HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE I C —/S - CI
❑ COUNCIL
Cl PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ `'PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR crry RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1.S ka.k 01..0- . Leo‘'Na+'Q(..5ft-Cr u,-4 Oe,'- y- .-2'1,10(5 64-31)--7v5-6
2. Mat A ft c.i/:: IS 5 i_A IT 1 1 SC,' t\^- $ t V i(_,t C i" t f i - IAA k Let Z ((„) 10-51 1 'i
3. a--k'`C L 1 i t BV,'AS'�, 1L �(A 9 t 2_—S9-o 2-
4. (1_1 Luc:,it. v1UTL 1l'Z)Ci 11i J` etf nc-Yr Air, V,;, (1,62.- ei 12. Li ii 6-.5
5. / e,cr s / — } 4. ^c/ J / / f 2-9-?' )e=
6. 'Y0 i h a T� ,J ,( S Ca-> Sti C ELj L%D._cL - `\52- 24S-c fC
7. y ` > �'///Pr U A4,-9/ /W. M y f L, -73- —it J °VP8
8. ... ■ ti's 1 vki 161 3 1, -1, o .Jrz.-;
is 1V) f- -C_\ I C2 --Li o1,-- 36,,1
10. Av it LA Fr ..77›:2_-sc 4.v.,&-it--its pc-11-T c-12- q.-il ???2___
11. A ._,&.-�,lc,i ` .,),J0-c/lv; .._, �- - 7 1 k 7--2"------6_3j 1 y 73 k/3 U
12. ,6� .A A „ (L!L�- (-)(90a w'a,i 4' Gil600 g) 3`( t 0
1 444 /LE 70z( /4LSvef-41 0 2 NI<<c%(/
14. c , I t ` . ((It c i,k. ,..,i-si tom.. te3<-t,(--
15.
X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn,Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Daniel
Kluth, and Alternate David Rahn. Commissioners Sandra Smith and Janice Berg were absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul
Weinberger,Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Representative Jay Nygard was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hawn noted Items#01-2719,#01-2721, and#01-2725 are on tonight's Consent Agenda, and
inquired whether any members of the audience would like to comment on any of those applications.
There were no public comments.
*(#1) #01-2719 JODI AND DAVID DALVEY, 1520 BOHN'S POINT ROAD—VARIANCE
Lindquist moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2719,Jodi
and David Dalvey, 1520 Bohn's Point Road,granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*(#2) #01-2721 WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST—VARIANCE
Lindquist moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2721,
Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West,granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*(#3) #01-2725 ROBERT HOWELLS, 1423 PARK DRIVE—VARIANCE
Lindquist moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2725,
1423 Park Drive,granting of a lot width variance and an accessory building variance to
construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
Item#4 was heard after Item#5.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#5) #01-2711 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION,INC.,2687 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:34 p.m.—6:58 p.m.
Chuck and Stephanie Jochims,Applicants,were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent
"outside storage"to provide outdoor parking for six trailers,two trucks,two cranes, and one boom
truck as shown on the site plan. Western Steel Erection, Inc., has leased the 16,200 square foot
building located at 2687 Wayzata Boulevard. Western Steel constructs steel framing beams used for
construction projects,which is a permitted use in the Industrial District.
Weinberger stated all the outdoor storage is located in the far corner of the property furthest from
Highway 12. The Applicants have submitted a plan showing the layout of the property and the
storage area, with the intent of the Applicants being to store as much inventory as possible indoors.
Weinberger stated due to the type of business,the majority of the equipment will be kept on various
job sites rather than on the subject property.
The revised site plan submitted by the Applicants addresses some of the issues raised at the
September Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission at that time requested the
Applicant revise their plan to address the required setbacks and parking requirements. The
Applicants are proposing to remove the existing perimeter fence, construct a new fence along the
perimeter that would fence in the yard from the 75-foot setback to the rear property line. Within that
fenced in area would be the employee parking which consists of 29 parking stalls.
Staff is recommending that the employee parking area be paved and striped. The Applicant has
indicated they would like to gravel both the employee parking area and the outdoor storage area. All
parking areas containing more than six spaces which face a public street shall have a solid wall or
fence of not less than four feet,nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or
walls shall be designed so that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the
lot. The Applicant has also submitted a proposed landscape plan,with a row of evergreens along
Highway 12. Staff is recommending that some evergreens also be planted closer to the fence to
provide some additional screening.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is also proposing to install an above ground fuel tank,which will
need to meet all fire standards.
Staff recommends the outside storage area meet the minimum setbacks and requirements of the
zoning chapter,with the following standards being met:
A. The outside storage area shall be located within the required parking setbacks, including a
minimum 75 foot or more from the front property line.
B. The parking and outside storage areas shall be located a minimum of ten feet from side property
lines.
C. A screening plan should be provided including fencing and landscaping on site in accordance
with zoning requirements.
D. Parking surfaces shall be paved and striped.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2711 WSESTERN STEEL,CONTINUED)
E. A final drainage plan,based on required paving and regrading, shall indicate drainage patterns
and stormwater detention areas or drainage areas to properly manage stormwater flowing over
and leaving the property.
F. The site plan shall indicate all proposed parking areas,paving limits,parking lot striping,parking
areas for crane equipment and company vehicles, and open drive space for access and mobility
on-site as well as emergency vehicle access.
Mrs. Jochims stated the reason they would prefer not to pave the parking and outdoor storage areas is
the heavy equipment that will be moved over the area. Jochims stated in the long-term the
blacktopping would become a maintenance issue,with the gravel holding up better. Jochims stated
while they were in Long Lake they used gravel for their outdoor storage and parking areas,which was
very well maintained and worked well for their needs.
Hawn expressed concern that blacktop would be better in the event of an oil spill.
Mrs. Jochims stated any spills would be contained in a cement crypt, which they are required by law
to have.
Hawn stated she was thinking more in terms of oils leaks from the equipment in the outside storage
area.
Mrs. Jochims stated there is a very slight possibility that that would happen, noting they take very
good care of all their equipment.
Hawn opened the hearing up for public comment.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to blacktop the employee parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated they would also prefer to keep that area gravel,noting the traffic in and out of
that area is very minimal and would not create much dust.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping
between the fence and the line of trees along Highway 12.
Mrs. Jochims stated they are planning to construct a solid fence along the front of the property, but
would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping in that area.
Stoddard inquired how many feet of chain link fence the Applicant is proposing to erect.
Mrs. Jochims stated the chain link fence would go around the rear perimeter of the property.
Mr. Jochims stated they are planning to do something similar to what ABC has done on their
property.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2711 WESTERN STEEL,CONTINUED)
Mabusth inquired what the fence would look like around the parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated that would be a solid fence.
Mabusth inquired whether Staff has reviewed the traffic flow on the property in relation to the fuel
site.
Weinberger stated the Fire Marshall has reviewed that area,with the Applicants needing to meet all
the fire standards.
Mrs. Jochims stated the amount of traffic in that area would also be minimal.
Mabusth inquired what Western Steel's business hours are.
Mrs. Jochims stated they start at 5:30 a.m., and are finished by 4:30 p.m.
Mabusth inquired whether any new lighting is being proposed for this area.
