HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE o
0 COUNCIL
ErPLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4` 0 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
El OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
q/q19 IJut ' O /(P 65,4
2. L'_):2- 0,1 - 27'36
f)
3. e_
^'e4C,
oL c
4. iL / /3 -1-1, / . 1
5. J:-.1) Lc I 14,1,,te? Sir• /1..t< r -3:7‘74
6. \Ian CL/ TLAhti // a&a- ciyoffd,u,‘ 6 a - ;27vo
7. &1Z-! .116,-CiSTIi-
8. -Tom ne■ Goxv-eizOrp- 7- d (9740
9.
10. A t\ 1
ii. 1,Jo,t
12. s AU/a f7:evrfpl\LAsim Ajefit (fAIA,e_
13.
14.
15.
X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)WORMSTUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
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, Sandra Smith, David Rahn,Janice Berg,
Daniel Kiuth, and Alternate J. Mark Fritzler. Commissioner William Stoddard was absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order 6:35 p.m.
CONSENT
(#1) #02-2756 DAVID AND JODY DALVEY, 1520 BOHNS POINT ROAD,CUP
(#2) #02-2760 JAMES CUSACK,4140 IHGHWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES
(#3) #02-2765 WILSON MANAGEMENT,LTD., 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,
RENEWAL VARIANCES
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to the three above-mentioned
Items.
There were no public comments.
Smith moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Applications#02-2756,
David and Jody Da lvey, 1520 Bohns Point Road; #02-2760,James Cusack,4140 Highwood
Road; and#02-2765,Wilson Management,Ltd., 740 Willow Drive South.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#4) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20,
SUBD.4C,HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission would like to discuss this item further in a work session prior
to acting on it. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this item.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to table Application#2333,Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,
Section 10.20, Subd.4C,Home Occupation Standards. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2745 ILONA AND KENNETH PETERSON, 1074 WILDHURST TRAIL,
VARIANCES
Ken Peterson,Applicant,and Jack Carter, Contractor,were present.
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 on the property. The Planning Commission had reviewed this item at their February 19th
meeting and determined the garage should be shifted out of the wetland area,noting the preferred option
would be to have the garage located within the front yard setback rather than encroach into the wetland.
Weinberger stated the garage is a two level structure,with the ground needing to be raised to provide
driveway access to serve the two garage stalls. Weinberger stated the idea for the two-stall garage is to
provide additional storage on the property as well as inside parking for two vehicles. Weinberger
indicated the majority of the property is located within the wetland buffer.
The Applicants have submitted a revised plan with the garage being shifted closer to the street and
now located completely out of the wetland area. The proposed grade changes for the garage are also
outside the wetland area. A variance is required to allow the garage to encroach into the front setback.
Weinberger indicated the City Engineer has agreed to a 10-foot setback rather than a 15-foot setback
from the south property line. Weinberger stated a minimal amount of grading would be needed to the
front of the proposed residence,with the revised plan moving the house and decks outside the
26-foot buffer area.
Weinberger stated the final issue discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting dealt with the
dual access proposed to the site. The Applicants are now proposing to relocate the access further to the
north, which provides driveway access to both the lower and upper levels of the garage. The Public
Works Director has reviewed the plan and is agreeable to the proposed access.
Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted subject to the six conditions
outlined in Staff's Report. Weinberger noted there are different methods for determining wetland
boundaries today than when the property was originally platted back in 1991,which has resulted in a
larger wetland than originally believed. Weinberger stated the property consists of almost two acres if
the wetlands are included,with the buildable area being approximately one acre. Weinberger noted the
Watershed District has issued a permit for this application,with the Applicant mitigating and creating
new wetland areas consisting of approximately 2,100 square feet. Weinberger noted the actual wetland
would not be impacted by this proposal,with some impact to the 26' buffer area.
Peterson stated they have attempted to address all the issues that were raised at the previous Planning
Commission meeting.
Hawn stated in her opinion the Applicants have addressed the Planning Commission's concerns.
Rahn inquired if the Applicants are still required to do mitigation of wetlands since they will only be
impacting the buffer area.
