HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 1 — — 4C-'✓c,L
❑ COUNCIL
Er PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRES NAME OR NUMBER
WA
2. git 1 (:_r) 144,1 L J nelu
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X:\Data Administrative Support\(Forms-OId)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair
Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth,Janice Berg,Daniel Kluth, and Alternates J. Mark
Fritzler, and David Rahn. Commissioners William Stoddard and Sandra Smith were absent.
The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator
Paul Weinberger,Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
(#1) #01-2699 JAY AND KENDALL NYGARD, 1386 REST POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,
6:32 p.m.—6:49 p.m.
Jay Nygard, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit a two-story addition to the existing
house, which will provide for an entryway and second floor living space. The addition is proposed to be
located eight feet from the east property line encroaching two feet into the 10-foot required side yard
setback. The two-foot variance is being requested to allow the proposed addition to match the existing
exterior wall on the house. The residence is currently located eight feet from the property line and was
constructed prior to current zoning standards.
A second variance is also being requested to permit additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore
setback. The total hardcover would be increased by 120 square feet. The addition would be partially
located over an existing concrete walk, stoop, and rock garden. The Applicant has agreed to remove a
portion of the landscape rock and plastic,which will keep the existing hardcover at the current amount
of 52.4 percent. Weinberger stated the hardcover numbers included in the Staff report do not reflect the
amount of non-conforming landscaping plastic,noting the amount of landscape plastic was deducted
from the hardcover numbers and will be removed from the property upon approval of the application.
The Applicant has submitted a statement indicating he suffers a hardship because the house was built
prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and was located only eight feet from the existing
property line.
Weinberger reiterated the addition would not increase the total hardcover on the property, with the
existing hardcover remaining at 52.4 percent where 25 percent is allowed. Weinberger stated the
addition would be considered structural coverage that would be replacing essentially a rock garden.
Weinberger stated the addition would no longer increase the hardcover by 120 square feet since the
Applicant has agreed to remove additional hardcover on that portion of the property. Weinberger noted
the total structural coverage on the property is 14.6 percent.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the three conditions outlined in the
January 2, 2002 Staff memorandum based on the fact the house was originally constructed eight feet
from the property line and the new addition would not increase the total structural coverage on the
property over the maximum 15 percent limit.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2699 Jay and Kendall Nygard, Continued)
Hawn inquired how much hardcover the driveway consists of in that zone.
Weinberger stated the driveway is almost 900 square feet, which would be between 15 and 20 percent of
the entire hardcover of the lot located within the 75-250' setback area.
Nygard stated he does have approximately a 50-gallon drain trap located in the driveway which does
help alleviate the drainage in this area. Nygard noted the structural coverage being requested is 14.6
percent, and inquired whether he could increase the structural coverage by.4 percent. Nygard stated he
understands his lot would then be considered fully built and that no other increases to structural
coverage would be allowed.
Nygard stated he is agreeable to removing the plastic and rock, and would be installing gutters on the
house as well as drain tile to help alleviate the drainage.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn stated typically the Planning Commission only approves the plan that is in front of them,noting
the Applicant did request he be allowed to increase the structural coverage slightly. Hawn noted the
hardcover on this lot is well over the allowable 25 percent, and questioned whether a hardship really
does exist. Hawn stated the Planning Commission generally considers a hardship to be imposed by the
land itself,but in her opinion a hardship may exist since the house was constructed prior to current
zoning ordinances.
Mabusth stated the comments by Hawn are consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendations in the past. Mabusth stated this application could be tabled which would give the
Applicant a chance to bring a revised plan back before the Planning Commission. Mabusth stated she
personally does not have a problem with the application, and inquired what the current overhang is.
Weinberger stated the current overhang is under one foot.
Mabusth stated she did not observe any overhangs on the other part of the structure.
Nygard stated the overhang is one foot total.
Mabusth stated it was her recollection the survey showed a three-foot overhang.
Nygard stated the surveyor may have assumed a standard three-foot overhang, which is incorrect.
Nygard stated he does not have a problem removing the request for the extra .4 percent structural
coverage,noting he originally added his numbers incorrectly.
Mabusth stated typically the Planning Commission likes to see the final plan before approving any
increase in structural coverage.
Nygard stated he basically would extend the addition one foot.
Hawn inquired whether he would be willing to remove a little additional hardcover.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2699 Jay and Kendall Nygard, Continued)
Nygard stated he would remove more of the rock garden.
Kluth noted although it is unusual for the Planning Commission to approve plans that have been
amended prior to the changes being reflected on a final drawing, they have in certain cases done that in
the past.
Hawn inquired whether the neighbors are fine with this proposal.
Nygard stated they are.
Mabusth inquired how the Applicant is able to deal with backing out onto Rest Point Road.
Nygard stated he generally backs up into the driveway to avoid having to back out onto the street.
Nygard indicated the neighborhood generally encourages everyone to drive slow through this area.
Mabusth stated in her view issue number two should be further discussed at their next Planning
Commission meeting. Mabusth stated she would also like a clarification on overhangs by the City
Attorney. Mabusth noted residents are allowed a 1.5 foot overhang.
Hawn stated it was her understanding that had been changed to two feet.
Nygard indicated the Planning Commission agreed that it should not encroach into the ten-foot setback.
Nygard stated you are allowed two feet of overhang that does not count as structural coverage but it
should not encroach into the 10-foot setback.
Mabusth stated she would like to know where that 10-foot setback ends, whether it is 8.5 feet from the
overhang or from the house. Mabusth stated it was her understanding if the structure met the setback,
you were then allowed a 1.5 foot overhang.
Weinberger stated that basically is the definition.
Hawn stated if the Planning Commission does approve the application with the .4 percent increase in
hardcover,the Applicant would be required to have final plans submitted reflecting that change prior to
the City Council meeting.
Nygard stated he would.
Rahn stated the Applicant did indicate the square footage would be added towards the front and not the
back of the structure. Rahn stated he does not want to see it encroach any closer to the side setbacks.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2699,Jay and
Kendall Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road,granting of a variance to permit an addition to encroach
two feet into the 10 foot required side yard setback,with the understanding the structural
coverage will not exceed the allowable 15 percent, and subject to,one,the Applicant submitting a
final plan prior to the City Council meeting showing the additional.4 percent structural coverage;
two, a drainage and gutter plan will also be submitted at the same time prior to the City Council
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2699 Jay and Kendall Nygard, Continued)
meeting; three,the existing rock garden will be reduced by such size that the total project does not
exceed the 52.4 percent existing hardcover; and four, all landscaping fabric will be removed.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#2) #01-2730 ACE PROPERTIES,3375 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES
Larry Palm and Gary Gniffke, Ace Properties, were present.
Weinberger stated the application was before the Planning Commission in November, at which time the
application was tabled to allow the Applicant time to revise his plan. The Planning Commission at that
time had recommended the size of the house be reduced to meet the 15 percent structural coverage as
well as meet the 10-foot side yard setbacks on each side of the house.
