HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 1 I ff
❑ COUNCIL
Er PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.'.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. 7 3 -rr` JO
2. 40.1 #02 - a 847
4. J�./„�� �� 41.7t 'LS- h�L��c t ✓ ,
5. `�°�� f, -� �: �,` ,�-�; . � -- L,,;7
6. (�-� S k 3 f''4-�L>� L{ ct V rte V74' I L%
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, November 18, 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, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and
Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Council Representative Jim Murphy, and
Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Commissioner Janice Berg was absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #02-2848 PETER AND AMY GOSHGARIAN, 100 ORONO ORCHARD
ROAD,VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2848
Peter and Amy Goshgarian, approving a side yard setback variance to convert the
attic space into living area of the existing residence located at 100 Orono Orchard
Road on the condition that the project meets the 30' height requirement. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#2) #02-2849 STEVE JACOBSON, 4185 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, VARIANCE
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2849
Steve Jacobson, 4185 Sixth Avenue North, approving a front yard setback variance
to construct an attached garage/bedroom addition on the residence. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
(#3) #02-2851 KEVIN CURLEY AND WENDY KELLETT, 1291 BRIAR STREET,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2851,
Kevin Curley and Wendy Kellett, 1291 Briar Street, approving front yard and side
yard setback variances to construct a 6' X 6' porch to the front of the existing
residence. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 1 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
(#4) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:35- 6:55 P.M.
Robert Wiens, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron reported that after being tabled at the October 21, 2002 Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant made changes to the proposal and met with the City Engineer and
Public Works Director. The new plan indicates a berm to be constructed on the property
that will have the following characteristics:
• Grade changes are 5' or more from the lot lines
• a 3:1 slope
• the toe of the slope would be at the sewer force main
• will range in height from 4' to 8' and in width from 20' to 50'
Gaffron explained that the property owner had requested a conditional use permit to
permit land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The revised plan is estimated
to require 1500-2000 yards, which would mean approximately 160 +truckloads would be
delivered to the site. As Bay Ridge Road is a private road and the number of trucks
hauling is a concern, the applicant has agreed that the trucks would drive to the site, drop
their fill, and back-up or pull out onto North Shore Drive to Brown Road. The trucks
would not be using Bay Ridge Road.
Although a number of neighbors had expressed their concern about the berm at the
October meeting, Gaffron indicated that it should be noted that; the only neighboring
property whose lake views are protected is the residence to the south, which would not be
impacted; in the 2 and 5 acre zones, it would not be a violation to leave the berm
unmowed if the applicant so chose, unless it generated complaints; the applicant intends
to maintain the buffer of trees along the north boundary of the site; and the neighborhood
drainage pattern would not be negatively impacted by the berm.
Gaffron noted that staff recommends approval subject to five conditions identified in the
staff report, which include the need for a land alteration permit, an erosion control permit
from the MCWD, installation of silt fencing,providing a route map to the City, and re-
establishing vegetation immediately upon completion of the finished grade.
Chair Smith asked when immediately was referring to.
Gaffron pointed out that, most likely, the revegetation would occur in the spring,
however, erosion control methods could be put into place now.
PAGE 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
Continued)
Wiens stated that he had already obtained the MCWD permit and installed the required
erosion control fencing.
Chair Smith inquired as to how the dialogue with the neighbors had progressed.
Wiens indicated that he had met with and spoken to several neighbors and that the issues
had been resolved.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, stated that after the last meeting she went over
to the applicants residence to judge for herself the impact the headlights had on their
property at night. She agreed that the Wiens were greatly impacted by light, especially
since some of the trees are dying out at the bottom. Mrs. Kaley stated that she had no
objections to the Wiens proposal and encourage them to construct the berm.
Fritzler indicated that he had concern with regard to the number of trucks backing out
onto North Shore Drive and suggested the trucks pull straight out onto the roadway. He
also questioned who would be responsible for cleaning up any spillage that gets on the
roadway as the trucks are coming and going.
Wiens stated that he would take responsibility for cleaning up after the trucks and agreed
that the trucks should be able to pull straight out of the site onto North Shore Drive.
Chair Smith asked what sort of timeline the applicant was working with.
Wiens indicated that the whole project was projected to take merely two days.
Rahn questioned whether he or a project manager would be present.
Wiens stated that either he, or the foreman, would be directing the trucks as per the plan.
Although the applicant had answered the neighbors concerns, Rahn maintained that some
of their gripes were warranted given the condition of two other berms in the area. He
believed the neighbors had the right to worry and question the applicant's intent at this
location and asked what could be done to improve the other sites.
Gaffron stated that the code does little to address the maintenance of berms, however, the
City could send out letters requesting they be mowed or maintained. Gaffron pointed out
that, in the 2 and 5-acre zones, residents cannot be expected to mow their entire parcels.
PAGE 3 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
Continued
Rahn moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2834, a
Conditional Use Permit for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards, subject
to the five conditions as noted in the staff report dated November 15, 2002. VOTE:
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#5) #02-2846 LOREN PELLETT,4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VACATION
6:55 - 7:05 P.M.
Loren Pellett, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was seeking approval to vacate 50' of that portion
of the unimproved right-of-way of Lake Street at the shoreline of his property. The r.o.w
was originally dedicated in the plat of Bergquist and Wicklund's Park in 1888. Lake
Street is an unimproved street right of way running along the shoreline of Lake
Minnetonka from east to west that currently varies from 17' to 21' in width. Bottenberg
pointed out that Lake Street serves no public use and conversations with the public utility
representatives indicates they have no problem with vacating.