Weinberger stated there is no mitigation requirement if it does not actually impact the wetland,but
noted that was a condition of approval required by the Watershed District. Weinberger stated the
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson,Continued)
Watershed District permit may or may not be required since there is no impact to the wetland as
currently proposed.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Smith moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2745,Ilona and
Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail,granting a variance to allow the garage to encroach into
the front setback and to permit land alteration and the garage to be located within the 26 foot
Wetland buffer,subject to the seven conditions outlined in the March 14,2002 Planner's Report.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#6) #02-2740 JEFFREY AND NANCY TWIDWELL, 1865 CONCORDIA STREET,
VARIANCES
Nancy Twidwell, Applicant, and Jeff Switzer,Architect,were present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to tear down the existing residence and construct a new
single-family home. The Applicants are requesting a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone.
The Applicants are proposing 33.54 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing three separate proposals in their application,with the
preferred plan requesting the hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback. This proposal also keeps the
residence in line with the neighboring properties and allows the three mature maple trees to remain.
Bottenberg stated the increase in hardcover is a result of moving the house further back in line with the
neighboring residences and having additional driveway area.
Bottenberg stated the second proposal does not require any variances,but would require all three of the
mature maple trees to be removed. The house would be located approximately 30 feet from the street.
The third proposal also does not require any variances,with the residence still being located
approximately 30 feet from the street. This proposal,however,would require one of the mature maple
trees to be removed.
Bottenberg indicated the Applicants do meet the 15 percent structural coverage for the property.
Mrs. Twidwell indicated they have resided on this property for the past seven years, with the original
residence being a cabin that was constructed in 1941. Twidwell stated they have started looking at
various plans to remodel approximately two years in an attempt to alleviate drainage problems.
Twidwell stated they were eventually advised by their builder that the drainage problem will not be
alleviated by remodeling the existing residence and decided to proceed forward with a tear down of the
existing residence and constructing a new home. Twidwell commented they have reduced the size of
the house down to be below the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Twidwell stated they would prefer to keep the three mature maple trees if at all possible, with their
preferred plan proposing to keep their house in line with the neighboring residences and reducing the
hardcover from what currently exists. Twidwell noted the neighbors are supportive of this proposal.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2740 Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell,Continued)
Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia, stated he lives approximately ten houses down from the Twidwells,noting
he has also gone through the same process where his house was relocated to line up with the adjacent
homes. Palm noted there are a number of other property owners who have relocated their residences to
be more in line with the neighborhood and reduce the hardcover in the area. Palm indicated he is
supportive of this plan.
Smith commented the preferred plan looks acceptable to her,with Alternate Plan B also being
acceptable. Smith indicated she does not have a problem with the application.
Mabusth indicated she agrees with Smith.
Hawn noted the Applicants are well under the structural coverage limit,with a majority of the hardcover
consisting of driveway.
Mabusth noted the hardcover is being reduced from what currently exists.
Hawn stated the Applicants should be made aware that the City will probably not grant another
hardcover variance on this property in the future.
Berg and Kluth commented they are in favor of saving the trees.
Rahn inquired whether there is a deck and stairs being proposed down by the lake,noting the plan and
survey differ slightly.
Twidwell indicated the dock has been there for a long time. Twidwell stated they would be willing to
remove the dock and leave the stairs to the lake if the Planning Commission so desires.
Mabusth stated she does not have a problem with the deck or stairs.
Fritzler commented in his opinion the maple tree in the middle might still be lost,noting he did look at
the tree. Fritzler stated part of the tree is dead already.
Twidwell stated they did obtain the opinion of an arborist,who indicated the trees are in good condition
and also provided some suggestions on how to lessen the damage to the trees during the construction
process.
Fritzler stated he is familiar with maple trees and that it doesn't take much damage to kill the tree.
Mabusth inquired whether the dock has any footings or foundation to it.
Twidwell stated the dock just sits on the ground.
Mabusth stated in order to be consistent on this application,the Planning Commission should ask for
that dock to be removed.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2740 Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell,Continued)
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2740,Jeffrey and
Nancy Twidwell, 1865 Concordia Street,granting a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback
area, subject to the removal of the old dock. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#7) #02-2752 JERRY AND CINDY GRAY,880 PARTENWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
7:00 p.m.—7:25 p.m.
Ed Doyle,Architect, appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the City Council approved variances for a previous property owner in 1985 to
permit construction of an addition on the house. The approval required the removal of a large portion of
the driveway to compensate for the additional hardcover the new addition would place on the property.
