HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE .2 - /C(-
❑ CCOUNCIL
L!J r LANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ `PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1.
2. c- INI 111 I 27 a N 0 (I lov.) u`L 741 5
3. Cis i(1!-A-i U'P-
4. tUI y- Esc- Pc', Ar kd
5. f-'/:_y( .t, Ki- /, ;)7/67
7. '74:7 c t l;s.f� �,- /d .
8. E 1 fO=...l\1,S 30)5 l.9 FAL Pv0E
- )
11. 4/7 J � l�' /. t 7 l e.,, f . (
12. ■14.. ;.1 I. h ---- LO ., A lig •1
13. E ) w- 36C A <; #('- 74(
14. ;n ia5 I f1J e t arwd 3L 1 flyrs'C ete'c O ). .)--74/1
15. '/
X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
4 _
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
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, Daniel Kluth, Sandy Smith, David Rahn,
and Alternate J.Mark Fritzler. Commissioners William Stoddard and Janice Berg were absent.
The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator
Paul Weinberger,Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Lin Vee.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
CONSENT
(#01) #02-2750 MICHELLE AND EDWARD WINER, 2010 SHORELINE DRIVE,
VARIANCE
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith inquired whether any of the neighbors have commented on this application.
Weinberger stated Staff did receive one call from a neighbor who was not opposed to the project.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2750,Michelle and
Edward Winer, 2010 Shoreline Drive,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance to
construct the addition and deck to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#02) #01-2731 NAVARRE AMOCO,3360 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES
Kluth moved, Smith seconded,to table Application#01-2731,Navarre Amoco,3360 Shoreline
Drive,to allow the Applicant time to submit the requested items. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#03) #01-2735 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 14,
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ORDINANCE STANDARDS
Bottenberg stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a proposed change to the
zoning code dealing with structural lot coverage ordinance standards. Bottenberg noted the Planning
Commission had discussed this item in a number of work sessions, and inquired whether there were any
changes or concerns by the Planning Commission relating to this item.
Kluth noted they were still working with the percentages.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,Continued)
Hawn commented the last time they reviewed this item they discussed the fact that this proposed
amendment would affect very few properties but would require a large number of properties to have
hardcover calculations done. Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had
decided at that time not to continue to pursue this item.
Mabusth stated that was her understanding as well.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission did request Staff to draft the model ordinance.
Hawn stated the ordinance does not include anything about non-lakeshore lots and percentage of
hardcover on those lots.
Smith stated it was her understanding pools were to be included in the hardcover,which apparently has
changed since the last work session.
Mabusth stated Smith is correct,noting that Smith and Lindquist were opposed to the ordinance since
swimming pools were not included in the hardcover calculations, with the rest of the Planning
Commission being in favor of the proposed amendment.
Hawn indicated what she was referring to was her proposal that non-lakeshore properties, in an effort to
insure that those lots did not have a large amount of hardcover on them, was to put a percentage limit on
those properties as well as lakeshore lots. Hawn stated since then Staff's study has demonstrated that a
limit on those lots is not needed at this time.
Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission should suggest a 35 percent limit on properties outside
the 500-1000' setback area.
Mabusth commented Staff did a survey of non-lakeshore lots and found that it was not an issue.
Rahn stated the only other comment he had regarding the ordinance is under Item#1,which reads"all
roofed structures that extend more than 6' above grade level". Rahn stated he would like that to read
all roofed structures more than 6' above grade level. Rahn stated in his opinion the word extend gives
the impression of a horizontal extension rather than vertical.
Hawn stated it is her understanding this is addressing structures that are cantilevered.
Rahn stated he understood it related to structures over six feet in height.
Gaffron stated he is in agreement with Rahn that the word extend is somewhat confusing and that the
word extend could be eliminated without changing the meaning of the ordinance.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2735,Proposed
Amendment of Zoning Code, Section 10.03, Subd. 14,Lot Coverage by Structures Standards,
with the words,which extend,being removed from Item#1 under Section 1.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Smith Opposed.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,Continued)
Smith indicated she voted in opposition to the motion because in her opinion swimming pools should be
included in lot coverage.
(#04) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20 SUBD.4C,
HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS
Gaffron stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a summary of the conclusions reached during
the December 20th work session. Gaffron stated Section 1 of the draft ordinance eliminates provisions
for home occupation licensing and makes them an accessory use in residential zones.
Gaffron stated the proposed zoning code amendment also eliminates most of the performance standards
that were included in the current zoning code. Section 3 revises the Home Occupation accessory use
entry as it appears in the list of R-1A allowed accessory uses. The new language requires that all home
occupations meet the special provisions of Section 10.63,which has been added to the code. Gaffron
noted Section 10.63 also contains a requirement that existing home occupations become conforming
within one year.
Gaffron stated the ordinance as currently drafted does not establish multiple regulatory categories of
home occupations,but merely creates a set of standards that all home occupations must meet. If an
existing home occupation does not meet the standards, it would be in violation of the zoning code and
would not be allowed. A violation of the standards would be treated as a zoning violation rather than a
licensing violation and would be subject to the legal processes already established in the code for
remedying such violations.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider whether multiple regulatory categories would
be useful. Gaffron indicated it is common for cities to have a licensing requirement for those home
occupations that have certain characteristics that have an impact upon the neighborhood,which might
include employment of a non-occupant of the dwelling; having customers or clients or their vehicles
coming to the property; manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials;parking more
than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is 3/4 ton or less capacity and has attachments such as
a plow, et cetera;parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds 3/4 ton capacity; or if the
business produces any waste that should be treated or regulated.
Additional categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that do
not meet one or more standards but might mitigate or eliminate the adverse impact upon the
neighborhood if it is subjected to certain conditions. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could
consider requiring a conditional use permit in which the Council's authority to review or revoke the
conditional use permit is spelled out if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to mitigate the
adverse neighborhood impacts. Another option would be to require an annual license for such uses that
have the potential to be a problem.
Gaffron noted a public hearing on this matter was held by the Planning Commission on November 19th,
with no public comments being received. This item was then tabled to a work session on December
20th, which resulted in staff being directed to make a number of revisions to the draft approved by the
PAGE 3
r i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations,Continued)
Planning Commission in 1998. Gaffron noted those revisions have been incorporated into the new draft
before the Planning Commission tonight.
Gaffron recommended the public hearing be reopened to see if there are any public comments. Gaffron
stated if the Planning Commission would like to see an additional category for licensing or conditional
uses, some additional work would need to be done by Staff prior to its approval.
Smith inquired whether the licensing or conditional use category would allow the City to have some
authority over those businesses which may not be able to meet all the criteria outlined in the ordinance.
Gaffron stated it would.
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
There were no public comments.
Kluth noted Staff has listed a number of restrictions on home occupations without specifically
identifying any particular home occupation. Kluth inquired if a resident is unable to meet those
requirements whether they would be able to apply for a license or a conditional use permit.
Gaffron stated if a business does not meet those standards outlined in the ordinance, they would not be
eligible for a home occupation.
Kluth stated he would be in favor of including language in the ordinance which would allow a home
occupation to apply for a license or a conditional use permit if they do not comply with all the criteria.
Kluth noted that the state licenses home day care and would not be covered under this ordinance.
Gaffron stated home day care is licensed through the state and not by the City,with the City being
required to allow home day care.
Mabusth stated the Planning Commission has not thoroughly discussed whether a conditional use permit
or a license would be more appropriate in terms of enforcing any possible violations. Mabusth inquired
whether Staff prefers one over the other. Mabusth stated in her view she would prefer to see a
conditional use permit.
Gaffron stated one of the benefits of a conditional use permit is that the Council would only see the
application once unless it becomes a problem. Gaffron stated if a license is required,the Applicant
would be required to apply once a year. Gaffron stated if the City would like to see a particular business
on an annual basis,that requirement could also be included in the conditional use permit.
Hawn stated she has concerns how the conditional use permit will be written,noting the City does not
know what types of businesses will be applying for a conditional use permit.
Gaffron stated Orono's Zoning Code does not acknowledge what is called a"special use permit",which
the statutes may allow the City to do without having to meet conditional use permit mandatory approval
standards.