This property is located at 3375 Crystal Bay Road, which runs along the lake and is narrow in depth,
with all the properties having access onto the road. Located behind each of the properties in this area is
the Dakota Rail, which is now in the process of being converted into a regional frail system.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have revised the plan to reduce the size of the structure from the
previous proposal,but are still requesting to construct a 1,643 square foot house. This property has a
defined lot area of 6,690 square feet. Properties less than 10,000 square feet are allowed a maximum lot
coverage by structure up to 1,500 square feet. The proposed building exceeds the allowed coverage by
143 square feet.
The Applicants are requesting variances to lot area and lot width to permit construction of the new
residence on the property, which is located in the LR-1C district, and consists of less than one-half acre
and less than 100 feet wide. The defined lot width is 50 feet at the lakeshore and defined structure
setback. Variances are also being requested for hardcover and structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore,
where no hardcover or structure is allowed, and a variance to permit greater than 25 percent hardcover
in the 75-250' setback. The Applicants are proposing 53.4 percent hardcover in the 75-250' setback
where 72.5 percent currently exists. Weinberger stated there is a possibility the hardcover in this area
could be reduced further by the removal of some concrete and steps. Hardcover in the 0-75' area is
proposed at 748 square feet or 23.8 percent, where currently 45.1 percent exists and none is allowed.
In addition, variances are also being requested to allow a one-foot encroachment into the side setback.
Weinberger stated the proposed residence is 31 feet wide, with the lot being 50 feet wide, and a 10-foot
side setback being required on either side of the house. Weinberger stated if the house is reduced by
one foot,it would meet the 10-foot side setback on either side of the house. In addition,the applicants
are requesting a variance to the rear yard setback to allow the structure to be located 19.2 feet from the
rear property line where 30 feet is required. Weinberger noted this lot does not back up to another
residential lot.
Weinberger stated a variance is also required to permit the eaves and gutters to encroach more than
1.5 feet into the side setback. The proposed eaves encroach three feet into the east setback and two feet
into the west setback.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2730 Ace Properties,Continued)
Staff recommends that the size of the structure be reduced to a size not to exceed 1,500 square feet,with
the building meeting the minimum 10-foot side setbacks on either side of the house. Weinberger stated
drainage to the lake is a concern in this area and would require the Applicant to submit a drainage and
grading plan for review and approval by City Staff. Staff does support approval of the variances to lot
area and lot width as well as rear setback and hardcover variances for the 0-75' setback for the driveway
and to permit over 25 percent hardcover in the 75-250' setback to allow a reasonable sized house.
Palm stated he has no additional remarks to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth noted the minutes from the November Planning Commission meeting clearly indicate the
direction of the Planning Commission was to reduce the size of the house so it would not exceed the
1,500 square feet. Kluth stated the Planning Commission in the past has been fairly consistent on that
requirement.
Mabusth stated meeting the 10-foot side setback was also recommended. Mabusth noted the new plan
is proposing to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' as well as the 75-250' setback areas from what currently
exists. Mabusth stated her only concerns with this application relate to the structural coverage and the
side yard setback.
Berg stated the minutes reflect it was clearly stated to the applicants that structural coverage needs to be
reduced down to 1,500 square feet. Berg inquired whether there is any hardship that exists for the
overage.
Gniffke requested the picture of the house be shown to the Planning Commission.
Weinberger stated he does not have an actual picture of the house. Weinberger stated Staff did not
make a finding of hardship for a house in excess of 1,500 square feet. Weinberger indicated the current
house is 1,900 square feet, one and a half stories,with the proposed residence being two and a half
stories.
Berg noted this would be considered new construction.
Palm stated he does not necessarily agree with that.
Rahn stated the Applicant does have the option of remodeling within the existing structure without
expanding the footprint. Rahn stated he is confused why the plan indicates a 30-foot width while the
survey shows a 31-foot width.
Palm stated it was his understanding the width of the house is 30 feet.
Rahn inquired whether the Applicants have a problem complying with the 10-foot side setback
requirement.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2730 Ace Properties,Continued)
Palm stated they do not. Palm stated their designer was directed to design a house with a 10-foot
setback on either side.
Rahn noted the survey also does not indicate the first floor bay, and inquired whether that is a legal
encroachment onto the rear setback.
Mabusth inquired what the area of the window is.
Weinberger stated the bay window would be considered part of the building.
Rahn stated that bay window may affect the rear setback and may also not be included in the square foot
calculations for the first floor.
Palm stated the window is cantilevered and not hardcover.
Hawn stated it would still be considered structural coverage. Hawn stated the Planning Commission
needs to know how far the bay window sticks out from the structure to determine the rear setback.
Weinberger stated he is unable to give an exact dimension,but that he would estimate it would make the
rear setback approximately 18 feet.
Palm stated he does not have the dimensions on the window.
Hawn stated it appears the consensus of the Planning Commission is that the structural coverage of
1,500 square feet be complied with along with the 10-foot side setbacks.
Palm pointed out the design of the new residence does correct a number of existing deficiencies that
exist on the property. Palm stated they could remodel the existing structure,which would result in the
drainage problems not being corrected. Palm stated they would be agreeable to reducing the hardcover
further by removing that concrete pad. Palm stated they are incurring considerable expense by reducing
the size of the footprint and correcting the drainage in the area. Palm indicated they are approximately
90 square feet over what is allowed.
Hawn stated the bay window would also need to be included.
Palm stated he would take the bay window out.
Kluth commented it is the job of the Planning Commission to hold the line on these types of
applications and make the applicants comply with the requirements as much as possible.
Palm noted they have reduced the size of the structure already. Palm stated when you are dealing with a
house of this size,the removal of 93 square feet could have a huge impact on the house.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission in the past has made applicants comply with the 15 percent
structural coverage limit.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2730 Ace Properties,Continued)
Palm stated he would like to resolve this issue tonight rather than table the application another 30 days.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission does not have a drawing in front of them that would reflect the
house if it was 93 square feet less.
Palm noted the Planning Commission approved the prior application without a final plan in front of
them. Palm stated they are agreeable to reducing one foot off the side of the house and however many
feet are necessary in the front to meet the 15 percent limit.
Weinberger noted the lot in the prior application was almost 11,000 square feet, with the square feet on
this lot consisting of 6,690. Weinberger stated there are also drainage problems that exist on this lot
which need to be resolved prior to this application proceeding to the City Council.
Berg inquired what the height of the structure is proposed to be.
Weinberger stated it has a defined height of 25 feet, with the height of the peak being around 31 feet.
Rahn stated he also would prefer the plans match the survey.
Gniffke stated it was their understanding from the last meeting that they would be given some leeway
on the structural coverage since they were correcting other problems with the lot.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission has always been very consistent on the 15 percent structural
coverage limit.
Palm stated he remembers the 1,500 square feet being discussed previously, and indicated he would be
agreeable to reducing it to 1,500 square feet. Palm stated he did ask specifically at the last meeting what
is needed to meet their requirements,and at no point was he told that a drainage and grading plan
needed to be submitted.
Hawn stated she would acknowledge the fact that the drainage and grading plan probably was not
discussed at the previous meeting.
Palm stated they would be happy to work with Staff on the drainage and grading plan prior to the City
Council meeting.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission does prefer to see a grading and drainage plan,but that it is not
unusual for an application to be approved with it being subject to a plan being submitted for review and
approval by Staff prior to the City Council. Hawn stated she has a bigger concern with what exactly
will be built once the excess structural coverage is removed.