Mrs. Jochims stated the building is already currently lit,with the only additional lighting being
proposed is in the fuel tank area. Jochims stated it was her understanding the existing lighting does
meet the City's standards.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicants feel they have sufficient room for their outdoor storage in the
event they expand.
Mrs. Jochims stated they are increasing their storage area inside by relocating to this new building.
Hawn inquired why the City requires parking areas to be blacktopped versus gravel. Hawn stated she
does not see a hardship in this case to permit the gravel.
Weinberger stated the dust is one issue, with maintenance being another issue. Weinberger stated the
blacktopping also assists with the drainage on the property. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will
need to review the grading and drainage plan for this property.
Rahn commented in his view he would prefer to see the parking stalls defined.
Hawn noted the blacktopping and striping of the parking area is part of City Code.
Kluth commented he understands the desire to have gravel in the area where the heavy equipment
will be stored. Kluth indicated he would like to see the employee parking area blacktopped.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any situation where the City did not require the parking area be
paved.
Mabusth commented the Planning Commission would certainly be consistent by requiring the
Applicant to pave the employee parking area.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2711 WESTERN STEEL,CONTINUED)
Mrs. Jochims stated they would like to relocate to this area, but did not anticipate the need to blacktop
the employee parking area or outdoor storage area. Jochims stated they will attempt to comply with
whatever the City requires.
Stoddard stated for consistency purposes the employee parking area should be blacktopped,but that
he would not be opposed to leaving the outdoor storage area gravel.
Mr. Jochims stated he does not see the need for the blacktopping in the employee parking area.
Jochims stated the employees would enter the parking area at 6:00 a.m., park their vehicles there for
the day, and then leave at 4:00 p.m. Jochims stated the parking would be enclosed by a fence.
Rahn reiterated he would like to see the parking stalls defined somewhat. Rahn questioned whether
the outdoor storage area might encroach into the employee parking area if the parking area is not
better defined.
Mr. Jochims stated they could put something up designated the employee parking area..
Mrs. Jochims stated they have very few visitors coming to the site, and that they would be agreeable
to designating this area as employee parking only. Mrs. Jochims stated their business is seasonal,
with approximately 20 to 25 vehicles expected to park in this area.
Kluth stated in his view as a matter of consistency the Planning Commission should require the
employee parking lot be paved.
Lindquist moved,Stoddard seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2711,
Western Steel Erection,Inc.,2687 Wayzata Bouelvard,granting of a conditional use permit to
permit permanent"outside storage",subject to the recommendations contained in the
October 11,2001 Planner's Report,with the understanding the 28 employee parking stalls will
be paved and striped and that the outside storage area can remain gravel.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI,4080 DAHL ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:59 p.m.—7:17 p.m.
Mandeep Sodhi,Applicant,was present.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this application at their August meeting,
with the application being tabled due to recent grade changes above the slope that were not reflected
on the plan. The Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances and a conditional use permit to
permit replacement of a stairway and retaining walls within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger
noted some work did occur within a bluff impact area,with the City allowing a stairway within a
bluff area.
Weinberger stated the subject property is 45 feet wide,with the existing stairway and retaining wall
having been replaced. The City does not have any photographs showing the condition of the area
prior to construction. Staff issued a permit for the work with the request the Applicant obtain an
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI,CONTINUED)
after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit. Staff had concerns at the time the permit was
issued that erosion could occur due to the vegetation removal and amount of exposed dirt in the area.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should also review the vegetation replacement plan.
The Applicant removed a significant amount of the undergrowth on the hillside as well as two large
and several small trees that were removed.
Weinberger stated following issuance of the permit to complete the stairway,the contractor for the
property owner requested a land alteration permit in order to install a retaining wall,with the
elevation of the land being raised in one area to create a flat walkout area.
Staff discovered in reviewing this application that the putting green was constructed two to three feet
above the existing grade. Staff also discovered that the permit issued as part of the putting green
project allowed the putting green to encroach about eight feet into the bluff impact zone. An
after-the-fact variance would be required in this case for the putting green to permit fill to be
deposited in the bluff impact zone. Weinberger stated the property owner did have the appropriate
permits for all the work that occurred from the bluff line back,and only became an issue when
reviewing the application for the other permits.
The Planning Commission will need to consider whether the after-the-fact variance should be
approved,with City Code permitting one stairway down to the shoreline. Weinberger stated the
retaining wall constitutes hardcover within the 0-75 foot setback as well as structure within the bluff
line.
Weinberger stated he did visit the site again today and noticed that wood chips have been
deposited in this area over landscape fabric. The City Engineer did review the situation and is
recommending that the landscaping fabric remain in place through the winter and spring in order to
alleviate any erosion concerns in the spring,with a deadline of June 30, 2002, for when the fabric
should be removed and the additional landscaping be installed.
Weinberger stated the landscaping plan shows the proposed plantings. The Applicant has planted a
spruce tree, and is proposing to plant a maple tree and an apple tree. Weinberger stated there are a
number of existing trees on this property,which provides canopy. Weinberger stated the addition of
trees in some areas may not be appropriate given the number of mature trees that already exist in this
area. Staff is recommending that an additional tree be planted somewhere between the grass pathway
and the stairway toward the lakeshore,which should help to stabilize the bank and provide additional
screening to the stairway and retaining ways. The Applicant is also proposing to plant ivy along the
retaining walls. Staff recommends approval of the landscape plan subject to the condition that the
additional trees be planted.
Staff further recommends that the putting green project also be approved. The City Engineer did
review this area as well and concluded that the drainage in this area will work with the rest of the
property.
Hawn inquired whether Staff was aware that the putting green was going to encroach into the bluff
setback line at the time the permit was issued.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI,CONTINUED)
Weinberger stated they would have requested the putting green be constructed further back on the
property.
Sodhi stated he could have located the putting green further back had he known it encroached. Sodhi
indicated he basically is in agreement with Staff's recommendations,but would like to discuss with
Staff the location of the additional tree due to the limited amount of sun that is currently in this area
due to the mature trees on his lot.
Weinberger stated he did discuss this issue with the Applicant, and that perhaps a better location for
the tree is further back on the property.
Sodhi stated he is in agreement with the placement of the one tree but would like to discuss the
placement of the other tree. Sodhi indicated there are approximately 30 trees in this area already.
Sodhi stated he would like to meet with Staff to discuss placement of the one additional tree.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn stated she has a question regarding the species of the trees and plants the Applicant has chosen
to plant in this area. Hawn noted a significant amount of the proposed plantings are hostas and
daylilies,which appear to be replacing shrubbery.
Sodhi stated they are replacing buckthorn,poison ivy, and other natural growth.
Hawn stated in terms of screening and soil retention,the Applicant should perhaps consider other
plantings other than hostas and daylilies.
Sodhi indicated he has planting hostas and daylilies as a result of the last discussion he had with the
Planning Commission, who had recommended those types of plants.
Hawn inquired what goldfingers are.
Sodhi stated it is a shrub.
Hawn noted it is a type of potentilla.
Stoddard commented the City is concerned with the canopy cover as well as the ground cover, and
requested the Applicant work with Staff to arrive at a suitable vegetation plan for this area. Stoddard
suggested that perhaps the City's forester also review the landscaping plan. Stoddard noted in the
past the Planning Commission has required that evergreens also be incorporated in the landscape
plan, and recommended the Applicant consider adding some evergreen type shrubs.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable with removing the landscape fabric.
