HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 3 1 1 7 �� Z-'<%j
❑ COUNCIL
ErPL ANN ING 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. .4 /— Ze/ ' 7!/- ' 3--;-'; i ' / /ii 1 i :1 —( - ,
2. V) C'r f•Lj (—S c(a.,r‘arCv\ .3.5 ) C- C IL ll‘C f t- 1 i .� -2 e 7(0
r L 1 1
'1 'Ai
4. 14 /r4 1 3I.S-3 Cosa;) Aclw v> :S1
5. '''' i A
I
6. Ajot'ev_ .ikii, .-k C i/s�t<I //.. . S ✓t let Gt,' k-f:r
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
u.dministratire Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
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, Liz Hawn, Janice Berg, and J. Mark
Fritzler, Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Planners Wendy
Bottenberg and Jennifer Chaput, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and late arrival Council
Representative Bob Sansevere.
Commissioners Cynthia Bremer and Jeanne Mabusth were absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS
(#1)#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, 1145 TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCES 6:32-7:28
P.M.
Dan Adams, applicant, and Kathy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, were in
attendance.
Bottenberg stated that the application was heard at the February 19, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting. She indicated that the application was tabled with direction given to
the applicant's representative. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new site plan
with minimal changes from the prior plan. Bottenberg explained that the required variances
are as follows; structure within 75' of lakeshore to permit construction of a second
story/dormers 62', a screen porch 70'and a bay window 69' from the OHWL, structural
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback of approximately 17', hardcover in 0-75'
setback to permit 1,343 s.f. of hardcover where 0 s.f. is allowed, and hardcover in 75-250'
setback to permit 9,117 s.f. (33%) of hardcover where 25% is allowed.
Bottenberg pointed out that the applicant wishes to remodel and update the existing
residence by attaching the detached garage, adding a second story with dormers and wider
overhangs, and converting a portion of an existing deck into a screen porch.
Bottenberg reported that the revised plan increases hardcover by 188 s.f from the first plan
in the 0-75' by allowing the existing lakeside deck to remain. Hardcover in the 75-250'
setback zone is reduced by 703 s.f from the first plan with the removal of gravel area from
the driveway. With regard to the screen porch, the first plan indicated that it would be
moved back out of the 75' setback, whereas it is still located 70' from Lake Minnetonka in
the revised plans. Bottenberg stated that the engineer's report has indicated that the
foundation would support the additional load of the second story to be added, and staff has
no further issues with it.
PAGE 1 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued)
Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the required variances to allow the
second story addition over the existing residence and garage with the following conditions:
1. If during construction it is determined that the portion of the foundation within the 75'
setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the Planning
Commission and the City Council for further review.
2. If the larger deck located by the lakeshore should need repairs or replacement, it is non-
conforming and would need the necessary approvals to remain.
3. Planning Commission should review the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone for
further removals if necessary.
Furthermore,because the screen porch and bay window are new structure to be located
within the 75' setback, Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of these two
proposals.
Chair Smith asked if the net hardcover of the new plans was less than what was proposed
in the first draft.
Bottenberg stated that the hardcover is more than previously proposed, since the screen
porch was not moved back out of the 75' setback as originally shown. She indicated that
the deck, staff believed would be removed, remains.
Chair Smith asked if, during the process, there were problems discovered with the
foundation, whether the applicants understood that they could not proceed.
Mr. Adams passed out prepared colored layouts displaying the hardcover removals and
additions, as well as, the new home as proposed versus the existing. He maintained that
the existing screen porch would protrude no more into the 0-75' setback than it does today.
Berg asked if the proposed bay window would be over the deck.
Mr. Adams explained that the bay window would be to the side of the deck and porch.
With regard to the overages in hardcover, Rahn questioned, as Mabusth had in the
February meeting, why the applicant needed so much hardcover in the driveway. He
argued that more removals could be gained in the driveway.
Adams pointed out that the driveway was purposefully cut between trees in order to avoid
their removal. He stated that large vehicles or trailers could not maneuver the driveway
without the circle, and could only enter and exit from a certain direction.
Chair Smith questioned the need for the second turnaround.
PAGE 2 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued)
Adams indicated that the second turnaround serves the second set of garages. He added
that he was having a storage garage built and would soon be storing some of his things off
site.
Alexander stated that the applicant had obtained neighbor's signatures in support of his
design.
There were no public comments.
Hawn asked if the Planning Commission could set out explicit consequences to the
applicant, if it is uncovered that the foundation or headers cannot support the weight of the
additional story etc. She was anxious that the applicant know what to expect if they are
forced to return before the Commission and Council.
With regard to the structural engineer's report, Alexander explained that the headers are
above the garage and not foundation related.
Chair Smith asked if staff found the structural engineer's report acceptable.
Bottenberg stated that staff had accepted the report.
Hawn asked if it would be possible to push the screen porch out of the 0-75' setback.
Adams stated that the current proposal does push the screen porch 3' back from where it
exists currently. He was hesitant to cut it back further in an effort to keep the porch
functional.
Alexander stated that they had removed 48 s.f. of deck from the 0-75' setback, and that
only 38 s.f. of the deck still protrudes into that setback with this design.
Chair Smith complimented the applicant for looking at what could be done, providing
color illustrations, and not increasing hardcover. She indicated that she could support staff
recommendations, which included denial of the bay window.