Palm stated they are agreeable to meeting the 10-foot side setback on either side,which eliminates the
need for that variance. Palm stated they are willing to reduce the house three feet from the northerly
structure line to the south, which will accommodate the average lakeshore setback, and address the
drainage issues.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2730 Ace Properties,Continued)
Rahn stated to his understanding that would work. Rahn commented it appears on the plans the
Applicant did comply with the 10-foot side setbacks, and it would be relatively simple to comply with
the structural coverage.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission they would approve a house that does not exceed
the 15 percent structural coverage,removal of the bay window, and no encroachment on the side
setbacks.
Weinberger stated it appears the architect drew a 30-foot interior space and did not count the six-inch
exterior walls.
Hawn inquired whether a variance would be needed for the overhangs.
Weinberger stated if the overhangs are reduced to 1.5 feet,they would not need a variance.
Palm stated they would be agreeable to reducing the overhang to 1.5 feet.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2730,Ace
Properties,3375 Crystal Bay Road,granting variances to lot area and lot width,a variance to the
rear yard setback permitting a 19-foot setback rather than the required 30-foot setback, a
variance to the hardcover in the 0-75' setback of 23.8 percent, a variance to hardcover in the
75-250' setback,with the understanding the total hardcover in that area will be less than 53
percent, subject to the Applicants submitting a drainage and grading plan and a new drawing
reflecting the 10-foot setback on either side of the residence for Staff review and approval prior to
the City Council meeting,and further subject to the Applicants reducing the overhangs from two
feet to 1.5 feet,and with the understanding the total structural coverage will not exceed 1,500
square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#3) #01-2731 NAVARRE AMOCO,3360 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND VARIANCES
(#9) #02-2740 JEFFREY AND NANCY TWIDWELL, 1865 CONCORDIA STREET,
VARIANCES
Mabusth moved,Kluth seconded,to table Application#01-2731,Navarre Amoco,3360 Shoreline
Drive,and to table Application#01-2740,Jeffrey Twidwell, 1865 Concordia Street,at the request
of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 6,NAYS 0.
(#4) #01-2735 PROPOSED ZONING CODE ADMENDMENT, SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 14,
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ORDINANCE STANDARDS, 7:25 p.m.—7:42 p.m.
Bottenberg reviewed the proposed zoning code amendment to structural lot coverage standards,noting
this matter was discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting and a work session where it was
discussed that in-ground swimming pools and their associated grade level patios would no longer be
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
considered as structures for the purpose of calculating"lot coverage by structures"as long as they had
no elements higher than six feet over grade.
Bottenberg stated other items also discussed at the work session included the fact that structural
coverage calculations shall include building protrusions more than six feet above grade; the outer two
feet of roof overhangs shall not be considered as lot coverage; open decks with any portion of railing
above six feet will be counted as lot coverage in their entirety; and hardcover limits for non-shoreland
areas need to be looked at closer.
Bottenberg indicated included within Staff's report is an analysis done of the approximately 3,000
residential lots,with there being 616 lots which are considered non-shoreland and less than two acres in
area. Staff looked at four different neighborhoods within the City where the lots were two acres or less
in area—Hackberry Hill, Chevy Chase Drive, Webber Hills, and Chippewa Lane/Turnham Road. Each
area contains lots that are substandard in area as compared to the zoning requirement.
Staff utilized three different scenarios to determine the potential impacts of a hardcover limitation; one,
50 percent hardcover on total lot area; two, 50 percent hardcover on buildable area; and 80 percent
hardcover on buildable area. Bottenberg stated those calculations are included within Exhibit A.
Bottenberg indicated in many cases the size of the driveway and walk were estimated because in the
past hardcover was not an issue with these properties and were not included on the survey.
The analysis showed that there were no properties approaching 50 percent hardcover based on total lot
area, even for the small lots,with most lots being less than 30 percent hardcover. In addition,the
analysis showed that some properties have hardcover over or close to 50 percent buildable area, and a
large proportion of small lots in a large zoning district already have hardcover over 80 percent buildable
area because the buildable area is so small.
Upon reviewing the three scenarios, Staff recommends that hardcover limits to 50 percent or 80 percent
of buildable area does not provide equity to all property owners in the City because buildable area is so
variable for a given size lot depending on the zoning district. Also, Staff concludes that limiting
hardcover to 50 percent of total lot area is high. Of the properties reviewed,none were close to the 50
percent hardcover limit. If 50 percent is the recommended amount,will property owners add
improvements so half of their property is covered.
Staff recommends using the total lot area and a percentage smaller than 50 percent for allowed
hardcover, if a hardcover standard is needed at all. Bottenberg noted the attached map shows that the
actual number of lots less than two acres and not in shoreland is a small percentage of the total lots in
the City.
Bottenberg stated Staff is looking for direction on what the Planning Commission would recommend for
a hardcover percentage.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Hawn noted she had to leave the work session early and is not aware of what the conclusion was
regarding the six-foot building protrusions. Hawn stated it was her understanding when she left the
discussion was regarding any protrusion regardless of height.
Mabusth stated it was her understanding it was higher. Mabusth stated she recalls eight feet.
Gaffron stated he only recalls discussing six feet.
Weinberger stated there was some discussion over counting building protrusions over six feet, which are
currently not in the ordinance.
Mabusth concurred with Weinberger's recollection of the work session.
Gaffron stated decks over six feet have always been included in the calculation.
Hawn inquired why six feet and not three feet.
Gaffron stated that was a decision reached back in 1989 or 1990, and he is unsure of what the rationale
was for the six feet height. Gaffron stated most small sheds tend to be six feet in height and were
considered to have a visual impact,with anything below that not considered to have a visual impact.
Gaffron noted the maximum height of a fence is also six feet.
Hawn questioned whether something that protrudes out from a residence four feet would be considered
structural.
Gaffron stated what Hawn is talking about is called a wing wall that sticks out to screen the side of a
deck.
Mabusth stated a bay would be considered because it is higher than six feet.
Gaffron stated in his view bay windows should normally be considered as part of lot coverage.
Gaffron indicated he is unsure whether a wing wall should be included in the lot coverage.
Hawn stated it is her sense that this issue was not thoroughly discussed at the work session, and
recommended the Council discuss this aspect specifically and whether there should be this six foot
exception.
Kluth stated the intent of the ordinance for structural coverage is for massing or aesthetic reasons,and
suggested it be reduced to zero.
Mabusth stated Weinberger's comment in the first application regarding lot coverage was right on target
concerning a few of the applications dealing with structural coverage,hardcover, and setbacks on new
construction. Mabusth stated perhaps the Planning Commission should review some of those limited
lots and whether they should be given 15 percent structural coverage when they cannot meet the 0-75'
setback.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Gaffron inquired whether Mabusth feels that lot coverage and hardcover are mutually exclusive, and
even though you are allowed 15 percent,that does not automatically say you can have 70 percent
hardcover.
Mabusth stated if the setbacks cannot be met or there is structure located within the 0-75' setback,
should the City allow two and a half story structures or massing of structure on the smaller lots.
Mabusth commented she would like to discuss that issue in a work session.
Kluth stated the philosophy behind the ordinance is to avoid massing on the lot.
Rahn commented the City limits the footprint, which then encourages people to build up.