PAGE 4
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations,Continued)
Kluth stated he is in favor of the draft ordinance,but would like to see some language included in the
ordinance saying that if a home occupation fails these standards, they need to apply for a conditional use
permit.
Gaffron stated anytime a conditional use is listed in City Code, there should be enough standards
attached to it so if those standards cannot be met, the Council can approve some conditions specific to
one particular home occupation. Gaffron commented Staff would like the City Attorney to review that
language prior to it being approved.
Gaffron stated a third option could also be to broaden what home occupations would be allowed but to
incorporate stricter restrictions on the number of employees, et cetera.
Kluth stated the conditional use permit language could be included later. Kluth stated the intent of the
ordinance is to protect the neighborhood but still allow some businesses to be run out of the home.
Hawn stated the intent of the ordinance is also to allow the neighbors some recourse in the event a
problem does develop. Hawn indicated she personally is happy with the restrictions contained in the
ordinance,but that if other members of the Planning Commission would like to see stricter restrictions,
then perhaps this should be discussed further.
Gaffron noted he has incorporated three questions into the ordinance, with the first question being found
under Item J. Item J states, "no equipment,machinery, or materials other than of a type normally found
in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed." The question asks, "will this in effect prohibit
operation of a landscape service or contractor with a backhoe or dump truck?" Gaffron stated that type
of equipment generally is not associated with a dwelling use and there is a potential that some conflicts
could arise.
Kluth stated that also depends on how much land the person owns as well as the amount of screening
that is provided.
Hawn suggested adding the words, "to be parked outside",noting there are some larger properties where
those types of businesses do exist.
Rahn inquired whether the City requires that this type of equipment or vehicles be parked inside
regardless of size.
Gaffron stated the City does have an exterior storage ordinance that requires specific vehicles to be
stored inside. Gaffron stated Items G and H deal with outdoor storage and parking.
Mabusth inquired whether the existing home occupations would be grandfathered,noting there are one
or two landscaping businesses that currently exist in Orono that would not be able to comply with this
ordinance.
Kluth inquired if they have an existing license currently, whether they would be grandfathered in.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations, Continued)
Gaffron stated the way the ordinance is currently written, all home occupations would need to be
brought into conformance within a year of its adoption. Gaffron stated the legislature has basically
taken away the City's ability to eliminate non-conforming uses by"amortization".
Hawn inquired whether the issue of dispatching within the City is currently a problem.
Gaffron stated the typical situation with a contractor is where they all show up at the residence and then
leave for the job site in the morning and are gone all day. Gaffron stated technically that could be
considered a dispatch center.
Kluth pointed out the number of employees is covered in the ordinance. Kluth stated the language in
Section 10.63 sort of implies that a dispatch center could operate out of a residence.
Gaffron stated a business could also have off-site employees without operating as a dispatch center
since they do not come to the residence.
Hawn inquired whether a messenger or delivery service would be considered a dispatch center.
Kluth stated in his view there are a number of conditions in the ordinance that would help prevent
excessive noise and traffic.
Mabusth stated the concern is how to deal with a property owner when the use becomes excessive.
Gaffron suggested making that type of business licensed to allow for more periodic review by the City.
Hawn stated when this issue was first looked at back in 1998, it became clear there were a number of
existing businesses operating out of houses that were operating without licenses. Hawn stated this
ordinance provides some standards for how those businesses should be operated.
Rahn stated in his view there should be some type of language to deal with a situation that might not be
covered under this ordinance.
Smith stated the conditional use permit would allow additional standards to be imposed if needed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to give some direction to Staff on whether additional
language should be added to the ordinance.
Mabusth stated there should be some language in the ordinance that gives the City the ability to deal
with certain exemptions. Mabusth stated in her view she would prefer a license rather than a conditional
use permit, and questioned whether it should be considered a special use license or entitled something
else. Mabusth suggested Staff consult with the City Attorney on the best method to utilize.
Gaffron stated one other issue that he had some questions concerning relate to Item R, "any activity or
event organized for the purpose of displaying or selling merchandise shall not be held more than four
times per month. Gaffron stated there was once a situation in Crystal Bay where a resident was holding
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations,Continued)
a boutique every weekend, and the neighbors began to complain about the situation. Gaffron questioned
whether four times a month is too much and should be reduced. Gaffron stated another situation to
consider is a business that brings in a large number of people at certain times and whether that type of
business should be restricted.
Fritzler stated there are a number of businesses that have been operating for some period of time without
any complaints. Fritzler stated in his view a licensing procedure may be better than a conditional use
permit.
Smith commented in her view the language already contained in the ordinance does not need to be
changed, and that perhaps some additional performance standards need to be added.
Hawn stated she likes the simplicity of not needing a license. Hawn stated it is very difficult to have
one set of performance standards for 80 percent of the population and then grant special licenses for the
other 20 percent who do not comply with these standards. Hawn stated she would prefer that more
exemptions not be included in the ordinance.
Kluth suggested leaving the language as is and amending it in the future if a problem arises.
Rahn stated he prefer the license option if the home occupation could be reviewed upon a complaint
being received. Rahn stated in addition to some home occupations not being anticipated,there could
also be some complaints that are not specific to this ordinance. Rahn stated the City would need to deal
with that type of complaint also.
Smith stated the City could also consider grandfathering those businesses in that have been operating for
a number of years.
Kluth stated it should be non-transferrable grandfathering.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to table Application#2333,Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,
Section 10.20, Subdivision 4C,Home Occupation Standards. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#5) #01-2706 RICHARD AND JANE STARK, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE
CHANGES,7:19 p.m.—7:21 p.m.
Richard and Jane Stark, Applicants,were present.
Bottenberg stated the original variance on this property was granted in 1997, and has been renewed
every year since then. The Applicants purchased the property and were granted a renewal of the
variances to permit construction of a four-stall garage and additional living area to a one level residence.
At the time the Applicant's builder applied for a building permit, it was discovered there was a conflict
with the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone versus the amount approved. The submitted
plans showed a larger amount of hardcover than what had been approved.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued)
The Applicants have indicated they have decided not to construct the addition on the east side of the
residence and are instead proposing slightly larger decks and changing one of the decks into a screen
porch. Both decks are located on the lakeside of the residence.
Bottenberg stated the City Council did review this item last week and voted 3 to 0 to bring the
application back to the Planning Commission for further review. The City Council stated they did not
have any concerns with the changes but would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed
changes and make the appropriate recommendation.
Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone was approved at 15.3 percent,but the new
proposal will reduce the hardcover to 15 percent. The new proposal also reduced the structural
coverage by 148 square feet from what had previously been approved.
Richard Stark stated he can add to Staff's report if the Planning Commission desires.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is familiar with this application.
There were no comments from the public regarding this application.
Kluth moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2706,
Richard and Jane Stark,815 Partenwood Road,granting of variances to hardcover.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn inquired whether there was any existing landscaping fabric on the property.
Stark indicated if there is any still remaining on the property, it will be removed.
NEW BUSINESS
(#7) #02-2745 ILONA AND KENNETH PETERSON, 1074 WILDHURST TRAIL,
VARIANCES,7:22 p.m.—8:06 p.m.
Kenneth Peterson, Applicant, and Jack Carter,Builder,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of a new house and
detached garage on the property. The variance is to permit land alteration and construction of the
garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area
around the wetland.
Weinberger stated the property is vacant and was originally part of the Wildhurst Estates subdivision in
1991. In 1973, a sewer line was installed across the property, with the sewer line crossing through the
present building site. Weinberger stated the sewer line was relocated a couple of years ago across the
south property line.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, Continued)
Weinberger stated a large portion of this lot consists of wetland or shoreline area for Lake Minnetonka,
with the actual building pad consisting of a small area. The entire lot consists of approximately one acre
in size. In 1991, the assumed wetland boundary went around the 930 contour and the entire area was
protected with a drainage and utility easement.
Since 1991,the methods of determining wetlands have changed,with the Wetland Conservation Act
being enacted. It was determined at the time the owners applied for a building permit that the wetland
boundary was much further back on the property than originally believed. Weinberger stated the entire
building area is located in one corner of the site, and is further restricted by the 30 foot setback to the
back property line and side yard setback.