Bottenberg pointed out that the City has determined, in the past, that vacation may be
appropriate when:
• the vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property
• the City does not intend to improve, develop, or use the dedicated r.o.w as road
• the dedicated r.o.w serves no public purpose
Bottenberg stated that in staff's opinion, these three conditions are applicable to the
segment of Lake Street right-of-way adjacent to the property, therefore, staff
recommends approval of the vacation application as proposed.
Mr. Pellett stated that when he bought the lot, he bought it as lake property, and would
like to ensure this by adding the parcel to his property and correcting any inconsistencies
that have occurred on various records.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #02-2846 LOREN PELLETT, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Mabusth stated that she was surprised more property owners don't come forward to
vacate and legally combine parcels such as this.
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2846,
Loren Pellett, approving the vacation application as proposed for the property
located at 4753 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#6) #02-2847 JAMES NYSTROM, 1725 CONCORDIA STREET CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 7:06 - 7:20 P.M.
Kyle Hunt, General Contractor for the Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicant had requested a conditional use permit to permit a
cupola to be constructed on a new residence. The proposed cupola is to be located within
the central portion of the structure and mimic a cupola on the garage. Bottenberg
explained that, while the cupola on the garage meets the 30' height requirement, the
cupola on the residence is proposed to be 34.5' in height and 4'X4' in size.
Bottenberg pointed out that the cupola does not change the lot coverage by structure or
hardcover on the property. As purely decorative, the cupola would not be used for living
space, therefore, the height limitations imposed by other sections of the code may be
increased by conditional use permit by 50%when applied to structures, such as cupolas
and domes, church spires, belfries, etc.
Chair Smith inquired what constituted the"etc." in the code.
Bottenberg pointed out that there was a specific list of some twenty items in the code,
although staff had chosen not to print the entire list, and instead used the term etc.,
perhaps improperly.
Gaffron maintained that the intent of the City, in approximately 1967, was to generally
allow certain features, which are typically higher than the house, used purely for
decorative purposes, or which serve a specific function.
Chair Smith asked if this would be a purely aesthetic feature.
PAGE 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2847 JAMES NYSTROM, 1725 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued
Rahn asked if the home possessed a widow's peak. He pointed out that, in comparison to
many others, this home was relatively low and the height depends on how it is
specifically measured or calculated.
Gaffron agreed, stating that the residence would be below the 30' height requirement
absent the cupola.
Hunt stated the home was a 1 1/2-story home with no widow's peak and a proposed
decorative cupola.
Bremer asked if the City had ever denied an application of this nature before.
Gaffron reminded the Commission that because this is a Conditional Use Permit, the
applicant need not present a hardship, and that they should evaluate whether the home
would merely be out of character with the neighborhood given the cupola.
Fritzler asked if the cupola would have access.
Hunt indicated that the cupola would be sealed off with no access to it.
Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road S. questioned what other types of homes were in the
neighborhood currently.
Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, stated that he had attended the meeting to learn
whether the home was going to possess a widow's peak or not. With regard to the
character of the neighborhood, he indicated that there was a mixed bag of styles
throughout the area and he saw no problem with the cupola fitting in.
Rahn asked whether the railing around the top of the home was usable or a single wire.
Hunt stated it was merely a single wire rail for safety not a usable deck area.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend Application #02-2847,James
Nystrom, approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of the 4'X4'
cupola on the top of the residence located at 1725 Concordia Street. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
PAGE 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #02-2850 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE,
VARIANCES 7:21- 7:37 P.M.
Ron Anderson, General Contractor for the Applicants, was present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicants had requested rear yard and hardcover in the 75-
250' setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. deck/steps to the existing residence. The
proposed deck would be 258 s.f., and located 17' from the rear property line, where 30' is
required. The rear property line is Grant Street, an unimproved right-of-way,which the
City has no plans on improving. There have not been any variances granted for this
property.
Bottenberg noted that the property is located within the 75-250' hardcover zone. The
addition of the steps and deck increase the hardcover from 34%to 36%. While the lot
coverage by structure is currently 13.4%, the addition of the steps/deck would result in an
increase in the structural coverage, which meets the 15% allowed.
Mr. Anderson had nothing to add.
There were no public comments.
Although she was at a loss to make a suggestion, Mabusth asked if the applicant had
considered the removal of any hardcover to maintain the 34%. She believed removal of
blacktop might be difficult.
Anderson noted that they had removed rock and plastic, however, could not remove the
existing retaining walls.
Chair Smith questioned the potential for removal of the patio block on the side of the
residence.
Mabusth indicated that there was a rear door located at that spot.
Bremer stated that little would be gained with its removal.
Rahn stated that he believed more work could be done with regard to the driveway to
further reduce hardcover. He pointed out that the Commission, typically, requires
removal of hardcover when adding hardcover in order to maintain and not increase
hardcover amounts, which are already in excess of 25%.
PAGE 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7)#02-2850 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE,
Continued
Gaffron stated that the slab is 8'X8'.
Hawn stated that she could not identify a hardship, other than the odd shape and size,
which don't necessarily constitute a hardship.
Anderson maintained that the driveway eats up a good portion of the allowable hardcover
and is difficult to maneuver in and out of, other than backing straight out into the
roadway.
Chair Smith reasoned whether the driveway constitutes adequate hardship.
Mabusth agreed, stating that the driveway contains more hardcover than the house itself.