Mabusth stated the City in the past has encouraged property owners to build up if they had hardcover
constraints.
Kluth stated the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to permit the infiltration of water.
Hawn inquired how the Planning Commission felt about the hardcover at 35 percent.
Kluth questioned why a number even needs to be set if everyone is currently in compliance.
Mabusth stated that is her feeling also. Mabusth stated after seeing the analysis that was completed, she
would withdraw her request for hardcover controls on rural lots that do not meet two acres.
Kluth stated there are other controls in place for hardcover such as a maximum for the number of square
feet that can be built.
Mabusth commented that lots under two acres are also allowed 2,000 square feet of accessory
structures. Mabusth stated she does not currently see that happening.
Gaffron stated in his view he does not see the need for that limitation in the rural area at this point.
Kluth stated the City should look at it from the perspective of massing.
Hawn inquired what Staff would like the Planning Commission to do with this proposal.
Gaffron stated Staff could draft an ordinance for review by the Planning Commission at their next
meeting or schedule a work session where these issues can be discussed.
Hawn stated she would like some guidance on the six-foot height on protrusions from structures.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend Staff draft a sample ordinance for review at the
next Planning Commission meeting,with a request that Staff obtain some guidance on the issue of
the six-foot height limitation for protrusions from structures and the need for the limit.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20, SUBD.4C,
HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS, 7:42 p.m.—7:43 p.m.
Berg moved,Kluth seconded,to table Application#2333,Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,
Section 10.20, Subd. 4C,Home Occupation Standards. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#6) #02-2737 CHARLES PYLE,JR.,3548 IVY PLACE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES,
7:44 p.m.—7:48 p.m.
Charles Pyle, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances to permit the replacement of an
existing lakeside deck and repair a walkway. The deck and walkway are located within 75 feet of the
lakeshore. The deck and some boards in the walkway were old and deteriorated.
A variance to structural lot coverage is required to permit 20 percent lot coverage by structures where
15 percent is allowed. A variance to hardcover within the 0-75' is also required to permit 18.67 percent
hardcover where none is allowed, and a variance to lakeshore setback is necessary to permit 243 square
feet of structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore.
Bottenberg stated the design of the deck is an equal replacement to what existed. To meet today's code
standards, the footings were required to be raised above grade,higher than what existed, so an
additional step was added. The square footage of the deck increased by approximately 30 square feet to
meet the standard.
Staff recommends approval of the lot coverage by structure and hardcover variances. The Applicant is
required to remove 177 square feet of landscape fabric under rock.
Pyle stated they were unaware at the time this project was started of the number of railroad ties that
existed in the area. Pyle stated they ended up removing 20 railroad ties, which were then replaced with
keystone. Pyle stated he was unaware they needed a permit to replace the ties.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2737, Charles Pyle,
Jr.,3548 Ivy Place, granting of after-the-fact variances to structural lot coverage, hardcover in the
0-75' setback,and lakeshore setback to permit the replacement of an existing lakeside deck and
repair a walkway,with the understanding 177 square feet of landscape fabric will be removed.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #02-2738 G& G HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,PARTNERSHIP, 1170 LOMA LINDA
AVENUE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES,7:49 p.m.—7:56 p.m.
Scott Kutz,Vintage Builders, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting after-the-fact variances to replace a lakeside porch to the
same footprint that existed. The porch was built in 1978 and the wood is rotting on the roof. A permit
was obtained from the City, and during the process of the maintenance work and roof repair it was
discovered that the floor of the porch was also rotten.
In 1978 a variance was granted to enclose an existing concrete patio on the lakeside of the residence that
encroached into the 75' lakeshore setback and into the side yard setback. The plan approved is the same
as what is being proposed today. The footprint,hardcover,roof height or lot coverage by structures is
not changing from what existed and was approved in 1978.
A variance to the side yard setback is required to allow the porch to be 2.7 feet from the side lot line
where 10 feet is required, and a variance to the average lakeshore setback is also required to permit an
encroachment of 67 feet. Variances to hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback are also needed as
well as a variance to the lakeshore setback to allow a portion of the residence footprint to be within 75'
of the lakeshore.
Kutz stated they are not changing the footprint at all. Kutz stated he was unaware that correcting an
unsafe condition in the porch would require a variance since the footprint of the building was not being
changed. Kutz stated they did stop work on the porch until approval is received on the variances.
Bill Bockman, 830 Loma Linda Road, stated he just had a question regarding why after-the-fact
variances were needed,noting that it sounds like they were doing something they weren't supposed to
be doing and then got caught.
Hawn inquired whether Bockman heard the explanation of the builder.
Bockman stated he did.
Hawn inquired whether the neighbor has had a problem with the porch in the past.
Bockman stated he does not.
There were no further public comments regarding this application.
Mabusth stated she does not have a problem with this application since they are not expanding the
building envelope.
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2738,
G& G Holding Company Ltd.Partnership, 1170 Loma Linda Avenue,granting of after-the-fact
variances for side yard setback, average lakeshore setback,hardcover in the 0-75' setback,
hardcover in the 75-250' setback, and lakeshore setback to permit the enclosure of an existing
concrete patio on the lakeside of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2739 THOMAS AND MARY ANN DAHLQUIST,4070 DAHL ROAD,VARIANCES,
7:57 p.m.—8:31 p.m.
Thomas Dahlquist, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to extend the existing lakeside deck at the northwest
corner of the residence by seven feet and construct a 3.5 by 25' walkway that would connect the
lakeside deck to a small deck on the west side. The extension and walkway consists of 165 square feet.
Bottenberg stated this extension will provide wheelchair access-ability to the lakeside deck from inside
the residence. The interior of the residence has a step that one must go down in order to access the
lakeside deck. The applicants' mother-in-law lives with them and is in a wheelchair.
In June of 2001,the Applicants applied for and received a permit to repair the existing lakeside deck
and to construct a shed on the rear of the property. When the shed was built,it was believed to be built
ten feet off of the property line. When a survey was completed for the deck addition, it found to be 7
line and 8.9 feet from the property line. The 120 square foot shed needs to be set ten feet back from the
property line.
The variances that are required for this application include a variance to hardcover within the 75-250' of
the lakeshore to permit 27.9 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed.
Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance and moving the shed to meet the 10 foot yard
setback, subject to removal of 1,462 square feet of non-conforming plastic rock bed underlayment in the
75-250' zone.
Dahlquist stated currently his mother-in-law is not residing at the residence,but they expect her to be
back in the house shortly. Dahlquist indicated at the time the shed was built, they believed it was
located 10 feet off the property line until the survey was completed. Dahlquist stated the location of the
shed currently is in a spot that is the least obtrusive to the adjoining residence,noting the neighbor does
not object to the shed in its current location. Dahlquist stated it would be very difficult to relocate the
shed towards the driveway.
Mabusth stated the Planning Commission does have a letter indicating the neighbors do not object to the
shed.
Hawn inquired whether a drawing was submitted at the time the building permit was granted.
Dahlquist stated the shed was already partially built at the time the building permit was issued.
Weinberger stated the City does not require a survey for a shed of that size, which is considered to be a
temporary building which cannot be moved.