Rahn felt the massing issue was taken under consideration with the design; however, he
believed that overages in hardcover clearly dictated the need to lose additional hardcover
in the driveway. He reiterated that the applicant needed to do more to come in under the
33%hardcover amount.
Adams maintained that he would be required to lose trees if he were forced to widen the
driveway. He indicated that the current configuration allows him to maneuver the
driveway more easily in the winter due to grade and elevation difficulties. Adams stated
PAGE 3 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued)
that he was at a loss of what to do, he did not wish to lose trees, which he felt added value
to his property.
Berg concurred that the driveway contained excessive hardcover and that no bay should be
allowed. She questioned the removal of the screen porch and deck altogether.
Fritzler agreed that hardcover needed to be reduced somehow.
Chair Smith felt that,removal of excessive hardcover, was in line with what the
Commission has required of applicants in the past.
Rahn stated that, typically, all that is allowed is the original footprint of a home, plus
minimal driveway. While he was willing to bend with regard to the massing and 0-75'
setback, he felt that more could be done with the driveway to reduce hardcover.
Hawn asked how much more or less roofline there was in the new design.
Alexander stated that, comparatively, the pitch is 12/12 versus 3/12. She indicated that the
overhang is less than what exists currently and that the bay window falls within the
overhang, and makes up a significant part of the design.
Chair Smith indicated that the consensus among the Planning Commission seemed to be to
reduce hardcover in the 75-250', closer to what's required. She asked staff whether the
Commission should see the proposal once again or approve it with contingencies.
Rahn encouraged the applicant to work with staff on the driveway reductions.
Although Gaffron felt they could make the appropriate reductions, he questioned whether
the applicant would agree to them.
Adams argued that, if the Commissioners lived in his home, they would see that the
driveway is truly not excessive for the lot. He reiterated his desire to save the trees that
make his property valuable.
Fritzler stated that even emergency vehicles can usually back in and out of tight spots.
Gaffron suggested elongating the greenspace in the middle circle, which would eliminate
triangles of hardcover from the driveway. He felt this could be a good alternative for the
applicant to diminish hardcover while adding grass for greenspace.
Chair Smith stated that, often in Orono, tradeoffs or changes are required.
PAGE 4 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued)
Adams offered to remove or reduce the patio deck on the lower lakeside of the home in
lieu of removing driveway.
Berg pointed out that applicants cannot trade non-conforming structures for conforming
space. In fact, she believed the patio should be removed altogether.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant would prefer they table the application.
Berg argued that, during the February meeting, the Commission gave direction to the
applicants representative which required removals in the 0-75' setback. These removals did
not occur and the Commission is once again asking for the same thing.
Chair Smith asked the Commission what they could live with based on what was in front
of them. Although more hardcover reductions were necessary, she asked if the house, the
removal of the bay window, removal of the lakeside patio, and pulling the porch back from
the 0-75' was acceptable to the Commission.
Based on discussion held in February, Rahn stated that he could not accept the bay
window,when the direction was given that nothing be added to the 0-75' setback.
Adams asked if the driveway were reduced, could the Commission allow the house as
presented.
Berg pointed out that the two issues were unrelated.
Adams stated that the deck and screen porch are 3' off the ground and require steps to
access them and the sliding door. He believed that he was presenting less than the previous
application.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission felt more reductions were necessary. She was
hesitant to redesign the proposal further this evening.
Adams asked for further direction with regard to how much percentage needed to be
removed.
Overall, the Commission could accept the deck off the screened porch, however, would not
allow the bay window. Further, they wished to see more reductions in hardcover from the
driveway.
Chair Smith suggested the applicant work with staff to elongate the circle greenspace.
PAGE 5 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued)
Adams asked if he could be allowed to construct the bay window within the roofline. He
felt the home would look like a box without the bay window addition.
Rahn stated that the bay window would be allowed if the encroachment did not currently
exist and it was in a conforming location.
Berg stated that the Commission could move or table the application
Adams asked for the motion.
Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application#03-2867,
Dan Adams, 1145 Tonkawa Road, granting approval for structure within 75' of the
lakeshore to allow the second story addition construction, 17' encroachment into the
average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 0-75' setback, and structure within the
75-250' setback variances to allow a second story addition over the existing residence
and garage with the following conditions:
1. The bay window be eliminated.
2. The patio on the lower lakeside level be reduced by half.
3. The screen porch and deck be allowed to remain.
4. The driveway be reduced to some degree, as suggested by Planning Director
Gaffron on the overhead drawing.
5. If during construction it is determined that the portion of the foundation within
the 75' setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the
Planning Commission and the City Council for further review.
6. If the larger deck located by the lakeshore should need repairs or replacement, it
is non-conforming and would need the necessary approvals to remain.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Bottenberg asked Berg to address the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback.
Berg amended her motion to reflect that no further encroachments into the average
lakeshore setback should ever be allowed in the future. Fritzler seconded the
amended motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#2) #02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER,480 RUSSELL AVENUE,VARIANCE
7:28-7:36 P.M.
Tim Lovett, applicant's representative, was present.