The approved site plan indicates a lakeside deck as well as a dog run. The current site plan shows the
dog run has been removed and replaced with a deck. Weinberger stated it is unclear when the deck was
actually constructed since a building permit was never applied for,but it appears to have been
constructed some time ago. Weinberger noted the amount of hardcover on the property did not increase
as a result of the addition of the deck since the dog run was moved.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are looking to restore the original character of the house and would
like to construct a circular driveway and parking area as well as some other improvements to the
property. Weinberger stated the Applicants are basically proposing to put back the hardcover that was
required to be removed back in 1985.
Weinberger stated this application that goes against what the City has been doing and goes against the
original approval on the site that allowed the addition on the property. Weinberger stated the hardcover
regulations are the same today as existed in 1985,with the exception that the City adopted the Shoreland
Management Ordinance in 1992,which also regulates hardcover.
Weinberger stated one of the primary ways the City has reviewed applications for hardcover as it relates
to shoreland property near Lake Minnetonka is to limit the amount of development and hardcover on the
property. In addition,the Public Works Director does not approve of the second driveway access onto
this property because of maintenance of the public road and minimization of accesses onto the public
road.
Staff recommends denial of the application to increase hardcover on the property to permit an expansion
of the driveway based on the City's approval in 1985,which required removal of hardcover and a
requirement that any new hardcover only replace existing hardcover. Weinberger noted this property is
located near the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka in three directions and the proposed hardcover would
reduce the amount of natural surface in the locality of the lake. Weinberger stated there is no apparent
hardship that would require additional driveway area and access to the property.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray,Continued)
Weinberger stated if the Planning Commission does recommend approval of the application,that would
be subject to the Council completing a review and appealing an administrative decision to allowing a
secondary access.
Doyle stated on the surface,this application appears to be difficult to approve,but stated the property is
difficult from the standpoint of the size of the lot,which is less than one acre, and the triangular shape of
the lot. Doyle stated there are some issues relating to safety and hardship,noting there is very little
room for guests to back up in their current driveway and have dinged up their cars a number of times.
Doyle stated due to the small amount of lot area that is left on this site after you go back 75',the amount
of hardcover being requested is approximately 2,000 square feet,which is relatively minor. Doyle
pointed out there are also some roof overhangs that are being proposed that may have been left out of
the final calculation. Doyle stated they would like to do some remedial roof work.
Doyle indicated they are willing to remove underlayment under landscaping in conjunction with this
project, and requested the Planning Commission consider approving this application. Doyle noted the
residence located at 815 Patenwood has a similar lot configuration and has gone through a number of
variances,noting their hardcover is 9,400 square feet. Doyle suggested the Planning Commission look
at the amount of green space that is left over following completion of the project.
Hawn noted those have been renewal of variances that were approved a while ago,with the work never
having been completed.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Smith inquired if Staff knows whether the deck was replaced two years ago or 15 years ago.
Weinberger stated the deck may have been constructed prior to 1992,noting it appears to have been
there for some time.
Smith indicated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendation concerning the second access.
Rahn inquired whether there is a current turnaround area located on the side of the garage.
Weinberger stated there is.
Rahn commented he would have a hard time saying a hardship exists for the second access since there
are no safety issues involved.
Mabusth inquired whether there are additional hardcover improvements that are being requested in
addition to what was approved in 1985. Mabusth indicated she has no information relating to the roof
overhangs.
Weinberger stated there would be a slight increase in the hardcover from what was approved in 1985,
noting he is not aware of what the exact number of.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray,Continued)
Doyle indicated it would be approximately 500 square feet. Doyle stated currently the siding on the
house is experiencing some damage from water because there are no overhangs. Doyle stated they are
proposing to construct an overhang around the perimeter of the house that would stick out
approximately two feet.
Weinberger indicated he may have misunderstood the situation with the roof overhangs,noting he
thought that portion of the proposal had been removed from the plan.
Doyle apologized if that information was miscommunicated to Staff.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission would be able to give a recommendation on the driveway but
that a separate application for the overhangs would need to be submitted. Hawn noted the overhangs
would be included in the structural coverage.
Weinberger stated the resolution approved in 1985 stated that no additional hardcover in excess of
38.8 percent would be allowed. Weinberger stated the property currently exceeds that amount.
Doyle stated the slight increase may come from the deck.
Hawn stated in her opinion at the time this approval was granted in 1985,there was some type of
trade-off with a portion of the driveway being removed in exchange for the addition of the deck and
garage. Hawn stated it does not appear that the Applicant is proposing to remove any of the structural
coverage that was granted at that time in return for partial removal of a portion of the driveway. Hawn
stated unless there is a decrease in the amount of structure,the Planning Commission in her view does
not really have any grounds, absent a hardship,to grant a variance.