Sodhi indicated he was unaware that landscaping fabric was not permitted and installed it at the
recommendation of his landscaper. Sodhi stated he is agreeable to removing it.
Lindquist noted the City of Orono does not permit landscape fabric.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI,CONTINUED)
Stoddard moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2689,Mandeep
Sodhi,4080 Dahl Road,granting of after-the-fact variances and conditional use permit to allow
the replacement of a stairway and retaining wall on the lakeshore side of the property,subject
to the Applicant adding one additional hardwood tree on the lakeside of the stairway and one
additional tree at the top of the bluff in the center of the property,and further subject to any
other recommendations of Staff for adding evergreen type plants on the lakeside portion of the
retaining walls,with the understanding the landscape fabric will be removed by June 30,2002.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#6)#01-2716 BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT,2200 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
7:18 p.m.—7:29 p.m.
Steve Behnke,Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the September Planning Commission meeting to
allow the Applicant time to redesign the proposed application to better adhere to Orono's zoning
ordinances.
The Applicant has submitted a revised plan,with the new proposal being to construct a two-story
residence with an attached garage. The existing residence and detached garage will be demolished.
The lot is served by sanitary sewer.
The Applicant is requesting variances to lot area and lot width as well as a variance to hardcover in
the 75-250' setback area. The Applicant is requesting 27.8 percent hardcover where 25 percent is
allowed. Bottenberg stated she did not have the elevations at the time the report was prepared.
Staff is recommending approval of the variances subject to the drainage/grading plan being approved
by City Staff.
Behnke stated he has revised his plan significantly and is proposing to construct a smaller size
residence on the property with a hardcover variance being requested for the 75-250' setback area.
Behnke indicated he is requesting the additional hardcover in that setback area in order to meet the
string test on the adjacent residences.
Behnke stated he is in agreement with the recommendations of the City Engineer,with work already
having been commenced on the drainage and grading plan. Behnke stated the drainage and grading
plan would be ready prior to the Council meeting. Behnke stated the entire structure would have
gutters installed on it.
Hawn inquired whether any of the adjoining property owners have been shown the revised plans.
Behnke stated he did show one of the neighbors the new plan.
Barry Bennett, 2208 Shadywood Road, stated he welcomes the new development,noting it will be an
improvement over the existing vacant structure. Bennett inquired whether the developer has
considered a detached garage. Bennett stated perhaps by relocating the house further back it would
help with the hardcover. Bennett indicated the drainage in this area is a concern. Bennett stated it is
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2716 BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT,CONTINUED)
his understanding the lots in this area 50 feet wide at the lakeshore,with the proposed residence being
32 feet wide.
Hawn noted the Applicant is not requesting any setback variances.
Bennett stated the current home is 28 feet wide.
Lindquist pointed out the proposed residence does meet the City's setbacks according to the survey.
Gaffron stated the City's plat map shows that the lots in this area are 57 feet wide at the roadway.
Lindquist stated the decision to construct a detached garage versus an attached garage is up to the
developer.
Mabusth stated in her view the revised plan is a good improvement.
Rahn inquired whether the gutters to be installed on the residence is the primary method of dealing
with the drainage from this structure.
Behnke stated the primary method of dealing with the water runoff is the grading around the house,
with an attempt being made to minimize the amount of grading on the lot. Behnke stated the City
Engineer is recommending adding a swale,which he is in agreement with. Behnke indicated his
topographical maps do not show a significant amount of water runoff to the south, and in his opinion
the grading on this property will direct the water further towards the lake rather than elsewhere.
Behnke stated the proposed grading on the lot in his opinion would mitigate a number of the existing
drainage problems on this lot.
Lindquist indicated he is in favor of this proposal, and requested the Applicant continue to work with
Staff and the neighbors to resolve the drainage problems in this area.
Kluth moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2716,Brenshell
Developm;ent,2200 Shadywood Road,granting of variances to lot area and lot width,and a
variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to allow 27.8 percent hardcover,subject to
the drainage and grading plan being submitted for Staff review and approval prior to the City
Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#7) #01-2707 ROBERT EDDINGTON AND MARK LARSON,HILL STREET,VACATION,
7:30 p.m.—7:32 p.m.
Robert Eddington,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting approval to vacate 125 plus feet of that portion of the
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2707 ROBERT EDDINGTON,CONTINUED)
unimproved dedicated right-of-way of Hill Street which lies between 285 and 315 Crestview Avenue.
The right-of-way was originally dedicated in the plat of Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka in
1912. Bottenberg stated there have been a couple of other sections of Hill Street which have been
vacated over the years west of Crestview Avenue. Hill Street is a 40-oot wide unimproved street
right-of-way traversing Bayside Addition from east to west.
Bottenberg stated this application does meet all the criteria for vacation. The Public Works Director
has been asked to review the proposed vacation and has agreed to proceed with the vacation finding
no current or future public use for the 40-foot right-of-way. Bottenberg stated she has received
responses from the utility companies who have indicated they have no concerns relating to this
request.
Staff is recommending approval of the vacation subject to the property owners granting a ten-foot
drainage and utility easement within the vacated right-of-way. The location of the easement should
be five feet either side of the new shared lot line.
Eddington had nothing to add to Staffs report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2707 Robert
Eddington and Mark Larson,Hill Street,vacation of a portion of unimproved Hill Street
located adjacent to properties located at 285 and 315 Crestview Avenue,subject to the property
owners granting a ten foot drainage and utility easement within the vacated right-of-way,with
the new easement being located five feet either side of the new shared lot line.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#8) #01-2720 CRAIG AND BEV MILLER, 1325 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
7:33 p.m.—7:43 p.m.
Craig and Bev Miller,Applicants,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot width variance and an accessory building
variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence constructed in 1973 will be
removed. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 130 feet wide where 200 feet is
required in the LR-1A zoning district. An accessory building variance is required because Orono
zoning code does not permit an accessory building on a property without a principal structure.
Currently there is an existing accessory building located within 75 feet of the lakeshore.
Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance,but recommends that the shed either be removed
or moved to a conforming location. Bottenberg noted there is not a permit on file for the accessory
structure,but it does appear to have been constructed a number of years ago. The shed does appear to
be in good condition.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2720 CRAIG AND BEV MILLER,CONTINUED)
Miller stated they are requesting the variance because the shed is in good condition. Miller indicated
the two adjoining property owners are not opposed to the shed remaining in its present location,
noting it is screened by several pine trees. Miller stated they would like to keep the shed in order to
provide storage as well as add value to the home. Miller stated the existing residence does not
comply with the side yard setbacks,with the proposed new residence meeting the required setbacks.
Mabusth inquired when the Applicant is expecting to start construction.
Miller stated they would like to start this spring.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist stated he would like to see the shed moved out of the 0-75' setback area. Lindquist
commented the Planning Commission has been consistent in the past by not allowing structures
within the 0-75 foot setback area.
Kluth stated he is in agreement that the shed should be moved.
Hawn inquired whether the shed has a foundation beneath it.
Bottenberg indicated there is a concrete slab presently under the shed.
Miller stated he has not considered moving the shed.
Rahn noted the City does allow lock boxes in this area for storage.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission on new construction attempts to limit the number of
variances as much as possible.
Mabusth stated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendations.