PAGE 6 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER, Continued)
Chaput reported that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit construction of a
408 s.f. (16.8'X24.4') detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal
residence. She explained that, in August 2002, the original 239 s.f. (20.1'X11.9') garage
burned down on the property and the applicant wishes to replace it in approximately the
same location and directly adjacent to a second nonconforming garage which was not
destroyed.
Given the odd lot configuration, Chaput stated that the detached garage would be placed
approximately 19' from the west side lot line and about 346' from the rear lot line. She
reviewed the numerous issues for consideration for the Commission and stated that staff
recommends approval of the requested variance to permit construction of the 408 s.f.
(16.8'X24.4') detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence,
with the three conditions noted in the staff memo dated March 6, 2003.
Mr. Lovett informed the Commission that the applicant had decided to rebuild the garage
in the same dimensions (20.1'X11.9') as the one that had previously burned.
Chair Smith asked what the additional nonconforming sheds were used for.
Lovett explained that he owned a landscaping business and had kept some of his
equipment in the sheds, but would be moving those to a different location. He indicated
that Ms. Carpenter would be using them for her own storage.
Chaput stated that, given the odd shape, the only logical location for the sheds and garage
is where proposed.
Rahn stated that he had no issue allowing the applicant to replace what had burned down
and asked if the applicant had any problems with regard to the required removals.
Lovett stated that he believed the applicant could accept the removals in order to get the
new garage. He indicated that he would also apply for a permit to continue residing.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application #02-
2864,Josephine Carpenter,480 Russell Avenue, granting the requested variance to
permit construction of the 239 s.f. (20.1'X11.9') detached garage closer to the front
property line than the principal residence, with the following conditions:
1. A building permit application be made for residing the existing detached garage.
2. The canvas covered shed must be removed from the property prior to building
permit application since it is not a definable structure by building code.
3. The two existing metal sheds without building permits must be removed from
PAGE 7 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER, Continued)
their current location on the lot prior to building permit application for the detached
garage. To be conforming, the sheds require relocation on the lot to a conforming
location and building permit approval. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#3)#03-2874, RICHARD KAIL, 3753 CASCO AVENUE,VACATION 7:36-7:45
P.M.
Richard Kail, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was seeking approval to vacate 7' of that portion of
the unimproved dedicated alley adjacent to his property. The alley was originally
dedicated in the plat of Casco Heights in 1911. The alley is 14' wide and 317.8' long.
Bottenberg indicated that the applicant was proposing to vacate a 7' portion adjacent to his
property, whereas,the remaining 7' would go to his neighbor at 3721 Casco Avenue.
Bottenberg pointed out that application#03-2863, an application for lot area and lot
coverage by structure, was heard by the City Council at its February 24, 2003 meeting.
While the Planning Commission had approved the lot area variance, it had denied the lot
coverage by structure variance. The applicant chose to pursue vacating the adjacent alley
next to his property.
Whereas there have never been any vacations of alley in the Casco Point area, there have
been vacations only where the dedicated right of way was between the lake and the
residence on the property. After speaking to neighbors regarding the vacation, Bottenberg
indicated that they do not have any objections.
Based on criteria for vacation, Bottenberg explained that, in the past vacations are
appropriate when the vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property,
the City does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right of way as road
except for utility purposes, and the unimproved dedicated right of way as it exists serves
no public purpose. It is staff's opinion that these three conditions are not applicable to the
segment of alley adjacent to the property.
Bottenberg reported that the Public Works Director reviewed the proposed vacation and
recommended the City not vacate this alley. He felt the alley was necessary for several
reasons: stormwater drainage management,possible future utilities, and public access for
the neighborhood to reach Lake Minnetonka.
In addition, Bottenberg referred to the, attached, Planning Director's comments that it
would not be in the City's best interests to vacate this alley. She noted that the gas,
electric, telephone, and cable t.v. utilities had been notified and expressed no concerns with
the vacation.
PAGE 8 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2874, RICHARD KAIL, Continued)
Bottenberg reported that staff recommends denial of the vacation application as proposed
by the applicant in this case.
In review of the February 10 2003, City Council Minutes, Chair Smith noted that Mayor
Peterson stated that the City would not consider vacating the alley at this time due to
stormwater issues, in particular.
Bottenberg indicated that a Council member had suggested the applicant research vacating
or purchasing the land owned by the City, thus, the basis of this application.
Mr. Kail stated that he understood the concern regarding lake access off of Casco Point
Road and identified a second alley off Casco Avenue. He questioned the need for both
sites.
Gaffron stated that, as continuous alleys, either could provide potential pedestrian
connection, however, the other location may be obstructed by wetland and therefore offers
strong potential stormwater management solutions. He could not support vacation of the
alley, not knowing what the future use may be for it, and reminded the Commission that
both do provide access for the neighborhood to the lake.
While Kail indicated that he could understand the stormwater dilemma, he argued that the
water doesn't flow through his alley anyway.
Rahn agreed that no one knows what the future use of this alley might be and he did not
wish to cause further stormwater runoff problems. He was concerned that vacating would
benefit merely one resident now, whereas, a multitude of residents might benefit from the
use of this alley later.
Chair Smith stated that, in her opinion, there was clear input provided by both staff and the
Mayor with regard to this vacation.
Kail stated that he was striving to bring his structural coverage down from 15.07%by
obtaining the alley.