Dahlquist indicated the survey was done in conjunction with the deck.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth noted there is very little change in the hardcover calculations.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Dahlquist, Continued)
Rahn commented he personally does not have an issue with the location of the shed since the neighbors
are not objecting to it.
Mabusth noted there are no visual problems for the adjoining neighbor with the shed in that location.
Hawn stated the shed being located closer than 10 feet to the property line does set a precedence. Hawn
commented by code a hardship must be imposed by the layout of the land,not by one's personal
circumstances.
Mabusth inquired whether the deck would be a grade level deck or elevated.
Dalhquist stated the deck and walkway would be at the same level as the other deck.
Weinberger stated the deck on the lakeside is above a full walkout level.
Mabusth inquired how access is currently gained to the deck.
Dahlquist stated through a sliding glass door from the living room.
Mabusth inquired what the new deck will provide access to.
Dahlquist stated it would provide access from another room,with the other deck being used for grilling.
Rahn noted this addition to the deck would be connecting the two decks with a walkway.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant was okay with removing the rock and plastic.
Dahlquist stated he does not have a problem with removing the landscape fabric.
Kluth inquired whether the deck could be reduced somewhat to meet the 25 percent standard.
Dahlquist stated once the survey was completed,he did calculate the hardcover and arrived at 22.8
percent,with the addition of the deck and walkway resulting in 23.38 percent. Dahlquist stated Staff
then went out and measured it and arrived at 26 or 27 percent. Dahlquist stated he is unsure how that
number was arrived at.
Bottenberg stated she omitted the plastic from the calculations.
Dahlquist stated he did include the landscape fabric in his calculations,which amounted to 14.62 square
feet for the fabric, came up with 22.82 percent for the area between 75-250'. Dahlquist stated he then
added the 165 square feet for the new deck and walkway and came up with 23.38 percent. Dahlquist
stated that includes the landscape fabric, which will be removed. Dahlquist stated he took the numbers
off the survey.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Ann Dahlquist,Continued)
Bottenberg stated the difference is in the total area in the 75-250' setback. Bottenberg stated the
Applicant had 29,919 square feet where it is actually 19,865, which resulted in some confusion.
Bottenberg stated Gaffron reviewed the hardcover numbers to make sure the number was correct.
Mabusth inquired what the increase in hardcover is with the new deck and walkway.
Bottenberg stated it is 165 square feet.
Mabusth inquired whether the hardcover could be reduced somewhere.
Dahlquist stated he could remove the 1,462 square feet of landscape fabric.
Mabusth stated that is normally not included in the hardcover calculations.
Dahlquist stated he is not aware of any other place where the hardcover could be reduced.
Weinberger inquired whether there is a parking stall located next to the garage.
Dahlquist replied that it is.
Bottenberg stated Staff did review this site, and it would be difficult to remove a portion of the driveway
since some area is needed for a turn-around.
Weinberger indicated the wooden steps are also needed due to the grade in the area.
Mabusth pointed out those steps would be allowed in the 0-75' setback. Mabusth stated she did look at
the property and there really is no other place to reduce the hardcover. Mabusth indicated she would
recommend approval on this application.
Hawn commented she has a problem with approving this application since the Planning Commission in
the past has denied other applications that exceed the 25 percent limit.
Mabusth inquired whether the decks need to be connected.
Dahlquist stated it is to assist his mother-in-law and to help fit with their needs. Dahlquist stated they
would like to access the other deck without having to go through the house.
Hawn inquired whether the front deck could be made narrower.
Dahlquist stated the old decking material on that deck has already been replaced.
Hawn indicated she is speaking of the deck located on the street side of the house.
Dahlquist stated the deck on the street side has cement underneath it.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Dahlquist, Continued)
Rahn inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to eliminate the little bump-out on the new deck
toward the side. Rahn stated in his view that really is the only area to reduce the deck.
Hawn noted the hardcover would still be in excess of what he is allowed.
Dahlquist stated in the hardcover calculations there is not a total area under A,with B showing 19,865
square feet. Dahlquist inquired what that number is.
Hawn stated the number is 6,841.61 square feet.
Dahlquist indicated his number is 6,829 square feet,which is less. Dahlquist reiterated he arrives at
22.8 being increased to 23.38 percent.
Gaffron inquired whether that number is based on the 29,919 square feet total. Gaffron stated Staff has
calculated 19,865 in the 75-250' area. Upon removal of the rock and plastic,the hardcover would be
reduced to 53.79 percent.
Bottenberg stated that is correct.
Gaffron stated 53.79 divided by 19,865 is more than 25 percent and would be closer to 26 percent.
Dahlquist stated that would make the existing hardcover at 27.1 percent, with it being increased to 27.9
percent.
Mabusth stated the Planning Commission generally prefers the hardcover stay at the existing level or be
reduced rather than increased, which would be 27.1 percent. Mabusth inquired whether the Applicant
would be able to keep the hardcover at 27.1 percent.
Mrs. Dahlquist stated they attempted to design a deck that was aesthetically pleasing to the house as
well as functional. Dahlquist stated they have reviewed their plans a number of times in order to see if
it could be revised somehow, and in order to get access off the deck from the outside,they would need
to construct a walkway to connect the two decks. Dahlquist stated the little bump-out at the end gives
them an exit from the deck. Dahlquist stated the deck is long but not very deep.
Mabusth inquired whether there is access to that upper deck from somewhere other than inside the
house.
Mr. Dahlquist stated the only access is through the house.
Mabusth commented that could be considered a safety issue.
Mrs. Dahlquist stated that was where they started, and from there they attempted to provide access for
their mother-in-law. Dahlquist stated the deck cannot be made narrower if they want to use the existing
footings. Dahlquist stated she is not sure what other options they have for reducing the deck.
Hawn inquired whether both decks are over cement.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Ann Dahlquist, Continued)
Mrs. Dahlquist indicated the one deck is a privacy deck off of their bedroom and is located totally under
the roof line. Dahlquist stated the catwalk is 3.5 feet wide and is located under an existing overhang of
almost three feet. Dahlquist noted she did include the overhangs in the dimensions of the house.
Mabusth stated it would be nice to have the numbers confirmed.
Weinberger stated the survey does show the footprint of the house without the overhang.
Mabusth stated the overhangs should have been included on the survey, and suggested the numbers be
recalculated. Mabusth suggested this item be tabled to have the numbers recalculated, and inquired
whether the Applicants would be agreeable to tabling this.
Mrs. Dahlquist stated they are not in that big of a hurry and would have to wait until spring before the
work could be commenced.
Rahn stated he would like the numbers confirmed.
Weinberger stated the overhangs would be considered as hardcover,which would increase the
hardcover numbers if it is over three feet.
Mabusth stated if the overhang is over a majority of the walkway, it probably would not result in a big
increase.
Kluth commented the decisions of the Planning Commission need to based on facts, and in his view
there would be a very slight increase in the existing hardcover.
Kluth moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2739, Thomas and
Mary Ann Dahlquist,4070 Dahl Road,granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback,
subject to the hardcover numbers being verified, and further subject to the Applicants removing
1,462 square feet of landscape fabric. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Hawn Opposed.
Hawn stated she voted in opposition based on the application in front of them since it could be setting a
precedent, and if the hardcover increase is diminutive, she would support the application.
Hawn inquired how the Planning Commission felt about the shed.