Weinberger stated at the time the house was designed on the property, it was determined that the garage
area would be located within the wetland area as well as within a floodplain,which has since been
revised. The property met all code requirements in 1991, and was considered a buildable lot at that
time. Weinberger stated some additional grading is being proposed to help raise the building pad in
order to accommodate construction of the home and to raise the building pad above the floodplain.
The Applicants are requesting a variance to lot area since the dry buildable area has now been
determined to be less than one acre. In 1991,when it was originally platted, it was a one-acre lot and
met the requirements,but the code no longer allows wetland credit for sewered lots. In addition, a
variance to the wetland ordinance is being requested to permit land alteration and construction of a
garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area.
Weinberger stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed this application back in
January, and approved a variance which allows the garage to be constructed within the actual protected
wetland boundary and associated grading with the garage. Weinberger stated two areas are proposed on
the property for mitigated wetland, which will create a total of 2,180 square feet of wetland on the
property. Weinberger stated the property owners would execute a covenant, which would be recorded
on the Chain of Title, which would insure the protection of the wetland buffers. The MCWD also
recommended that the site be graded to direct storm water away from the wetlands towards Wildhurst
Trail.
Staff has discussed drainage towards Wildhurst with the MCWD. The City of Orono is not in favor of
having water draining directly towards the street. The property is located at a low point where water
can reach an elevation where it will cross the street. Wildhurst Trail also does not have storm water
drains or curb and gutter. Weinberger stated a mutual agreement was reached with the MCWD that
allows for only a minimum amount of runoff to get to the street, with the remainder of the runoff being
directed to a ditch area along Wildhurst Trail and then off into the mitigated area of the wetlands. This
will allow the water to cross over as much land as possible before impacting the existing wetlands and
lake.
The City Engineer is recommending that the foundation of the building be located 15 feet from the
actual sewer line, which creates a situation requiring the house to be located further to the north and
caused a portion of the garage to be located into the wetland area.
Staff recommends approval of the application based on the five hardships outlined in Staff's report.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued)
Peterson stated he has nothing additional to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding access from Wildhurst.
Kluth inquired why two curb cuts rather than one.
Peterson stated two curb cuts make access to the property work the best. Peterson noted under
Item#4 the City is going to review that item.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be okay with this application proceeding forward subject to
that condition.
Peterson stated that would be okay.
Kluth stated it was his understanding a property owner was only allowed one curb cut.
Weinberger stated traditionally only one access is granted to a property,with each request being
reviewed by the Public Works Director. Weinberger stated it has been the policy of the City in the past
to only allow one curb cut,noting it might not be defined specifically in the code.
Smith inquired whether the garage could be located closer to the house to eliminate the need to be
within the wetland.
Carter indicated they did discuss that with the MCWD,who had also suggested the garage be located
closer to the house. Carter stated they originally located the garage 20 feet from the house and have
since relocated it six feet closer. Carter stated the problem with coming any closer to the house with the
garage is access into the garage.
Smith inquired whether the garage doors could be relocated.
Carter stated it is a tuck-under garage,which limits which direction the garage can be accessed from.
Kluth commented the hardships are very compelling in this case,but noted that there is nothing in the
lay of the land that requires a two level garage. Kluth stated he is unsure what the hardship is for a two
level garage.
Peterson stated he did not want to construct a single level four car garage, which would add to the
hardcover. Peterson stated the garage was stacked in an effort to limit the footprint.
Rahn inquired whether this design was completed prior to the new zoning requirements being put into
place.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark,Continued)
Peterson stated at the time they purchased the property, they understood there was a very definite spot
for the house, and they designed the house to meet that specific building pad. Peterson stated in
December the wetland issue with the building pad came up,which reduced the size of the building pad
by approximately one-third. Peterson stated they attempted to relocate the house,but the situation with
the sanitary sewer did not allow them to relocate the house very far.
Rahn stated in his view the garage could possibly be relocated out of the wetland area if the garage were
redesigned and attached to the home.
Peterson stated the garage was stacked to lessen the footprint. Peterson stated due to the elevations of
the land,the garage was located slightly away from the house.
Rahn stated in his view a four-car garage is not a necessity.
Hawn stated the Applicants in her view have done a fairly good job at designing the house and garage
given the fact that they were unaware of the wetland constraints.
Kluth commented they were also faced with the laws being changed. Kluth noted they are doing
wetland mitigation. Kluth stated he has a problem with constructing the driveway in its present
location.
Carter stated they will avoid constructing the driveway over the lift station.
Mabusth noted the Planning Commission does not have a copy of the wetland delineation,and inquired
what type of a wetland is on this property.
Weinberger stated it is a Type 3.
Mabusth commented it would be nice if the City could give a little leeway on the 15 feet from the sewer
line to the residence.
Weinberger stated Staff can review that prior to this application going to Council.
Fritzler stated in his view the garage should be located a little closer to the house,with only one curb cut
being allowed.
Kluth agreed with Fritzler.
Rahn inquired how the garage would be supported in the wetlands.
Peterson stated there would be pilings in the wetlands.
Rahn commented he personally feels the land alteration on this site is excessive and that it was designed
to the old standards.
Mabusth inquired whether a preliminary grading plan has been completed.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark,Continued)
Weinberger stated the area where the fill will be placed will raise the building pad for the garage and a
portion of the house by approximately two feet.
Mabusth stated information relating to access, drainage and grading issues should be available prior to
this application going to the Council. Mabusth stated the Applicant would need to work with Staff to
insure that these issues are resolved prior to proceeding to the City Council.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission could approve this application subject to certain conditions.
Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission should review this application once those issues are
resolved.
Hawn stated in her view the Planning Commission does not have enough information to determine
exactly how close the garage should be to the house.
Kluth stated a lot of these limitations are self-imposed by the architectural style of the house rather than
by the land.
Rahn inquired where the Applicants were at on hardcover.
Weinberger stated they are well below on the hardcover limits allowed on this property.
Hawn inquired exactly what other information is still needed as far as drainage and grading.
Weinberger stated the approval of the design is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Weinberger stated the City Engineer only reviewed an architectural plan of the grading prior to this
meeting,which showed the house and garage located closer to the wetland than the plan before the
Planning Commission.
Hawn stated she has gotten the impression from the other Planning Commission members that the
garage should be located closer to the house.
Mabusth stated she would like to hear from the City Engineer on how far back the house can be moved,
which may allow the garage to be relocated.
Hawn inquired whether this application should be tabled or have the approval subject to a number of
conditions. Hawn stated she personally does not have a problem with the application, and if the garage
is relocated closer to the house, the Planning Commission in her view should review it again.
Kluth stated the idea behind relocating the garage is to get it out of the wetland area.
Hawn noted even if the garage is attached to the house, a portion would still remain within the wetland
buffer zone.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued)
Peterson inquired whether the sewer line could be relocated back to where it was supposed to be.
Weinberger stated the sewer line could probably be relocated,noting that it was placed in its present
location because the previous property owners had requested it be relocated. Weinberger stated if the
adjoining property owner agrees to give an easement,the sewer line could be relocated. Weinberger
stated currently the City does not have an easement for the sewer line in the neighboring property.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have this application tabled or proceed forward to
the City Council.
Peterson stated they would like to move ahead.
Hawn commented it is likely the City Council would send it back to the Planning Commission since
there are a number of unresolved issues.
Peterson stated in terms of the drainage to the street,there is a drainage and utility easement that would
handle the runoff from the street,with a ditch carrying water from the north side of the road across into
the wetlands. Peterson stated they could construct a swale or ditch on their side of the road,which
should address all of the drainage concerns.
Peterson stated if the garage is relocated closer to the house,it will impact the front yard setback.
Rahn stated he personally would like the garage to be closer to the front yard setback than where it is
presently proposed.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would rather see the garage closer to the
front yard setback than in its present location.
Hawn commented it appears to be the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this item be
tabled, with the idea that the Applicant look at revising his plans somewhat to relocate the garage out of
the wetland area,depict access on the plan and the actual layout of the driveway. Hawn stated by that
time the City should have the comments of the City Engineer concerning drainage and the Public Works
Director on the access issue.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission would like to see the garage relocated further away from the
Type 3 wetland.
Rahn stated he would be more receptive to granting a front yard setback than a wetland variance. Other
Planning Commission members agreed.