Kluth stated he would be agreeable to allowing the shed to remain until the new residence is
completed.
Lindquist moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2720,Craig and
Bev Miller, 1325 Shoreline Drive,granting of a lot area variance to allow the construction of a
new residence,with the recommendation that the accessory building(shed) be relocated to a
conforming location on the property upon completion of the new residence.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#9) #01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN, 1241 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,
VARIANCES,7:44 p.m.—8:16 p.m.
Michael Brown,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of a 28' by 24'
detached garage to replace an existing garage. The second part of the application is a request for a
variance to permit replacement of an existing fence that is six feet in height within the side yard
adjacent to street setback where a maximum height fence is allowed to be 3.5 feet. The fence is a
privacy fence to the back yard. The fence is located 27 feet from the property line and has existed in
its present location for a number of years.
Weinberger stated the existing garage has existed as a legal non-conforming structure for a number of
years and was built prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances. The new two-stall garage
is proposed to be located six feet off the south(Minnetonka Avenue)property line. The south
property line is defined as a side yard adjacent to street yard requiring a 50-foot setback. The garage
doors are facing the street,which also requires a 30-foot setback regardless of zoning district. The
garage is also proposed to be located five feet from the rear property line where a ten-foot setback is
required. The garage doors would be located 18.5 feet from the paved surface of Minnetonka
Avenue.
The Applicants currently have a side loading one-stall garage and would like to construct a larger
garage. Also on the property is a 40-foot wide gravel parking area located near Minnetonka Avenue.
The Applicants have indicated the garage could not be moved further to the north due to a large pine
tree being located behind the garage that they would like to keep on the property. Staff has measured
the tree and has confirmed it has a trunk diameter of approximately 16 inches and has a 30-foot
diameter drip line. The tree is located 12 feet from the back wall of the existing garage. The new
garage would not be located any closer to the tree than the existing garage. Weinberger stated two
ways to maximize the setback to the street and save the tree would be to reduce the size of the garage
or move the garage farther to the north and east between the tree and the house.
Weinberger stated the majority of the garages built in the Crystal Bay neighborhood on corner lots
have the garage with direct access, including the two lots across the street. One garage is located 12.5
feet from the paved surface of Minnetonka Avenue and the second garage is located 25 feet from the
paved surface of the street. The proposed garage would be located 18.5 feet from the paved surface.
Thirty feet is the standard. Adequate off-street parking is not always available,with Minnetonka
Avenue being a narrow road paved only 15 feet wide. City standards also only allow one curb cut per
property with a 20 foot width. The 40 foot wide parking area located east of the existing garage will
remain . Weinberger stated the width of the parking area would be narrowed somewhat because the
larger garage would encroach into the existing parking surface. Weinberger noted hardcover is not an
issue in this application.
Weinberger stated the fence is located 27 feet from the property line and approximately 30 feet from
the edge of the pavement on Minnetonka Avenue,with the proposed fence remaining in the same
location. The fence is designed to provide privacy to the back yard, as the property is a corner lot
with a public street on two sides of the lot.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN,CONTINUED)
Brown indicated parking in the area is a problem and he does require an additional parking area.
Brown commented he prefers to have the parking area located to the side of the garage to avoid cars
parking in front of the garage.
Mabusth inquired whether parking was allowed on the street in that neighborhood.
Brown indicated the road is only 15 feet wide and does not have sufficient room to park a vehicle on
the street.
Mabusth inquired whether there were utility lines in or near the alleyway or whether there was any
public purpose to the alleyway.
Brown stated the sewer is located in front of the house,with the alleyway having a utility easement
over it.
Rahn inquired whether the garage was also intended for storage.
Brown stated it was.
Rahn inquired whether the Applicant would be satisfied with a 24 foot door,with a larger area to the
rear of the garage.
Brown stated they had originally thought of it, but following a conversation with Staff, it was
concluded it would be too difficult to back out of the garage onto the street.
Rahn stated he would like to see the garage located at least 10 feet from the lot line.
Brown stated they are required to locate the garage in this area due to the large tree located on the lot.
Hawn inquired whether the garage could be brought closer to Minnetonka Avenue and his residence,
with the garage being side loading.
Brown stated a front loading garage would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood
and would allow them to do more landscaping.
Rahn stated the Applicant could also encroach two feet into the drip line and reduce the size of the
garage somewhat,which would give him ten feet from the lot line.
Brown stated in his view if the garage is moved any closer to the tree, it might damage the tree.
Hawn commented it was her understanding the City did not prefer garages to face the street.
Brown stated the majority of the garages in the area face the street,with his current garage being the
exception.
Gaffron stated one issue the City considers is whether a vehicle is able to park in the driveway
without any portion of the vehicle encroaching into the roadway. Gaffron stated in this instance a
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN,CONTINUED)
vehicle would not be able to park in the driveway without hanging out into the street. Gaffron noted
the Code does require a 30-foot setback from the lot line. Another issue for consideration is whether
the City wants a structure that close to the street.
Hawn inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission would like to see the size of the
garage reduced.
Mabusth and Kluth stated in their view the garage could perhaps be relocated somewhere else on the
property.
Rahn stated in his view the garage could perhaps be moved five feet closer to the house.
Brown stated he does not need to park in front of the garage since he has a parking area to the side of
the garage. Brown reiterated the other garages in the neighborhood face the street.
Rahn stated the issue for the Planning Commission is whether a hardship exists to grant the variance.
Hawn stated in her opinion the Applicant could design a garage that would avoid the need for a
setback variance, does not load from the street, and does not require two curb cuts.
Brown indicated he was not familiar with curb cuts prior to tonight's meeting.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission had any issues with the fence replacement.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they are in favor of a variance to permit
replacement of an existing fence.
Lindquist stated he is not in favor of the garage facing the street.
Brown stated he needs the Planning Commission to explain why they would approve a garage within
the last year for the mayor for the very same type of reasons.
Hawn indicated it was her understanding there were some issues dealing with setbacks in that file.
Gaffron stated he will check the file to see what the setback was from the street front line to the front
of the garage.
Brown stated one option would be to cut down the pine tree.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is not asking the Applicant to remove the pine tree.
Brown stated he would prefer not to have to cut down the tree.
Rahn stated if the garage is located five feet closer to the house, a variance would not be required.
Brown stated it is his belief the pine tree is located more towards the middle of the garage than the
street. Brown stated in his view his request is reasonable.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN,CONTINUED)
Weinberger stated the issue he had with a front loading garage is that the location of the garage near
the street would not allow parking in the driveway. Weinberger stated the garage in this location does
make some sense given the parking area to the side.
Gaffron stated the mayor's garage is located ten feet from the street lot line and 20 feet from the
traveled roadway.
Hawn inquired whether there was any other location the mayor could have built her garage. Hawn
stated it is her recollection there was only one location available for the garage.
Lindquist stated he would not have a problem with the garage if it were located ten feet from the
street and ten feet from the rear property line.
Stoddard stated he also is in agreement with that.
Lindquist stated the garage could be moved closer to the house.
Rahn indicated he would prefer the garage be located ten feet from the lot line.
Hawn commented the Planning Commission should not be designing the garage for the Applicant.
Brown stated he would like some direction from the Planning Commission. Brown indicated he is
requesting the variance due to the pine tree.