Kluth inquired whether it could be relocated.
Dahlquist stated he is unsure whether the shed can be moved,noting that he constructed it himself and
he is unsure whether it would stay together if it is moved. Dahlquist stated the foundation consists of
clay, with the four beams resting on brick.
Mrs. Dahlquist stated she has a concern with moving the shed any close to her neighbor's front door,
noting the shed was originally located as far from the neighbor's front door as possible with the
understanding that it was ten feet off the property line. Dahlquist stated at the time the shed was
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2739 Thomas and Mary Ann Dahlquist, Continued)
constructed,they did talk with the neighbors regarding placement of the shed,noting they were told the
incorrect property line.
Kluth suggested City Staff or a surveyor locate the monuments.
Gaffron stated it is a hardship on City Staff to have them locate the monuments.
Kluth suggested perhaps the City require just the monuments be located rather than a full survey.
Gaffron stated there is some cost involved with locating the monuments. Gaffron stated the past
practice of the City has been to just let the property owners locate the monuments to show the building
inspector rather than having a formal survey done. Gaffron questioned whether the impact on the
neighbors' view would become greater by relocating the shed further away from the property line.
Berg moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend on Application#02-2739,Thomas and Mary Ann
Dahlquist,40780 Dahl Road,that the existing 120 square foot shed remain in its current location.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Item#9 follows Item#3.
(#10) #02-2741 CALVIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 177 GLENDALE DRIVE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:32 p.m.—8:43 p.m.
Terry Phillips,Vanman Companies, appeared on behalf of the Calvin Presbyterian Church.
Bottenberg stated the Calvin Presbyterian Church is proposing to construct a 3,335 square foot
Fellowship Hall with an adjoining kitchen and storage space, an expanded gathering area and new toilet
rooms on the upper level. The Fellowship Hall would be located on the back or west side of the church.
Both additions will be two floors,with the bottom levels containing the mechanicals for the building
and storage space. The Applicant is also proposing a new driveway off Glendale Drive which will lead
to a parking area consisting of six parking stalls, two of which are handicapped accessible. Bottenberg
indicated the church's primary use is Sunday morning services,but does have ongoing limited daily
activities.
Bottenberg stated the Calvin Presbyterian Church has existed since the early 1960s,but no conditional
use permit to allow the church in an"R"District is of record. Approval was granted in 1967 to
construct a Boy Scout clubhouse, and in 1990, approval was granted to construct a storage building on
the property. At neither time was a full review for a conditional use permit done to allow a church in a
residential property. Bottenberg indicated the Planning Commission should review that to formalize the
church's use of the site.
Bottenberg noted a portion of the church property is located within the City of Long Lake, with all
buildings on the site being located in Orono. The property is currently serviced by an on-site treatment
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2741 Calvin Presbyterian Church, Continued)
system and water is provided from Long Lake. The property is located in the RR-1B zoning district,
with the surrounding properties also being zoned RR-1B. The property consists of almost seven acres,
with substantial land between the church and the adjacent homes.
Bottenberg indicated the church is proposing an additional access off Glendale Drive,which will lead to
the back of the church and provide some parking stalls. The Public Works Director has reviewed the
proposal and has no issues with the additional access.
Bottenberg noted a lighting plan would need to be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit if
additional lighting is being requested. Bottenberg noted the property is landscaped,with the Applicant
not planning on modifying the existing landscape.
The property contains a private sewage treatment system, with routine inspections having determined
the septic system on the property is currently non-compliant and must be replaced by 2010. The current
septic code does not prohibit use of the property due to non-compliant systems. However, if it
determined to be failing, the system will require immediate replacement or hookup to City sewer since
this property has recently been included in the MUSA. The septic inspector did review the proposal and
has determined the existing septic system would need to be upgraded before an occupancy permit would
be issued.
Bottenberg stated if the signage of the lot is changed,they would need to submit a plan for review prior
to issuance of a permit. Bottenberg indicated minimal change to the existing grade is expected,with the
church being advised to contact the MCWD. A grading plan should be submitted prior to final Council
action on this application.
Bottenberg indicated the existing and proposed use of the site complies with all the standards applicable
to a church use, with Staff recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
following conditions:
1. The resolution shall contain language formalizing the church use of the property.
2. Additions approved per submitted site plan are subject to:
a. The kitchen not being installed until/unless the septic system is upgraded to accommodate
that additional use, or the building is connected to sanitary sewer.
b. A grading plan including any stormwater management systems required by MCWD must be
submitted prior to final Council action.
3. Any change or more intense use of the property will require an amendment to the conditional
use permit.
4. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are
observed, and the use does not cease for a period of more than six months. If the use of the
property as a church would cease for a period of six months, a new conditional use permit is
required.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Ann Dahlquist,Continued)
Phillips noted the report says each addition is two levels, and it may be more accurate to indicate that
there are two levels that are tied into each other,with the vast majority of each addition being simply a
slab on grade and not the main level of the church.
Phillips stated with regard to landscaping,the addition to the west would result in the loss of at least one
spruce tree and possibly two. Phillips stated the trees are close to the end of their life space,noting the
church is agreeable to following the landscape guidelines of the City.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Phillips stated they do note a couple of options regarding their septic, and they will be reviewing them
in the near future.
Mabusth noted the Public Works Director did suggest that some landscaping be completed near the
parking area by the west addition.
Bottenberg stated that was merely a suggestion by the Public Works Director and is not a formal
requirement of the City.
Phillips stated they are agreeable to discussing landscaping and follow the City's guidelines for
landscaping.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2741, Calvin
Presbyterian Church, 177 Glendale Drive,granting of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a
church on this site,subject to the conditions outlined in the January 14, 2002 Planner's Report;
and further subject to the church upgrading its sewer or connecting to City sewer prior to a
Certificate of Occupancy being issued; two, a lighting and/or signage plan will be submitted if any
changes are being requested; three, any landscaping of the parking area near the west addition
will be subject to Staff's review and approval; and four,the additions will meet all setback
requirements for this zoning district. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#11) #02-2742 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SMITH,4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
8:43 p.m.—8:59 p.m.
Douglas and Roban Smith,Applicants,were present, and Shesh Aandahl,Architect,was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 10-foot addition to the side of the
residence to enlarge the kitchen and mudroom. The bedrooms below the kitchen would also be
increased by 10-feet and a dormer would be added to the second floor bedroom. In 1991,the former
owners of the property applied for and were granted an average lakeshore setback to permit construction
of a major addition and other work to the residence. The proposed addition lies behind the average
lakeshore setback determined in 1991.
Bottenberg stated the second part of the application is an addition to the detached garage. The
Applicants are proposing to construct a 12-foot wide storage area to the existing detached garage. In
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2742 Douglas and Roban Smith, Continued)
1983, a variance was granted to allow a 24' by 32' garage to be located 9.6 feet from the street property
line instead of the required 35 feet. The addition would be on the south side of the building and would
bring it to within approximately 25 feet of the residence. The garage addition increases the garage
footprint to 24' by 44',making it an oversize accessory structure subject to greater setback restrictions.
The Applicants are requesting variances to the average lakeshore setback to permit a 25-foot
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and to permit an oversized accessory structure to be
located 9.6 feet from the street property line.