Berg stated that she was in support of staff's recommendation.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2874,
Richard Kail,3753 Casco Avenue, for vacation of the alley adjacent to his property.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 9 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2875 SANDRA ANN BENSON, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD,VARIANCE
7:45-7:55 P.M.
Sandra Benson, Applicant, Wes Sampson, the Architect, and Dan Larkin, the General
Contractor, were present.
Chaput reported that the applicant was requesting variances to reconstruct and expand the
roof of an existing principal structure and replace windows and doors on the second story.
The required variances would include principal structure located 25.1' from the OHWL of
Lake Minnetonka where 75' is required, a side yard setback of 6.6' with a 1' overhang
encroachment where 10' is required, and a 48.7' encroachment into the average lakeshore
setback
Chaput explained that neither the footprint of the structure nor the hardcover was proposed
to change with the roof expansion. She stated that the applicant proposes to remove a
portion of the existing roof of the original structure and replace it with one continuous
ridge, approximately 14"higher than the existing roof structure, or 1'10"below the
roofline attached to the west. The exact height may vary within inches from what is
proposed once the structure is worked out. Chaput indicated that the structure was not
proposed to be closer to the OHWL than what exists currently.
With regard to the structural engineer's report, Chaput reported that the engineer reviewed
the proposed roof reconstruction and found that the existing foundation and walls can
support the proposed work. The extent of the proposed work includes replacement of
some windows, doors and walls on the second story of the house. Chaput indicated that the
first story of the structure and other portions of the home will not be modified as a result of
this proposal.
After reviewing the issues for consideration, Chaput stated that staff recommends approval
of the requested variances to reconstruct and expand the roof of the existing principal
structure with two conditions mentioned in the memo dated February 25, 2003.
Benson commented that they hoped to obtain more living space from the remodel.
Chair Smith stated that, in her opinion, the remodel will be more attractive and that she had
no difficulty approving the application.
Rahn questioned the need for further screening , since the elevation change was so minor
to cause the need for more screening.
Hawn asked if the applicant objected to planting more trees.
Benson stated that she could plant additional trees.
PAGE 10 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2875 SANDRA ANN BENSON, Continued)
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2875, Sandra Benson, 1376 Baldur Park Road, granting the variances for structure
within 75' of the lake, a side yard setback of 6.6', and a 48.7' encroachment into the
average lakeshore setback to reconstruct and expand the roof of the existing principal
structure with the conditions that screening with trees be added along the lakeside of
the residence to mitigate the visual impact of the structure from the lake, and if
structural removals exceed what is shown on the proposed plans, further review by
the Planning Commission and City Council would be required. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays
0.
(#5) #03-2876 SEVIE LANNING,3329 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 7:55-
8:58 P.M.
Sevie Lanning, the Applicant, was present.
Chaput reported that the applicant was requesting lot area, lot width, a setback of 43' from
the OHWL, a rear yard setback, a 16' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback,
hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone, and hardcover within the 75-250' lakeshore
setback zone variances for construction of a new residence on the property.
Chaput explained that the owner was in the process of selling the property and a potential
buyer had signed a purchase agreement contingent on the ability to build a new structure
on the lot rather than remodel the existing house. Chaput pointed out that the proposed
home shown in the elevation is not necessarily the home that would be built, rather the
buyer wants to be assured that he could build within the proposed footprint.
With regard to the proposed variances, Chaput stated that the existing lot width is 50'
where 100' is required and variances are necessary for new construction. She indicated that
lot coverage by structure and side yard setbacks are not required for this application. The
existing house on the lot is located 48' from the OHWL. The proposed house would be
43' from the OHWL where 75' is required, and 10' from the rear lot line where 30' is
required. Chaput pointed out that if the required setbacks were followed, the setbacks
would overlap,providing the applicant with no legal building envelope.
Given the fact that vehicles would not fully fit on the driveway as proposed, staff would
recommend that a driveway of at least an additional 5' in length be provided from Crystal
Bay Road, moving the house 5' closer to the rear lot line than the 10' proposed and 30'
required. The footprint of the home would remain at 48' from the OHWL and lessen the
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback with a 5' setback from the rear lot line.
Chaput explained that the proposed house encroaches 16' into the average lakeshore
setback, whereas the existing house encroaches 11' into the average lakeshore setback,
PAGE 11 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
even with a decreased rear lot line setback. She indicated that the proposed elevations of
the new structure on the property are taken from a previous application for new
construction and have been reduced to fit on the lot. Chaput pointed out that the
topography of the applicant's property is much flatter than the lot where this particular
home was built, therefore, it would exceed the height limitations on this lot.
Chaput referred to the engineer's comments and indicated that a culvert exists under the
current home. Since the culvert must be located on a survey, if a new home is to be built
on the property, the culvert must be relocated along the property line. In addition, a 10'
drainage and utility easement would be required over the culvert.
Chaput identified 10 issues for consideration and stated that staff recommends approval of
the requested variances for new construction on the lot, with the 5 conditions cited in the
staff memo dated March 4, 2003.
Chair Smith recommended that the front setback be maintained at the current 48' from the
OHWL. She asked if the applicant had a potential buyer.
Lanning felt that, due to height limitations, she would like to keep the lakeside variance.
She indicated that the lot has proven very difficult to redevelop, and turned into a money
pit having to contend with the culvert, hydrant, and size restraints.