Kluth stated in his opinion there is no hardship to grant the hardcover variance.
Doyle stated the property was purchased with hardcover at 42 percent,and inquired whether they would
be able to keep the hardcover at 42 percent. Doyle stated they would like to construct the roof
overhangs and in return would be willing to remove the underlayment.
Hawn stated it is not the practice of the Planning Commission to trade underlayment for hardcover.
Berg stated the Planning Commission would like to see the underlayment removed anyway. Berg
indicated she is in support of Staff's recommendation.
Mabusth inquired whether Doyle would like to have this application tabled in order to give them time to
review their options.
Doyle stated he would.
Mabusth moved,Berg seconded,to table Application#02-2752,Jerry and Cindy Gray,
880 Partenwood Road,to allow the Applicants time to re-evaluate the hardcover on the property
and determine what new improvements are to be done to the property. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray, Continued)
Mabusth noted she did not give any direction on the hardcover,but suggested the hardcover be reduced
to the 38.8 percent.
(#8) #02-2757 TERRANCE C.JOHNSON, 1045 LINDEN LANE,RENEWAL VARIANCE,
7:26 p.m.—7:52 p.m.
Terrance Johnson,Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a renewal of variances approved in 1992. The original
approvals were to permit additions to the existing residence and adding three to four courses of block
under the existing house to raise the ceiling height of the walkout level of the house. The addition to the
residence also included an addition of a second story over the house,the addition of an attached garage
and second story rec room, addition to the east side of the existing house,replacement of existing decks,
addition of a deck adjacent to the rec room and master suite, and construction of an open porch/portico
over existing deck on the lakeside, and extend the existing deck along the house ten feet. In order to
reduce hardcover on the property,the Applicant is agreeable to removing the existing detached garage
and gravel parking area.
Weinberger stated the property owner did not renew the variances on a yearly basis, stating that it was
his understanding from the City that the renewal would not be necessary until they were ready to
complete the project.
Weinberger stated the primary issues in 1992,were potential drainage problems that may occur due to
the increased hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Since 1992, the house on the adjacent lot has been
removed and is currently vacant,being owned in common with another lot further down Linden Lane.
Secondly, the increased length and steepness of the driveway could create some runoff and access
problems for the property. The plan depicts a driveway that would average a 12 percent slope. Staff
generally recommends a driveway slope of 10 percent or less.
Weinberger noted the Planning Commission back in 1992, voted 4 to 3 to approve this application,with
the primary concerns being the length and slope of the driveway, drainage concerns, and the amount of
hardcover being proposed. The resolution adopted by the Council included language that allows the
City Engineer to monitor the drainage situation on the property.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission can approve the renewal of the variances if it finds that
sufficient justification exists to recommend approval of this site plan. Weinberger stated the same
hardships exist today as they did back in 1992.
Weinberger indicated the Applicant is proposing to do this project in stages,with the first phase of the
project being to lifting the house and adding three to four course of block, followed by building the
addition to the house.
Johnson noted the house on the adjacent lot was gone at the time they purchased the house. Johnson
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2757 Terrance Johnson, Continued)
stated it is their intent to raise the level of the walkout level,noting the footings have been checked out
and found to be in good condition.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith inquired whether there were any additional runoff issues that exist today.
Weinberger stated he is not aware of any additional runoff issues. Weinberger stated the Applicant is
required to comply with any drainage recommendations.
Mabusth inquired whether there were any specific recommendations by the City Engineer relating to the
driveway,noting the drainage will run down the driveway. Mabusth inquired about the time table for
completion of this project.
Johnson stated he has spoken with the contractor doing the block work,who indicated they would like
to start between April 1st and May 1s`,with completion of the lower level to occur first, followed by the
addition of the second level.
Hawn inquired how many years the Applicant thought the project would take.
Johnson stated in his opinion the majority of the work should be done within two years,minus the
garage. Johnson stated the foundation would be completed first, followed by the renovation completed
on the lower level, and then the second story. Johnson indicated he has not received any bids on
construction of the garage at the present time.
Smith inquired whether the existing garage would remain during construction.
Johnson stated the garage would remain until the new garage is constructed.
