. Beutler commented this is the best location for the house based on the topography of the lot. Smith inquired what impact it would have if the house were totally removed out of the average lakeshore setback. Beutler stated if the house is pushed back any further, they would lose their view of the lake and would not be taking advantage of the existing natural drainage channels. Weinberger stated the only way to eliminate the average lakeshore variance would be to remove a portion of the proposed residence. Weinberger stated the proposed drainage and grading plan lends • itself well to this property and keeps the residence consistent with the other houses in the area. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 • (#2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, Continued) Weinberger noted the house is located approximately twice as far from the lake as required by the ordinance, with the only issue being the possible placement of a deck in the future. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2599, Bob and Wendy Beutler,684 Tonkawa Road, granting of a variance to lot area and lot width and granting of a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit a 12' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback to allow the construction of a new residence on this lot,with the understanding that there will be no hardcover allowed over the 25 percent limit, and subject to review and approval by City Staff of the drainage and grading plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2602 JOHN GRAHAM, 1065 TAMARACK DRIVE— PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 7:18 p.m.— 7:50 p.m. John Graham, Applicant, was present, along with Thomas and Jennifer Graham. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a subdivision of a developed 5.1 acre parcel into 411 two lots, with one new building site being created consisting of 2.0 acres north of the existing house. The existing lot was platted as part of the Underhill Farms Addition in 1976. A pond is located on the property located on what would be the southern lot, with a flowage and conservation easement being granted at the time the Underhill Farms Addition was recorded. Weinberger stated Lot 1 would be the new building site and would meet the minimum lot size and width for lots in the RR-1B Zoning District. Based on the survey submitted, the building pad is located within the required setbacks and all setbacks are met to the drainfield sites. This lot would share a driveway with Lot 2, with an easement being granted in favor of Lot 2 for access over Lot 1. Using the existing driveway would eliminate the need to cut down any trees and works well with the existing house. Relocation of the driveway would result in the driveway completely circling the house and come close to encroaching into the wetland setback area. Weinberger noted there is an existing storage building that would be located on Lot 1 without a principal building. Weinberger suggested the building remain for a defined length of time before the principal building is constructed on the property or if the ownership changes between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Weinberger stated Lot 2 would not have direct access to Tamarack nor to County Road 6. The property owners would prefer to use the existing driveway located on Lot 2. Lot 2 also meets the minimum requirements for subdivision. Hennepin County may have additional requirements for that portion of property located along County Road 6. Weinberger noted according to the survey all land along County Road 6 and Tamarack has been dedicated to the public. Weinberger indicated the City Council has recently adopted a new Septic Code that permits slopes • of up to 12 percent for mound systems. Previously sites could only have a six percent PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 411 (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) slope. Both lots have demonstrated two sites on each lot that would permit the land to be subdivided with the new standards and have been approved by the Septic Inspector. Weinberger stated the standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat ten feet along the exterior property lines and five feet along the interior property lines, with an easement and maintenance agreement being recorded with the final plat for the shared driveway access. A certified list of all easements recorded on the property shall be submitted prior to final plat application. Weinberger recommended the property owner pay a park dedication fee for one new lot rather than offer land for a park dedication. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat since both lots meet the requirements for subdivision in this zoning district and have demonstrated suitable septic sites. Graham stated at the present time there are no plans to develop Lot 1 at the present time, although they may wish to develop Lot 1 sometime in the future. Graham noted they have recently purchased the property in September. Smith inquired what amount of time they were contemplating before Lot 1 would be developed. • Graham stated they are easily looking at five, six or seven years before they would develop Lot 1. Graham commented they would like to keep the existing storage building since ownership of both lots would not change with this subdivision. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be interested in relocating the shed onto Lot 2. Graham stated they have discussed that, but at this time have not made a definite decision on relocating the building. Graham stated the building is in good shape at the present time. Graham inquired whether it would be possible to waive the park dedication fee since they currently have almost a one-half acre of a conservation easement dedicated to the City. Weinberger stated the park dedication fees are a result of the existing land and arc required on each new lot created. Weinberger noted the City Council makes the final determination on whether the park dedication fee can be waived. Currently City Ordinance requires that a park dedication fee be paid on every new lot created or there be a land dedication. Graham indicated he has no further comments regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether an outlot for this subdivision should be created to deal with the issues relating to the shared driveway. Gaffron stated the City typically will request an outlot be created in the situation of a back lot/front lot situation. Gaffron stated the City has many shared driveways at the present time. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Stoddard commented it was his understanding the City was attempting to keep away from easements and request outlots. Stoddard noted this property consists of 5.1 acres, which may not leave enough room for the creation of an outlot. Gaffron stated the City typically does not require an outlot on a shared driveway serving two residences, but tends to look at it differently if there are more houses being serviced by the driveway. Stoddard stated that keeping the existing building may need to be reviewed further prior to approval. Lindquist inquired whether the two lots would be kept combined for tax purposes. Graham stated he would like to keep them combined. Weinberger indicated once they are subdivided, they become two separate tax parcels and requires a new subdivision application if you were to separate two combined lots. Weinberger stated the Applicant could consider the option of obtaining preliminary plat approval and extending that approval every year. • Graham stated they utilize the building currently for storage. Kluth noted City Code does not permit an accessory building to exist on a lot without a principal structure. Graham noted ownership of both lots would not change. Graham suggested a period of time be given in which the shed has to be either removed or a principal structure constructed should ownership of the property change. Kluth inquired why the Applicants are proceeding forward with the subdivision at this time if they do not plan to develop the property. Graham stated they would prefer to have the property subdivided at this time since they are able to subdivide the property under the existing codes. Lindquist commented he has concerns with leaving the accessory building on the lot without a principal structure. Stoddard indicated requests are sometimes made to the Planning Commission to leave an existing accessory structure while construction is undergoing but not for an unspecified period of time. Smith suggested a period of 18 months be given to allow for the lot to be developed, and if the lot is not developed within that period of time, the shed be relocated elsewhere. • Graham stated the use of the property will not change at all until the lot is sold. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Stoddard stated Lot 1 needs to conform with the existing City Codes. Graham suggested a condition be placed on the subdivision that upon sale of the lot, the lot must be developed within a certain period of time. Smith inquired whether the City has allowed an accessory structure to remain on a lot without a principal structure in the past. Gaffron stated a situation did exist on North Arm Drive where a swimming pool remained for three or four years and eventually became a problem. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any other situation similar to this. Lindquist stated in his view the Applicant should perhaps be given a year to a year and a half in which to make a decision on what to do with Lot 1 and the storage building. Weinberger inquired whether a similar situation occurred on Little Orchard Road where the barn was permitted to remain without an existing structure. Gaffron stated it is his recollection the property owner was given approximately a year in which the barn could remain on the lot without a principal structure, but that the owner was in the process • of developing that land. Gaffron stated he does not have any major concerns with the storage building remaining on the lot without a principal structure provided ownership of both lots does not change. Gaffron stated there would need to be a covenant on Lot 1 filed with the City once the lot is sold indicating the property needs to be developed within a certain period of time or the shed needs to be removed. Graham stated he would be agreeable with that. Smith inquired whether that would apply if ownership of either lot changes. Gaffron stated both lots would need to remain in common ownership, and as soon as ownership of one lot changes, the covenant would become effective. Nygard stated another trigger would be construction on Lot I. Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission has been clear on this in the past and they should continue to follow past practices and only allow the shed to remain for a limited period of time if the property is not developed. Graham stated a covenant could contain whatever condition the Planning Commission requested and would show up in the title opinion letter at the time of final plat approval. Lindquist stated it would be his preference that a limited period of time be granted for the shed to • remain. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2602, John Graham, 1065 Tamarack Drive,for a two lot subdivision, with the understanding that the storage barn will be removed or a residence constructed on Lot 1 within 18 months of approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Smith commented the Applicant may need to look at relocation of the shed if they do not plan to develop this lot within the next year or two. Graham reiterated the City could require a covenant on this property requiring that the shed either be removed or a principal structure be constructed within a certain period of time once ownership of the lot changes. Graham stated that covenant would be recorded with the title and any new property owner would be aware of the restrictions on that shed. Nygard commented the 18 months gives the Applicant time to look at his options regarding this lot. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to vote on the motion that has been made. Graham stated he would like the Planning Commission to go ahead and vote on the notion. • VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Nygard Opposed. (#5) #2600 BRIAN KERBER, 740 ORCHARD PARK ROADS— VARIANCES, 7:51 p.m.—8:18 p.m. Brian Kerber, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application requesting variances to permit construction of 60' by 40' (2,400 square foot) pole barn on his 4.8 acre property. City Code currently permits a maximum structure of 2,000 square feet. This pole barn would be considered an oversized accessory structure. A second variance is needed to permit relocation of the two-stall garage 72.9' from the side street lot line where 100' is required. City Code does not permit detached garages or other accessory buildings to be located neared the front or street lot line than the principal building on a non-lakeshore lot. Weinberger stated this property is located in the five acre zoning district of the City along County Road 6 and Orchard Park Road. Neither of the buildings would be fully visible to the adjacent properties and would not be visible to the property to the south based on the mature trees between the lots. Access to the pole barn would be gained off of County Road 6. Weinberger noted the east half of the property consists of low land and wetland area. • Weinberger stated one issue to consider is the new Highway 12 corridor will affect some of the property in this area. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) City Code states that the maximum size of an oversized accessory structure is 2,000 square feet, with a variance being needed for the additional 400 square feet. The proposed building will be located in an area near the two-stall detached garage. The Applicant is proposing to relocate the detached garage slightly between the pole barn and County Road 6. This would require a variance since the garage would be located within the setback. Relocation of the driveway to County Road 6 would not be feasible due to the number of mature trees and the existing access to the property would not change. Weinberger stated the Applicant has indicated the larger building would accommodate more storage and allow him to house a workshop within the building. The Applicant would also like to store his vehicle and trailer utilized in his occupation within this structure. Reducing the size of the pole barn to 2,000 square feet would allow the Applicant to build the structure without the need for a variance. Relocation of the structure to another spot on the property is not possible without replacing the septic system. The existing system has been found to be non-compliant due to the three foot separation to the water table but does not need to be replaced until the year 2010. Staff has found the location of the septic tanks and drainfield does restrict the Applicant from constructing this pole barn behind the house. Further, the property drops off and is considered to be low land south of the drainfield, with water table and drainage issues. Location of the pole barn in this location would also require extensive regrading and construction of a very long • driveway to the rear of the property. Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, a hardship must be demonstrated. The hardship appears to be the property owners need for additional storage space, which is really not a hardship inherent to the land. Staff has concerns regarding the possible precedent that may be established by approving an oversized accessory building greater than what is permitted by the ordinance. City Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow relocation of the two-stall garage as proposed on the site plan, which would allow for the building of the pole barn in this location. The structure will need to meet the 26' setback from the wetland. The hardship is the location of the septic tanks and drain field restrict construction of the pole barn anywhere else other than in the location of the existing garage. City Staff is recommending denial of the variance to permit the 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building since a hardship inherent to the land has not been demonstrated and a dangerous precedent may be set. Kerber indicated he has no comments at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether it would be possible to move the two-stall garage further back without encroaching into the wetland setback. • Kerber indicated the garage could possibly be relocated another 10 to 12 feet further back. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Smith inquired why the Applicant would like to construct a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building as opposed to the 2,000 square foot building permitted under City Code. Kerber stated the need for the oversized structure is driven by the need to park a vehicle and trailer, which amounts to 56', in the structure and to have two feet in the front and back to allow someone to walk around it. Kerber stated he needs a minimum of 36' wide, noting that a 60' by 36' building comes to 2,160 square feet, which is still over the maximum allowed by the Code. Kluth inquired why the Applicant could not reduce the size of the building to 33', which would bring the structure under the maximum allowed. Kerber stated he needs the width in order to store additional equipment and to allow a workshop within the structure. Kerber indicated his hydroseeder that he utilizes in his business is approximately nine feet wide, and in order to allow ample room to back out of the pole barn, it is necessary to park the vehicle away from the side of the structure. Smith inquired if the existing garage could be utilized for his