Denny Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, voiced his reservations with regard to new
structure encroaching further into the average lakeshore setback. He argued that the 2 1/2
story height limitation failed to go far enough to protect his views. If the home were closer
to the lake and 2 1/2 stories tall, his views would be obscured. He felt it would be great to
see a new home on this property,but at what cost.
Paul Rahman, 3335 Crystal Bay Road, pointed out that, not only centering the home on the
lot would change his views, but also the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback
and height allowance. He was curious how the height and side yard setbacks would affect
neighbor's views, in an otherwise, mostly single story neighborhood.
Berg stated that by adjusting the home on the lot to meet side setbacks,both neighbors'
views would be affected.
While Rahn could support allowing more space for the driveway, he had difficulty using
the submitted three story elevations that would never fly on a flat lot such as this. Since the
Commission was not talking about a specific design, he felt the submittals and pictures
were deceiving and should not be part of the proposal. He maintained that the
Commission was merely considering a footprint which meets height requirements.
PAGE 12 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
Gaffron concurred, stating that the virtual three story plan before the Commission was
something that would not be approved in this situation. He asked if the Commission could
support a 5' rear yard setback as opposed to 10'.
As a minimum footprint house, Rahn found shifting the house back 5' acceptable.
Fritzler maintained that the City does not know what will become of the railroad behind
the home.
Rahn agreed that a potential buyer should be made aware that the railroad could be used
for something later on.
Gaffron pointed out that this residence encroaches less into the railroad right-of-way than
either neighbor's parcels.
If the applicant tried not to obstruct the neighbor's views, Chair Smith asked what would
be left for construction. She indicated that the new owner could legally build a 2 1/2 story
home on the lot.
Hawn asked if the neighbors could accept the current height restrictions, or whether the
City could impose further height limitations.
Stanton stated that a new home would be better than what currently exists, realizing that
there is little space to work with. He indicated that he felt better having stated his peace.
City Council member Sansevere arrived at 8:16 P.M.
Since the lot is flat, Gaffron indicated that it would be difficult to build a 2 1/2 story home
on this parcel. Based on height restrictions, he pointed out that the home could reach 34-
36' tall at the peak of the roof. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission could further
limit the height of the home by adhering to the average lakeshore setback.
Hawn asked if the Commission could assign an absolute limit to the height at the average
lakeshore setback.
Chair Smith suggested taking the idea one step further by limiting the home to a single
story at the average lakeshore setback.
Lanning argued that the Commission was virtually making her home unmarketable by
limiting her too much at this juncture. She believed a home under 1,200 s.f. would be
unsaleable on Lake Minnetonka.
PAGE 13 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
Chair Smith commented that if the home was to be 30' tall and include a tuck under
garage, the top 15' must include the top floor and roofline.
Gaffron clarified that the portion above the garage could be limited to a certain height to
protect views.
Based on the evening's discussion, Chair Smith cautioned the Commission that they could
be setting a standard to which the whole street would be based in redevelopment.
While he felt setting a height limit to be a great idea, Rahn stated that it makes a difficult
situation even worse in the case of non-conforming lots.
Fritzler indicated that he would prefer to be conservative without a specific drawing in his
hands.
Without an actual design in hand, Gaffron suggested the Commission consider granting all
of the variances except the average lakeshore setback variance to ensure that a design is
submitted to the Commission prior to construction.
Chair Smith concurred that, somehow, the Commission needed to see a plan of what would
end up on this property.
Lanning pointed out that she was not asking for a height variance at this time and would
not need a height variance for the footprint as proposed. She felt that, to hold her to a
different height standard than what code mandated, was unfair.
Chair Smith asked if the City had ever set height limits in the past.
Gaffron indicated that, to say that the opportunity to provide average lakeshore consistency
has never been done before, would be inaccurate; however, he felt this situation to be
unique.
Lanning felt the height restriction would be addressed at the permitting stage.
Gaffron maintained that parameters need to be determined at the Planning Commission
level to guarantee the Commission an opportunity to conclude if a new design proposal for
the lot is doable.
Lanning maintained that if contingencies accompany her application this evening, her
buyer would not move forward with the purchase.
PAGE 14 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
Hawn pointed out that, while the Commission would likely grant variances, they would
prefer to see specific plans for the lot. She reiterated that the Commission could not
approve the application without seeing some kind of accurate plan.
Lanning stated that she had been working on this application for months and plans to move
to California next week. She noted that the buyer does not want to go to the expense of
providing plans before he purchases the property.
Chair Smith suggested the Commission grant all but the average lakeshore setback
variance.
Councilman Sansevere stated that it is a matter of comfort level. He indicated that the
Commission and City Council are not comfortable approving an application without
specific plans before them. He questioned why the buyer had not accompanied her, and
felt it was unfair of the buyer to allow her to carry the entire burden alone. In most
situations, Sansevere indicated that,potential buyers come before the Commission
themselves to have their questions heard.
Berg stated that, as a construction lender, in contingency offers, most often the buyer is the
one who comes before the various Commissions.
Lanning stated that the buyer had told her that the City would provide her with the
limitations of what could be built on the property. She asked if she could get approvals for
the footprint at this time.
Rahn stated that, in his opinion, her neighbors didn't have a big gripe with her and merely
voiced their concerns with regard to height. He maintained that the current elevations
included in the packet don't do her justice or work in her favor to this end.
