Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 9_ LI - 200 ❑ COUNCIL C(PLANNINO COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. • 14; 15. XAData\Administrative Support\(Forms-OId)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT • ydZA- To: Planning Commission Members and Alternates From: Mike Gaffron,Planning Director Date: August 26,2002 Subject: September 4 Work Session PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION NOTICE / REMINDER Wednesday, September 4, 5:30 p.m. Orono Council Chambers NOTE: THIS IS SEPARATE FROM THE JOINT WORK SESSION THAT RON MOORSE IS SCHEDULING REGARDING CITY'S DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY WHICH WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER 3, 12 OR 19 AT 5:30 PM DEPENDING ON THE RESPONSES WE GET THIS WEEK...PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU DIDN'T GET THAT MEMO DATED 8-21... Planning Commission will be meeting in a work session with the following agenda: PUBLIC HEARING 1. 5:30 p.m. #02-2821 Temple Israel,645 Tonkawa Road,requesting a CUP for construction of an addition to the existing dining hall at Camp Teko,as well as trail improvements on the site(this was rescheduled since Sept. 16 is Yom Kippur and applicants could not be present). DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. #2333 Home Occupations Standards - review final draft ordinance (this will then be the subject of a public hearing at your September 16 meeting, and on to Council for adoption on Sept. 23) 3. #02-2764 Commercial PUD Ordinance - updated draft for your review and discussion - will also be noticed for public hearing on Sept. 16 in the event that PC concludes it is far enough along for a hearing. 4. #02-2829 Residential Remodeling "Total Replacement" Standards Ordinance - updated draft(final?)for you review-also will be noticed for a public hearing on 9/16 should you decide it's ready to go. 5. #02-2830 Building Height - Draft ordinance amendment language will be presented to address the issues of what is a"half story", how a half-story with windows will be used in measuring height, and asserting that both measured height and number of stories must be met. This will probably be subject of a public hearing at your October meeting. 6. Other topics for possible discussion if time permits: - Building massing -regulatory options - Structural coverage and hardcover- independent tools, different goals - Other topics you wish to discuss... Please advise Denise whether you can be in attendance - the hand count at your August meeting looked like this was one of the few times that a majority could attend.Alternates are also invited to attend and add to the discussion. We will be delivering a packet of the above items the end of this week. Thank you! Mike Gaffron 952-249-4622 (rgaffron @ci.orono.mn.us) Denise Leskinen 952-249-4604 (dleskinen @ci.orono.mn.us) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 4, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth,David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, Jan Berg. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Wendy Bottenberg and Paul Weinberger and Recorder Denise Leskinen. Absent were Chair Sandra Smith and Commissioner Liz Hawn. Commissioner Mabusth called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. (#1) #02-2821 TEMPLE ISRAEL (CAMP TEKO) 645 TONKAWA ROAD Bob Shiff,representing Temple Israel was present. Also present for the applicants: Leon Wong, of Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Architects, Allan Engler, of Diversified Construction and Julie Peterson, accessibility consultant. Bottenberg explained that the applicants have requested a conditional use permit to permit construction of an addition to the existing dining hall and make improvements to trails on the property. The first construction project would be to add an addition and a deck to the existing dining hall and to repair the existing open air chapel stage, benches, and railings. The improvements to the trails consist of 10 trail projects that take place on different areas of the property. Many of the trails are only to be fixed due to erosion; others are upgrades to make them passable. The only project that is a concern for staff is Trail project#5. Bottenberg stated that it is a concern because it is next to the lakeshore and normally city ordinance doesn't allow improvements such as retaining walls. She continued stating that Camp Teko is unusual in that it is one of only two camps in the City, the other being the Vet's Camp on Big Island. The applicants have submitted plans which were forwarded to the engineer for review; the engineer had been on vacation therefore staff is still waiting for comments. Bottenberg pointed out that the applicants have submitted plans to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and obtained an approval permit from them. Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the building and trail projects with the following conditions: 1) The retaining walls and erosion control measures to be constructed on trail project#5 along the lakeshore be approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. Where retaining walls will be visible from the lake, the applicants shall incorporate vegetative screening into the design where feasible. 2) The lighting on the dining hall shall meet City Ordinance standards. 3) Silt fencing must be installed to prevent runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Bob Shiff thanked the Commission for allowing them to be off the regular agenda to accommodate the holiday. He stated that the interest to improve the camp is aimed at making it a wonderful opportunity for kids and noted also that the camp is available in the winter for use by other organizations. Shiff went on to say that like many other religious organizations funds can be scarce and maintenance is deferred. This year a significant amount of money was raised Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 4, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. to make improvements and a portion of those funds are set aside for endowments for the trails and other maintenance. Shiff stated that it is their goal to improve the camp for regular activities but also the accessibility, safety features, and to provide some environmental improvements such as erosion control so that the camp can continue to operate in a fashion that is suitable both as a camp and as a lakeshore property. Shiff concluded by introducing the people who came with him and added that he would be happy to respond to any questions. Mabusth asked if Mr. Wong had anything to say. Wong replied that he had nothing to add, and that he felt the scope of the project was clearly laid out. Mabusth asked the Commission members if they wished the applicant to review the possible need for trail repairs involving the other phase of the conditional use permit which involves land alterations. She noted that it is actually a two part conditional use permit, first for the expansion construction of the existing use requiring a conditional use permit for camp use in the LR-1B zoning district and second phase for the land alteration conditional use permit involving improvements within the 0-75' setback area of approximately 400' in length potentially using crushed lime rock. Shiff stated that the path along the shore of the swimming beach to the boating beach extends approximately 400' that in the past was a trodden path. He indicated that it has eroded away on the lake side and in steeper areas there has been some erosion in the hill that has come down. He continued stating that what they would like to do is control the erosion and restore paths so that it is usable and provide a surface that is maintainable and will last for a long time. He indicated that the goal is not to pave it, instead it has been recommended that 5/8"or smaller crushed limestone compacted is a surface that can be traversed by somebody with a disability and is fairly easily maintained. Shiff indicated that it may require something to hold it such as rip rap up the shore in some areas, but basically all they want to do is to restore the path using whatever techniques are most appropriate and acceptable. He explained that what was suggested would hopefully be effective in most of the areas but understands that in particular areas something else may need to be done. Shiff added that they would like to do whatever is consistent with what the City, the Watershed District and the DNR want. He indicated their desire to remain flexible. Mabusth indicated that there was mention in the report of a boulder wall and referred to an earlier discussion with the applicant that some sections may involve a seawall within the 400' but noted that we don't know yet. Shiff reiterated that they want whatever will be effective and consistent with the City, the Watershed District and the DNR's limitations or requirements or preferences. Mabusth asked if there were any specific comments from the Watershed District regarding the possible need for a seawall or retaining walls. Shiff said no. Page 2 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 4, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. Mabusth stated that is was difficult for staff and the Commission to provide some guidelines on the variance portion of the conditional used permit since they do not have any real facts. She inquired as to how this would be presented to Council next Monday night. Staff stated that the application would not be going to Council on Monday night. Mabusth noted that she thought it was rushing along. Gaffron indicated that the application would be on the agenda for September 23rd Mabusth asked if some updated information would be available for the September 16th meeting. Gaffron stated that we may have information but the applicants won't be present. Mabusth asked if any information would be known by