Peterson requested his application be tabled.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to table Application#02-2745,Ilona and Kenneth Peterson,
1074 Wildhurst Trail,to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS,7:30 p.m.
(#6) #02-2755 LONG LAKE FIRE STATION—CITY OF ORONO,340 WILLOW DRIVE
NORTH, CLASS III SUBDIVISION,CUP,VARIANCE,8:06 p.m.—9:24 p.m.
Gaffron stated this application deals with the new joint Long Lake Fire Station located at 340
Willow Drive North, which consists of 6.17 acres and lies within the RR-1B, single family rural
residential zoning district. The area east of Willow Drive and south of the railroad right-of-way and
north of Watertown Road is guided for single-family residential use at a density of 2-3 units per acre.
Gaffron stated the same standards apply to the fire station that were used in constructing the city
facilities.The general performance standards which apply to similar development in residential zones
will apply, such as the standard 30' height limitations, 50' building setback from all lot lines, 10'
parking setback, et cetera.
Gaffron stated the joint building committee and City Councils have arrived at a mutually agreeable site
plan, which involves a request for a conditional use permit for a possible 20' by 22' hose tower
extending to a height of 34'-8" above grade where the maximum allowed height is 30'. Gaffron stated
the tower would be used primarily for training purposes.
Gaffron indicated it is also the City's intention to subdivide this property so the fire station can be
located on a separate parcel from the back lot which will ultimately be developed for single family,
senior housing or another residential use not yet determined. Future use of the residential parcel is
likely to require some rezoning of the property. Gaffron stated the existence of delineated wetlands
along the south boundary of the property has resulted in the road being placed further north than
anticipated, which creates the need for a setback variance. The setback from the south side of the fir
station building to the proposed right-of-way is 40' instead of the required 50'.
Gaffron indicated some factors which have impacted site layout include the necessary north/south
building orientation to allow for direct fire apparatus exit onto Willow Drive without requiring
additional turning movements. Gaffron stated the Fire Depailment requires direct access onto the main
road without making a second turning maneuver. In addition, it is also required that there be driveway
aprons on the east and west sides of the building bays to allow for fire apparatus ingress/egress,
necessitating that administrative and training spaces be located on the north or south end of the
building. Third,the road/driveway access to the rear of the building must allow for the necessary wide
turning radius of fire apparatus; and four, the close proximity to the existing/future Willow Drive bridge
over the railroad and the new Highway 12 route limits safe road access points. Gaffron stated there are
also site limitations imposed by width of the site, as well as by the location of existing linear wetlands
on the site and the need to create a road corridor to provide access to the rear of the property for future
residential use. Gaffron noted soil conditions also require extensive soil correction work and limit use
of the southerly portion of the site for building purposes.
Gaffron stated the wetlands have been delineated as Type 6 and 7, and the proposed project will require
some filling of the wetland as well as mitigation. Gaffron indicated the impact on the wetlands has been
minimized by expanding the road corridor and routing the road/driveway northward over a narrow point
of the wetland.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued)
Gaffron stated development of the fire station site results in approximately 60 percent of Lot 1 being
hardsurfaced and will require some stormwater ponding.
Smith inquired whether the tower could be further explained.
Gaffron stated the tower is located in the southeast corner of the building. The hose tower height is
necessary for it to perform a number of functions. Its primary purpose is for firefighter training, and
will contain stairways,windows and a door to the roof that will allow for a variety of realistic
firefighting and rescue scenarios to be staged. Its secondary use is to elevate hoses for drying. Gaffron
noted this tower will only be constructed if the budget allows.
Gaffron stated hose towers are sometimes treated as an important architectural design element of fire
stations where the location makes it suitable for use as a clock tower or signature design feature. The
Long Lake Station will be located in a neighborhood setting rather than a"town center"setting, and
reducing the prominence of the tower will minimize its visual impact on the neighborhood. Gaffron
stated the tower is proposed to be 35' tall where 30' is the normal maximum allowed. Its flat roof will
extend approximately 12' above the 23' flat roof height of the majority of the station building. The
20' by 22' area of the tower covers just under 3 percent of the total roof area of the station and is a
relatively small feature in the context of the overall visual impact of the station. Staff is recommending
that no signage be allowed on the tower and that its façade materials match the rest of the building so
that it does not become unnecessarily noticeable, and the tower itself will not be lighted.
Gabriel Jabbour,Building Committee, stated the exterior materials are similar to the bricks utilized on
the Pioneer Museum.
Smith inquired what impact there would be on the training if the height of the tower is kept to 30'.
Jabbour stated at the present time the sixth bay and hose tower may not be constructed unless the budget
allows for it following opening of the bids. Jabbour stated the committee did discuss reducing the
height of the tower,but noted the costs to construct a smaller tower are higher.
Gaffron stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include whether any other
conditions are necessary other than those proposed by Staff in order to allow the 35' tower; whether the
hardships stated in Staff's report support the granting of the setback variance, and whether there are any
significant impacts of the 40' setback that should be mitigated by attaching specific conditions to the
variance approval. In addition,the Planning Commission should consider whether there are any issues
regarding the proposed plat of the two lots.
Mabusth stated it was her understanding the fire station was to have three acres.
Jabbour stated it is a three-acre lot when the road,ponding, and wetland mitigation are considered.
Jabbour stated there should not be a problem with the setback since the road is 60' wide instead of the
standard 50'.
Hawn noted if the sixth bay is not constructed,the setback variance would not be required. Hawn
inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued)
Ron Miller, 270 Willow Drive, distributed photographs of the area. Miller indicated he is not in favor
of the design of the fire station. Miller indicated he has visited a number of fire stations,noting they
have not been constructed with more than five bays.
Miller stated the three and a half acres to the north will need to be addressed by Mn/DOT, and suggested
a road to the north be constructed.
Miller noted the site consists of blue clay. He said the MCWD has proposed changes to their wetland
buffer requirements which may be adopted on February 28t''. He further noted that neither MCWD nor
the DNR would confirm whether the stormwater pond will be considered as wetland. Miller suggested
that there are a number of ways to avoid the variance such as moving the building 10' north or
eliminating the 6th bay.
Miller stated in his view a hose tower is not needed.
Rahn inquired whether Miller would prefer the height of the tower be limited to 30'.
Miller stated yes.
Mabusth noted the wetland mitigation would require replacement of the same type of wetland.
Jim Dillman, 225 Willow Drive, questioned whether the City of Orono would get wetland credit.
Gaffron stated that issue has not yet been discussed by the watershed district.
Dillman inquired what type of lighting would be installed on the fire station and what type of
landscaping would be planted. Dillman stated he would prefer there not be bright lights on during the
nighttime.
Gaffron commented one of the things that will help is that the majority of the windows are on the east
and west side of the building. Gaffron stated the lighting would be a shoebox style and illuminate down
rather than out. Gaffron stated they are proposing to provide appropriate landscaping.
Jabbour indicated the building committee is very sensitive to the lighting to be installed on the new fire
station as well as the type of landscaping to be planted. Jabbour stated the landscaping would be
appropriate for the area.
Jabbour suggested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the use of this
building be restricted to fire fighting activities.
Hawn inquired how high the berm is on the south side of the road.
Gaffron stated the height of the berm on the south and the north side is relatively small and will not
really soften the appearance of the building.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station,Continued)
Jabbour noted the majority of the colored drawings are being shown to the City of Long Lake tonight,
and apologized that Staff has a limited number of drawings available for the Planning Commission to
review.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission should be looking at whether the hose tower should
be constructed.
Gaffron stated the three issues the Planning Commission should address tonight relate to the
subdivision,the impact of the tower on the neighborhood, and the setback variance. Gaffron stated the
City Council might be interested in hearing whether this building will be used for any ancillary uses and
the impact that would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Gaffron noted the use of the building is
not specifically related to any of the three issues before the Planning Commission tonight.
Kluth inquired if there is an agreement on the ancillary uses,how that would be enforced.
Jabbour stated there could be a code amendment relating to municipal facilities.
Kluth inquired whether the City of Long Lake has agreed to those restrictions on its use.
Jabbour stated originally the building was expected to be constructed in downtown Long Lake, and little
by little the project moved into the City of Orono. Jabbour stated the committee in his view understands
what the intent of the building is, and that the neighbors need to understand what this project entails and
the impact that it will have on their neighborhood.