Hawn questioned whether the neighbors could live with a 30' height limitation versus a
potentially 34-36' height building, in its current average lakeshore encroachment position.
Gaffron stated that,what he has heard, is that the neighbors have a problem with the 30'
wall at the newly proposed location. It is not a matter of 30' versus 34', it is an
encroachment at either height.
Rahman asked if the home could be slid back 5' to the original average lakeshore setback.
Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application and the applicant invite the
potential buyer to accompany her next month to discuss their options.
PAGE 15 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
Since she would be moving to California next week, Lanning stated that this would impose
an extreme hardship upon her.
Chair Smith asked if the buyer could attend the meeting next month either with her, or as
her representative. She then asked the Commission if they would be comfortable moving
this forward to City Council.
Sansevere reminded the Commission that the City Council strives to adhere to new
construction codes. Whereas delaying the application wouldn't help the applicant, he felt
that moving it forward would not either.
Lanning maintained that any potential buyer is going to want to go up as high as the
current codes will allow, based on a 30X40' home with a tuck under garage.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission was hoping to find a compromise; however,
without anything to look at to make a determination, the Commission was at a loss. She
encouraged the applicant to bring the potential buyer in with a suggested plan.
Berg stated that the Commission would likely consider a tuck under and first floor, with a
second story that tapers off,perhaps with a deck, somewhere near the average lakeshore
setback. Berg reiterated that it was difficult to approve a design without anything to
consider in front of them.
Lanning asked if there was anything she could do to move this forward to meet her closing
deadline at the end of the month.
Hawn suggested the Commission approve the variances and set a height limit.
The Commission felt this was not a good option, although the applicant liked the idea.
Berg felt the application should be tabled.
Having been present in the audience, the potential buyer's Broker interjected with a
comment. While he understood the City's position, he indicated that it would be the
potential buyer's position to build a residence which maximizes the amount allowed for
this parcel by code.
Rahn felt that, other than the objections voiced by the neighbors, he had little problem with
the proposal. He maintained that it would be difficult to set limitations or requirements
specific to this property, since the Commission needed a three dimensional proposal to
make this recommendation.
PAGE 16 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
While neighbors' comments are appreciated, Sansevere stated that they are not the
hardship.
Stanton indicated that he would like to see new construction on this site.
Based on a mere footprint, Gaffron questioned where doorways, landings, sidewalks, and
the overlooked details would be placed. He cautioned the Commission to not overlook
these details when forced to look at the big picture, as in this case. He felt there were too
many variables present to approve all the details included as part of the proposal.
Chair Smith reiterated the necessity to table this application and allow the applicant the
opportunity to come back.
The broker stated that the applicant could not be assured that the buyer was still interested
at this point.
Berg indicated that the buyer should have been present to make his position known or put
some thought into what he wanted.
Hawn stated that, unfortunately for the applicant and buyer, the process the City goes
through relies on a specific set of plans to base its recommendations.
Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #03-2876, Sevie Lanning,3329
Crystal Bay Road, a request for variances to construct a new residence on the
property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(Recess was taken from 8:58 - 9:03 P.M.)
(#6) #03-2877 SHANE RUDD, 601 PARK LAND, VARIANCES 9:03-9:38 P.M.
Kris Rudd, the Applicant, and Brian Novak, the architect, were present.
Chaput reported that the applicants have requested the following variances to permit a 219
s.f. first story garage addition with a second story bedroom onto the street side of the
existing home and to reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side.
1. Rear yard setback of 28.3' where 30' is required.
2. Side yard setbacks of 8.4' on the north and 6.5' on the south(for main entry landing)
where 10' is required.
3. An overhang encroachment of 2.5' on the north and south substandard side setbacks.
4. A decorative wall, located 2.5' from the south side yard setback where 10' is required,
encroaching an additional 1.5' with overhang into a substandard setback.
5. A lot coverage by structure of 2,175 s.f. (24.3%) where 1,500 s.f. is permitted.
PAGE 17 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2877 SHANE RUDD, Continued)
Chaput explained that the proposed 219 s.f addition is for the expansion of garage space
on the main level and living space (master bedroom, bath, and closet area) on the second
level. A new steeper pitched roof would be constructed from the main entry(located at the
south side) eastward. The existing roofline would remain as-is west of the entry door.
Chaput maintained that a majority of the interior of the second floor would be remodeled
with the addition. Finally, Chaput explained that the decorative wall on the south side is
merely an opening which leads to the main entry of the house and is, essentially, a false
facade.
With regard to hardcover, Chaput pointed out that the applicant intends to remove an
existing deck at the shoreline and shed which would reduce the hardcover in the 0-75'
setback to 10.03%. In the 75-250' hardcover zone, Chaput stated that the changes to the
house and deck and steps on the south side result in a net decrease of 20 s.f. or 67.2% from
67.58%. In reference to overall structural coverage, the proposed structural coverage is
reduced from 25%to 24.3%.
Chaput indicated that if the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue
hardship and should be able to construct an addition on the street side of the home and
reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side of the existing home, then the requested
variances should be granted with the four conditions identified in the staff memo dated
February 26, 2003.
Chaput added that as of March 14, the proposed overhangs have been changed to 1.75'
from 2.5' which further decreases the structural cover from 24.3%to 23.7%.