workshop and other equipment. Kerber stated the existing garage would be used for storage of vehicles, with the pole barn being used to store his work vehicle and trailer along with a workshop and other equipment. • Nygard inquired how Hennepin County's application for the sand/salt storage structure differs from this application. Weinberger stated the difference is the use of the property, noting the Hennepin County application was for highway maintenance and not residential use. Nygard questioned whether Hennepin County was expanding its use of the property with the new storage building. Weinberger indicated the City Council did not find that the new storage building would not necessarily constitute an increase in the use of the property since the number of deliveries was being reduced and the nighttime deliveries were being eliminated. Nygard stated the comprehensive plan had designated the Hennepin County property as potentially becoming residential in the future. Nygard questioned whether the accessory building constructed on the Hennepin County property was larger than the principal structure on that lot. Weinberger stated the building proposed by Hennepin County was larger than what was permitted for the property, with the building being downsized somewhat in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Nygard commented in his view the City Council did not vote correctly on that application, noting • that he has a similar problem with this application. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Kluth stated he would recommend denying this application based on no hardship being demonstrated. Nygard commented in his view Hennepin County did not demonstrate a hardship either. Kerber stated that was one example he was going to raise. Stoddard stated he would like to see the size of the building reduced somewhat. Kerber indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the pole barn to 60' by 36', which amounts to 2,160 square feet. Smith commented she would be okay with the 2,160 square feet, with relocation of the two-stall garage being further back on the lot but outside the 26' setback from the wetland. Smith noted if the Applicant owned an additional two-tenths of an acre, he would be allowed the next larger size building. Kerber stated he would be willing to move the two-stall garage back as far back as possible. Stoddard commented he would be agreeable to the 2,160 square foot building. 411 Lindquist indicated he would not be in favor of voting for a building that is in excess of what is permitted by City Code due to the precedent that it may set. Kluth commented he would not also not be in favor of voting in support of a pole barn in excess of what is permitted due to the precedent that would be set despite the vote by the City Council on the Hennepin County application. Smith moved, Nygard seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2600, Brian Kerber, 740 Orchard Park Road, granting of a variance to permit construction of a pole barn no greater than 2,160 square feet, and to grant a variance to permit relocation of the two-stall garage within the side street lot line, with the understanding that the Applicant will relocate the garage as far back as possible and still remain outside of the 26' wetland setback to allow the garage to be more closely aligned with the proposed new accessory structure. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Lindquist and Kluth Opposed. Lindquist indicated he voted in opposition to the motion because no hardship inherent to the land has been demonstrated. Kluth stated he is in agreement with Lindquist. Smith commented the decision by the City Council on the Hennepin County matter did not affect her vote on this application. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#6) #2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, 2100 SUGARWOOD DRIVE—VARIANCE, ) SUG 00 , 8:19 p.m.—8:37 p.m. Karen Blank, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 29' by 55' sport court at the rear of their property. The proposed sport court would be located ten feet from the rear property line where 50 feet is required. Bottenberg indicated this property lies within the Sugar Woods development, with Resolution No. 2653 being adopted in July of 1989, creating Sugar Woods as a Planned Residential Development. The resolution states approval was based on limiting the development and future use of property within the Sugar Woods development. It specifically defines building setbacks and limits hardcover improvements. Bottenberg indicated performance standards were established for each lot and allows a building pad for principal and accessory structures by establishing specific setbacks (50' front and rear, 30' sides). The resolution limits hardcover to 80 percent of the building pad and lot coverage to 15 percent of the entire lot. The only hardcover allowed outside the defined building pad is a narrow driveway to the road. Bottenberg stated these standards were established not only to provide buffers but to protect the wooded character of the unique Sugar Woods property. • The Applicants have presented their proposal to the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association as required. The Board of Directors of the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association unanimously approved the plan. In Staffs opinion the abbreviated process was not intended to apply to accessory structure setback variances, especially when such structures would not only be in violation of the more restrictive standards for Sugar Woods, but would also not meet the less restrictive general zoning standards or the standards for the underlying R-1A zoning district. Bottenberg stated the total property hardcover, including the sport court and existing driveway, will be an area equivalent to just under 57 percent of the building pad area, meeting the 80 percent limitation. Blank stated their hardship relates to the trees in the area, noting that there are some very large Maples they would like to save. Blank commented they have attempted to locate the sport court in the place where they will save the most large trees and to allow room for a gazebo. Blank stated by moving the sport court forward, they would be required to remove a couple of large trees. Smith commented that the Applicant would be required to remove a number of small trees with the sport court in the proposed location. Blank stated in her opinion those trees are scruffy trees. Smith stated that one of the inherent features to the Sugar Woods area is the heavily wooded trees • along the rear property lines, which this setback has been designed to protect. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) Blank stated their area is heavily wooded and has become more heavily wooded over the years. Blank stated a section where the sport court is to be located does contain a number of small scruffy trees and weeds. Smith stated that section has been set aside as being within a protected area as part of the Sugar Woods development. Blank stated to her recollection the guidelines were geared around a particular size of the tree located within this area. Blank stated trees over a certain diameter are not to be removed. Gaffron stated Resolution 2653 talks about the open space areas,outlots A and B, and the defined setback areas within each residential lot shall be restricted from all grading and land alteration activities, and no tree in excess of two inches in diameter and four foot height shall be removed. Stoddard inquired whether the resolution contains a certain foot setback that they need to stay out of. Gaffron stated the defined setback areas are the 50' front and rear and the 30' sides. Stoddard inquired where the sport court could be located without the need for a variance. Bottenberg indicated the location of the sport court on the map. Stoddard commented she would be able to go 20 feet further back according to his understanding. Gaffron stated she would not be allowed to build any structures outside of the building pad that has been defined by the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30' side setback. Stoddard stated Section 10.03, Subd. 14(D) reads: rear setback: tennis courts—when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 square foot footprint area shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: rear year 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant is being granted an extra 20 feet. Gaffron stated that is not the case, noting the more restrictive code always applies. Gaffron stated the section of the Sugar Woods Resolution is more restrictive relating to setbacks than what is contained in City Code and is what the City needs to use as their standard. Stoddard commented they have received sonic requests for driveway variances in this area, with this setback area being established to protect the wooded area in this development. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist stated he has a problem approving this application due to the encroachment into the setback area that has been established specifically for the Sugar Woods development. Smith stated she is in agreement with Lindquist. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) Kluth commented he also is in agreement with staying out of the defined setback area. Nygard stated he also would have a hard time approving this application with the sport court located within the defined setback area. Blank inquired whether they would be able to construct the sport court in another location which would require the removal of the larger trees. Lindquist stated the Applicant can construct the sport court but needs to stay out of the defined setback areas. Blank reiterated if the court is constructed in another area on the property, they would need to remove the larger trees in order to save the smaller, scruffier trees. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission cannot set a precedent by allowing her to construct the sport court within the defined setback areas for this development. Blank commented it was her understanding other residents within this development have applied for variances, which have been granted. Smith stated she recalls variances being granted to allow the residents to construct a driveway but • does not recall any variances relating to other items. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any variances being granted outside of variances for a driveway. Nygard moved to recommend denial of Application #2601,John and Karen Blank, 2100 Sugarwood Drive, for a variance to construct a sport court in the rear of their property. Nygard commented the Applicant has the option of tabling this application tonight or having the Planning Commission vote on the motion. Nygard stated the Applicant has the option of submitting a revised plan. Blank stated it probably would be a better option to withdraw the application. Nygard stated if the Planning Commission votes to deny the variance,this application will proceed to the City Council with that recommendation. If the application is tabled, the Applicant has the opportunity to submit a revised plan. Smith stated the Applicant would need to comply with the standards contained in the PRD for the Sugar Woods development. Blank stated they would probably proceed with construction of the sport court in another location which would not require a variance. Smith suggested the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council in the PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 • (#2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) event this application proceeds forward to the City Council. Kluth seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Kluth moved, Lindquist seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the fleeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. t 4 lv ___-- Sandra Smith, Acting Chair • • PAGE 19