Rahn asked if the small turnaround portion of the driveway were usable, and if not,
suggested it be removed to reduce hardcover.
Gaffron indicated that it abuts the drop off and would give the 150 s.f. or more of
hardcover to work with.
Since the owners own the two lots next to one another, Hawn suggested they consider a
lot line rearrangement to create a better driveway situation.
Anderson stated that the applicants had attempted to do just that several years ago and
had been denied. He added that rearranging the lots could be difficult.
Gaffron agreed that it could be difficult to rearrange the lot lines so as not to adversely
affect the property closer to the lake. He cautioned the rearrangement could merely
succeed in making both lots more nonconforming.
Anderson indicated that they had looked into the potential of Grant Street being vacated.
Gaffron noted that it would be unlikely Grant Street would be vacated.
Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission would prefer the hardcover be
maintained at the current level, 34%, without an increase.
Anderson stated that he would speak to the Walkers about the removal of portions of the
driveway and patio.
PAGE 8 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #02-2850 JOHN AND PATRCIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE,
Continued
Fritzler suggested they look at the sidewalk to the front door also.
Mabusth stated that her feeling was that the applicants could maintain the 34%, through a
combination of removals they could build the 258 s.f. deck.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission could stipulate removals and move the
application forward to Council.
Anderson stated that through a combination of removals and reconfiguring the deck they
could maintain the 34%.
Rahn suggested that the decorative boulder walls be removed.
Bremer indicated that she would be more comfortable with tabling the application in
order to allow for redesign and removals and asked if this would hold up the applicant's
process to return in January.
Although they would begin work inside, Anderson stated that the deck work would not
begin until spring, therefore, his returning in January would not affect the contract he has.
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #02-2850,John and Patricia
Walker, 1318 Spruce Place, for the purpose of redesigning the proposal. VOTE:
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#8) #02-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORPORATION, 955 TONKAWA ROAD,
VARIANCE 7:38 - 8:11 P.M.
Gary Aulik, of Aulik Design Group, and Russ Schumer, property owner, were present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was requesting an average lakeshore setback
variance and a conditional use permit for land alteration to construct a new residence on
the property. The existing residence has been demolished and the proposed location of
the new residence is further back on the lot than the old residence. However, Bottenberg
pointed out that due to an existing sewer easement and sewer line, the new residence
cannot be any further back on the lot towards the road. The proposed residence will
encroach 42' into the average lakeshore setback. The adjacent properties and the subject
property are heavily wooded and at different elevations.
PAGE 9 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORP., 955 TONKAWA ROAD, Continued
With regard to the conditional use permit, Bottenberg indicated that the proposal
estimates approximately 2,360 cubic yards of fill will be brought onto the site. The fill
will be used to create a level area to locate the house, provide good drainage, and create
access to the site for motor vehicles.
Bottenberg reported that staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback
variance and conditional use permit for land alteration to construct a new residence on the
property subject to six conditions highlighted in the staff report dated November 15,
2002.
Due to varying elevations, Bottenberg shared concerns expressed by the resident residing
at 975 Tonkawa with regard to runoff. Bottenberg shared City Engineer Tom Kellogg's
recommendation that a 120' retaining wall be constructed to direct runoff towards the
lake and away from the adjacent property to the south.
Mr. Aulik expressed his desire to investigate alternatives to the 120' retaining wall
recommended by the City Engineer. He believed that there could be less invasive ways
to deal with the runoff issue than building a towering retaining wall In fact, he suggested
and demonstrated with a 3-D model how they could direct the flow via the proposed
landscaping and fill, to catch the runoff from the driveway in a swale and direct it
towards the lake. Aulik stated that, unfortunately, everything drains towards the
southerly neighbor and always has. He indicated that they would prefer to take positive
steps to redirect the moisture, leaving the trees on the property line intact.
With regard to the location of the home, Aulik stated that they would have proposed the
home be setback even further had there not been setback issues with the sewer easements.
In fact, Aulik noted that the sewer lines are not even built within the sewer easements
originally dedicated for them, therefore he believed they could argue the easements be
vacated. He argued that even if they were vacated, the home would still encroach
approximately 30'. Given the current circumstances, Aulik stated the home was setback
as far as it was allowed.
Rahn stated that the last thing he would like to see is construction of a large retaining
wall, when there are other alternatives worth investigating with the City Engineer.
While uncertain why the City Engineer recommended a retaining wall, Gaffron indicated
that further investigation would need to be done. He felt confident that a swale could
work effectively.
PAGE 10 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORP., 955 TONKAWA ROAD, Continued
Aulik further suggested a longer berm be created to direct the flow.
Rahn suggested Aulik design a plan, in coordination with the City Engineer, to divert the
flow and present it to staff.
Chair Smith questioned what vacating the sewer easement and moving the house further
back would mean to the runoff issue.
Gaffron stated that, in his opinion, moving the house back would only worsen the
drainage issue.
Aulik added that moving the residence back would also have adverse affects on the
forested lot.
As moving the home back only aggravates the drainage problems, Chair Smith
maintained that there was better opportunity to address the drainage issue where
proposed, but suggested staff talk to the City Engineer.
Mabusth stated that, to date, the Planning Commission has promoted the use of swales to
deal with the impact of runoff rather than retaining walls when possible, and felt this
should be explored. She asked how high the building pad would be in comparison to the
previous residence.
Aulik stated that the walkout is virtually at the same level as it was before and the garage
would be located on a different plane.