Lindquist stated in his view the garage could be located closer to the residence or reduced somewhat
in size to allow for a larger setback to the street.
Hawn stated she would not have as much concern regarding the location of the garage if it was a side
loading garage. Hawn stated in her view a portion of the parking area could be utilized for the
garage. Hawn suggested the Applicant review his options for location of the garage.
Brown requested his application be tabled.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to table Application#01-2722,Michael and Monica Brown,
1241 Brown Road South,to allow the Applicant time to review the location of the garage.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:16 p.m.to 8:18 p.m.)
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#10)#01-2723 MARK BREWER,3800 SHORELINE DRIVE,COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW,8:19 p.m.—8:41 p.m.
Mark Brewer, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Brewer Chiropractic Clinic in Mound has filed an application for a commercial
site plan review to convert the existing non-conforming single family dwelling located at 3800
Shoreline Drive into a clinic. The property is located within the B-5 District,with clinics being a
permitted use in this district. Weinberger noted no variances are required.
Weinberger stated the building has undergone some extensive interior remodeling by Brewer as part
of the conversion of the structure from a residential use to a clinic/office use. The remodeling has
included making the building handicap accessible per ADA requirements. The City has issued
permits for the interior remodeling,but the creation of a commercial parking lot has triggered the
need for a commercial site plan review. The proposed parking lot was partially installed prior to the
issuance of permits, and work was stopped by the building inspector pending approval of this
commercial site plan review.
Weinberger stated the site plan does meet all the requirements of the B-5 Zoning District, with the
proposed use being an excellent fit for the B-5 District. The primary issues with the site is the ability
to adequately direct runoff without curb and gutter and the proposed location and direction of the
drainage outlet. The City Engineer and Staff are recommending that the parking lot be provided with
concrete curb and gutter to provide positive runoff control and that the runoff be directed to the
northwest toward the planning Hennepin County stormwater pond rather than eastward toward the
future City park site. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to provide eight parking stalls,
which meets the minimum requirement. The Applicant has also been in contact with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District,with the MCWD issuing a permit for the proposed plan.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions:
1. The final design of the parking lot must meet the requirements as specified by the City Engineer,
including the installation of curb and gutter to positively direct runoff to its intended end location,
avoiding ptential negative impacts to adjacent properties.
2. The final stormwater management and drainage plans, including a drainage area map and
calculations,must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, and the final
stormwater plan must be confirmed as acceptable to the MCWD.
3. All other comments noted by the City Engineer, in the letters dated September 27,2001, and
October 10, 2001,must be satisfied.
Brewer stated he is agreeable to directing the water in the direction recommended by Staff,but
indicated he was unaware of the City's requirement for curb and gutter. Brewer stated due to
financial concerns, he would like to delay installation of curb and gutter. Brewer indicated to install
curb and gutter would cost between $10,000 and$12,000.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2723 MARK BREWER,CONTINUED)
Lindquist noted the City Engineer is recommending curb and gutter, and that the Planning
Commission follows the recommendations from the City Engineer.
Hawn suggested that perhaps Brewer speak with the City Engineer regarding the curb and gutter.
Stoddard commented the Planning Commission typically deals with the zoning issues and generally
accepts the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Brewer stated time is also a concern if the driveway is to be installed prior to winter.
Hawn stated the application could be sent forward to the City Council with the recommendation that
curb and gutter be installed. Hawn stated the Applicant could speak to the City Engineer prior to this
application being heard by the City Council.
Brewer inquired whether he would need the parking lot to be paved prior to opening his business.
Weinberger stated the Applicant needs to receive approval of his site plan, and that a revised plan
showing a parking area without curb and gutter would need to be approved by the City Engineer. The
Applicant would need to submit a revised plan showing how the drainage would be handled.
Kluth stated the issue relates to drainage and that if cement curb and gutter is required to help address
that problem,then he would not disagree with the City Engineer.
Gaffron stated in the other commercial applications approved by the City,the City has required curb
and gutter. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether there is a specific B-5 standard that requires parking
lots be blacktopped, but in general City Code requires parking lots be paved to control the dust and
for drainage and maintenance.
Mabusth stated typically other cities have the applicants enter into a development agreement
stipulating that certain conditions will be met,which perhaps could be done in this case. Mabusth
stated perhaps the Applicant could operate with a gravel parking lot over the winter,with one
condition of approval being that the parking area be blacktopped in the spring.
Gaffron stated the City would not have a problem with leaving the parking lot gravel over the winter
as long as there was an agreement that the lot will be paved in the spring.
Brewer stated he has spoken with two curb and gutter companies recently who have indicated they
will not be able to fit him into his schedule this year. Brewer indicated he also did inquire about
whether the curb and gutter could be retrofitted and was told that it could be as long as you leave
some extra space for the forms. Brewer stated that would allow for one layer of blacktop to be put
down this year,with the curb and gutter and final layer of blacktop being completed in the spring.
Brewer inquired whether the curb and gutter would need to be cement.
Weinberger indicated that would be up to the discretion of the City Engineer.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2723 MARK BREWER,CONTINUED)
Brewer indicated he has tried hard to comply with the City's regulations, and suggested that perhaps
the City work closer with people who do not have development experience sooner in the process.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mabusth moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2723,Mark
Brewer,3800 Shoreline Drive,Commercial Site Plan Review,based on the findings that it is
consistent with the B-5 zone,subject to all drainage issues being resolved for this site,with the
understanding the water runoff will drain to a future Hennepin County retention pond to the
northwest of this property,and further subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer
contained in his September 27,2001 and October 10,2001 reports. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#11) #01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP, 1000 WILDHURST TRAIL,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:42 p.m.—9:12 p.m.
David Timp,Applicant, and Tim Oberg, Southview Design,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance and conditional use permit to permit
construction of a boulder retaining wall on the west and lake-side of the residence. The variance is
for average lakeshore setback and the conditional use permit is to permit grading of greater than 500
cubic yards for the landscape work. The elevation of the land between the east and the west lot lines
varies by approximately 20 feet. The property owners wish to construct a boulder wall on the south
and west sides of the property to allow better use of the land.
Bottenberg stated the boulder wall starts on the back of the property and follows along the west
property line for approximately 104 feet and is located 20 to 30 feet from the west property line. The
wall starts at grade level and gradually increases in height until the southwest corner where it is eight
feet high. The remaining boulder wall is six feet in height. Bottenberg noted the boulder wall has
been designed and signed by a professional engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the retaining
wall layout and feels the wall design is adequate. The City Engineer is recommending the global
slope stability of the wall be further investigated,particularly for worst case scenario.
The Applicant is also proposing to plant five 10-foot spruce and three 10 foot birch trees to screen the
boulder wall from lake view.
Timp stated he does not have anything to add to Staff's report.
Shawn McElhatton,Attorney-at-Law with Leonard, Street&Deinard, appeared on behalf of Ron
Zebeck, 998 Wildhurst Trail. McElhatton stated his client has concerns relating to the stability of the
wall,the sight lines, and the drainage in the area. McElhatton stated he does not see any indication in
the Planner's Report relating to how the drainage will be handled.
Oberg stated the trees are located on the bottom side of the wall,which will make them lower then
both of the adjoining residences. Oberg stated the drainage would not change since the wall ends
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP,CONTINUED)
before it reaches the property line. Oberg stated the natural grade of the land flows to the west,which
will not be changed with construction of the wall.