Hawn inquired how much hardcover in the 75-250' setback consists of driveway.
Weinberger stated that number is not broken out,but estimated the total hardcover in that setback area
for the driveway would be 2,570 square feet,which is approximately half of the amount allowed in that
area.
Rahn inquired whether the elevation shown on the plan is the existing elevation or the proposed
elevation.
Johnson stated that is the elevation for the new home.
Rahn commented there would be additions on almost all four sides of the house once this project is
completed, and inquired whether the floors will be saved and the stairwell relocated.
Johnson stated the stairwell would be relocated,with the flooring on the main floor staying the same.
Johnson stated it is his understanding the contractor will be removing the roof, cut it in sections and
move it away,with a three-foot wall being erected, followed by the floor joists being placed across that.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2757 Terrance Johnson, Continued)
Johnson indicated the house is not going to torn down or gutted,noting the kitchen has recently been
remodeled. Johnson stated the inside walls will be furred to give it the equivalent of 2 by 6
construction.
Rahn stated when you put a stud wall on top of an eight foot wall, a hinge effect is created that very
seldom is capable of sustaining 80 mile an hour winds.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant has considered tearing down the existing house and constructing a
new residence.
Johnson stated they would prefer not to tear down the existing house,noting the footings and foundation
are fine. Johnson stated they would like to build up.
Rahn inquired whether the Applicant was sure the footings are fine.
Johnson stated they are, except for perhaps one corner.
Rahn inquired whether an engineer has inspected the footings.
Johnson stated they had an engineer look at the footings,noting there is a section in one corner of the
house that used to be a bomb shelter where some work to the footings may need to be done.
Hawn cautioned the Applicant that if in the course of doing this project it becomes necessary to
essentially replace the entire house due to problems with the current footings, et cetera,that it may
become necessary that the house be relocated. Hawn commented that new construction has a different
set of rules than renovation.
Johnson stated he understands that.
Rahn stated he understands the desire to do this project in stages.
Johnson stated a new deck has been recently added, along with the kitchen being remodeled.
Rahn recommended the Applicant have an engineer inspect the footings prior to any work being done to
raise the house.
Johnson stated they have done a considerable amount of work on this project and have looked into all
their options.
Smith inquired whether the materials would be stored inside during the phases of this project.
Johnson stated he understands the concern the neighbors may have during this project,noting they are
planning to utilize the garage for storage of materials.
Kluth stated if they are technically within what is considered a rebuild versus new construction,the
Planning Commission has to go with the rules governing rebuilds.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
QRONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2757 Terrance Johnson, Continued)
Hawn inquired how Staff determines what that line is.
Weinberger stated the City does not have a formal policy regarding that,noting that Staff generally
considers it new construction where the project exceeds the floor area by more than 50 percent.
Weinberger stated another element on whether this should be new construction is whether there is work
being done to the foundation beyond what is proposed here. Weinberger stated if there is work to be
completed on the foundation, Staff may have to revisit this application.
Hawn cautioned the Applicant that if a second corner of the foundation needs to be replaced, it could be
considered new construction and the Applicant would need to come back in. Hawn noted the building
inspector and city engineer will be doing routine inspections on this project.
Hawn recommended adding the definition of a rebuild be included on the agenda for their next work
session.
Smith inquired whether a definite time frame could be given on this project,noting she does have some
concerns that this project will get prolonged.
Kluth noted the Applicant would need to come back before the Planning Commission to renew the
variances if the work is not completed within one year.
Hawn stated she personally would prefer it if the Applicant would consider tearing down the existing
residence and starting over. Hawn stated if the house were pulled it,it would reduce the hardcover.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2757,
Terrance C.Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane,renewal of variances, subject to frequent inspection by
the City building inspector and compliance with all recommendations concerning the drainage
given by the City Engineer, and further subject to the understanding that the variances will need
to be renewed within one year if the total project is not completed. The Applicant is further
advised that if additional work on the foundation and footings needs to occur than what is
proposed,the project will be considered new construction and the Applicant will be required to
comply with all setbacks and standards for new construction,with all construction ceasing until
the application is revisited by the City. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Fritzler Opposed.
Fritzler stated he voted in opposition to this motion because in his opinion this project will not be
completed on a timely basis and will have other issues arise during construction.
Kluth suggested the City consider imposing a time limit for when variances can be renewed.