Rahn thought the home seemed very tall.
Aulik stated that the home has actually been reduced from the original proposed size and
the northerly neighbor, whom they thought might have issue, has seen the proposal and
not voiced any concerns. The northerly neighbors, the McClellens, indicated that they
have never had a view of the lake from this direction and wouldn't miss a view from this
location.
Rahn asked if there were issues regarding the bluffs or the pool.
Gaffron stated that the home sits back far enough to meet any bluff requirements.
PAGE 11 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORP., 955 TONKAWA ROAD, Continued
Mabusth inquired whether accessory structures, like pools,were allowed within the
average lakeshore setback.
Gaffron stated that the pool should be included in the approval.
Mabusth agreed, stating the pool has been included in all the drawings.
Aulik stated that they have been requesting the pool in the setback all along. He noted
that the pool and al of its hardcover have been included in the hardcover requests from
the beginning.
Chair Smith asked if the Planning Commission could approve the application subject to
the City Engineer's approval.
Rahn stated that he was hesitant to send something to Council without exact dimensions.
Gaffron maintained that the pool would not be an issue with regard to the average
lakeshore setback since it is in ground.
Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, asked how many feet the driveway was from
the neighboring property and where the potential runoff would come from.
Aulik pointed out that the distance was 70'-80' between the driveway and property line,
with a 20% grade change. He stated that landscape at this grade could be maintained.
Chair Smith noted that a recommendation from the Planning Commission should be
accompanied by a swale drainage plan. She asked if Aulik had any further comment.
Aulik asked what they would be required to supply the City with regard to drafting a new
easement description.
Gaffron stated that the applicant should provide the City with a certified copy of the
easement so that staff can determine the most efficient method to change the legal
description.
In order to be consistent, Mabusth asked if the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone could
be removed.
Bottenberg clarified that there is 10.9 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback, which
consists of a planter, and a 77 s.f retaining wall which could likely be removed.
PAGE 12 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORP., 955 TONKAWA ROAD, Continued
Although his wife would be disappointed, Mr. Schumer stated that he could remove the
planter and timber retaining wall around the garden.
Fritzler moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2853,
Aulik Design Corporation, approving the average lakeshore setback variance and
conditional use permit for land alteration to construct a new residence on the
property located at 955 Tonkawa Road, subject to the six conditions noted in staff's
memo dated November 15, 2002, removal of the planter and timber retaining wall
within the 0-75' setback zone, and the City Engineer's approval of a soil drainage
plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING- 8:00 P.M.
(#10) #02-2852 JENNIFER AND TROY KOOPMAN AND DWIGHT AND PATTY
AFFELDT, 4753 TONKAVIEW COURT AND 4765 TONKAVIEW LANE,
REARRANGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY LINES 8:12 - 8:50 P.M.
Jennifer and Troy Koopman, and Dwight and Patty Affeldt, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants are owners of the properties located at 4753
Tonkaview Court and 4765 Tonkaview Lane in the City of Orono. Currently, the
Koopman's garden and their driveway are located within the Affeldt property 4765
Tonkaview Lane. They are proposing a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement to
correct this problem.
Gaffron noted that the need for the lot line rearrangement stems from a 1985 vacation of
a portion of Park Avenue, in which the former owners of the Koopman property, intended
to acquire both the south half and north half of the portion to be vacated. He continued
that,while the City's vacation approval resolution required the Caples to legally combine
the entire vacated portion with their homestead, the County saw it differently and
followed their standard practice by splitting the vacated road between the two adjacent
property owners.
The Koopmans and the Affeldts have now agreed to do the lot line rearrangement to clear
up the existing encroachment problem. Gaffron pointed out that the lot width of the
Koopman property is not affected by the proposal. Both properties were originally
developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards, however, the
rearrangement would meet the intent of the comprehensive plan because it would not
increase the existing density and would not create additional building sites.
PAGE 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #02-2852 PUBLIC HEARING
Gaffron indicated that Tonkaview Court is a privately maintained shared road/driveway
within the dedicated City right-of-way. He noted that hardcover is not an issue for either
property. Finally, Gaffron added that a revised version of the survey and revised legal
descriptions would be required prior to Council action in order to clear up past survey
inconsistencies.
With regard to easements, Gaffron stated that the 1985 vacation was conditioned that the
Caples' grant a 20' drainage and utility easement over the center 20' of the vacated right-
of-way. Gaffron explained that the applicants would be required to provide the City with
copies of all easements currently affecting the properties, and sufficient title information
to satisfy the City Attorney that the lot rearrangement can be filed. In addition, Gaffron
pointed out that it is standard City policy to request that new drainage and utility
easements 5' on either side of the new lot lines be granted as part of the lot line
rearrangement approval.
Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to
three conditions put forth in the staff memo dated November 18, 2002.
There were no public comments.
Hawn questioned whether the new lot line rearrangement would cause difficulties with
regard to the easements.
Gaffron indicated that the 20' drainage and utility easement over the center 20' of the
vacated right-of-way required as part of the 1985 vacation would accomplish the City's
goals.
Mabusth asked if the hatched area on the overhead should be vacated or if it were
already.
Gaffron stated that this area need not be vacated.
Mr. Koopman stated that, essentially, they are landlocked from their home.
Mr. Affeldt explained that the former owner built his driveway over the property line,
knowing full well he had done so, which has now forced the new owners to correct his
costly error and make it right.