Kluth expressed concern that if there is no formal agreement on what type of uses this building can be
used for,there may be problems in the future that could dramatically change the character of the
neighborhood.
Jabbour stated in his opinion the two cities should enter into a more formal agreement regarding the use
of the building, and recommended the City of Orono consider adopting ordinances encompassing any
municipal building.
Kluth stated in his view there should be a formal agreement in writing that perhaps runs with the land,
such as a restrictive covenant on the land restricting its use.
Mabusth noted the building is located within the City of Orono and would therefore be subject to
Orono's rules and regulations. Mabusth stated the City of Orono has strict regulations concerning liquor
consumption, et cetera.
Jabbour stated he is not suggesting that there will be large amounts of liquor on the property.
Kluth stated in his view the two councils and building committee will need to develop some type of
agreement restricting the types of uses for this facility.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station,Continued)
Hawn stated she would like to have the Planning Commission vote on each of the three issues before
them tonight separately, and then discuss the use of this building or any other matter that may arise and
make the appropriate recommendations to the Council.
Hawn inquired whether any members of the Planning Commission had any issues with the setback.
Kluth stated the City of Orono has the responsibility to insure that there is a correct mitigation plan in
place for those wetlands.
Mabusth inquired whether there is any benefit to make Lot 2 an outlot.
Gaffron stated it would be city-owned property,noting Lot 2 is considered a buildable lot. Gaffron
stated if it is made an outlot,there would need be conditions put on its uses. Gaffron stated he is unsure
whether there is any benefit that would be derived by making it an outlot.
Hawn suggested separate motions be made on each of the three items for consideration.
Smith moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of the two-lot plat subject to
MCWD wetland mitigation and stormwater management plan approval,subject to the
Orono City Council determining whether any impact fees such as park dedication/fees and
stormwater trunk fees are applicable. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of the side street setback to allow a
40' side street setback where 50'would normally be required based on the hardships outlined in
the February 15, 2002 Staff Report,with the condition that if the sixth bay is not constructed,the
variance will not be used for any other purpose.
Gaffron inquired what would happen if they decide to expand in the future,noting the variance is only
good for one year.
Kluth stated they could ask for a renewal. Kluth noted they currently only have four bays. Kluth stated
the motion restricts what the variance can be used for.
Jabbour commented the building committee looked at numerous ways to avoid the need for a variance
for a sixth bay but were unsuccessful.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Rahn inquired whether the sixth bay or the hose tower was of higher priority.
Jabbour stated the sixth bay was their first priority, with the hose tower being their second priority.
Hawn stated she has not heard a case for why the tower should be five feet higher than the 30'
residential limit.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued)
Rahn commented the tower could potentially become a training facility for others also.
Fritzler inquired whether the west metro area has a fire-training site that is available for training.
Jabbour stated he is unsure about the west metro area,but noted Edina is proposing a training facility
that would be available for all firemen.
Fritzler,Kluth, and Smith stated they are against the hose tower since no hardship has been
demonstrated.
Gaffron stated no hardship is required for the hose tower,but that the Planning Commission needs to
look at the impact on the neighborhood and how it can be mitigated. Gaffron stated the primary purpose
of the hose tower is for training.
Kluth moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a
hose tower 35' in height. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to give the City Council any admonitions
concerning this project.
Kluth noted other cities have restrictions on uses in residential areas, and recommended the Council
look at limiting the use of this facility.
Smith recommended appropriate lighting for residential areas be utilized on this fire station, and
requested no neon or flashing lights be utilized.
Hawn recommended use of this building be confined to fire-related purposes.
(Recess taken from 9:24 p.m.—9:30 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED
(#8) #02-2746 MARK FINNEY,3210 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
9:30 p.m.—9:46 p.m.
Mark Finney,Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit construction of a lakeside deck,
a 15' by 10' screen porch, and a 1,164 square foot two-story addition to the house. The addition
would contain a detached garage, three bedrooms,bathrooms, and utility room.
A variance is required to permit the addition to encroach six feet into the ten-foot side yard setback
requirement, and a variance is also needed to permit an alteration to existing non-conforming hardcover
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2746 Mark Finney,Continued)
in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' area consists of 5,851 square feet or
56.5 percent,with the Applicant proposing to reduce the hardcover to 3,838 square feet or 37 percent.
Weinberger stated the existing house is located adjacent to the North Shore Marina,which does have
two buildings used for storage and customer use just across the property line. The addition,located only
4' from the property line, would leave a 10.8' separation between the Marina building and the house,
which does meet the required separation distance between buildings.
The Applicant is also proposing a 32' by 24' detached garage. A building of that size would be
required to meet a minimum setback of 15' to the property line. The Applicant has stated he is willing
to construct a 30' by 24' building, which is a structure under 750 square feet,thus only requiring a 10'
setback. The detached garage is intended for storage and would not have a driveway,
with the garage door located on the east side of the building.
Weinberger stated the screen porch is located at the 75' setback,with the deck basically following the
75' foot line around the house. The Applicant has submitted a statement of hardship basically saying
that the existing house is located within the side yard setback and the attached garage will line up in the
same area. The addition would also help screen the boat yard from the property. In addition, the lot is
narrow and long, and by locating the addition within the side setback, it would allow for some yard
space to remain east of the house. Weinberger stated the existing garage would be removed out of the
75-250' setback and a new garage would be constructed in the 250-500' setback.
Staff recommends the addition be shifted to meet at least a minimum setback to match the existing
setback of the house. The existing house is not parallel with the property line. Staff recommends
approval of the hardcover variance subject to the hardcover being reduced from 5,851 square feet to
3,838 square feet.
Finney stated he would like to construct the proposed garage as near to the property line as possible in
order to screen a bathroom facility located on the adjoining property. Finney stated he also would like
to screen off some of the boats.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicant has considered planting trees and shrubs to screen rather than
using the garage for screening.
Finney stated he has shown his plans to the marina owner,who indicated he is happy with what is being
proposed and agrees with it. Finney stated the garage would also help create a pathway to one side,
noting he is located next to a commercial property.
Hawn stated she does have some sympathy towards this situation since it is located next to a
commercial site and the desire to screen the adjoining property. Hawn stated she would prefer to see the
new attached garage match the house setback on the west side, especially near the neighbor's building.
Rahn and Kluth agreed with Hawn.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2746 Mark Finney, Continued)
Smith moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2746,Mark Finney,
3210 North Shore Drive,granting a hardcover variance to allow 3,838 square feet of hardcover
within the 75-250' setback, and granting a side yard setback with the understanding the
setback of the addition will match the setback of the existing house, and with the understanding
the Applicant will not exceed 750 square feet on the detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#9) #02-2747 TONKA VENTURES,3749 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,VACATION,
9:47 p.m.— 10:05 p.m.
A representative of Eagle Crest was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated Eagle Crest is requesting a vacation of a portion of a dedicated drainage and utility
easement. The drainage and utility easement was dedicated on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods
in 1999.
The purpose of the proposed vacation request is to construct an end town house unit 1.5 feet into the
easement area. The request would vacate an area less than 10 square feet in area. The easement area
contains both a sewer line and water main. The sewer line would be located 7.8' from the foundation
when the building is constructed. The City has notified the utility companies of the request to vacate a
portion of the easement. No concerns from those utilities notified have been received. Qwest and
Reliant Energy/Minnegasco have both responded and stated they have no facilities within the easement
area.
Weinberger stated the City Engineer has reviewed the plans, and commented that there is a low
likelihood that there would need to be maintenance done to this section of the pipe. Weinberger stated
if there is ever an issue with the sewer line near the building,there are methods available to the utilities
to access the sewer line within the easement.
Staff recommends approval of the vacation request to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility
easement as shown on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods based on the fact that the public use of the
easement for sewer and water purposes is not negatively impacted by the vacation and no negative
comments have been received from public utilities. Weinberger recommended the approval be made
subject to the Applicant providing final "as-built"plans for the entire development of Lake Minnetonka
Woods prior to review of the vacation request by the City Council.
The Eagle Crest Representative had nothing in addition to Staff's report.