Gaffron stated the topography of the site shows the new grading directs the water runoff to the west
rather than straight down the lot,which should improve the situation. Gaffron noted there are two
areas where there will be some very minor grading within 75 feet of the lake to taper the land into the
wall at the very east and west ends. Gaffron inquired whether those cuts could be avoided, noting
they would technically require a variance.
Oberg stated the face of the wall lies behind the 75-foot setback area, so the cut would be located
behind the 75-foot setback as well.
Gaffron requested the grades within the 0-75' setback area not be changed.
Oberg stated they put the stairway straight down to avoid any grading within that area.
Gaffron inquired if any steps have been taken to insure the global stability of the walls.
Hawn requested global stability be defined.
Oberg stated the walls are designed to support the amount of fill that is placed behind it. Oberg stated
the global stability comes into play if the whole slope would fall away from the house and down the
hill, similar to a mudslide. Oberg stated he was unaware of that recommendation until today, but
would be agreeable to having an engineer look at that aspect of the wall. Oberg noted the land is
virgin slope, with the chances of that slope being unstable relatively slim.
Hawn inquired whether there were any further public comments relating to this application.
There were no further public comments.
Mabusth inquired whether the drainage behind the wall has been addressed.
Oberg stated the wall has been designed with drain tile located behind it. Oberg stated the wall
consists of three-foot boulders with one foot of aggregate behind it. Within the aggregate is four-inch
drain tile with outlets every 40 feet out the face of the wall to handle the water runoff. Oberg stated
the only water that would run west would be surface water that would run across the top of the wall.
Mabusth inquired whether a two-tier type wall had been considered for this area.
Oberg noted there is only 12 feet from the house to the 75-foot setback,which does not allow
sufficient room for a two-tiered wall.
Stoddard noted the City generally likes to see some type of plantings to help screen the walls, and
inquired whether any type of creeping vine was considered.
Oberg stated due to the design of the wall,with the one foot of aggregate behind it,there is no soil for
the vines to grow.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP,CONTINUED)
Stoddard inquired what the visibility of the wall would be from the lake from the highest point of the
wall.
Oberg stated at maturity the spruce trees would be taller than the wall,which will eventually totally
screen the wall.
Stoddard pointed out the view from the adjoining residences need to be kept in mind when screening
the wall.
Oberg stated it is not a matter of the view from the neighbors but rather the view from the lake.
Oberg stated it is his belief the wall would not encroach into anyone's sight lines.
Stoddard reiterated that the view from the adjoining property owners needs to be considered when
screening the wall.
Oberg stated there is a possibility the neighbor to the west may experience some screening of a
portion of the lake due to the trees that will be planted.
Mabusth inquired whether the City has heard from the other adjoining property owner.
Oberg stated he has not.
Stoddard inquires what will screen the boulder wall.
Oberg stated there is nothing that will screen the wall,with the height of the boulder wall ranging
from 30 inches high to 18 inches high.
Stoddard commented the Planning Commission does routinely request shrubbery along boulder walls
to help screen the wall.
Lindquist inquired why this boulder wall was not approved at the same time the original permits were
issued.
Gaffron stated that is a question to ask the property owner rather than Staff since Staff had approved a
drainage plan that shows a yard that tapered down to the lakeshore and did not require a boulder wall.
Oberg stated he did request a drainage plan and was told there was not one by Staff.
Gaffron stated the information Staff was originally provided did not show they intended to create a
flat yard to the west of the house. Staff had the impression they were just going to let the land in that
area taper off. Gaffron stated he would have preferred to deal with this issue as part of the house plan
and perhaps the Applicnat would have redesigned the house differently.
Lindquist inquired whether this should be considered a bluff impact zone.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge it does not rise high enough to be considered a bluff,but it certainly
is a steep slope.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP,CONTINUED)
Oberg stated the area where the boulder wall is to be constructed is pretty much virgin ground, with
no extra soil being brought in.
Hawn inquired whether landscape fabric would be used on this project.
Gaffron stated in order to construct the boulder wall properly, landscape fabric would need to be
used. Gaffron stated the boulder wall would be considered hardcover.
Mabusth recommended the Applicant compile some elevations for the area and the view from the
lake prior to this application proceeding to the City Council.
McElhatton reiterated his concerns relating to the global stability of the wall.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission and City Engineer has recommended that issue be looked
at further.
Kluth inquired whether any additional fill would be needed.
Oberg stated in his view there probably is too much fill on the site, which will need to be hauled
away.
Lindquist moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2724,Michelle
and David Timp, 1000 Wildhurst Trail,granting of a conditional use permit to construct a
boulder retaining wall on the west and lake side of the residence and permit grading greater of
than 500 cubic yards of fill,and a variance to the average lakeshore setback,subject to review
and approval by Staff of a landscape and drainage plan and in cooperation with the adjoining
property owners on the sight lines.
Hawn inquired whether a hardcover variance is needed for the 0-75' setback.
Gaffron stated the City does allow a stairway in the 0-75' setback area.
Weinberger stated the only hardcover shown on the plan is the stairway.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn recommended the motion be amended to include global stability.
Hawn moved,Rahn seconded,to amend the motion to include the condition that the issues
relating to global stability be satisfied and approved by the City Engineer prior to this
application proceeding to the City Council,with the understanding the erosion controls and silt
fencing will be maintained until completion of the boulder wall and landscaping is established.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#12) #01-2726 EROTAS BUILDING CORPORATION WITH AN INTEREST IN 450
ORONO ORCHARD ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES,9:16 p.m.—9:23 p.m.
Dave Erostas and Mike Miller, Erotas Building Corporation, appeared on behalf of Kevin Garnett,
property owner.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated Erotas Building Corporation has submitted an after-the-fact variance to permit a
six-foot fence to be located within the 50 foot street yard setback where fences are permitted to be 3.5
feet in height. The fences would be located along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street. Under
City Code, fences are not permitted to exceed 3.5 feet in height within the 50-foot front and side yard
adjacent to the street setbacks.
Weinberger stated the principal residence on the property has recently undergone extensive
remodeling and updating. Part of the property improvements include removal of the"old"guest
house and construction of a new guest house on the property. In June, 2001,the Council approved
the conditional use permit for the new guest house. The overall site plan also includes a security gate
and enclosing the entire property with a fence. Last year a permitted six-foot fence had been installed
along the north and east property lines,with a 3.5 foot fence being installed along the south property
line.
Weinberger indicated this property consists of 14.7 acres,with security being an issue. The property
owner has planted a vegetative buffer consisting of trees ranging in height from 13 feet to 16 feet.
The landscaping has consisting of planting a dense row of arborvitae trees,which leaves no view of
the property from the street. The fence has been installed between the trees and the house.
Weinberger stated the new portion of the fence was installed in August, 2001,with a stop work order
having been issued for the new fence along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the hardship that the fence would be
securing a large property in the RR-1B zoning district. The property is in an area where the general
development is consistent with other properties in the area.
Erotas stated approximately 90 percent of the fence is screened by the row of arborvitae trees.
Mabusth inquired whether there is another access point to this site.
Erotas stated there is not. Erotas stated they are attempting to screen the bedrooms from Orono
Orchard Road.