PAGE 14 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #02-2852 PUBLIC HEARING
Thanks to the Affeldts, Mr. Koopman stated that they had only learned of the line issue at
their closing. Mr. Koopman asked how they would provide the City with the necessary
copies they would require of the applicants.
Gaffron explained that the applicants could obtain certified copies of their easements
from abstracts or titles held at the County.
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2852,
Jennifer and Troy Koopman - 4753 Tonkaview Court and Patty and Dwight Affeldt
- 4765 Tonkaview Lane, granting the subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement
subject to the three conditions summarized in the staff report dated November 18,
2002. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,
VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING
PLAN 8:51 - 9:30 P.M.
Kevin and Janet Manley, Applicants, were present, as was Ed Suarez, of Gustafson
Design, their consultant.
Gaffron explained that Gustafson Design, Inc., on behalf of Kevin and Janet Manley,
owners of 1973 Fagerness Point Road, has applied for approval for a boulder retaining
wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The
proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover
within 75' of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled home for which no Certificate of
Occupancy would be required.
Gaffron reported that at least four prior zoning applications accompany this property. A
hardcover setback variance to construct a garage and addition was filed in 1979 without
resolution. In 1999, hardcover/width, and area variances were granted to replace the
existing house, although grading in the 0-75' was denied and the house was never
constructed. In 2001, dormer windows, a deck above the garage, and the existing house
was remodeled based on setback variance approval. Finally, in 2002, a setback variance
for roof line expansion was granted; whereas variances for greater than 25%hardcover in
the 75-250' setback and greater than 15% lot coverage for a tunnel deck were denied.
Gaffron pointed out that there are a number of unresolved issues related to this property
which he enumerated as follows:
PAGE 15 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,
Continued
1) 8X8 Shed illegally constructed/located near the east side of the road, within 2' of
shoreline
2) Gravel parking area(20'X32'approx.) constructed within 75' of shoreline along east
side of road, without City approvals and constituting illegal hardcover. No evidence on
file suggests this was formerly a parking area,photos suggest a minimal single grassy
parking space at best
3) 2002 Surveys show property located on the east side of Fagerness Point Road,which
consists of"accretions". Manley is intending to claim the areas surveyed east of the road
via a land title registration(torrens)process. Although staff's understanding is that the
neighbors to the immediate north will be disputing this claim.
4) Concrete stairway alongside garage is constructed within the road right-of-way, and
may be hazardous for road maintenance
5) Deck (approx. 5X10) constructed on the west side of the house without zoning
approval, constituting 0-75' structure encroachment and excessive hardcover. Deck was
not shown on plans or surveys used in approvals for prior zoning applications. Deck first
appeared on a plan used to obtain a permit for basement remodel and deck over garage in
February 2002, however, was not part of that plan review.
Staff maintains that this deck exists illegally and should be removed. Although a 160 s.f
deck existed in the past, it was completely removed prior to or during the remodeling
process, and construction of a new deck has never been addressed. An alternative might
be to apply for an after-the-fact variance. The deck constitutes additional hardcover and
lot coverage above the previously approved amounts.
6) Grade of the walkout level in the westerly 0-75' zone has been lowered by
approximately 2', in violation of denials in 1998. This grading work was not covered by
any permits issued to date and has never been approved as part of any prior zoning
application. This grading was apparently done to create a better walkout situation. Old
and new surveys and photos clearly show that the entire west lakeshore yard has been
excavated and the west facade of the house has been opened up to a much broader width
and height than the original house.
PAGE 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,
Continued
Gaffron pointed out that the grading activity to date on the west side of the house has left
virtually no vegetation intact and 90% of the lakeshore yard in a state of bare unprotected
soil. Staff and MCWD have required that hay bales and silt fencing be in place during
the past few months until proper plans were submitted and approved.
7) Gaffron noted that undercutting of the lakeshore bank due to high water wave action
may be a separate issue from the work that has been done to the lakeshore yard.
However, the bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep, 60% slope with little
vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up, this bank has
the potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future.
With regard to the proposed boulder wall and landscaping plan received on November
12, 2002, Gaffron indicated that the City Engineer has had little time to comment,
however, his initial comments were as follows:
1) the plans should include existing and proposed contours
2) hardcover calculations should be included with the submittal
3) Section lA-1 should include the existing grade, along with 10' on either side
4)plans should identify the boulder sizes and types to be used for retaining walls
5)proposed plant types should be identified on the plans
6) elevations should include the proposed native plantings to review the amount of
screening provided
7) all tree and plant removals should be identified on the plan
8) more detail, including materials, drainage area served, storm event sizing, etc. should
be provided regarding the"First Flush Drain Zone"
9)plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during
construction
10)plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and
comment
Gaffron pointed out that the proposed boulders will add a significant amount of
hardcover to the west 0-75' zone (39.5%per the submittal calculation).
Gaffron maintained that the current proposal appears to continue the applicants' apparent
goal of creating a wide yard that walks out from the new door elevations where a narrow,
higher yard previously existed. He encouraged the Planning Commission to review the
pre- and post- construction photos, which further show the amount of clearcutting that
has
PAGE 17 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75' yard. Gaffron displayed a sketch
depicting the grade changes that had been made.
Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion,
Gaffron noted that the current plan has a number of aspects, which require Planning
Commission consideration so as to, direct the applicant how to proceed. Gaffron
encouraged the Commission to consider the following three options or questions when
reviewing the boulder wall/landscaping plan.