Douglas Nieland, 3675 Lyric Avenue, distributed photos of the hill in the area. Nieland stated he has
experienced drainage problems following regrading of the hill. Nieland stated the trees that were to be
replaced have not yet been planted as well as some divots in his yard which also have not been repaired
following construction of a trench. Nieland stated he has spoken with Eagle Crest regarding those
problems,who has indicated it was the developer that should be contacted. Nieland stated he has yet to
be contacted by the developer.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2747 Tonka Ventures, Continued)
Hawn stated perhaps the Planning Commission could make the vacation contingent upon the builder
resolving these problems. Hawn inquired whether that would be acceptable to Nieland.
Nieland stated that would be acceptable.
Kay Rendson, 3685 Lyric Avenue, also expressed concerns regarding drainage and erosion in the area
of the hill. Rendson stated she has concerns if the grade is elevated.
Hawn inquired what specific items Rendson needed rectified on her property.
Rendson stated the drainage needs to be corrected as well as trees replaced for screening.
Hawn inquired whether the builder can be required to correct these problems.
Gaffron stated in his view the two issues are totally unrelated, and suggested the Planning Commission
make a recommendation to Council that Staff follow up with the neighbors to find out what the issues
are and see how they can be rectified.
Kluth inquired whether Staff has the authority to require the builder to rectify these issues.
Gaffron stated the builder needs to comply with the overall site landscape and grading plan and obtain
occupancy permits for the individual units. Gaffron stated in his opinion Staff should be able to request
the builder comply with the grading and drainage plan as well as the landscaping plan.
Constance Leaf, 3695 Lyric Avenue, indicated this project has created a number of aesthetic problems
in her back yard area. Leaf expressed concerns that the hill is eroding and causing drainage problems in
her yard. Leaf questioned whether there would be additional problems if the foundation is moved closer
to the hill.
There were no further public comments relating to this application.
Mabusth recommended the City Engineer be requested to review the plans and visit the site to see
whether they are being complied with.
Mabusth moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2747,Tonka
Ventures,3749 Livingston Avenue,vacating a portion(10 square feet)of a dedicated drainage and
utility easement on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods,subject to Staff review and approval of
the final grading and drainage plan and landscape plan on east side of property,and further
subject to Staff assisting in the enforcement of the planting of appropriate trees as originally
called for in the landscape plan. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #02-2748 RICHARD A.AND NANCY MARZAN, 2795 PHEASANT ROAD,
VARIANCE, 10:06 p.m.—10:28 p.m.
Richard Marzan,Applicant,and Kathy Alexander, Home Designer, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback area to allow a
216 square foot deck and 20 square foot shed located by the lakeshore to remain on the property. A
portion of the deck has a roof but is not enclosed.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant owns the property and received a building permit in January of 2002,to
construct a new residence on the property. The new residence meets all standards for the LR-1B zoning
district. All that remains in the 0-75' setback zone are the steps leading to the lake, a deck, shed, and
two retaining walls.
Bottenberg indicated the topography of the property is fairly flat except approximately 45' from the
lakeshore, at which point it drops significantly to the lake. The City does not have a permit on file for
the deck or shed, although it appears it has been there for many years. A review of City files has
determined that a boat house was located there at least until 1986. The zoning code allows stairways up
to 4' wide,but landings no more than 32 square feet in area. Decks and roofed shelters are not allowed.
Bottenberg indicated the shelter is painted white and is quite noticeable from the lake.
Alexander stated instead of remodeling the existing house,they elected to pull the house back beyond
the 75' mark, and also attempted to comply with all the other regulations and building standards
applicable to this lot. Alexander stated the Applicant would like to retain the shed and try to blend it in
more with the property. Alexander noted this is a pre-existing condition.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn inquired why the Planning Commission did not see this matter prior to the time the building
permit was issued.
Weinberger stated the Applicants did contact Staff prior to applying for a building permit,noting an
agreement was reached that if the deck and shed were not approved,they would be removed.
Kluth inquired what the hardship is for keeping that structure.
Alexander stated her understanding is that since there is not a primary structure currently, they need a
variance to keep the shed.
Hawn stated there are two variances being requested tonight. The first one relates to allowing an
accessory structure to remain without a principal structure. Hawn stated when the existing residence is
torn down and a new residence is to be constructed on the lot, the project is then considered to be new
construction and a hardship inherent with the land must be demonstrated on why the shed should
remain.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2748 Richard and Nancy Marzan,Continued)
Alexander stated part of the hardship with the land is that a portion of the property is located within the
bluff line.
Marzan stated there is a very steep incline down to the lake, and that they like to store items relating to
their boat in the shed.
Hawn commented it probably is dangerous for people to be carrying things up and down that steep
embankment. Hawn stated the Planning Commission tends to be very consistent at not allowing
structures to be located within the 0-75' setback area.
Kluth inquired whether structures are allowed within a bluff zone.
Mabusth stated 4' wide stairs are allowed as well as a lock box. Mabusth suggested the Applicant look
at making the shed into a conforming lock box.
Hawn noted there is not much land available that is flat in this area.
Rahn commented he would not have a problem with the stairway or a 20 square foot lock box,but noted
that the Planning Commission has in the past required that structures be removed out of the 0-75'
setback area on new construction.
Marzan stated the dock starts where the stairway ends. Marzan expressed safety concerns if he is
required to build a lock box in that area,noting that the area is very steep and narrow.
Smith commented the shed is oversized compared to what is normally allowed in this area.
Hawn stated the land in this area is very limited.
Mabusth stated in her view safety issues need to be taken into consideration, and that she would be
agreeable to allowing the deck to remain in light of those safety concerns.
Kluth stated he agrees with Mabusth. Kluth indicated due to the extreme steepness of the bluff and the
angle of the stairs, along with the condition of the structure,he would be willing to let the shed remain.
Smith stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission would not approve a structure of
this size.
Rahn stated the deck consists of 216 square feet. Rahn noted there is no permit on file for the shed.
Marzan stated if he is required to remove the deck and shed and rebuild a lock box,he would like to
excavate the hillside and repair the retaining wall.
Kluth commented the Planning Commission could allow this structure to remain, and if it is ever
replaced, it needs to be reduced in size.
Smith inquired whether the Applicant anticipates repairing the retaining wall in the near future.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2748 Richard and Nancy Marzan,Continued)
Marzan stated in his view the stairway and retaining wall have not been maintained well, and that he
would like to remove the excess debris away from the walls. Marzan indicated they would paint the
shed more of an earth tone color to blend in better with the lakeshore.
Rahn noted the shed is not in anyone's line of sight.
Mabusth inquired whether the shed could be brought into conformance while construction is going on.
Marzan indicated he would really like to retain the shed and that he would be willing to paint it another
color if possible. Marzan stated if it is not possible to keep the shed,he will comply with whatever the
Planning Commission decides.
Hawn stated it is her impression from the comments that the Planning Commission would like to see the
shed replaced with a lock box.
Smith,Rahn, and Fritzler stated in their view the shed should be reduced in size.
Kluth reiterated he would allow the structure to remain until such time as it needs to be replaced.
Mabusth noted no major structural repairs are allowed on non-conforming structures.
Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2748,
Richard A. and Nancy Marzan,2795 Pheasant Road,granting of a hardcover variance to allow
the existing stairway and 216 square foot deck to remain in the 0-75' setback area, along with the
20 square foot shed being reconstructed into a lock box,with the understanding the shed shall be
painted an earth tone color, and further subject to the Applicants being placed on notice that the
deck is a non-conforming structure, and that if major repairs are necessary in the future,the deck
will need to be brought into conformance at that point. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2.
Smith and Fritzler stated they would like the deck to be brought into conformance now.
(#11) #02-2749 THOMAS P.EGAN,350,360,AND 370 BIG ISLAND,VACATION,
10:29 p.m.—11:10 p.m.
Thomas Egan, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has requested that a portion of platted"Massasoit Avenue"be vacated.
Massasoit Avenue is an undeveloped right-of-way on Big Island originally dedicated on the plat of
Morse Island Park. The right-of-way has been used by Big Island residents and guests for interior
pedestrian access to parts of the lakeshore and,periodically, for vehicular traffic for transporting
materials for home construction and septic installation. The right-of-way is also used by utility
companies for electric and phone service to the Island properties.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2749 Thomas Egan, Continued)
Weinberger indicated the City of Orono maintains public access to the Island for pedestrian and other
types of use. Weinberger stated the City does have a policy not to vacate any public accesses to the
lake.