the 16th of September. Shiff stated that they would try to address any specific areas in that time frame. He noted that because of concerns that either the Watershed District, the Planning Commission, or the City would say no, he was reluctant to spend money on engineering and planning. Shiff continued that if they have approvals then they could proceed with the engineering and whatever specific information is requested by staff, Planning Commission, and Council. Mabusth noted that there would be a reduction of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area as a result of the improvement. She asked if there would be repairs to the other trails. Gaffron stated that the plans show two cross sections for lakeside trail improvements, and on document C3.1 it does not define which areas would have a back retaining wall to hold the slope up. He noted that it would be useful to some extent to know which segments would require that type of treatment as one of the recommendations from staff was that in areas where a retaining wall is needed one of the goals has always been to screen retaining walls so they are not visible from the lake. Gaffron went on to say that it would be helpful to know which segments of trail are in areas where the shoreline is eroded up to the trail and where you might have to relocate. He continued that a better depiction would be useful and noted that Planning Commission does not have the detail along that length to know where the impacts would be the greatest. Mabusth agreed that the information would be useful, certainly before Council could make any recommendation. She asked if we would have the information by September 23rd and our engineer would have the chance to review it. Gaffron asked if that would work for the applicants. Mabusth asked the applicants if that would work. Page 3 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 4,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. Shiff stated that although this work probably would not be done until spring, if the information is necessary in order for the City to approve, they would get that portion of the analysis done immediately. Mabusth stated that part of the conditional use permit also involves new construction. She continued that she wanted it confirmed that the 100' setback had been made for the new addition. Shiff said yes, it is beyond. Mabusth reiterated that the 100' setback has been made by the new addition. She noted that it was a public hearing and asked the audience if there were any questions. There were no questions. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission for their comments. Fritzler stated that trail project# 5 was 6' wide but noted that he saw somewhere in the documentation that it could go wider. Mabusth asked if it was possible that some of the trails first shown as one width may go wider. Shiff stated that there was no functional need to make it wider than 6'. He noted that in some areas it simply is wider; they want to control erosion and fix the surface but are not looking for anything wider than 6' as a traversable path. Mabusth noted that where there is severe erosion on some of the paths the crushed lime rock would be put down. She asked if other kinds of improvements would be done to prevent drainage. She asked if a swale or something would be created on some of the steep paths. Shiff explained that on some steep areas where one side comes down to the path, there are valleys that washed into the lake and are being stopped by trees and other things growing there. He continued that there may be a need for something on the uphill side that holds it back. Shiff stated that as suggested those should be low and engineered in such a way that they are not visible but effective. Shiff reiterated that they would use techniques and methods that are acceptable and allowable to end up with erosion control and a traversable path. Mabusth stated that while doing these improvements attempts should be made to correct the erosion. She noted that the erosion is severe on that property given the topography. Shiff referred to an earlier comment noting that if appropriate steps to control the erosion are not taken they will end up back here looking for more approvals and more money. Mabusth asked for a motion or comments. Bottenberg asked the applicants if they feel it is a push to get the information or would they like to consider the application in multiple parts, with an approval on one part and part of it tabled. Page 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 4, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. Shiff stated that the last time they were here to get the building approved they were told that they should bundle everything together in the future and they have attempted to do that. He continued, stating that the reality is they would like to start construction on the improvements to the dining hall as soon as possible to get into the ground and get it closed up before the weather gets bad and then finish the interior during the winter. Shiff stated that he would love to get that much but also wanted to be practical and not create so many pieces and more efforts for the city. Mabusth suggested that they break it up into the construction part where there would be no problem with getting that pushed forward to Council and said it would be advisable to table the land use portion. She went on to say that it is doubtful that the applicants could get the finite kind of information needed for a final plan before September 16t . She said that we might be looking at the third Monday in October. Shiff conferred with Leon Wong. Shiff asked if they could talk about separating trail #5 from the rest so that when they do the dining hall the trail work in that area would also be approved. Shiff noted that he did not think there was any controversy or concern about those trails, and then they could work on#5. Mabusth asked the Commission members if they had any problem with separating the way the applicant suggested. There were no concerns Fritzler noted that trail 5 was the only one that more information was needed. Mabusth explained that it technically involves a variance to the code and that final information is needed before it can be presented to Council for final approval. Fritzler moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #02-2821 Temple Israel camp Teko, 645 Tonkawa Rd. approving the construction project but excluding that portion identified as trail#5. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to table approval of improvements to trail#5. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mabusth closed application public hearing at 5:59PM. Sandra Smith,Chair Page 5of5 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE L ❑ COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE TiILL OUT THE INk'ORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. / Y4i k /'-4a 2. 4//4 4 L /5 c /. / 3c, ci 3. . 1,1,)/Vt, ftQ-, e L- .3a) e 4. ' L� �� L�:S Aft t 51-10 5. 7) Sri- '/k 3c'zz L I yin S -�t q � �Q 6. 700 c cy d A-4/ 4 /tat i'i/t 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.' 15. X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, Janice Berg, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, Council Representative Jay Nygard, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2824 BETZ BUILDERS, 1045 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCE Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2824 Betz Builders, 1045 Brown Road South, approving the lot area variance subject to recommendations set forth in the memo dated September 3, 2002, in order to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #02-2826 MICHAEL AND DEBORAH BENEDICT, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, VARIANCE Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2826 Michael and Deborah Benedict, 25 Orono Orchard Road, approving a variance to allow the placement of a 28'X35' accessory structure between the principal structure and the street per the proposed plan. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE 6:35 p.m. - 7:23 p.m. Mark Welsh, the Applicant, accompanied by Jeanne and Linda Welsh, was present. Weinberger explained that the applicant had received variances to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant had not yet built the residence and wished to make two changes to the approved plan. Weinberger reported that the changes to the plan included shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, "v-shape" glass point on the lakeside of the residence. On August 19, 2002, the Planning Commission tabled this application and advised the applicant to revise the site plan to push the house and eaves back on the property to meet a 50' setback to the lakeshore. Furthermore, Weinberger noted, the applicant could not exceed 660 s.f., which was the existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Weinberger reported that the new site plan does meet the parameters as established by the Planning Commission. The revised application, however, requires review of the following variances; Side Yard Setback to permit addition to be 5' and 7.5' from the west property line. The 5' side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property. Structure within the 75' lakeshore Setback and Hardcover are other variances for review. In order to redevelop this property, Weinberger noted that Lot Area/lot width, Side Yard Setback encroachment, and Required parking in a Residential Zoning District were required variances for this parcel as well. Weinberger advised that staff was recommending denial of the application as revised due to the fact that relocating the house to meet a 50' lakeshore setback pushes the house further back on the property and into the shared driveway. The new house on this property would encroach 5' to 6' into the driveway. The addition of the 4.5' "V-shaped"prow and overhang