1) Should the grade be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder
wall project? Impacts of which would be
a) a narrower exposure of the west facade
b) outside below grade landing and steps would be required to enter/exit the walkout door; a short ret
house where it was originally
c) maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention
2) An option worth considering would be to allow a narrow walkout corridor at an
elevation that would drain to the lake, i.e. the width of the walkway path. This would be
similar to what existed prior to the grading work,but 2-3' lower in elevation.
3) Does the Planning Commission agree with the general concept of retaining walls in the
0-75' setback zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need
for walls? Gaffron reminded the Commissioners of the CMP, Section#3A, Urban Area
Policies for Natural Resource Management which reads that "Retention of natural
vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake", and further
defines natural resource management.
Gaffron acknowledged that preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may
in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they wood timbers, boulders, keystone
blocks, etc. However, other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible,
including vegetative plantings, for example. Gaffron maintained that more intrusive
methods to ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale
reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating
layered fabric. He reminded the Commission, that this method would not be in keeping
with the goal of preserving the character of the shore.
PAGE 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
While staff would prefer that the shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible,
Gaffron felt that staff was not in a position to recommend approval of this plan due to the
fact that the City Engineer's comments had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested
that the Planning Commission table the application. Gaffron laid out a series of seven
recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider:
1) Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table the application to allow staff and
City Engineer time to consider whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff,
applicant and the applicant's consultant time to confer.
2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshore
yard should be restored
3) Commission should provide direction as to whether the deck on the lakeside of the
house might be approved if a formal variance request was made
4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely
removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75' zone, and removal of the gravel parking
area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to remove
the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. Gaffron indicated that staff's
perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for, should not
be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances.
5) Applicant should be advised to work with adjacent property owners in reaching a
suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the "accretions" east of the
road
6) The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairway into
the City right-of-way. Gaffron questioned whether angling the stairway toward the
driveway might avoid the encroachment
7) Because it is likely the necessary work would not take place until spring, the applicant
should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid
sedimentation to the lake or road. Silt fencing along road and adding to silt fencing along
the west shoreline
With regard to the unresolved issue item#7, Chair Smith asked what constituted the
foreseeable future.
PAGE 19 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Gaffron indicated that staff really had no idea when the undercut bank of the shoreline
could erode or slump off into the lake, it could be next week, this winter, next spring. He
stated that he had no clear answer to how soon the "foreseeable future"might be.
Chair Smith asked why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application at this
time, in light of the numerous unresolved issues.
Gaffron stated that the City published that the public hearing would happen tonight
expecting to have a plan well in advance to review, but it was a bit late to call the
neighborhood and say don't show up. There was also the situation here that if there were
issues that could be resolved which could direct the applicant towards some resolution
prior to January he would like to do so.
While thanking City staff for their understanding and polite demeanors, Mr. Manley
stated that the process has gone very slowly. He indicated that he first submitted his
applications in April 2002 after purchasing the property in February and did not get
return phone calls regarding his application for several months. He maintained that he
hadn't removed any soil since purchasing the property and was only responsible for
what's happened since April. He maintained that the only thing he's done wrong was to
construct the 8X8 shed across the street, which could be removed. He had already ripped
out the illegal retaining walls built by a previous owner. Manley reiterated that he has had
little luck getting the City to tell him what he can and cannot do on the property.
Chair Smith reminded the applicant that, as the current owner, he may be held
responsible.
Rahn asked whether the previous owner had been the applicant's brother.
Manley confirmed Rahn's statement, however, did not see any significance in that fact.
Manley continued, stating the City Council had given him permission to lower the lower
level and construct two decks - one on the front and one on the back. As far as the
sidewalk, Manley could not understand what the problem was with his stairway as
opposed to others in the neighborhood. With regard to the parking lot area, Manley
asserted that the gravel parking area had always been there, and that neighbors could
attest to this. He indicated that the City Council had already stated they would give him
approval for a parking lot across the street as soon as he got it in his name. As a building
contractor, Manley could not understand the delay and was concerned about getting a
decision made after six months of waiting. He asked to move forward and be given
direction.
PAGE 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Chair Smith asked if the applicant had shared these concerns with staff.
Manley stated that he had absolutely shared his concerns and had received a return call
finally after approximately ten attempts. He suggested they go down the unresolved list
one by one.
First, the shed, Manley stated that he would remove the shed only after the City agrees to
give him some sort of resolution. While he understood that he had been asked to remove
it several months ago, he maintained that he had asked the City to do many things six
months ago.
With regard to the gravel parking area, Manley reiterated that the parking area was not
new, it had always been there. All of the neighbors have and use parking areas across the
road and theirs may have been overgrown. Again, Manley stated that the City Council
and Weinberger had given him the indication that they would approve his parking area
once it was put in his name.
Having been before the Commission in February asking for additional hardcover, Rahn
asked the applicant whether the parking area was included in any of the hardcover
calculations. Since the hardcover figures had been looked at in such detail in order to
allow construction of the deck, he wondered where this additional hardcover had come
from.
Manley stated that the parking area had not been used in any hardcover calculations in
February since it was not in his name at that time.
Rahn asked if he had built the shed on the property, even though it was not his.
Manley indicated he had done so.
Janet Manley stated that no one owns the property and they are in the process, as is one
other neighbor, of claiming it through the state.
Gaffron indicated that property owners can take action to lay claim to property, then it
goes through a process where people can respond to their claim, and the Hennepin
County courts decide who owns it.