Mr. Novak indicated that the applicants would attempt to come up with an alternative to
the decorative wall by creating something that directs people to the entrance. Although
they felt the attached decorative wall was more aesthetically pleasing than a free standing
structure, the applicants would consider other options.
Scott Burger, 594 Park Lane, neighbor across the street, indicated that he bought his home
with lakeshore views several years ago. He was concerned that the decorative wall would
totally obscure his lakeshore views altogether. As he is situated, the only views he had of
the lake were those between the two properties across the street, which would be entirely
eliminated if the decorative wall were allowed to be constructed.
Although she felt the property to be high in overall structural coverage, Hawn recognized
the applicant's reductions in structural coverage as proposed. She asked the applicants to
design a more airy gate versus a solid structure which deters her neighbor's views.
Novak asked what the official ordinances or rules with regard to decorative walls were.
PAGE 18 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2877 SHANE RUDD, Continued)
Gaffron indicated that walls and fences could be no higher than 6', although vegetation is
not held to the same standard.
Hawn encouraged the applicant to work with her neighbors in a way that would allow them
to have a view, while still signifying the applicant's entrance.
Novak pointed out that the front overhangs had been cut in half, from 49 s.f. to 23 s.f.
Chair Smith felt the use was intensive, but improved overall.
Since the structural coverage was way over to begin with, Rahn had difficulty accepting
the elimination of a deck and shed that were non-conforming in the first place, in exchange
for an addition. He felt that little had been done to meet the City's building criteria, for
example, he felt the applicant could easily meet the 30' rear yard setback in order to avoid
the need for a variance.
Novak agreed that they could probably meet the rear yard setback number. He pointed out
that they had reduced hardcover and structural coverage in the proposed plan.
Fritzler agreed that non-conforming items could not be traded for conforming ones.
Berg suggested that the applicants meet the 30' rear yard setback and rework the
decorative wall to be compliant.
Hawn indicated that she was not having as much trouble supporting the application as
other Commissioners. She agreed that the decorative wall should be redesigned to be
compliant, however, felt the applicant had done a good job bringing structural cover down
and not intensifying the use. She felt that drainage should be considered.
Chaput indicated that, while no plans had been submitted, drainage would be considered
on the building plans.
Hawn felt much of the hardcover in retaining walls could not be removed.
Rudd stated that the home is merely a two bedroom residence and needs to be expanded.
Neighbor to the north, Judy Hanson, indicated that she had no issues with the variances
and would simply encourage the applicants to consider the views of other neighbors.
Novak indicated that the applicant's plans do not change the current drainage patterns that
exist.
PAGE 19 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2877 SHANE RUDD, Continued)
Rahn asked about the potential for partial removal of the large brick patio on the lakeside
of the property.
While the patio was on the opposite side of the proposed changes,Novak stated that the
applicant could make concessions regarding the patio.
Rudd stated that the brick patio extends from the covered porch below the deck. She
agreed that some removals could be made.
Rahn suggested the patio be reduced to a 4' walkway from the porch and along the back.
Berg agreed that reductions in the brick patio made sense.
The Commission agreed that they could support the application with those removals.
Bottenberg asked if the Commission could accept the side yard setback variances.
Since the side yard setbacks were not changing from existing, Fritzler felt these were
acceptable.
Rudd pointed out that the overhangs were being reduced.
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2877,
Shane Rudd, 601 Park Lane, granting the requested side yard setbacks of 8.4' on the
north and 6.5' on the south where 10' is required, an overhang encroachment of 1.75'
on the north and south substandard side setbacks, and a lot coverage by structure of
23.7%,variances in order to construct an addition on the street side of the home and
reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side of the existing home, under the
conditions that the building plans include rain gutter and down spout locations,
directing water away from adjacent neighbors; erosion control be installed,
inspected, and approved prior to work on the site; and proposed hardcover and
structural removals of the brick patio, shed, and lakeshore deck be complete before
footing inspections are approved. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#7) #03-2878 EDWARD HAMM, 485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH,
VARIANCE 9:38-9:53 P.M.
Tom Roddy, representative for the Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicant was proposing to construct two monuments and
gates on the property. One monument and gate would be at the driveway and the other
would be at the pedestrian entrance 300'+to the south. Bottenberg explained that the main
PAGE 20 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2878 EDWARD HAMM, Continued)
entrance gate would be for the principal drive into the property and would align with the
existing fence which is about 6' inside the property line north of the driveway. The metal
gate at its highest point was proposed to be 8.5' high and supported by brick and some
monument of almost 11' in height. The pedestrian gate would serve a sidewalk from the
main house to the road and would align with the existing fence which is about 3' into the
right of way at this location. Bottenberg pointed out that the metal gate at its highest point
would be 6.5' high and supported by a brick and stone monument of almost 13' in height.
Bottenberg stated that research had shown numerous properties with monuments and gates
in Orono, however, most of these are lakeshore lots along county roads which are allowed
to be 6' in height and meet certain setback requirements. She did cite three examples
similar to this proposal, first 450 Orono Orchard Road South, 480 Deborah Drive, and
2710 Pence Lane.
With regard to the Fire Marshal's comments, Bottenberg stated that the City was advised
that the required opening excluding the gate portion of the structure must be at a minimum
20' based on width of fire emergency vehicles. Also, since gates would be electronically
controlled, the emergency agencies have requested that a lock box "knox box"be provided
for ease of access by emergency vehicles.