Weinberger stated the portion of the right-of-way requested for vacation is not a right-of-way that
provides access to the public waters. The City of Orono has notified all public utilities of the vacation
request, and Reliant Energy/Minnegasco has responded that they have no facilities in the right-of-way.
Qwest did notify the City that they do have existing facilities within the right-of-way and stated they
respectfully decline the right-of-way vacation request.
Weinberger noted included with the Planning Commission packet is a letter from Rick Jorgenson with
Qwest stating that they respectfully decline the vacation request. Weinberger indicated he has spoken
with Mr. Jorgenson who indicated that Qwest would not be opposed to the vacation of the right-of-way
if it is determined that utility lines are located within the public land and adequate easements are put in
place for the utilities. Weinberger stated it is anticipated that location of the lines will be verified this
Thursday by Gopher One.
Weinberger stated the Public Works Director has reviewed this request,and has no objection to the
vacation of the right-of-way. Weinberger stated the City at this time has no intention to ever use that
portion of the right-of-way for any public purpose.
Weinberger stated the City likes to insure that access is maintained to each individual island over public
land. Weinberger stated public access remains open with the proposed vacation.
Egan presented pictures of the cabin,noting there are trees located on both sides of the cabin. Egan
stated he has a concern that the City may in the future request that the cabin be moved since it is located
within a right-of-way. Egan stated if something happened to the cabin,they would not be able to
rebuild since it is located within the setback and would need to be relocated. Egan stated he is
attempting to avoid any conflicts in the future, and that due to the trees in the area,the road is basically
unusable. Egan noted he has spoken with all the neighbors and he is unaware of any objections to the
vacation.
Smith questioned whether Qwest knows where their utility lines are located.
Egan stated Qwest did supply a drawing showing that their lines are located down the road. Egan stated
he personally does not feel those are correct,noting there is a junction box that is approximately three
feet tall located in the area where the lines come from,which is different than what Qwest's drawing
depicts. Egan noted the cabin was constructed sometime in the 1960s.
John Burch, 380 Big Island, indicated he owns the property to the left. Burch stated to his knowledge
the phone lines were put in about 15 years ago and come up to the individual cabins from poles that are
along Lakeview Avenue.
There were no further public comments relating to this application.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2749 Thomas Egan,Continued)
Gaffron inquired whether the residents were surprised after the survey was done in terms of the actual
location of the cabins in relation to lot lines.
Egan stated before he purchased the property, a survey had been completed which showed the property
as depicted on the new survey. Egan stated the surveyor is also the same on both surveys.
Hawn inquired whether there was further public comment regarding this application.
Egan stated Rick Hanson, 340 Big Island,had to leave the meeting,but requested that the vacation be
taken all the way to the edge of the road and up the adjacent road.
Hawn stated she has one reservation regarding this. Hawn stated there may come a time in the future
when some members of the general public would like to walk on Big Island, and if this easement is
vacated,they would no longer have that right. Hawn stated the Planning Commission should discuss
preserving the right of pedestrians to walk somewhere in this area.
Egan asked if public meant landowners in the area.
Hawn stated she means any person.
Egan stated the landowners in the area do not want members of the general public walking around Big
Island,noting some of the roads have been closed to prevent people from walking around their cabins in
the wintertime and summertime. Egan stated he is unsure what the intent of the platted roads were at
the time they were originally platted,but that the property owners would prefer that members of the
general public not walk through their properties on Big Island.
Hawn noted they are public roads, and if they are vacated, the general public would not be allowed to
access certain parts of Big Island.
Egan stated the public has not been able to use that road since approximately 1960,when the cabin was
originally built.
Hawn stated theoretically the public has the right to use that right-of-way. Hawn stated she would like
the Planning Commission to look at ways to preserve the public's right to walk in that area.
Egan stated there is a road located behind the cabin that touches every one of the lots, so there would
still be access available to the general public. Egan stated in his view those platted roads were not
designed to allow members of the general public access to every lot of the island but rather were
designed to allow the property owners the ability to travel around the island.
Hawn stated all public roads in Orono are open to the general public.
Egan stated since these are not developed roads and are difficult to recognize, he personally would not
be comfortable with the general public walking around Big Island.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2749 Thomas Egan,Continued)
Hawn stated at the current time they possibly are not easily recognizable by the general public,but the
question is whether they are taking away someone's right to have access to certain parts of the island in
the future.
Kluth commented if the right-of-way is vacated, it would no longer be public land.
Egan stated vacation of this right-of-way would not affect access to any of the individual lots.
Rahn stated the reality is that the Applicant's situation will probably not change whether the road is
vacated or not,but that the Planning Commission needs to look at whether they are denying access to
the general public if the vacation is approved.
Gaffron suggested in exchange for this vacation that the City request a strip of land to the lake. Gaffron
noted the road corridor stops 20 feet from the lakeshore, and that this might be an ideal place to request
a dedication of land to the shoreline.
Egan stated he does not own that piece of land, and that is it his understanding that piece of land is tied
up in a lease.
Gaffron commented this area of land might have been intended as a swimming beach at the time it was
platted.
Hawn reiterated that the Planning Commission has to insure that the general public has access to
Big Island.
Egan stated in his view there might be a problem with granting that piece of land to the shoreline,and
that the public can use Lakeview Avenue. Egan stated he is unable to obtain a mortgage on this cabin
because it is located in the right-of-way, and that in his view it would not be a problem for the City to
vacate that right-of-way,noting that it is usable at this point for a road or a pedestrian trail. Egan stated
the road has not been utilized for a significant number of years.
Kluth recommended that this right-of-way not be vacated since they are unable to know what future use
this piece of land might be needed for and that the City needs to preserve the right to use that piece of
land.
Hawn stated she would be in favor of vacating the right-of-way if an alternative is provided.
Egan commented the general public can still access Lakeview, which is a used pathway and does
contain utility lines. Egan stated Lakeview also has vehicular traffic. Egan commented these are
seasonal cabins and that most of the platted roads on Big Island are unrecognizable by the general
public.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to protect access on Big Island for use in the future.
Kluth agreed with Hawn.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2749 Thomas Egan,Continued)
Egan stated the current situation is the fact that the City through the years has allowed structures to be
built in the right-of-ways, which prevents him from being able to obtain a mortgage today.
Hawn stated she would like to see a pedestrian walkway somewhere in this area.
Mabusth suggested this application be tabled to allow the Park Commission time to review Big Island
for possible trail use.
Hawn agreed that the Park Commission should review this application.
Kluth commented that there is a value to this land that the City should recognize, and that it is the
Planning Commission's duty to make decisions based on what is good for the public.
Egan stated he understands that but does not feel vacation of this portion of right-of-way would affect
the general public.
Mabusth stated in her view perhaps this should become a policy of the City that the Park Commission
reviews any vacation of land to determine if there is some public purpose for the land.
Egan indicated he would not be in favor of this going to the Park Commission. Egan stated legally he
cannot get clean title until the right-of-way is vacated,and he would like to proceed forward to the
Council.
Hawn stated in her view it appears this application may be denied by the Planning Commission, and
inquired whether Egan would like to have his application tabled or proceed before the Council.
Egan stated he would like the Planning Commission to act on this application. Egan stated he is unsure
what benefit would be gained by sending this application to the Park Commission.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend denial of Application#02-2749,Thomas P.Egan,
350,360,and 370 Big Island,vacation of a portion of platted"Massasoit Avenue",without further
input from the Park Commission on possible trail use. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Mabusth opposed.
Mabusth indicated she would prefer the City follow a procedure of having the Park Commission review
applications requesting vacation of public land. Mabusth recommended the Council send this
application to the Park Commission.
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend that all vacations of platted public roads be sent to
the Park Commission for their review as well as the Planning Commission.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #02-2751 MARK WELCH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,
11:11 p.m.—11:29 p.m.
Linda Welch, Sister, appeared on behalf of Mark Welch.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances that would permit removal of an existing house
and construction of a new house on the property. Weinberger stated the property is located in the
LR-1C zoning district and consists of 6,615 square feet. Access to this property and five others is via a
private, shared driveway that accesses North Shore Drive. The private driveway is located across the
back of the individual lots. The driveway is required because the public road is located at a much higher
elevation than the properties below.