Rahn stated if this had not been called a renewal, in his opinion it should have been considered new
construction.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2758 ROBERT D.PIEPER,3995 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:53 p.m.—8:13 p.m.
Eric Vogstrom,Builder, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant has recently constructed a new home on the project that was previously
known as Sandy Beach Resort. In August, 2001,a building permit was issued for the construction of a
new residence. In February and March,2002,the residence was part of the 2002 Spring Parade of
Homes tour. This particular residence was highlighted on Channel 5 one morning. Bottenberg stated
the City's building official happened to be watching the show and listened to the description of the
home. It was later determined by the building official that the plans do not indicate a mother-in-law
apartment,which requires a conditional use permit and building permit.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant was notified of the problem,who then promptly applied for a
conditional use permit.
Bottenberg stated the apartment is located above the garage and appears to be part of the house. There
is access to the apartment from a door through the garage, an outside door, and a door inside the
residence. Bottenberg noted the property is sewered.
Bottenberg stated the Planning Commission should look at the number of access points into the
apartment and whether the outside door is a problem. Bottenberg stated a restrictive covenant should be
recorded on the chain of title stating the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by
occupants of the principal residence.
Vogstrom stated it was never the intention of the property owner for this apartment to become rental
property,noting the property owner merely decided to avoid the mess of finishing off this area later and
instead do it in conjunction with the rest of the project. Vogstrom stated the apartment consists of two
bedrooms along with a kitchen,bar area, and living room.
Smith inquired whether there is an access door inside the residence.
Vogstrom stated there is.
Berg inquired what the kitchen consists of.
Vogstrom stated it has a microwave, stove, sink, and refrigerator. Vogstrum stated there also is a
kitchen located in the main residence.
Smith inquired how it happened that a permit was not obtained for the apartment.
Weinberger stated the original plans showed that this area would not be finished off and was not part of
the original permit.
Vogstrom stated the property owner decided to finish the apartment and the permit was overlooked.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2758 Robert Pieper,Continued)
Vogstrom stated they were informed of the need for the permit at the time the building official inspected
the project prior to issuing a final occupancy permit.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Smith inquired whether the apartment as it exists today meets the regulations for an apartment inside a
principal residence.
Weinberger stated it does.
Smith inquired what happens if a lock goes on that door leading to the apartment from inside the
residence.
Weinberger stated a second address will not be allowed for the unit and separate meters would also be
prohibited.
Hawn inquired how many access points there are to the apartment.
Vogstrom stated there are two access points,with no access off the deck.
Mabusth inquired whether this is being treated as an after-the-fact application.
Weinberger stated the building permit would be considered after-the-fact. Weinberger stated the
conditional use permit should probably be considered as after-the-fact as well. Weinberger stated the
biggest concern with this type of apartment is whether they will be rented out in the future.
Mabusth stated once a kitchen is added, it is then considered an apartment.
Gaffron stated the issue is whether or not the door leading from the outside is the primary access to this
apartment. Gaffron stated the intent of the ordinance is to make the apartment not look like an
apartment from the outside and making it difficult for the unit to be rented. Gaffron noted a covenant
will be recorded on the chain of title stating the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use
by occupants of the principal residence,with no rental of the apartment being permitted. Gaffron noted
the Applicant has met the requirements of the ordinance.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2758,
Robert D.Pieper,3995 North Shore Drive, granting an after-the-fact conditional use permit,with
the understanding there will not be a lock installed on the door inside the residence leading to this
apartment, and further with the understanding that a restrictive covenant will be recorded on the
chain of title stating the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of
the principal residence,including their domestic employees or non-paying guests,with no rental
of the guest apartment being permitted, and subject to the builder paying after-the-fact penalties.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING—8:00 P.M.
(#13) #02-2764 REVIEW OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PUD ORDINANCE
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this item.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn noted the Planning Commission has discussed this item preliminarily in a work session and
would like to table the matter.
Berg moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#02-2764,Review of Proposed Commercial
PUD Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#10) #02-2759 JOHN COLLETTE,2160 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT,8:15 p.m.—8:22 p.m.
John Collette,Applicant, and Walter Koronkiewicz, Building Manager,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a 208 square foot leased
office space within the Orono Shopping Center. The property is located in the B-1, Retail Sales
Business District. The Applicant has stated the only use of the property will be for general
administrative functions of the business and does not intend to store vehicles or display vehicles for sale
on the property. Professional offices and offices general in nature are listed as a conditional use in this
district,with automobile sales not being permitted.