Aandahl presented some photographs of the existing residence to the Planning Commission depicting
the location of the proposed addition. Aandahl stated the Applicants are interested in making the
kitchen larger,which was not remodeled at the time the other work in the house was done. The
Applicants would like to upgrade the kitchen and make it larger to accommodate their family and
friends.
Aandahl stated the adjoining property owners' view of the lake would not be hampered by the proposed
addition since there is quite a steep drop-off to the lake and would be located behind the deck. Aandahl
indicated this residence is fairly blocked by a number of trees and the proposed addition should not
affect their view at all.
Aandahl showed pictures to the Planning Commission of the existing garage.
Aandahl noted hardcover is not an issue, and during the process they took into consideration the impact
to the neighbors as well as aesthetics and personal needs.
Mr. Smith stated there is an existing three-car garage,but due to the fact they have a live-in nanny and
three cars, along with a number of bicycles and other items requiring storage,they would like to
construct a garage that would provide them with additional storage. Smith stated they did review their
options for location of the garage,noting there are some issues with topography and a big oak tree that
dictated the need for the garage to be located closer to the house. Smith stated the garage would also
not impact the neighbors' view of the lake.
Aandahl stated they also did look at the possibility of adding to the back of the garage,which did seem
appear to be a good idea since the garage would still be located close to the street and would impact the
neighbors more. Aandahl stated the topography of the land does not lend itself well to a third building,
with three buildings not being aesthetically pleasing.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn stated she does not see a problem with this application,but does not see a hardship imposed by
this property that would prompt the need for a third oversized accessory building and the need to
encroach on the setbacks. Hawn inquired whether the building could be reduced to 1,000 square feet
versus the 1056 square feet.
Mr. Smith stated the reason for the additional feet was to provide some storage. Smith indicated the
building they are proposing is not tremendously large and they would like to avoid another shed. Smith
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2739 Thomas and Mary Ann Dahlquist,Continued)
stated he looked at the hardship in relation to the other choices they have and the impact it would have
on the neighborhood.
Kluth inquired whether they would be permitted to add another building to the property without a
variance.
Mabusth stated they could. Mabusth noted once a building exceeds 1,000 square feet,they would be
subject to far more restrictions. Mabusth inquired whether the garage in 1991 was granted a setback
variance.
Mrs. Smith stated they were.
Mabusth commented she would hate to see a third structure on this property.
Aandahl stated she did discuss the size of the garage with the Applicants earlier today, and they would
be agreeable to reducing the size of the garage to 1,000 square feet if necessary.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would prefer the building not exceed 1,000
square feet.
Hawn stated in her view the proposed kitchen is perfectly acceptable. Hawn inquired whether this
project has been discussed with the neighbors.
Mrs. Smith stated the one house is vacant,which is owned by the hospital, and the person who resides
on the other property is approximately 92 years old and is apparently very ill.
Berg moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2742,Douglas and
Roban Smith,4195 Highwood Road,granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to
permit a 25-foot encroachment,with the understanding the size of the garage will not exceed
1,000 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#12) #02-2744 PAUL JOHNCOX,2948 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES
Hawn noted this application has been withdrawn at the request of the Applicant.
SKETCH PLAN
(#13) #02-2743 THOMAS J.DUNSMORE,2525/2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD AND 2525 KELLY
AVENUE
Thomas Dunsmore, Applicant, and Clay Moorse were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing a nine-unit office development on a 3.7 acre property
located at 2525/2535 and 2545 Shadywood Road. The proposed office buildings would be one-story,
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2743 Thomas Dunsmore, Continued)
six of which would be 2,530 square feet and three at 2,120 square feet. Weinberger stated these lots are
considered three separate lots that are all commonly owned. The intent would be to sell each individual
building into independent ownerships and plat a common area to be owned by the building
ownership group. Each building would be located on a separate parcel, with the tenth parcel being a
common area. The common area would contain the shared parking facilities,ponds, landscaped areas,
and sidewalks.
Weinberger stated under Orono's current comprehensive plan and zoning, some changes in land use and
zoning would be required to change the land use of the portion of the property zoned residential to allow
the property to be rezoned to commercial. The Applicants are requesting conceptual approval of the site
plan, including discussion of a proposed CMP Amendment and rezoning. Weinberger stated the
east one-half of the property is zoned B-4 and is guided for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan.
The zoning code states the district is intended to provide a district that is related to and may adjoin
residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and
related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with
the public and no exterior display or selling or merchandise to the general public. Weinberger noted
offices are a permitted use in the B-4 District as well as churches and schools.
Weinberger indicated the west one-half of the proposed development is zoned residential. Any office
use would require the property to be rezoned. Under the current zoning district the property could be
used for single-family residential use. A duplex could be constructed on the property only after
approval of a conditional use permit. Weinberger noted this property does not have direct access onto
Kelley Parkway because of a pond.
Weinberger stated currently Orono's Zoning Ordinance does not have a process that would allow the
proposed development. A PUD process is only available to commercial properties located within
the Highway 12 Development Corridor. Properties in the B-4 District are required to have a minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet and a lot width of 100 feet. The proposed plat can be compared to a
"town house"plat,where each individual building is located on an individual lot. A process would be
required to allow commercial properties to have the flexibility to allow the development to create
individual building lots that would allow zero setbacks and lots less than 20,000 square feet in the
zoning district.
Weinberger noted the property has municipal sewer and water available in the Shadywood Road
right-of-way. The City's new surface water management plan has identified a need for a regional water
quality pond located somewhere near this site. The City Engineer indicated the size of the pond was
based on the runoff from this individual site,but does have water runoff to this site from other areas.
Weinberger stated this development would be required to pay a fee under the newly adopted surface
water management plan in addition to the sewer and water fees. Weinberger stated Staff did calculate a
surface water management fee of approximately$25,000. Weinberger indicated the size of the pond
would need to be determined based on the total runoff to this site.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should discuss whether this property should be rezoned
and whether the City should review the option of creating a PUD ordinance that would allow
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2743 Thomas J.Dunsmore,Continued)
commercial developments. Weinberger stated without a PUD ordinance,the proposed development
could not happen with separate lots for each office building.
Dunsmore stated he has done some other properties that are adjacent to residential, and in his opinion
this type of development is a great transition from residential to commercial. Dunsmore stated they are
very conscious in providing adequate screening between the residential and the office buildings and in
trying to limit the amount of hardcover.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Berg inquired what the maximum number of residential lots would be allowed on this property. Berg
indicated it was her recollection it would be two twin homes consisting of four units.
Weinberger stated he is unsure of the number.
Kluth stated he is unclear regarding the drainage in this area. Kluth expressed a concern the pond would
not be able to adequately handle the runoff from the parking lot and buildings.
Mabusth commented that was also her concern.
Dunsmore stated they are willing to look at that issue more closely.
Berg indicated this is an area that does experience drainage problems currently, and with this type of
massing, the runoff would become a bigger issue. Berg questioned why so many buildings were being
proposed for this property.
Dunsmore stated they are considering reversing the drainage so it does not go towards Kelley.
Dunsmore indicated he would need to have his engineers address that issue and ensure that the water
runoff goes in the opposite direction from Kelley. Dunsmore stated from an aesthetic point of view,
they have tried to create the atmosphere that this is private little community.