Manley stated that the property claim process was not part of the proposal. Manley
maintained that the only reason they were before the City today was because they had the
PAGE 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
City come out and recommend Gustafson Design to design a layout for the shoreline.
Manley stated that this proposal is what the City and Ed came up with.
Gaffron disagreed, interjecting that the City, at the applicant's request, recommended
someone who could design a plan for him. Gaffron stated that the City supplied him with
a name, nothing further, they did not suggest to Ed he design a boulder wall, they merely
asked him to give the City a plan that might work. The City got a plan, we are starting to
react to it, and we are now asking the Planning Commission whether this is a plan that
will function aesthetically, and from an engineering standpoint, if this is a plan they could
support.
Ed Suarez agreed that there were many issues to resolve and that he had been working
with MCWD and the City to design a plan. He pointed out that the plan suggests
boulders
as a technique of dealing with the erosion problem.
Manley explained that, previously, there was no riprap along the shoreline and when he
approached the City to obtain a permit to restore the shoreline, the City told him to get a
permit from the MCWD. He indicated that they had obtained the MCWD permit and
began restoration using riprap until the City told them to stop and obtain a permit from
them as well. Since that time, several staff members have met at the site and advised Ed
Suarez and the applicant on the design plan. Manley indicated that he had assumed the
entire project would be done this year, as he was sure the neighbors had hoped as well.
He asked whether they should continue to go through each item.
Chair Smith agreed that they could attempt to work through each item, however, she was
uncertain how much could be decided this evening because so many of the issues
required further discussion with staff.
Based on the applicant's earlier acknowledgement, Chair Smith noted that the shed
would be removed.
With regard to the gravel parking area, Hawn stated that it should not be included in the
discussion since it was not his property.
Gaffron shared photos from 1998 depicting the gravel parking area at the time, a much
smaller area.
PAGE 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Chair Smith stated that she was personally familiar with the property and parking area as
it looked in 1998. She agreed that they should not include this in the discussion until the
County decides whether to combine the parcels.
With regard to the stairway, Chair Smith asked for opinions on the concrete stairway
within the right-of-way.
Gaffron stated that he could not find the stairway on a site plan and was unsure whether it
was approved.
Hawn asked whether this could be put on a to do list to investigate whether the stairway
was built as a specified part of an approval.
Next, Chair Smith asked about the deck built on the west side of the house, apparently
built without plans or surveys.
Hawn stated that Mr. Manley claims to have a stamped plan, but it was not permitted as a
part of this process.
Manley reiterated that he has a permit for two decks, and the City should have record of
these as well.
Gaffron stated that staff believes that there hasn't been a permit issued for a deck on the
west lakeside of the residence.
Chair Smith suggested this item be put on the to do list for both parties to further
investigate.
Rahn stated that this would be easy enough to confirm after the City has looked at the
permit record description.
Manley stated that if the City were willing to allow him to keep his small west lakeside
deck he would reapply through the variance process.
Hawn stated that the west lakeside deck would fall within the 0-75' setback, which if he
came before the Commission for approval, she suspected they would be reluctant to
grant. She was hopeful that things could be determined based on previous applications.
PAGE 23 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Manley reminded the Commission that the home possessed a huge deck on the lakeside
of the residence before his remodel.
Manley stated that one way or another he would like the Commission to give him a
decision this evening. He asked them to make a decision based on what was in front of
them in order for him to move on to City Council.
Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission could, indeed, act on what was in front
of them, and not table the application if the applicant so chose, although she was hesitant
to do so.
Bremer suggested the Commission finish their discussion so that the City Council, at
least, would have enough information and direction from this evening to base their
decision.
Once again, Rahn was hesitant to discuss specific hardcover issues without concrete
numbers.
Manley stated that he wished for riprap to restore the shoreline and a 3:1 slope to provide
a mere path to his boat. He thanked City staff and consultant Ed Suarez for their
helpfulness.
Rahn reiterated that the City would either locate a permit for the deck or not, and if not,
the applicant would have to apply for an after-the-fact variance.
With regard to the unresolved item#6, Hawn stated that, while she believed the applicant
had not committed this himself, she believed this to be the most offensive of the
violations.
Manley reiterated that he had not changed the plan or grade, and in fact, his original
proposal stepped up the grade.
Hawn wrestled with the fact that in 1999 the application to grade in the 0-75' setback was
denied, and here today, it has been done anyway.
Manley, again, maintained that it was a previous owner who had committed this wrong.
Bremer pointed out that, it is only at times when homeowners come before the Planning
Commission, that the City is given the opportunity to correct these past indiscretions.
PAGE 24 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Rahn stated that the shoreline and riprap restoration projects are different issues than the
grading. To be consistent, Rahn felt the grade should be restored to its original state.
Gaffron stated that Weinberger had believed the grading was done illegally and not
according to code when the property was purchased.
Manley reiterated that he never did any of the grading and questioned why the City
allowed him to put in his windows and door and step down basement if they had a
problem with it.
Rahn stated that the Planning Commission was attempting to give the applicant the
guidelines he so desired.
Chair Smith stated that it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission that the
shoreline be restored and, hopefully, there were some creative measures that could
accomplish this without some major reconstruction. She inquired whether the applicant
should be given further direction with regard to maintaining the erosion control
throughout the winter, item#7.
While erosion control was necessary, Gaffron could not predict when the shoreline might
fail. Gaffron had no further recommendations other than to ensure the erosion control
measures stay in place.
Hawn asked if the Planning Commission could approve the riprap portion of the
application if something other than boulder walls were proposed.