Lindquist moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#091-01-2726,Erotas
Building Corporation,450 Orono Orchard Road,granting an after-the-fact variance to permit
a six foot fence to be located within the 50 foot street yard setback,with the finding that the six
foot fence will be securing a large property,subject to the wall being screened.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#13) #01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE,VARIANCES,
9:24 p.m.—9:37 p.m.
Mary and Joe King, Applicants, were present, along with Mark Sharratt,Architect, and Jeff Switzer,
Architect.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the
lot. The Applicant's initial proposal has been revised,with the proposed size of the residence being
downsized to 14.9 percent structural coverage, meeting the 15 percent structural coverage for the lot.
The Applicants have indicated a desire to retain an in ground pool on the property. Orono City
Ordinance adopted in February, 1990, states that pools, including pool basin and associated deck or
patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck, or patio is enclosed with a fence, shall be
included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. The proposed residence,pool,and deck total
6,790 square feet or 23.2 percent structural coverage.
City Staff is considering the possibility of revisiting the ordinance and amending the ordinance,with
Planning Commission review in November. The Applicants have stated they would remove the pool
when the existing residence is demolished if their lot area variance is approved. However,the
Applicants would prefer to delay removal of the pool until the ordinance has been revisited and a
determination is made as to whether pools should be included in structural lot coverage. However,
they will then have an accessory structure without a principal residence. A variance for this needs to
be applied for and approved prior to construction of the new residence.
Staff is recommending approval of the lot area variance with the condition that the pool be removed
when the house is demolished. Staff also recommends the granting of a conditional variance for
accessory structure without a principal structure,which would only be effective if the code is changed
prior to the demolition of the house to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage.
Weinberger stated the City has received a petition from a number of the adjoining property owners
indicating they are supportive of the project.
Mark Sharratt stated the Applicants would like to replace the existing house since it is outdated and
rebuild on the lot. Sharratt stated the only variance they are requesting at this time is a lot area
variance,but they would like to request the City reconsider their ordinance regarding pools and
whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage. Sharratt stated the property owners
would prefer to keep the pool if at all possible.
Mrs. King requested the Planning Commission reconsider their ordinance,noting they would like to
retain the pool.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Lindquist inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to review the ordinance.
Gaffron stated at the time this ordinance was adopted,he was opposed to including pools and their
patios as structural coverage in the ordinance back in 1990. Gaffron stated the intent of the ordinance
was to regulate visual density, bulk and massing of structures on property, with the Council electing
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING,CONTINUED)
at the time they adopted the ordinance to include pools in the calculation of structural lot coverage.
Gaffron noted the City also has an accessory structure ordinance regulating pools and other structures
as far as setbacks are concerned. Gaffron stated normally the City only includes things that are six
feet above grade in their calculations of structural lot coverage, and in his view this ordinance should
be revisited.
Hawn recommended the Planning Commission review this ordinance at a work session.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need to have a work session the early part of
November to discuss another topic, and suggested this item be added to that agenda.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the pool remaining as long as there is an
understanding that the pool will be removed if structural coverage is over 15 percent.
Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants also own Lots 42 and 43.
Mrs. King stated those lots are the property of the City of Orono.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would build a new residence if the ordinance is not amended.
Mr. King stated they may elect not to build a new residence if the ordinance is not changed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission may want to place a time limit on when the pool should be
removed if the Applicants choose to build a new residence and the ordinance is not amended.
Mr. King stated Staff sent them a letter stating the pool would need to be removed at the time the
existing house was demolished.
Hawn stated that would be fine.
Kluth stated the Applicants have one year to decide whether they want to construct the new residence.
Lindquist pointed out if the ordinance is to be amended, it probably will not happen until January or
February.
Mr. King stated they understand that. Mr. King inquired whether an above ground pool would also
be considered structural coverage.
Mabusth stated it would be considered structural depending on the size of the pool.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2727,Mary and
Joe King, 142 Chevy Chase Drive,granting of a lot area variance,and granting of a conditional
variance for accessory structure without a principal structure that would only be effective if the
code is changed to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage,with the
understanding the pool will be removed at the time the house is demolished if the ordinance is
not amended. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#14) #01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD,4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:37 p.m.—10:15 p.m.
William Stoddard,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a new house on the property located at
4365 North Shore Drive. The lot currently has an existing house, detached garage and boathouse.
Weinberger stated a lot line rearrangement changed the side property line location. The Council at
that time made a finding that the lot does meet the one acre minimum lot requirement but was slightly
short on property width, and so granted a lifetime variance for this lot in the event it would ever be
redeveloped that it would be considered a record lot.
Weinberger stated a variance is required to permit the 16' by 23.8' boathouse to remain on the
property. The existing house is not proposed to be removed,but would be converted into an
accessory building to the new house. The existing house would be resized to meet a 10-foot setback
from the street. This would be done by removing a three-season porch and part of the structure.
Weinberger stated the second part of the application is for a conditional use permit for plumbing in an
accessory building. The current residential structure would remain on the property with plumbing
fixtures in place; however,the kitchen would be removed from the building. In 1998,the Council
adopted an ordinance that allowed plumbing in an accessory building subject to a conditional use
permit.
Weinberger indicated variances would also be required for the location of the building. The building
is located 5.4 feet from the west property line where a 15-foot setback is required, and would be ten
feet from the street lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. A 15-foot side setback is required for
accessory buildings greater than 750 square feet. Staff did discuss the issue of reducing the size of
the house to meet the 10-foot setback from the side property line, but posed a problem as far as the
plumbing since all of the plumbing is installed on that portion of the house and would require removal
and re-installation of the plumbing.
Weinberger stated the issues before the Planning Commission include clarification of the position to
allow accessory buildings to remain on properties and whether to deduct the hardcover within 75 feet
of the lakeshore from the total allowed in 75-250' lakeshore setback, and whether the boathouse is of
quality,historical value, and character to make findings that there is a unique situation that exists on
the property. A third issue for discussion is whether the current location of the existing house and
location of plumbing fixtures within the house a hardship that would be unique to this property and
justify granting of the conditional use permit and variances.
Stoddard stated his application contains two requests,with the first one requesting that the boathouse
be allowed to remain on the property. Stoddard stated he has contacted the Historical Society but has
not heard back from them at this time. Stoddard indicated the boathouse was part of the original Saga
Hill Colony.
Stoddard stated if he moves the existing garage somewhat,he could make it a conforming structure.
Stoddard stated he would remove a portion of the house to reduce the size of the house and remove
the kitchen. Stoddard stated since this lot does not consist of two acres,they are unable to call this
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD,CONTINUED)
structure a guest house, and that he would be willing to enter into an agreement stipulating that the
house cannot be rented out or subdivided.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired why Stoddard would like to keep the existing house.
Stoddard stated in his opinion it would add value to the property and that he perhaps may use it for
storage.
Lindquist inquired whether he intended to use it as a mother-in-law house.
Stoddard stated he is unable to have a kitchen in the residence.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the boathouse, noting it is structurally sound.
Lindquist stated if Stoddard is over on the hardcover limits,the boathouse would need to be removed.
Stoddard cited some examples where the Planning Commission has not included boathouses in the
hardcover calculations, such as the Hart residence on Kelly Avenue. Stoddard stated the Planning
Commission in the past has randomly chosen to include boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist stated according to his calculations,he would be 141 square feet over on the hardcover if
included in the calculations.