Weinberger noted this use does not require any changes to the structure and does not require a review of
the building and remainder of the site. The manager of the property has provided a detailed list of all
the tenants and square footage used by each tenant. The total parking required for the existing uses
within the building, including this office use,is 81 spaces. The property has available parking for
128 vehicles.
Weinberger stated the Applicant does not intend at the current time to have any signs identifying the
location of his office,noting he does not intend to have customers coming to this office on routine visits.
The Applicant would be allowed one sign on the exterior of the building not greater than 30 inches in
height and would be limited to the name of the business or company logo.
Weinberger recommends approval of the application based on the fact the intended office use is in
keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The intended use is consistent
with several of the existing uses within the building. Staff is recommending approval be subject to
the following conditions:
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2759 John Collette,Continued)
1. At no time shall any vehicles being brokered be stored, displayed, serviced or parked on the
property.
2. Any future signs for use with the automobile brokerage be in compliance with the provisions of
the zoning code and/or provisions as set forth by the approved sign plan.
3. Any requests to expand the use of the building for the automobile brokerage business shall require
an application to amend the conditional use permit.
Collette indicated he would like to lease some office space,noting he intends to have some file space
and answering service in the office. Collette he understands he is not allowed to park any vehicles
relating to this business on the property.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2759,
John Collette,2160 West Wayzata Boulevard,granting a Conditional Use Permit,subject to the
three conditions outlined in the March 12,2002 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#11) #02-2761 ADDISON AND CINDY PIPER, 1125 SPRING HILL ROAD, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES,8:22 p.m.—8:38 p.m.
Cindy Piper, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances and conditional use permits to remodel the
pool house,construct a guest house,and construct a screen porch to the existing residence. The existing
residence was built in the 1950s.
A conditional use permit is required to construct a guest house on the property. The guest house would
be used as a caretaker's living quarters, storage, and provide two additional parking stalls. The guest
house will be 24' by 62', and will be located northwest of the existing residence into the side of a hill.
The guest house will have a separate septic tank and will be connected by a gravity line to the existing
pumping chamber and mound. The guest house meets all setback and lot requirements.
A variance to the average lakeshore setback is also required to allow the Applicants to construct a
13.5' by 25' screen porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. The screen porch addition
encroaches into the average lakeshore setback by 15 feet. The porch will not be visible from the
adjacent residences.
Bottenberg stated in addition a conditional use permit is being requested to replace existing plumbing in
the detached pool house and a crowding variance because it is located within 10 feet of the principal
structure. The pool house has been on the property since at least 1994 as shown on aerial photographs.
A conditional use permit is required because the pool house currently has two toilets and showers in it.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2761 Addison and Cindy Piper,Continued)
Bottenberg stated the pool house was originally built 9.3 feet from the property line rather than the
required 10 feet.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the Applicant filing the appropriate restrictive
covenants on the property for a guest house and an accessory building with plumbing.
The builder stated the roof over the screen porch is an extension of the existing roof.
Piper stated the house was originally constructed in 1954,noting there have been no major
improvements done to the house during that time except for a new kitchen following a fire in 1984.
Piper indicated she is unaware of when the pool house was originally constructed, and it is her intent to
clean the property up. Piper stated she is willing to comply with the applicable standards.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2761,
Addison and Cindy Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road,granting two conditional use permits,average
lakeshore setback variance, and crowding variance,subject to the property owners filing the
appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for a guest house and an accessory building
with plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN
(#12) #02-2763 CLAYT AND JULIE ANN TABOR,960 NORTH BROWN ROAD, SKETCH
PLAN REVIEW
Clayt and Julie Ann Tabor,Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a sketch plan review to split two lots that have
previously been combined back in 1984. This property is located within the LR-1A zoning district,
which has a minimum of two acres. Weinberger noted this property is located on the lakeshore.
Weinberger stated initially in 1984,the property consisted of three tax parcels that were combined into
one lot. The entire property is 3.66 acres. Based on the size of the property, it is not possible to
subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties for a lot less than
two acres. If the properties were split along the old property line, a lot width variance would be
required because the lot would have frontage along the street of less than 200 feet.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono has encouraged parcels held in common ownership to be combined
when the properties do not meet minimum requirements for lot area and/or width. Following a property
combination, it is assumed the common property line effectively disappears.