Gaffron indicated that the City does not, technically, get involved in the riprap part of the
application, however, the riprap becomes an integral part of the whole proposal. He
indicated that he would check with the City Engineer to see if he thought the applicant
could do riprap without doing the rest of the work that's needed out there. Although
separate issues, these all fit together as part of the system that goes together.
Manley agreed that, likely, the entire issue would need to be resolved together. He asked,
once again, for someone to tell him what he could do.
Rahn stated that he could not vote on a motion without knowing hardcover figures.
Suarez stated that the hardcover figures were included on one of the survey proposals and
that he intentionally left off the deck in the calculations due to the controversy around it.
PAGE 25 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Manley asked what the City considered an acceptable slope, 3:1 or 2 1/2:1.
Gaffron indicated that he would not identify what the right slope would be for this
application before spending considerable more time with the Engineer. He stated that,
now that the City has a plan to work from, they could move forward in addressing its
points.
Manley asked whether they could put a deadline on the discussion.
Bremer stated that the next City Council meeting would be December 9, 2002, if they
could address the concerns by then.
Manley repeated his frustration over the lengthy process.
Chair Smith stated that she had difficulty believing that this many issues could get
resolved by December 9. She was hesitant to move this forward to Council with so many
open ended issues.
Hawn reminded the Commission that the applicant had asked them to vote up or down on
this incomplete application tonight.
Rahn stated that, specifically, #6 would need to be changed a great deal if they wanted
City Council support.
Chair Smith cautioned the applicant that the City Council might send the application back
to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
Bremer stated that the applicant would not be losing any time by moving forward to
Council at this time, since the Planning Commission would not be meeting again until
mid January.
Gaffron questioned whether the work would begin during the winter months even if the
applicant were to get approval.
Suarez indicated that it would depend what work and which contractor the applicants
chose to do the work. He believed a reputable contractor with the right equipment, who
knew how to use boulders could begin sooner than later.
PAGE 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continued
Manley inquired whether he should give the City Council two options to review, one with
boulders and one with slope.
Council Member Murphy asked staff what they viewed as most important, getting the
riprap on the shoreline first or getting the outstanding back issues resolved so that the
shoreline could be restored.
Although not an engineer, Gaffron believed that in order to do the riprap, potentially,
additional damage would be done to the shore that you need to be working on
immediately following that. One would need to be working from the bottom up
sequentially. He didn't believe they could just do the riprap without causing impacts that
would need to be immediately followed up on elsewhere.
Gary Eklof, 1965 Fagerness Point Road, stated that he believed that the riprap could be
done from the shoreline or off of a barge from the water. He indicated they could do the
work from above, however, they would totally destroy the shoreline with a bobcat.
Gustafson pointed out that he had reviewed the site with a contractor who believed the
work could be done from the ice, or if the right person were to do the job, the same could
be accomplished with a backhoe from above.
Bill Delay, 1971 Fagerness Point Road, commended the applicant for his beautiful
building and for keeping the neighbors in the loop. He did, however, have issue with the
gravel parking area as it encroaches over his property. He noted that the 8X8 shed
impedes his views of the lake and should be removed also. Mr. Delay felt the deck over
the garage was done well, but voiced concern over the steep grade created by the
proposed boulder wall. As a parent, he felt this could be hazardous.
Chair Smith asked the applicant, once again, if he would rather the Commission table or
vote on the application.
Manley asked for a vote.
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to deny Application #02-2854, Kevin Manley,
application to increase hardcover and put hardcover in the 0-75' setback to
construct a combination boulder wall and riprap system for the purpose of
containing the bank. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 27 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 AND NOVEMBER
12, 2002
October 28 - Fritzler reported that the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer application was
approved. As of the October 28 meeting the Professional Properties of Orono wetland
delineation issue was unresolved.
November 12, 2002 Chair Smith and Gaffron reported that the MCWD had ruled that the
wetland on the proposed Professional Properties of Orono site was an incidental wetland
and did not require additional mitigation.
Council liaison Murphy reported that Council representatives had approached MnDOT
about the construction of the trail within their right-of-way easement. Although the City
feels this to be the best location, MnDOT has its reservations, however, agreed in
principal that if the highway were returned to the County, they would likely support this
location. Murphy indicated that the City would still require easements from the
applicants as a back up.
Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, stated that she had seen an excellent program on
Channel 17 the other night hosted by the Met Council and others discussing urban
sprawl, affordable housing, and other issues. She asked if staff or Commissioners had
seen the program and suggested they contact the station to get a copy or find out when it
would be scheduled to run again. In the case of the lawsuit with Edina Realty and the last
application heard this evening, she also felt it was somewhat common for new property
owners to learn about unexpected or unpermitted construction to their homes after they
buy them.
Chair Smith stated that someone needs to take responsibility for what has been done to
their property. She indicated that anyone could visit City Hall to look at the public record
and past history of a home before they purchase it.
(#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
The Commission congratulated Bottenberg on her promotion.
The Meeting schedule for January and February were agreed upon.
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 and Wednesday, February 19, 2003 were chosen.
Chair Smith complimented staff on the inclusion of the summary page of various topics
of importance and suggested they continue to update the Commission this way.
PAGE 28 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER
21, 2002
Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 4, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Fritzler moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the October 21, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON NOVEMBER 25, 2002 AND DECEMBER 9, 2002.
November 25 - Hawn December 9 - Rahn
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
9:45 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 29 of 29