Hawn concurred that the Planning Commission and Staff have sometimes forgotten in the past to
include boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist recommended Stoddard consider reducing hardcover by 141 square feet.
Mabusth commented the Planning Commission would need to be more consistent in the future on
including boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the existing house remaining on the property.
Stoddard stated he would be removing the deck and garage.
Kluth inquired whether Stoddard would be willing to reduce hardcover by 141 square feet.
Stoddard indicated he was unaware he was over on the hardcover until this evening, and that he will
leave it up to the Planning Commission on whether the hardcover should be reduced.
Lindquist noted the existing house would be located 16 feet from the street lot line following removal
of a portion of the residence.
Stoddard commented the adjoining property owners have signed off on the variances.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD,CONTINUED)
Gaffron stated the grading on the west-side of the property line will need to be reviewed in order to
determine whether the water runoff goes toward the lake. Gaffron noted the drainage arrows on the
survey show that the drainage does not follow the natural flow to the lake.
Stoddard stated there is an easement in that area, with the elevations for the basement and first floor
being the same as the house to the east.
Gaffron inquired where the neighbor's house to the west lies in relation to Stoddard's house.
Stoddard stated the house to the west is approximately five feet higher and that the drainage from his
lot would not run into the neighbor's house.
Hawn stated the question before the Planning Commission is whether the boathouse should be
included in the hardcover calculations.
Mabusth stated the Planning Commission should be consistent on this issue, and inquired whether the
current ordinance should be amended.
Gaffron stated in his view the ordinance should be amended,and recommended discussing this item
in the upcoming work session. Gaffron stated this item needs to be formalized in the ordinance in
order for Staff to give firm direction on the policies of the City.
Stoddard reiterated there have been examples where the boathouse was not included, citing a house
on Casco Point and another house down the road from his residence.
Lindquist stated in his opinion the 141 square feet should be removed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission has gone both ways on this issue in the past,but
recommended that Stoddard consider reducing the hardcover by 141 square feet.
Kluth stated in his opinion if boathouses have not been included in the hardcover calculations in the
past, it has been a mistake on the part of the City. Kluth stated until the ordinance is changed,
Stoddard is probably entitled to the additional hardcover.
Hawn stated in her view the 141 square feet of additional hardcover should be removed even though
inclusion of boathouses in hardcover calculations have not been formalized by the City.
Stoddard pointed out that inclusion of boathouses in the hardcover calculations is not included in the
ordinance.
Rahn stated in his view the 141 square feet is relatively minor, and questioned whether there is
anyplace on the lot where the hardcover could be reduced further.
Stoddard stated one issue not before the Planning Commission tonight is the fact that a mistake has
been made on their title and that he actually has one extra foot on the east side.
Mabusth stated she would like the existing residence meet the 16-foot setback.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD,CONTINUED)
Hawn stated the City's ordinance reads that an accessory building may have plumbing as long as it is
conforming,which this structure is not. Hawn noted the plumbing is located on that side of the
house,which makes it difficult to reduce the house in that area.
Gaffron stated the house needs to meet a 30-foot street setback and a 10-foot side setback in order to
make it conforming.
Hawn noted the house is not conforming on either side. Hawn stated the kitchen would need to be
removed.
Mabusth commented in her view this is a unique property.
Hawn stated there are lots of properties in Orono where the property owners are tearing down the
existing residences and constructing new residences.
Gaffron stated there are two instances that he is aware of where the original house is still located on
the property following the construction of a new residence. Gaffron stated those property owners
were required to remove the plumbing. Gaffron stated the one residence on Old Crystal Bay Road
did not meet the setbacks, and he is unsure at this time whether the residence on County Road 6 met
the required setbacks. Gaffron commented these situations do exist in Orono.
Mabusth inquired whether the exterior on the existing residence would be the same as the new
residence.
Stoddard stated it would be. Stoddard stated his hardship is the fact that the house is existing in that
location and that it would be a big hardship to relocate the house to conform to the setbacks.
Lindquist commented he does not have a problem with the location of the existing residence but
would still like to see the hardcover reduced slightly.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2728,William
and Laura Stoddard,4365 North Shore Drive,granting of a variance to permit the boathouse to
remain in the 0-75' setback as an accessory structure without a principal structure during the
time of construction of the new residence,subject to a review of the hardcover in the 0-75'
setback.
Lindquist stated Stoddard would still need a variance to hardcover in the 0-75' setback.
Hawn stated he would not need a hardcover variance unless the hardcover in the 0-75' setback is
added to the other hardcover in the 75-250' setback area.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2728,
William and Laura Stoddard,4365 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit to
allow the retention of the existing residence to remain on the property as an accessory structure
during the time of construction of the principal residence,with the understanding the existing
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD,CONTINUED)
residence will be reduced in size resulting in a 16 feet from the platted lot line and 10 feet from
the Hennepin County right-of-way. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2728,
William and Laura Stoddard,4365 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit to
allow the retention of the existing residence to remain on the property as an accessory structure
during the time of construction of the principal residence; granting variances to the street
property line setback and the side yard setback,with the understanding the existing residence
will be reduced in size resulting in a setback of 16 feet from the platted lot line and 10 feet from
the Hennepin County right-of-way and a five to six feet setback on the west side of the
property; subject to the removal of the existing kitchen,with the understanding the remaining
plumbing in the residence may stay. It is further understood the existing structure will never
be considered an independent residential structure and that no future additions to the residence
will be permitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 24,2001 AND OCTOBER 8,2001
Hawn stated she was unable to attend the October 8th Council meeting.
Gaffron stated the Council denied the request by Sprint at their October 8th meeting for placement of a
cell tower in Crystal Bay Park. The City Council also discussed the cat situation at the Hollander
residence. The Council determined that further revision of its ordinance regulating kennels would be
appropriate by requiring a license be obtained if there are more than four cats being kept on a
property. Gaffron indicated he is working on the ordinance at the present time,which will be
presented to the Council at its meeting in October. Gaffron stated the Council had elected not to
restrict the number of cats that could be kept on a property.
Stoddard recommended a maximum number of cats be included in the ordinance.
Gaffron stated he suggested a maximum number of ten cats for any one property.
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission formally open a public hearing for the applications
on the Consent Agenda and formally close the public hearing. Gaffron stated a public hearing still
needs to be held even though the applications are on the Consent Agenda.
Kluth stated the City Attorney has recommended that the record clearly reflect that the public hearing
was opened and closed on each of the Consent Agenda items.
Hawn inquired when the Planning Commission work session should be scheduled.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001
(OTHER ISSUES,CONTINUED)
Gaffron suggested the first week of November. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need
to discuss home occupations,whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage
calculation, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to schedule a work session for Wednesday,November 7,
2001, at 8:00 a.m.
Stoddard requested the Council consider allowing landscape fabric be used in certain setback areas in
order to avoid situations where lawn chemicals will be used to eradicate the weeds.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 17,2001
Lindquist moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve the minutes of the September 17,2001
Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Kluth abstained.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 22,2001 AND NOVEMBER 13,2001
October 22—Stoddard November 13—Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Lindquist moved,Hawn seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Elizabeth Hawn, Chair
PAGE 30