Weinberger stated the existing house consists of 599 square feet, with the Applicant proposing to
construct a two-bedroom/two bathroom home with a one-stall"tuck-under"garage. The new house
would allow the property owners to have additional living space and one garage stall. Currently the
property does not have a garage and was constructed in 1920. The proposed house would be located the
same distance from the driveway as the current house.
A number of variances are required for the new residence due to the small size of the lot,the driveway
location, and elevation change. The Applicant is requesting variances to lot area and lot width to permit
construction of a new residence. The defined lot area,minus the private driveway area, consists of
5,462 square feet. The defined lot width is approximately 50' at the lakeshore,with the requirement
being 100' width at the lakeshore.
Weinberger stated the proposed house would be located approximately 53' from the lakeshore,which
exceeds the existing setback of the neighboring two houses. Weinberger noted a 75' setback is required.
Weinberger stated the proposed building pad is located between the driveway and the 50' setback. The
Applicants are also requesting a variance to allow the house to be constructed five feet from the west
property line where a 10' setback is required. The 5' side setback has been requested to provide one
additional parking space on the property. The City's zoning code requires residential properties have
two off-street parking spaces. Weinberger noted no parking is available on the opposite side of the
shared driveway due to the topography of the land.
A variance is also needed to allow the house to be built within 75' of the lakeshore and a variance to
permit greater than 25 percent hardcover in the 75-250' of the lakeshore. The Applicants are proposing
16.4 percent hardcover where currently 17.6 percent exists in the 0-75' setback area and 51.6 percent
hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where 54.4 percent currently exists. The proposed house would
consist of 1,176 square feet and would not contain a basement due to the high water level in this area.
Weinberger stated a variance is also required to permit one off-street parking stall to be located three
feet from an interior side property line where off-street parking is required to be located ten feet from a
side property line.
Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted a statement of hardship. Weinberger stated the well
would need to be relocated if the house is rebuilt in this area.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2751 Mark Welch, Continued)
Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted subject to the following
conditions:
1. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided 10' along the north lot line and 5' along the
interior property lines.
2. A final grading plan shall be submitted prior to review of the request by the City Council.
3. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection.
4. Gravel shall be removed from the proposed parking area to leave a minimum 3' setback to the
property line.
Linda Welch stated she does not have anything to add to Staff's report,noting she does have pictures
of the embankment and the lot.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Mabusth noted a lakeside deck is attached to the house, and questioned whether that is included as part
of the house footprint.
Weinberger stated the proposal only includes the house footprint and not the deck. Weinberger stated
this lot would be entitled to 1,500 square feet of structural coverage,noting the proposed house is
approximately 1,100 square feet. Weinberger stated the overhangs on the sides are approximately one
foot, with the overhang on the lakeside being approximately three feet.
Hawn inquired whether the overhang has been included in the structural coverage calculation.
Weinberger stated it has not been included.
Hawn stated since there is an existing house on this lot,the Applicant is entitled to a replacement, and in
her view the Applicants have done a pretty good job at designing the house.
Rahn inquired what the preferred width of a parking stall was.
Weinberger stated in a commercial parking lot a stall is 9' by 20',which is generally what is
recommended.
Rahn commented he was looking at other possible locations for the parking stall and whether that could
be reduced somewhat.
Gaffron indicated they would also need to be 20' from a sewer line.
Mabusth inquired where the well will be relocated to.
PAGE 31
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2751 Mark Welch, Continued)
Weinberger stated that is yet to be determined.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2751,
Mark Welch,3625 North Shore Drive, granting of variances to permit construction of a new
residence on this lot based on the structural coverage being under the 1,500 square feet that is
allowed; based on the finding that there are hardships imposed by the land; and that the
hardcover is being reduced in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback; and subject to all of Staff s
recommendations contained in the February 12, 2002 Planner's Report, and further subject to the
relocation of the well in an approved location. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#13) #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE,2817 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE,
11:30 p.m.—11:41 p.m.
Wesley Byrne, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit additions and remodeling to the
existing house located on Casco Point Road. The variances being requested would allow for two
additions onto the house. The first would replace an existing attached garage with a 32' by 35' two-
story addition. The second addition would be a 20' by 30' attached garage with future living space
located above the garage. The property owners only intend to keep the existing house and foundation.
The open porch, garage, and deck are being removed to make room for the new additions.
Weinberger stated the proposed plan would reduce the total hardcover on the property. The driveway
and parking area on the property is proposed to be reduced in size. Weinberger noted the total
hardcover would still be over the 25 percent limit in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, with the Applicants
requesting 32.1 percent hardcover. Weinberger noted the existing hardcover is 36.5 percent. The
Applicants are also proposing to reduce the size of the lakeside deck and remove a shed located near the
street. A sidewalk and wood planter box would also be removed from the west side of the property.
A variance is also required to permit a 9.7' side setback for the residential addition located at the
northeast corner of the new house.
Weinberger stated Staff had requested the surveyor to reverify their final calculations to determine the
actual size of the proposed house. The total structure was confirmed to be 2,612 square feet,which is
99 square feet more structure than the property is allowed.
The Applicant has submitted a hardship statement,noting that they are attempting to protect an 80-year
old oak tree located in the front.
Staff recommends the Applicants reduce the size of the house to not encroach into the side yard
setbacks and meet the 15 percent lot coverage by structure.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2753 Wesley Byrne,Continued)
Byrne stated it was his intention to meet the 10-foot setback and that apparently an error was made
on the plan. Byrne stated he does not have a problem meeting the 10' setback. Byrne indicated he
would be able to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit by eliminating the outside stairs to the
proposed garage and reducing the size of the house somewhat. Byrne stated they can also reduce the
size of the stairwell.
Hawn inquired whether those changes can be reflected on the plan prior to appearing before the
Council.
Byrne stated they can be.
Smith inquired about the use of space above the garage and separate access.
Byrne commented that would be a guest bedroom,noting there is access to the second floor of the
house. Byrne noted he will be removing the stairway to that bedroom.
Hawn stated the only variance required would be the hardcover variance.
Weinberger noted the Applicant has indicated he intends to keep the original foundation, and
recommended that if any work needs to be done to the existing foundation that this issue be revisited.
Fritzler inquired how old the residence is.
Byrne stated it was constructed in 1940.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2753,Wesley Byrne,
2817 Casco Point Road,granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback area,with the
understanding the hardcover in that area will be reduced from what currently exists; and
contingent upon the fact that if the existing foundation needs to be replaced or repaired in any
substantial amount that the variance granted be withdrawn and that the plans will be
resubmitted to the Planning Commission and viewed as new construction; and further with the
understanding the side yard setback will be 10' instead of 9.7' and that structural coverage will
not exceed 15 percent. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#14) #02-2754 MATTHEW AND KATHY DOLLIFF,2680 PHEASANT ROAD,VARIANCE,
11:42 p.m.—11:44 p.m.
Matthew Dolliff, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 467 square foot addition and 164 square foot
entryway and walk to the residence. The addition and the walk will be located in the 75-250' setback
area and will be on the street side of the residence. The addition will increase the hardcover in the
PAGE 33
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2754 Matthew and Kathy Dolliff,Continued)
75-250' setback, and the Applicant is proposing to remove some existing hardcover to offset the
increase. The hardcover proposed to be removed is the brick patio and wall,the dog run, and a portion
of the lakeside patio, which will keep the hardcover at the existing amount.
Bottenberg stated the addition would increase the lot coverage by structures on the property to 10.03
percent,which is well below the 15 percent allowed. A variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback
area is required to permit 34.19 percent hardcover.
Staff recommends approval of the application.
Dolliff stated they would like to increase the amount of living space in the house.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2754,
Matthew and Kathy Dolliff,2680 Pheasant Road, granting a hardcover variance for the
75-250' setback area,with the understanding the hardcover will not be increased from what is
currently existing. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS JANUARY 28,2002,AND FEBRUARY 11,2002
None
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission scheduled a work session for March 15, 2002, at 8:00 a.m.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 22,2002
Mabusth moved,Kluth seconded,to approve the minutes of the January 22,2002 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 25,2002 AND MARCH 11,2002
February 25—Smith March 11 —Mabusth
PAGE 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,February 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
c Elizabeth Hawn, hair
PAGE 35