Berg inquired whether from an economical standpoint it is necessary to have nine buildings.
Dunsmore stated at this time it is.
Kluth stated there are two major issues,the PUD,the rezoning, and whether this plan fits this property.
Kluth stated those would need to be addressed together.
Dunsmore stated they have encountered the need for a PUD in every other city they have had a project
in,noting that this is a unique product that does not currently exist out in the market,with most cities
not having developed the zoning ordinance that encompasses that. Dunsmore stated a PUD has been
very effective because it gives the city a lot of latitude.
Kluth inquired why this has been designed as separate buildings rather than one larger office building.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2743 Thomas J.Dunsmore,Continued)
Dunsmore stated typically the 1,500 square foot tenants are typically found in buildings that owners
neglect,and they pay higher rates because that smaller office space is generally more difficult to find.
Dunsmore stated the person has more control over the rent, own the space, and take depreciation.
Kluth indicated he does understand that concept,noting that condominiums are generally owned
separately but are part of a single structure. Kluth inquired why the buildings were not all one structure.
Dunsmore stated there would be an association.
Kluth inquired whether there were two tenants to a building.
Dunsmore stated in his view there are people who reside in this area who would prefer to have an office
in the city rather than downtown Minneapolis,with this type of building catering to the smaller
businesses.
Berg inquired whether these would be walkouts.
Dunsmore replied they would be.
Hawn stated in her view if the drainage could be handled,this is not a bad proposal for this site,noting
there have been a number of other proposals for this area that have come and gone. Hawn commented
this project might work for this area,but noted she does not know what the neighborhood reaction
would be to this type of project. Hawn stated she would like to get their input on this project.
Mabusth stated in her view the City should continue to look at this project for this area.
Dunsmore stated they are in the process of constructing a similar project in Plymouth off of Highway 55
and Fernbrook.
Kluth stated he personally is not opposed to the PUD but does have concerns regarding the drainage and
the number of buildings being proposed.
Mabusth commented this is a sensitive area and that one has to question whether the number of
buildings being proposed is a little too much for this site. Mabusth stated she does like the idea.
Berg agreed the City needs to be sensitive to the drainage problems in this area.
Dunsmore stated they have designed drainage systems that handle the drainage in other areas, and in his
view the drainage in this area can also be corrected.
Berg commented she is unsure if the City is aware where all the water comes from in this area.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the rezoning of this property, which does require
a public hearing. Kluth stated in his opinion the Planning Commission cannot make a recommendation
without a public hearing and would hold off coming to a conclusion until he hears the input from the
public.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2743 Thomas J.Dunsmore,Continued)
Hawn noted this is just a sketch plan review.
Berg indicated she does live in this area, and stated the impact down the road needs to be looked at.
Weinberger stated if the City is going to rezone this property,it would be approved at the time of final
plat. Weinberger stated the PUD zoning would apply to this property only, and if the project is not
commenced within a certain period of time,the PUD would expire.
Berg stated as an individual who lives in the area,the fact that it looks more residential is appealing,
noting one of the properties next to this is a duplex,with some other residential in the area. Berg stated
the drainage would impact one of the properties in this area since it is lower than this property,which
will need to be addressed. Berg noted the water runoff in this area was so bad the City had to close off
the street at times. Berg commented the concept of the building works well with a residential
neighborhood,but suggested the developer look at the possibility look at reducing the number of
buildings proposed for this site.
Dunsmore stated the challenge would be to come back with some good statistics on the drainage.
Dunsmore invited the Planning Commission to visit his other project in Plymouth on Highway 55 and
Fernbrook past Mulligan's.
Fritzler inquired how many parking stalls are being proposed.
Weinberger stated 98 parking stalls are proposed.
Dunsmore stated they typically need eight parking stalls per unit. Dunsmore stated they have on other
projects done proof of parking,noting they intentionally leave areas as green space initially until
parking becomes an issue and then those areas can be turned into parking.
Gaffron noted the City of Orono has also done that with the Service 800 building.
Fritzler stated one issue would be traffic ingress and egress and the amount of traffic currently on
County Road 19. Fritzler noted the 98 parking stalls would increase the traffic in this area considerably.
Mabusth suggested the developer speak with Hennepin County regarding any necessary changes in
access that may be needed.
Dunsmore stated they are also considering the possibility of shared parking with the church.
Moorse stated they would like the Planning Commission to approve the concept tonight, and then they
would work on addressing the issues relating to drainage and grading and traffic. Moorse stated they
are looking at a combined entrance with the church.
Mabusth inquired whether this concept would be brought before the Council before Staff began working
on the PUD.
Weinberger stated that it would be.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2743 Thomas J.Dunsmore, Continued)
Fritzler stated aside from the drainage,he has a major concern with the amount of traffic that would be
generated from this project.
Mabusth stated aside from the concerns raised tonight,the proposed development in her view is very
appealing. Mabusth recommended the developer look at reducing the number of buildings being
proposed for this site,noting there is a lot of hardcover being proposed that would impact the drainage.
Dunsmore indicated he would continue to work with staff on these issues.
Hawn stated she does not have an opinion on the number of units at this time until after the issues with
drainage are addressed further. Hawn suggested the developer do some planting on the side of the
church behind the parking spaces. Hawn stated she likes the idea of having shared parking with the
church.
Rahn commented he likes the residential look of the development. Rahn inquired whether all of the
buildings would be walkouts.
Dunsmore stated they would be.
Rahn noted the elevation would decrease as they get closer to County Road 19,which should help with
the drainage.
Dunsmore stated there would be approximately an eight-foot drop.
Rahn inquired whether there would also be sidewalks across the back of the buildings.
Dunsmore stated he does not know at this time. Dunsmore stated there would be screening behind the
buildings.
Moorse stated it is not their intention for the tenants of the buildings to travel from one building to
another from the rear. Moorse stated the walkout area is merely intended to provide an area where
people can go outside and get some air.
Berg reiterated she does have a concern with the number of buildings being proposed.
Gaffron inquired whether the buildings could be twisted somewhat so there is not a 200-foot wall along
the east lot line with 20-foot gaps.
Dunsmore stated they can look at that. Dunsmore indicated they would continue to work with Staff to
resolve these issues.
Hawn stated it would also be helpful to have numbers indicating the amount of traffic that would be
generated from this type of development.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 22,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 26,2001,DECEMBER 10, 2001,AND
JANUARY 14,2002
This item was not discussed.
(#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron stated the City would probably be receiving an application this week for a proposed
development on the 50 acres next to City Hall. Gaffron stated they are proposing 250 units of
residential ranging from twin homes to senior housing. Gaffron stated on the northwest corner of this
site they are proposing some commercial,which might include an 18,000 square foot grocery store.
Gaffron noted in a recent work session the Council indicated they would like to keep the retail focused
more on Long Lake. Gaffron indicated some work sessions will need to be held on this development
over this next couple of months, and requested the Planning Commission review the application prior to
the meeting.
(#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 19,2001
Kluth moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve the minutes of the November 19,2001 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Berg Abstained.
(#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 28, 2002 AND FEBRUARY 11,2002
January 28th—Hawn February 11th—Berg
ADJOURNMENT
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
1# 1/// 10
za Hawn, Chair
PAGE 29