causes the driveway encroachment. The previously approved plan had the house meeting a 53' setback to the shoreline for the house, with the overhang being 48.5' from the shoreline, but no part of the house at that time encroached into the driveway. After visiting the property, Weinberger noted that staff determined that the two adjacent homes were located at approximately the same setback as the existing house. He cautioned that, if this house location were approved, it would set a new standard to where houses along this driveway would be built. Weinberger stated that the primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be located 6' into the shared driveway, which two other properties must cross for their only access. Weinberger maintained that reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22' to 16' would make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than it is now. The decreased width of the driveway would also contribute to potential snow storage problems for the driveway. Weinberger indicated that there is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Weinberger continued that the reduction in driveway width would make backing of vehicles out of the garage stall difficult. Oftentimes, 16' is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. Weinberger contended that the concept of shifting the driveway to the north or adding a PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued backout area beyond the driveway is not possible due to the extreme slope of the hill leading to North Shore Drive. Nor would the removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and the construction of a retaining wall system offer a feasible alternative either. While this property does require a lot area and lot width variance, Weinberger stated that due to the decreased width of the driveway and its `inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses' staff could not recommend approval of the application. He added that staff would support any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the driveway than the existing house and not within 50' of the lakeshore. Both conditions which could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow to 4' rather than 4.5'. There were no public comments. Mr. Welsh explained that the residents along the driveway maintain the driveway themselves and, according to his calculations, he felt 19' of road access would be more than adequate for the driveway. Welsh pointed out that the prow had always been a part of the original design for the home, whereas the revised proposal merely bumps it out 4.5'. Based on conversations with his neighbors, Welsh maintained that they have expressed their support for his plan and have no concerns. Chair Smith pointed out that, oftentimes, small lots offer certain limitations. She questioned how they might avoid infringing on the lakeshore and the northern driveway access as well. Jeanne Welsh maintained that, even with the 5'-6' encroachment, they would still offer greater access to the road than allowed by the first residence along the driveway. She argued that what they have proposed protrudes no more than the garage of the first neighbor. Chair Smith indicated that, with redevelopment, this provides the Planning Commission the opportunity to strive to meet one of its goals, which is to get closer to what is required by the code. Given the opportunity to redevelop the first parcel as well, Smith indicated that they would strive to move the garage off the road access just as they are here. Weinberger stated that, based on redevelopment of this property, the Planning Commission should consider what precedence it would like to set for the redevelopment of this whole street. He cautioned that narrowing the driveway to a 16' corridor, (16' according to his survey), sets a development standard for the entire road. Mr. Welsh stated that he has had difficulty obtaining cross easements from his neighbors, and in fact, the other two end properties do not have cross easements on his property. He has only been granted 10' cross easements by his neighbors along this driveway. Furthermore, Welsh stated PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued that since this is a private driveway maintained by the residents,with regard to snow removal and gravel maintenance, he felt the City should not have issue with his proposal. Chair Smith indicated that, although the current residents are very responsible with regard to maintenance, future owners might not be as dependable, which may also contribute to the cross easement issue later. Weinberger pointed out that, typically, the City requires approximately 24' of traveled road, even for private roads, and he felt that 16' was simply too narrow. Having visited the site, Rahn stated that if people parallel park along the driveway there would quite obviously be no room. He voiced his concern that potential fire or emergency access to the driveway would be drastically impaired if someone were parked along the roadway. Mabusth questioned if there were a legal description of the 10' cross easement the two homes to the east have granted. She asked how much of the hill fell within their property. Mr. Welsh pointed out that the middle of the roadway was not reflected accurately on the survey provided. Jeanne Welsh indicated that she had spoken to Hennepin County this morning and had been told that their ROW is 33' from the center of North Shore Drive and marked by a marker on the hill. She believed they could likely remove some of the embankment,but they did not wish to do so. Rahn stated that the stake was quite clearly up in the hill and the survey did reflect the lot fairly accurately. Chair Smith asked for a recap of what was originally approved. Weinberger noted that the applicant had been required to meet a 50' setback from the lakeshore and had not included the prow extension at that time. Mr. Welsh stated that the prow was not included but the eaves were at that time. Chair Smith reiterated that, based on the August recommendation to push back the prow, the applicant has encroached into the traveled roadway more than the Planning Commission is comfortable with were the prow not there. Mabusth pointed out that the prow plus eaves extends approximately 8.5' further into the lakeshore setback. Rahn maintained that nothing had been drawn up the first time through which indicated that a pointed V-prow was coming off the lakeside. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Mabusth concurred, stating that even during the first series of meetings, the Planning Commission stated that eaves and all structure must meet the 50' encroachment limitation. Hawn felt the proposal to be an extremely tight proposition for the lot, and indicated that the road issues were real, issues with the cross-easements exist, and the County would not likely allow them to cut away at the hill to obtain a backout area. She urged the applicant to look to the future should the neighbors not be as cooperative as they are now and could not support the home being moved further into the drive or traveled roadway. Hawn added that she had reservations with regard to allowing the side yard setback as well, as the two houses are already very close to one another. Chair Smith maintained that the extra foot does not impact emergency access too much, and pointed out that access will likely need to occur from the other side altogether. While she felt the applicant had done much to meet the City's needs, Smith indicated that the prow, as proposed, encroaching into the traveled driveway does not work well with the Planning Commission. She felt the Commission could support the side yard setback and parking spot only. Jeanne Welsh asked why the Planning Commission was restricting Mr. Welsh from protruding into the driveway and not restricting the first neighbor from doing so. Fritzler maintained that the first home is nonconforming currently and, when given the opportunity for redevelopment, the Planning Commission will require that it not stay that way and more closely meet the code. Mabusth reiterated that the Planning Commission is defining what the future development will be along that roadway by this property. This is the first step in that direction. Chair Smith asked if the Planning Commission could approve some of the revised application, including the shift of the side lot line by one foot. Mabusth asked if the Commission needed to define the new setback requirement from the roadway. Weinberger stated that,beyond the standard conditions, it could be appropriate to define the setback from the traveled roadway as 35'. Rahn stated that the first footprint reflected a 53' lakeshore setback, with eaves allowed a 48.5' setback. He suggested a 33' rear side setback in order to give the applicant some parameters for both the lake and street side to work with. Mabusth indicated that she could, once again, support 660 s.f of hardcover and a 50' lakeshore setback, as stated in the August meeting. She questioned why the applicant did not use this PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued suggestion and return with a plan this month that meets those requirements. She admitted that the Commission had obviously failed to spell out the limitations imposed by the northwest lot line and the traveled roadway. Bremer suggested the applicant table the application in order to redesign the prow to meet these requirements. Chair Smith explained that, if the applicant preferred, the Planning Commission could act on what was in front of them and send it on to Council; however, it sounded to her as if it would not meet with their recommendation for approval. Hawn pointed out that, if the applicant chooses to go on to Council without a recommendation for approval, there is the possibility that the City Council would table the application and send it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Chair Smith indicated that the Planning Commission could support the side yard setback variance and the parking spot. Weinberger pointed out that the parameters set in the original resolution never allowed an encroachment closer than 50'. Berg stated that the only existing issue is that the applicant does not have an acceptable setback from the driveway. She asked what number they could give to the applicant for direction. Weinberger indicated that 35' plus or minus 6 inches would be an acceptable setback figure. Chair Smith reviewed that the applicant would be allowed a side yard setback variance, require a 35' driveway setback, 50' lakeshore setback measured from the overhang, and up to 660' s.f. of hardcover. Hawn inquired whether the applicant and Commission would be more comfortable with a driveway setback measurement that keeps the home in line with the neighboring garages. Rahn agreed that an average rear setback, no closer than those of the average neighbors setback, be used as the setback requirement. Weinberger stated that the February approval had referenced the same driveway setback requirement as the original home. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2813, Mark Welsh, 3625 North Shore Drive, requiring the same setback as required by the February approval mandating no encroachment into the 50' lakeshore setback; and a rear setback in PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued line with the average rear setback of the existing homes on the road; Approval of a side yard setback which shifts the residence on the west side from 8.5' to 7.5' from the property line and permits a side yard setback of 5' where a 10' setback is required; with total hardcover not to exceed 660 s.f. The motion includes approval of lot area, lot width, and parking variances. Jeanne Welsh asked for clarification that, beyond the February approval, all that the Commission was allowing would be the front corner shift of one foot. Rahn stated that this approval was all they would be granted by the Planning Commission in order to move it forward to Council. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#4) #02-2820 MICHAEL LASHER, 1360 RAILROAD AVENUE,VARIANCE 7:24 p.m. - 7:30p.m. Michael Lasher, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant has requested a front yard setback variance to construct a covered deck on the street side of the residence. The property falls 1/3 in the 250-500' hardcover zone and 2/3 in the 500-1000' zone. The proposed deck would fall within the 500-1000' setback zone. There were no public comments. Fritzler pointed out to the applicant that the future railroad ROW could be used as a recreational trail and questioned if the applicant might prefer the deck towards the back versus the front. Fritzler reminded the applicant that he was requesting this position and was aware of the potential future ROW use. Mr. Lasher indicated that he was aware that the recreational trail could be constructed in the future and stated that he would deal with that at that time. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2820, Michael Lasher, 1360 Railroad Avenue, granting a front yard setback variance to construct a 10'X20' covered deck on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#5) #02-2822 DANIELLE HENELY, 3422 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, VARIANCE, 7:31 p.m. - 8:06 p.m. Danielle Henely, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant has requested variances to permit a detached garage to be located between the principal structure and the street. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-1B zoning district, as well as, structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. A conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a"through" lot, whereas both street lines shall be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. Bottenberg explained that, since the original application, the applicant agreed to move the detached garage 10' from the side property, thus, eliminating the need for side yard setback and crowding principal structure variances. By downsizing the detached garage to 20'X24', the applicant would no longer need a hardcover variance in the 500-1000' setback zone. Bottenberg indicated that staff would recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on the property if the garage were located 10' from the side property line and reduced to 20'X15', and the deck reduced to 14'X10' to meet yard setbacks. Henely pointed out that she would be willing to alter the deck size to bring it under 6' and remove it from the structural coverage equation. She stated that it was important to her to construct a two car garage and intended to design a 20'X22' structure. This would bring the total structural coverage to 1496' s.f.,just below the 1500' allowed. Rahn believed that the original deck was built without a permit and asked if it was encroaching or in compliance currently. He suggested shaving a corner of the deck near County Road 19 to better meet zoning standards. Henely indicated that she would be willing to shave off a corner of her deck to meet the setback and use landscaping to correct erosion problems near the deck.. Gaffron pointed out that a deck without a railing needs to be 30' from County Road 19, and asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with a retaining wall near the County Road. Not knowing where the original dirt was, Fritzler suggested the applicant lower the deck and bring in the corner versus raising the grade to meet the deck. Henely stated that she would prefer to comply, lowering the deck and using a retaining wall. Gaffron reminded the applicant, and her landscaper, that any proposed grading or fill with a steeper slope than 3:1 would likely force the Commission to reconsider. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#5) #02-2822 DANIELLE HENELY,3422 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, Continued Henely asked if she could drop the deck and cut off the corner. If the lot were not a"through" lot, Hawn asked what the setback would be from the County Road. Gaffron stated that, typically, the required setback would be 10', however, due to the County Road, a 30' setback is required. Rahn indicated that it would be difficult to allow a deck at all on the north side due to the setback requirements. If the deck were lowered, eliminated from the structural coverage equation, and reduced to meet a 10' setback, Chair Smith asked if the Commission could allow the applicant a 20'X22' garage. Fritzler suggested lowering the deck by two feet and cutting the diagonal corner of the deck. Since the home never possessed a garage, Chair Smith inquired what moved the applicant to request a detached garage at this time. Henely indicated that she had gone to great lengths to diminish the hardcover previously on the property, including removal of concrete sidewalks,pads, and edging. Although the home did not possess a garage at the time of purchase, it was all that she could afford and the applicant felt she would construct one later. Having faced car trouble last winter, Ms. Henely decided that a garage would be desirable sooner. Mabusth asked if the corner of the deck could be shaved closer to the home in order to acquire a 15' setback. Gaffron felt this to be a reasonable request, since the home to the northwest was 15' from County Road 19. He suggested the applicant measure 15' from the County Road and angle the corner off, which would allow a 6' walkway around the corner of the house. Chair Smith recapped, stating that the Commission would recommend the applicant drop the deck, stay 15' away from the County Road lot line, and create a diagonal deck walkway in order to fall within the proposed 1500' structural coverage limitation. Chair Smith stated that, in her opinion, the detached garage proposal which blocks the house was not the most aesthetically pleasing concept, she could support the application, acknowledging that it is the applicant who has to live with the design. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#5) #02-2822 DANIELLE HENELY, 3422 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, Continued Roxann Beisch, 3436 Livingston Avenue, stated that while she had no problem with the garage placed in front of the house, she wondered if turning the garage to a side access might offer a more complimentary design. Rahn pointed out that more asphalt would be required if the garage were turned, forcing the applicant over her hardcover allowance. Due to the slope of the drive, Fritzler added that runoff from the side loading garage could cause problems. Gaffron noted that there would not be enough room for a side loading garage if the Commission wished to maintain 10' side yard setbacks. Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2822,Danielle Henely, 3422 Livingston Avenue, granting a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building and Accessory Building Location variance to construct a 20'X22' detached garage on the property, subject to lowering the deck under 6', adjusting the corner of the deck to run diagonally with the angle of County Road 19, and allowing a walkway which runs no closer than 15' to the County Road. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE As the applicant was not present; therefore, the Commission postponed. Discussion follows#9. (#7) WAYNE AND KAREN SOOJIAN,4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES 8:08 p.m. - 8:35 p.m. Wayne Soojian, Applicant, and Blake Waters,builder, were present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant was requesting lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence would be demolished. Bottenberg pointed out that an average lakeshore setback variance is required because the proposed residence lies closer to the lakeshore than the two adjacent properties, even though the home will be located in the same place as the existing residence. Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the requested variances and reminded the applicant that in order to obtain a permit, the new residence would need to meet all setbacks, hardcover, and structural lot coverage requirements. She suggested that the Planning Commission give consideration to making a recommendation regarding the driveway situation. Due to existing drainage concerns by neighbors and the steep drop off to the yard, Bottenberg indicated that staff would suggest gutters be added to the garage to extend runoff and that PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#7) WAYNE AND KAREN SOOJIAN,4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued consideration be given to slanting the driveway slightly to encourage runoff to the east of the house. Chair Smith questioned whether the yard and grading would need to be slanted as well. Gaffron pointed out that, at the time the City would issue a permit, the applicant would be required to provide grading details which would address these concerns. He indicated that he had two questions for the applicant, first, Gaffron asked if the proposed garage had moved further east than on the original survey. Bottenberg noted that the new proposal incorporates the requirements of a turnaround style driveway. Mr. Bichanich maintained that they had kept the east side of the home in its original location, utilized the same footprint, and removed 8' from the width of the house in order to accommodate the turnaround. The garage and home were then shifted over by those 8'. In fact, Blake believed they were smaller than the original footprint and under on hardcover. Secondly, Gaffron asked if the applicant felt it would be workable to tilt the driveway, garage, and/or lot in order to alleviate any additional runoff. As it is, the lot currently slopes towards the lake and would require swaling near the garage. Bichanich indicated that with the current slope towards the lake, the applicant would need to tilt the driveway in order to direct drainage away from the doors. He felt there was no question that the water would need to be directed around both sides of the house. On the backside, the precast garage should allow them to minimally impact that side of the property. Since the home and garage have been shifted 8', Gaffron asked if the applicant had the opportunity to build a swale along the west boundary next to the garage. Bichanich stated that he could look into that question,but was unsure whether the drop off allowed enough room for a swale. Gaffron explained that one of the issues the City is wrestling with is that one of the neighbors to the northwest is concerned about getting any additional water over his property. While the neighbor has acknowledged that the runoff won't affect his home, he is concerned about it going through his property. Gaffron stated that it is the City's goal to come up with a grading plan that protects he and others. In his opinion, Bichanich felt that what has been proposed will affect the neighbors much less than what had been there previously because there will be far less hardcover and paving. The grading and angled garage will aid with the runoff issue as well. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#7) WAYNE AND KAREN SOOJIAN,4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Mr. Soojian pointed out that it was his goal to stay away from the western boundary and keep that area natural, filled with vegetation. Chair Smith asked if the Commission was comfortable with this application and whether they should require a drainage plan. Gaffron indicated that the drainage plan would be required at the time of permitting; however, if the Commission chose, they could require a plan to accompany the application before it goes to Council. Jon Bessesen, 4500 North Shore Drive, indicated that he was the aforementioned neighbor to the north and recipients of the water runoff from this property. He explained that many residents along this strip were the unfortunate recipients of the runoff problems created by the development along Tonkaview Road several years ago and were forced to pay an engineer $35,000 to prove that. While he had no problem with the proposed residence, Mr. Bessesen requested an opportunity to view a site plan and drainage report since they are located downhill from the parcel. Chair Smith indicated that she was aware that drainage became an expensive issue for these residents. Mabusth asked if the neighbors would feel more comfortable if they were allowed the opportunity to see a drainage plan. While Mr. Bessesen stated that he did not wish to see the applicant have to spend any more money than necessary, he wanted staff to be well aware of the potential issues that could be created by additional runoff. Mr. Soojian stated that he was confident that he could come up with a plan that would meet with everyone's satisfaction. Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2825, Wayne and Karen Soojian,4496 North Shore Drive, granting lot area and average lakeshore setback variances, subject to provision of a drainage plan which would be reviewed by the City Engineer, prior to permitting, which directs drainage from the driveway area along the east lot line and to direct drainage along the west lot line away from the property towards the lake. While it is reasonable not to increase the runoff, Mr. Soojian suggested that he be held to a runoff amount that is no more than what is currently draining to the north. Mabusth encouraged the applicant to reduce the runoff as much as possible. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#7) WAYNE AND KAREN SOOJIAN,4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Gaffron indicated that staff could provide before and after calculations with regard to runoff, with the goal being that the applicant reduce the runoff and create no more drainage that runs to the west than is currently occurring today. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:26 p.m.- 8:35 p.m.) (#8) #02-2827 SVEN GUSTAFSON,4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES 8:36 p.m. - 9:23 p.m. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, and Jeffrey Gustafson, the Applicant's father, were present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant is proposing to tear down and construct a new residence on a lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a house and detached garage on it. She indicated that the proposed residence does meet structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. Bottenberg pointed out that the subject property is non-conforming in lot area and lot width and there is a vacant parcel of similar size to the west. The same person had owned the two properties since the early 1980's; however, the two properties were never legally combined and have now been sold to different parties. Bottenberg maintained that City ordinances do not prohibit separate sale of adjacent substandard commonly owned lots in sewered areas. She indicated that staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property. Since two substandard lots that have never been legally combined can be sold separately, Gaffron cautioned the Planning Commission that if they chose to deny the application, they would have to come up with some significant findings to do so. Bottenberg noted that letters and comments received from neighbors have centered around concern about the separate sale of the two lots, added development in the cove area, safety, and similar drainage and runoff issues as discussed earlier. As a builder and Sven's father, Jeffrey Gustafson stated that he was disappointed to hear of the neighbor's letters and objections. He stated that he had sent out letters to the neighbors telling them what the applicant was proposing and inviting them to visit him to discuss the development. Although purchased by separate parties, Mr. Gustafson pointed out that it will be nice that both homes are being designed in correlation with one another, compliment each other, and hopefully be an asset to the neighborhood. As the builder, Gustafson ensured the neighbors that his group was trained in building in established neighborhoods and would do so in a timely manner. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#8) #02-2827 SVEN GUSTAFSON, 4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Neighbor across the street, Kathy Sawicki, 4520 North Shore Drive, commented that she was surprised to hear that the City had no requirement about combining these two lots. As the recipient of the Tonkaview runoff at her front door, Ms. Sawicki was concerned about the amount of additional runoff that would be created by two homes instead of one on this site. In her view, this development was a threat to her property, property that has recently become a pond due to the water levels. Ms. Sawicki demanded to see the water management and drainage plans including swales. Mr. J. Gustafson indicated that, normally, he would like to have addressed the neighbors concerns ahead of time, answering any questions they might have. Not being given this opportunity, Mr. Gustafson stated that he would be meeting with Hennepin County to address drainage issues along North Shore Drive and plans to have those details worked out before obtaining his permits. Chair Smith encouraged Mr. Gustafson to speak with some of the neighbors about these issues. Mr. Gustafson indicated that he would do so and has staff to address these types of concerns. Harold Albrecht, 4545 North Shore Drive, voiced his objection to the subdivision of these two lots. As owner of an acre lot in this one-acre district, Mr. Albrecht was concerned over the compaction problems being caused by overdeveloping the cove. He pointed out that, initially, the neighbors were told there was one buyer for the two lots and he believed Mr. Gustafson obtained an additional buyer and is selling the other lot. He argued that adding two houses will only increase the runoff issues and erosion problems. If the City truly wanted to save the lake, isn't this why they designated the area a one acre district, in order to preserve natural resources. Mr. Albrecht believed he would be losing value in his property if the City allowed this development.to occur. Mr. Gustafson maintained that the City wasn't allowing him to subdivide the property, these were two lots. He pointed out that, originally, he had looked into purchasing the vacant lot; however, Mr. Lund purchased this parcel and he the other. John Bessesen, 4500 North Shore Drive, stated that he had assumed the property was one parcel. As owner of one of the truly one acre lots, with 147' of lakeshore, he questioned whether there should be restrictions on the number of boats allowed on smaller lakeshore lots. He was concerned that the new neighbors would be stewards of the lake. Rahn reiterated that the City is not splitting the two lots, they were never legally combined. Gaffron pointed out that the LMCD is charged with regulating dock setbacks, number of boats, canopy systems, etc. He stated that it would be precedent setting for a City to limit the number of boats on a 50' lot when they have never done so before. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#8) #02-2827 SVEN GUSTAFSON,4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Mr. Albrecht maintained that everyone in the neighborhood is unhappy with the development. Chair Smith repeated that the buyer is not legally obligated to combine the two lots. Although the City takes environmental concerns very seriously, Gaffron pointed out that the proposed developments for these two lots do meet the 25%hardcover limitations and other setbacks. He made the case that the hardcover of two homes at 25%would be the same as that of one massive home at 25% if the lot were one. In fact, Gaffron argued that there would likely be more drainage issues created by one massive home than by two smaller homes. Once again, Gaffron pointed out that the biggest challenge for the builder will be to direct the flow of runoff away from the home to the east. Chair Smith stated that, typically, if a home meets all the setbacks that are required, the City approves it. Mabusth agreed with Gaffron, that there would be a better opportunity to control drainage problems with the construction of two homes than one massive one. Fritzler stated that he was opposed to the development simply because these two substandard lots should be combined in the one acre zoning district and not allowed to remain non-conforming. Rahn reiterated that it was not a subdivision that was before the Commission and the applicant can do as they wish. Rahn stated that he would prefer two smaller homes, at 25%,which fit the character of the neighborhood since everyone maxes out their lots anyway. Chair Smith repeated that drainage remains the key issue for the neighbors, which fortunately, can be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Gustafson indicated that they would be tearing down the existing residence and asked what Commissioner Fritzler was opposed to. Fritzler stated that he was opposed to two neighboring substandard lots being sold separately in the one acre zoning district. He felt this was the time for the lots to fall into conformity. Mr. Gustafson stated that he understood Fritzler's position, and had the economics been in line, that might have been an option. In light of residents concerns, Mabusth questioned whether it would be advisable to require a drainage plan, with the Engineer's comments, before the application heads to Council. Rahn asked if the drainage issue would be addressed at the permit stage. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#8) #02-2827 SVEN GUSTAFSON,4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued While that was true, Mabusth urged the Commission to require the plan prior to Council and the permit phase, especially in the case of substandard lots where neighbors have concerns. She felt Council would benefit from having the Engineer's comments on hand, as would neighbors who wish to see the proposal prior to construction. Gaffron stated that either the Commission needs to require it before it goes to Council, or it will be required after. Chair Smith felt the Planning Commission would be more comfortable requiring the plan prior to Council in order to show Council Members that the Commission is aware there is an issue. Hawn felt that the neighborhood would be more comfortable being given the opportunity to look at the plan prior to the Council meeting as well. Mabusth stated that previous Commissions have held up applications waiting for drainage plans. She believed that the City Council should be given a formal plan and background, which would enable them to deal with both of these applications more knowledgably. Gaffron indicated that he would be hesitant to ask the Engineer to comment on an idea before a formal plan is submitted. Hawn asked the applicant if that would be a problem. Mr. Gustafson stated that, with winter coming, he would like to get the process moving as soon as possible. He committed to submitting a drainage plan to the City within one week of the application moving to Council in order to give the Engineer time to comment. Gaffron noted that the application would likely go to Council on October 14; therefore, he asked the applicant if they could get the plan to the City Engineer prior to that. Berg commented that turning in a formal drainage plan would now be a condition of the application before it moved to Council for approval. Ms. Sawicki requested that the neighbors be allowed to review the drainage plan with their hydrologist prior to Council to assure them that the plan is acceptable as well. Chair Smith repeated that submittal of the drainage plan will precede a Council date. Rahn recommended that the Planning Commission be consistent with this requirement for both properties, especially in light of neighbors concerns, and high water years. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#8) #02-2827 SVEN GUSTAFSON, 4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Mabusth maintained that it would be beneficial for the City Council to have drainage information in hand, especially in these cases, in order to make informed decisions. Rahn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2827, Sven Gustafson, 4515 North Shore Drive, granting lot area and lot width variances,with the stipulation that the applicant provide a complete site drainage plan, that meets with the City Engineer's approval, prior to the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting for reasons cited in earlier. Gustafson asked where to submit the drainage plan. Gaffron suggested he provide staff; either zoning administrator's Bottenberg or Weinberger with a copy, as well as, Engineer Tom Kellogg at Bonestroo. (#9) #02-2828 TONY LUND, VACANT LOT NEXT TO 4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES 9:24 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. Tony Lund, Applicant, and Jeffrey Gustafson, Builder, were present. Gaffron reported that the applicant was proposing to construct a new residence on a vacant lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. Once again, this property has been vacant and owned by the adjacent property owner since the early 1980's. The subject lot was never built on and continues to be in character with the surrounding properties. The City does not have an ordinance that requires that 2 lots have to be combined if they are owned by the same person, neither can the City prohibit the sale of vacant substandard commonly owned lots except in unsewered areas. Gaffron pointed out that, currently, there is not access to the property from North Shore Drive, and since it is a county road, Hennepin County will decide where that access should be located. A copy of the application was forwarded to Hennepin County regarding the access question and the applicant will need to get approval from them before bringing access to the property. Gaffron noted that staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property, subject to: no other variances shall be granted, payment of the sewer connection charge of$6,703, access location to be approved by Hennepin County prior to City Council action, and additionally, the property should require a drainage plan similar to the adjacent lot. Mr. Lund asked when the sewer connection fee charge was payable. Gaffron stated that these fees would need to be paid prior to issuance of building permits. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#9) #02-2828 TONY LUND,VACANT LOT NEXT TO 4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Lund questioned whether these fees would go up if they did not file for permits until 2003. Gaffron noted that these charges fluctuate with inflation and the applicant would likely save a little money by filing and paying now. Lund acknowledged that, obviously, the drainage issues would be similar to the previous applicant since this property is similar in character to the neighborhood. Mabusth questioned whether the applicant would be able to save any of the mature trees that reside on the property. Other than the ones that would need to be removed where the house would go, Lund indicated that they intend to save most of the trees. Gaffron referred to Exhibit C, which shows both parcels, and asked the Commission to examine the average lakeshore setback line that would be used to judge the two properties. Normally, one estimates the average setback based on the two adjacent homes. In this case, he suggested the Commission look at the eastern lot and consider how its placement affects the views of the house currently there. He pointed out that whichever home is built first, either the vacant lot or the existing home lot, the average lakeshore setback will be determined by the other. Lund stated that the architect and surveyor had taken this into account. In order to avoid any conflict later, Gaffron indicated that the average lakeshore setback determined by which home is built first would need to be documented up front in the resolution. He reiterated that the City does not want to be put in the situation where they've upset a neighbor, by allowing a home to be built that obstructs that neighbor's view. Rahn questioned whether the Commission can mandate no other variances be granted if they go in at different times. Gaffron pointed out that if the City has protected the lake views of the neighbor with the average lakeshore setback the applicant could tear down the existing home, build the residence at 4515, and then build on the vacant lot based on that newly defined average. Mr. Gustafson committed to tearing down the existing home and permitting the westerly house construction prior to building the easterly house. Chair Smith moved,Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2828, Tony Lund, Vacant Lot next to 4515 North Shore Drive, granting variance for lot area and lot width, subject to staff's recommendations, a complete site drainage plan approved by PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#9) #02-2828 TONY LUND,VACANT LOT NEXT TO 4515 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued the City Engineer prior to going City Council be submitted, and demolition of the existing house at 4515 North Shore Drive will occur before construction of this lot to ensure the average lakeshore setback will be recognized as illustrated on Exhibit C. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting for reasons cited earlier in the Minutes. (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE 9:50 p.m. - 10:05 p.m. While the Applicant, Ronald Cloud, was absent, Doug Schmidt of Hastings Conservatories was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant had requested variances to side yard setback, hardcover in 75-250' setback zone, average lakeshore setback, and lot coverage by structures to replace a deck and construct a three-season porch to the lakeside of the existing residence. Bottenberg pointed out that the applicant had removed the existing deck due to safety concerns and the proposed deck was slightly larger than what existed. The proposed deck is 20'X30'X17', (571 s.f.) while the deck that was removed was 19'X30'X15' (512 s.f.). Since the original deck was removed and the permit on file does not specify its dimensions, the applicant had provided the City with an aerial photo and hand drawn measurements. The deck including the railing is 6' in height and is considered structure and encroaches 19' into the average lakeshore setback. Bottenberg noted that the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone is more than the allowed 25%, in fact, without the deck, the hardcover is 36%, down from 43%. She continued that the shed located by the lakeshore is non conforming and staff had attempted to get the previous property owner to remove it since the 1980's. The lot coverage by structures was 2,000 s.f. (2,512 s.f. with the old deck) and is proposed to be 2,571 s.f., an increase of 59 s.f. to what previously existed. Mr. Schmidt stated that he was unfamiliar with the existence and history of the lakeside shed and could not commit for Mr. Cloud to tearing it down. Chair Smith suggested that Mr. Schmidt convey the Commission's thoughts to Mr. Cloud and they table the application. Fritzler asked if the other outbuildings would be allowed to remain. Gaffron questioned whether a 10'X12' shed by the driveway was to remain. Mabusth stated that it adds to the lot coverage. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Hawn stated that, in her opinion, the proposed conservatory would be something that would be obtrusive to the neighbors. Having visited the site, Rahn indicated that the footings that are there dictate the size of the deck. He believed that the previous deck size had been overstated and would recommend it be replaced by something similar to the original. Gaffron suggested reviewing the assessor's records to see if there was a measurement of the old deck recorded there. With regard to staff's recommendations, Chair Smith agreed that, item#3, the shed located by the lake be removed. Berg inquired as to whether the shed at the rear of the property near the driveway should be removed also. Mabusth reminded the Commission that this is the first opportunity they've been given to mandate the removal of the rear shed. If a permit cannot support its existence, Hawn suggested the shed be removed. She asked what the hardcover would be at if these things were removed. Mabusth reminded the Commission that they required a grade level deck for the Livingston application and suggested the Commission offer the applicant the opportunity to replace the shed with a lockbox. While visiting the site, Hawn indicated that one of the neighbors approached her stating that they did not wish to see any additional hardcover on the property. In fact, due to the road being paved and the excessive amounts of hardcover in the area, the neighbor asked if there was anything the City could do about the poor overlaying job and runoff Gaffron stated he believed that the original overlay may have raised the grade and he would follow-up. In conclusion, Chair Smith indicated that the deck needs to remain the same original size, the shed by the lake needs to be removed, the rear shed by the driveway removed, and due to the amount of structural coverage she felt the proposed three season porch would not fly. There were no public comments. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to table Application #02-2823, Ronald Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant's representative to convey staff and Planning Commission recommendations to the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW 10:06 p.m.- 10:56 p.m. Barbara and Jay Hensley, Applicants, and John Chenoweth, owner of Bay Furniture, were present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at 3850 Shoreline Drive,which is currently operated as "Bay Furniture". The applicant intends to operate an upscale resale store called "Hope Chest for Breast Cancer". The proposed business will continue to sell furniture, antiques, crystal/china,jewelry, and home accessories such as lamps, pictures, and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories. The application is two-fold: 1) Finding of Similar Use to allow the furniture store to operate as a permitted or conditional use. If the Planning Commission and City Council deem the proposed use to be substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district, they can allow it. 2) The second part of the application is the commercial site plan review. Bottenberg pointed out that Ms. Hensley was asking for the same consideration that was granted to Bay Furniture in 1986, noting that"Hope Chest for Breast Cancer"is compatible with the other uses in the zoning district and would operate substantially similar to a"gallery" and furniture. It was estimated that 90% of the donations would be picked up by the business at donor homes or businesses and delivered daily to the dock area. Drop offs would only be allowed during business hours. Bottenberg reported that the proposed business hours would likely be Monday- Friday from 9AM - 7PM, Saturday 12PM-5PM and Sunday 12PM-5PM, with the potential to stay open later until 9PM one night a week depending on need. Bottenberg explained that hardcover was not reviewed with the original site plan review in 1986 because the Shoreland Ordinance establishing hardcover limits for commercial district was not adopted until 1992. The proposed signage meets the 50 s.f. requirement. Staff recommends approval based on the conclusion that the proposed use is substantially similar to the existing use as a furniture store and to other permitted uses in the district. Staff recommendation was accompanied by three conditions: 1) the parking lot be striped so that each stall is 9'X20', with a minimum of 12 spaces, per the approved plan. 2)A sign shall be clearly visible on the drop-off service door stating that drop offs are only accepted during business hours. 3) The applicant and staff should develop a set of controls to ensure that drop offs don't become a problem. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued Ms. Hensley ensure the Commission that the resale shop will be an upscale business, offering a unique mix of furniture and gift items. She indicated that they had been collecting items since January and had received a donation from Van Gogh's Daughter, who gave their entire inventory to the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer when it closed its doors in Wayzata. In fact, she indicated that Super Value had given them 20,000 s.f. for storage until the grand opening. Chair Smith inquired as to the hours of operation. Hensley believed they would operate similar hours to other boutiques in the are, probably LOAM - 5PM, 10AM-7PM once a week, and weekends 12PM - 5PM or 6PM. There were no public comments. Hawn stated that she was pleased to see the interest of Ms. Hensley in this location. Chair Smith asked if the Commissioners had any concern about the shop fitting in. Mabusth saw the proposed use as similar in nature to a gallery or gift store. Fritzler contended that it was not a substantially similar use and questioned what sort of gift items would be available. Hensley indicated that the"Hope Chest" items would be tastefully designed gifts uniquely designed for the woman undergoing breast cancer treatment, with their needs in mind. Chair Smith stated that the proposed resale shop is not the traditional resale clothing shop. Hensley maintained that the donations they have received have been simply beautiful and she would not be afraid to turn down items that did not meet their standards. She indicated that the Bay Furniture Store is decorated well, the perfect store and location for this shop. Jay Hensley indicated that 95% of the store would be filled with furniture. By allowing this resale establishment to move in, Fritzler asked the Commission if they were opening themselves up to a lower scale resale shop wishing to move in five years from now stating that they are a substantially similar use. Hawn didn't agree, stating that this resale shop is more similar in nature to a gallery,which does fit the code. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued While Fritzler believed that this was a good cause, he wondered how to establish substantially similar use that the Commission could live with in the future. Rahn pointed out that each conditional use is examined on an individual basis. Mr. Chenoweth maintained that this is a retail location that was built to be a retail store, and questioned how the Commission felt qualified to judge what retail is. Chair Smith asked if the Commissioners had any further comment with regard to use, of if they could move onto the hardcover issue. Gaffron reported that he and zoning administrator Weinberger had driven over to the site this evening and determined that it possessed approximately 40% hardcover. While there were no hardcover limits in 1992, Gaffron pointed out that today the commercial hardcover limits are 30- 35%. It is the City's desire to limit hardcover, and Gaffron pointed out that the whole parking lot has been recently repaved to the outer edge. Although you don't need a permit to repave over pavement, Gaffron questioned whether the paving project went beyond the original pavement. He pointed out that the owner would need to pull fill out of the wetland buffer that had spilled over, and indicated that a 10' buffer of green space should run the lot line. He also pointed out that pylons or a barricade should surround the hydrant near the doors. Gaffron suggested the parking be realigned to run along the building in order to meet the space requirements. Chenoweth pointed out that beyond the pavement had been a gravel parking area, which had always been used for parking equipment and cars. Because the gravel was in such poor shape, full of potholes and dips, he repaved it to make it more attractive and useful. While what was there previously had not ever been addressed. Gaffron pointed out that there is no green space around the perimeter of the parking lot, and nothing but asphalt. Chair Smith suggested landscaping be added to enhance the green space. Chenoweth stated that he recently redid the landscaping, removed rock and added mulch. Gaffron suggested he consider adding an island, removing the pavement at the north end near the wetland buffer area, and plant 10' of green space along the lot line. Hensley stated that she thought the landscaping on the grounds was beautifully done. With regard to parking, Gaffron suggested Chenoweth provide a 10' buffer to the north and around the end, run four stalls in front of the doors,plus two by the sidewalk, and 7-8 spots PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued opposite those, allowing a lane for back up from the dock landing. This would still allow extra space for an landscaping near the front corner. As a customer, Berg maintained that the parking lot is difficult to maneuver. She felt that taking 10' from the parking lot for green space might be too much. Gaffron indicated that he would prefer to have a traffic engineer look at this proposal and make a recommendation, perhaps 10' would be too much. He indicated that staff would need to take a closer look at the % of hardcover there now and evaluate what to do. Chenoweth stated that the lot and gravel area had always been used for parking and he had only made improvements to the building since he took ownership. Gaffron stated that what is there today does not match what was approved 5 years ago and this is the City's chance to improve the situation. Jay Hensley asked if it was okay that the drainage was being directed to the northwest. Gaffron indicated that they do want the drainage to run to the north, however, he believed a swale may be necessary to the property. Berg pointed out that the Commission could not make any recommendations without detailed hardcover calculations. Hensley apologized, stating that she would provide those to the Commission once the surveyors completed their work, which she had believed might be available tonight. Gaffron informed the Commission that they did not have in front of them tonight all that they needed in order to make a recommendation on what should be removed to make the plan work. Hensley pointed out that in order for them to buy the building, they need to know that they can use the building for their needs, the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer, and that it will fall under the cost they have allowed. Chenoweth reiterated that the Commission needs to consider that the gravel lot area had always been used as a parking lot, even though it hadn't been paved in the past. Fritzler asked the owner if went beyond what he was allowed when he paved the lot, even though the gravel had been used for that. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued Chenoweth stated that he had called the City to ask about paving and repaving his lot and had not been given the impression that this was beyond what he would be allowed. Although gravel, it had always been a parking area, even before his occupation of the building. Mabusth asked the Commission if they would be comfortable if staff and the applicant were able to design a site plan with 13 stalls and it involved some excesses in hardcover. Rahn stated that the Planning Commission did not know what the site plan would be and therefore could not make a recommendation tonight. If the survey showed that the property was within 35%hardcover parameters, Hensley inquired whether they would have to wait for the next Planning Commission meeting to present their plan to the Commission. Chair Smith suggested that consideration be given to adding this item to an upcoming work session agenda. Hawn asked if there were setback required for parking lots. Gaffron noted that within the B-5 district, the minimum is 3'. Rahn stated that the survey is simply the beginning of the site plan. Berg indicated that, in her opinion, the Commission could grant their approval for the similar use, however, would need to give further consideration to the wetland and swale issues. Jay Hensley asked if staff believed the parking lot could fit the required 13 cars. Gaffron stated that he believed it would. Berg suggested the owner take measures to protect the hydrant and remove some of the blacktop at the north end. She felt the Commission could approve nothing further since there was nothing in front of the Commission to look at. Hensley requested that they try to consider a plan sooner than later. Gaffron indicated that the Dahlstrom representatives wished to schedule a work session in October and suggested the Commission discuss adding this item to the agenda after adjourning this evening. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued Chenoweth indicated that he needed to have time to liquidate and change the parking lot. In order to get these things in motion, he requested that he be given an understanding of where the Commission was at. Gaffron stated that the parking lot changes could possibly wait until after the closing, and suggested staff, the owner, and applicants meet later this week to discuss the survey results. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend conceptual approval for Application #02-2831, Hope Chest for Breast Cancer, 3850 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #02-2764 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, PROPOSED SECTION 10.46, COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Chair Smith opened the Public Hearing at 11:00 P.M. and closed the Public Hearing at 11:01 P.M. The Planning Commission agreed to accept staff's recommendation. Fritzler moved, Berg seconded, recommending that City Council grant conceptual approval of the CPUD Ordinance, subject to an additional study or visioning process for Navarre be completed prior to adoption of the Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#12) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 20.20 SUBD. 4C, HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS Chair Smith opened the Public Hearing at 11:05P.M. and closed the Public Hearing at 11:06 P.M. Hawn complimented staff, stating that is was nice to see the ordinances in final form. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, recommending approval of the revised draft Ordinance of the Home Occupation Standards as presented by staff. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. (#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 26,2002 AND SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 August 26, Fritzler had nothing to report. September 9, 2002, Rahn stated that most Planning Commission items appeared on the consent agenda. PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron pointed out that the Planning Commission would need to schedule a work session date for October. It was determined that they would do so after adjourning. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 19, 2002 Hawn moved,Rahn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Berg abstained. Chair Smith pointed out that the requested changes of the July minutes had not been made. (#16) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 23 AND OCTOBER 14, 2002. September 23 - Mabusth October- Berg ADJOURNMENT Fritzler moved, Mabusth seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:12 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 27