Weinberger stated Staff has only been able to identify two occasions in which the City approved a
subdivision that created lots less than the minimum area required. Weinberger stated the first instance
was in 1980, for Bayside Beach, and was approved basically as a down zoning. The second instance
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
happened in 1994, with the plat of Blue Hill. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow
one lot
(#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued)
less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the
process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. The Council approved one lot
to be less than two acres based on the"agreement"that had been made by the 1980 resolution between
the City and the property owner.
Weinberger indicated based on the number of subdivisions that have been approved in the City of
Orono, it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. The subject property has
been guided for two acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The
property has been zoned two acre since at least 1967. This property has also been recently included in
MUSA,but the provision of sewer to the property does not change the rural character for this district.
Weinberger noted the Applicants have submitted a petition signed by a number of surrounding property
owners in agreement with this particular plan. Weinberger stated Staff did receive one call from a
neighbor who had some concerns regarding a possible townhome development on this property.
Tabor indicated the country club addition that surrounds their property consists of 22 properties,with 21
of those properties being less than one acre. Tabor stated in his view this subdivision will help increase
the housing value in the neighborhood and will give them the financial ability to renovate their existing
residence. Tabor stated if the property were subdivided,the two lots would still exceed the size of the
majority of the other properties within the area and will not detract from the rural character of the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Tabor commented they would like to stay in the community and remodel their existing residence,
which this subdivision would allow them to do.
Mabusth inquired whether the Applicants had petitioned for sewer.
Mr. Tabor stated they had not,noting their current septic system works fine.
Mabusth inquired why rural sized properties were included in the MUSA.
Gaffron stated the MUSA boundary that was adopted with the new Comprehensive Plan incorporates
everything south of County Road 6 from Lake Klassen all the way to Spring Hill Road. Gaffron stated
this area consists of a significant number of shoreland properties and are also adjacent to the sewer
main. Gaffron stated this area is not currently sewered by City sewer.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission is bound by the City Code,noting this application does not
comply with those documents. Hawn stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body and
recommended the Applicants pursue this matter with the Council. Hawn stated in her view without
input from the Council she would not be able to support this subdivision.
Mabusth stated she would agree with Hawn,noting she does not feel the Council would be in support of
this type of lot division.
(Council Member Jim White arrives at 8:46 p.m.)
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued)
Gaffron stated Staff did look at the history of ownership and the chronology of events that have affected
this property. Gaffron stated to his knowledge the City has not granted variances to subdivide in cases
similar to this and would be precedent setting if a lot area variance were granted to one of the lots.
Mr. Tabor noted that this property is adjacent to 21 other properties that are substandard.
Hawn commented that is somewhat of a compelling argument,but that the Planning Commission needs
to follow the zoning guidelines for this area.
Gaffron stated from a precedent setting standpoint,the Planning Commission needs to look at what was
there prior to the zoning change in 1975 and what has been approved through a PUD. Gaffron stated he
is doubtful you will find a lot within the two acre zone that wasn't either platted before the Code
changed to two acre minimum or that isn't a PUD type development where the average lot size has to
meet the standards. Gaffron stated to his knowledge of the City,this would be precedent setting
because the majority of the rural lots have been there for quite some time.
Fritzler commented it is also possible that someone could purchase the property and construct a
residence that is not in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood.
Hawn recommended the Applicants discuss this item with the City Council.
Gaffron stated the Applicants could possibly find an adjacent property owner who would like to
purchase some additional land and split that piece of property off and sell it to the interested buyer.
Mr. Tabor stated in his opinion that is not likely to happen.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 25,2002,AND MARCH 11,2002
Berg indicated she attended the February 11th Council and has nothing to report
Smith stated she attended the March 11th City Council meeting where the application regarding the
vacation on Big Island was discussed. Smith indicated the City Council referred that application to the
Park Commission for their input.
Hawn inquired what progress is being made on the clean-up of Big Island,noting that it was suggested a
couple of years ago to have a barge brought out there. Hawn recommended Staff follow pursue
clean-up of the island.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 18,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Berg recommended certain restrictions be established for what can be put on the barge.
(#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 19,2002
Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to approve the minutes of the February 19,2002 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Berg Abstained.
(#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
MARCH 25,2002 AND APRIL 8,2002
March 25—Kluth April 8—Hawn
ADJOURNMENT
Kluth moved,Berg seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
-(-5 Elizabeth`lawn, Chair
PAGE 19