Based on the numerous monuments/gates throughout the city, Bottenberg reported that
staff recommends denial of the monuments/gates as proposed. If the applicant chooses to
redesign the proposed monuments and gates keeping the height to 7', moving the
pedestrian gate back out of the right-of-way and meeting the recommended 20' width by
the fire marshal, then a recommendation of approval would be justified based upon past
approvals.
Chair Smith asked why the taller monuments have been allowed throughout the City when
code mandates a lower height.
Bottenberg explained that monuments on lakeshore County Road properties are allowed by
code to be higher than others in the community.
Chair Smith was concerned that the examples, which are not County Road sites, had been
approved.
Mr. Roddy stated that the applicant has been undergoing major renovations and is highly
security conscious.
Chair Smith asked the representative if the applicant could accept the staff
recommendations.
PAGE 21 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2878 EDWARD HAMM, Continued)
Roddy indicated that the applicant could accept the height variance, however, questioned
the need to be out of the right-of-way.
Berg reminded the applicant that the entire height of the gate and monuments cannot
exceed 7'.
Hawn reasoned that, if the applicant was truly concerned about security, he would realize
that the current old fence is doing nothing for security. She maintained that, if the
applicant wished to build a replacement fence at a later date, the City would require it be
built further back from the lot line than what is there. Hawn encouraged the applicant to
reconsider where they place the gates and monuments if they wish them to line up with a
new fence in the future.
Roddy asked if the location of the fence would be grandfathered in.
The Commission indicated there would be no grandfathering of the existing fence
location.
There were no public comments.
Fritzler moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2878, Edward Hamm,485 Orono Orchard Road South, granting the applicant's
request for a main gate and monument, as well as, pedestrian gate and monument, on
the condition that the gates/monuments do not exceed 7' in height, they are both
stepped back out of the public right-of-way, the gates are 20' wide, and that a lock
box be provided for ease of access by emergency vehicles pursuant of the fire
marshal's request. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#8) #03-2879 GARY HEGENES, 2675 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES 9:53-
10:00 P.M.
Gary Hegenes, Applicant, was present.
Chaput explained that the applicant has requested a side yard adjacent setback to street
setback variance to allow a 20.1' setback where 35' is required to construct a 330 s.f.
(15'X22') single stall attached garage addition to the existing attached garage.
While the applicant had suggested that a detached garage could be located 10' from the lot
line in this location without variance approval, Chaput explained that he believes it would
be more appealing to add onto the existing structure. Further, Chaput reported that the
current 21.82% of hardcover in the 75-250' hardcover setback zone does not reflect a 603
s.f. deck addition that was approved in 2002,but yet to be constructed. With the deck,
PAGE 22 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2879 GARY HEGENES, Continued)
Chaput reported that the hardcover increases to 23.99%. Once the additional garage space
and changes in the driveway are considered, Chaput stated that the hardcover equates to
24.91%.
Chaput referred to the issues for consideration and stated that staff recommends the side
yard adjacent to the street setback variance be granted on the condition that any existing
fabric and plastic hardcover on the property must be removed before a footing inspection
will be approved.
Berg complimented the applicant on his improvements to the property over the years.
There were no public comments.
Hegenes asked if it were too late to keep a larger portion of the blacktop turnaround area in
tact.
Hawn indicated that it was too late and that the blacktop would put him over his hardcover
limit.
Hegenes stated that he could accept staying within 25%hardcover.
Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2879, Gary Hegenes, 2675 Shadywood Road, granting a side yard adjacent to the
street setback variance on the condition that any existing fabric and plastic hardcover
on the property must be removed before a footing inspection will be approved.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 24, 2003 AND MARCH 10,
2003
Fritzler reported that all of the Planning Commission items were placed on the consent
agenda for February 24, 2003.
Gaffron noted that on March 10, 2003, the Bichanich application was tabled and would be
going back to the City Council at an upcoming meeting.
Commissioner Hawn left the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
PAGE 23 of 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron reminded the Commission that a work session was scheduled for April 2, 2003 at
5:30 P.M. He asked if a representative would like to attend the City Council work session
scheduled for April 3, 2003, during which the issues over telecommunication towers would
be discussed. Fritzler indicated that he would attend on behalf of the Planning
Commission.
Gaffron asked if there were additional topics the Planning Commission wished to see on
the work session agenda, other than the ongoing rebuild versus remodel discussion.
Rahn questioned the detached versus attached garage stance that the City should take in
regard to lakeshore lots. Due to a zoning inadequacy, he felt the City had been somewhat
blackmailed in allowing attached rather than detached garages in several cases.
Gaffron indicated that he wrestled with that question over attached/detached in several
instances and the legitimacy of the hardship argument.
Chair Smith suggested that staff encourage new members and alternates to attend the
workshops identified in the handout Gaffron provided the Commissioners.
(#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY
19, 2003
Berg moved, Fritzler seconded,to approve the Minutes of the February 19, 2003
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON MARCH 24, 2003 AND APRIL 14, 2003.
March 24 - Fritzler April 14 - Hawn
ADJOURNMENT
Fritzler moved, Chair Smith seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting
at 10:17 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 P.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 24 of 24