HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE LI j 2-I I 9-sX.-3
0 COUNCIL
Ell—/LANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. I C rA P)P--,i(k.t) el li-"f' t 9 2._&a.". -1--- h gotilit VII i PIP LI A,P, L2?,-----2,e4=i
2. 61-k.R-1- VA:Z1A-`" 'Oil) M i 011- .{Li .3`1 4 l Ciu-c o 0--PO
OaiTh 0 M i bit3-wN 0.- -z 8 W
i I
3.----RAN ii ---- riii/. 1„,/k 0,1,0,..AiAtit,-,4.t( icau i-,.„ t,,-, „./4.-) 1)t,-Rc4 (71;:er3c) Sin&d, 6 3 )s-.3-n
,
4. 1 i'm (--/-i--:)4Z• it_ 1--//Vi-) /, er A I tv X-->j) 1;7) o/Joivo
,.. z 9 3
,
8. -1-2.);- ---->. .'--il "-CC.■---/,..,:: FAct tEA-z._,N.N4.. .: i .3-4, ;?.. ci (___., '
9. 1-61m, Pd.-11M> k (,,I SI—C41 -1 as-Akayfte RIA-4-1.1 0 -
10. NiCI \ALL, PVC),-61--;6-■ i'2-C?0 )c 41L(c.,z_-P1,
11. ') L__I 11,\& (--ekA.A) Cf-7>() (7--t. ` 2Slit-ic't-Ce.-1 ECi
0
--
‘
12. .1-it, e;A t --) iii e 1220 i-f-c-i5--icitkrw ,,,„ I ,e41■4. (5 7.).— 9.--c- .4.--7
13. C t---( (A C14- \\,t- 0,—) 6
14. <-• ■17-/L-- iL.0 U ev i en .„,..A vt‘ C'3 - 2-`t:- ",1
15. 11-!'_,i;i (A7-7:i: c- Pi l 5 I, i.,41:2,./t-774 il,cvp i2c- C i 3 - 1
N%:lAd ministrative Suppora(Forms)'Public Attendance.wpd
C4 1
( 13; 1
' f
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 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, Jeanne Mabusth, Cynthia
Bremer, Stephanie Zugschwert 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 Jim White.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #03-2882 THOMAS PALMQUIST FOR OBA, 1030 OLD CRYSTAL BAY
ROAD, CUP RENEWAL
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2882, for
renewal of Orono Baseball Association's 2001 Conditional Use Permit granting
approval of construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields complex.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2888 JIM CUSACK,4140 HIGHWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE RENEWAL
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2888,
Jim Cusack, 4140 Highwood Road, granting renewal variances for lot width, lot area,
and an accessory building without a principal structure to construct a new residence
on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#3) #03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, 3329 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 6:05-
6:19 P.M.
Sevie Lanning, the Applicant, and Patrick McBride, representing the buyer, were present.
Chaput explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances for
construction of a new 1,200 s.f. residence on the property:
1. lot area of 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres)where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required;
2. a lot width of 50' where 100' is required;
3. setback of 48' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75' is required;
4. rear yard setback of 10' where 30' is required;
5. an encroachment of 16' into the average lakeshore setback;
6. 1,121 s.f. (40.82%)hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone where
none is permitted; and
PAGE 1 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
7. 285 s.f. (28.64%) hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone
where 248.75 s.f. (25%) is permitted.
Chaput reported that this application was tabled at the 3/17/2003 Planning Commission
meeting for the applicant to provide elevations of the proposed home. At the meeting,
concerns were voiced regarding the proposed encroachment into the average lakeshore
setback and how the height of the home might affect the neighbor's lake views. The
Planning Commission also found it difficult to determine if additional hardcover may be
necessary(for sidewalks, door landings, etc.) without elevation views of the proposed
home. New plans have now been provided for review.
Chaput presented three alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Alternative 1: Proposed footprint(40' x 30'), which leaves a driveway only 10-12' deep
Alternative 2: Reduce the footprint of the house to 33' x 30' to meet the existing average
lakeshore setback, leaves a 16' depth driveway
Alternative 3: Move the proposed footprint 5' toward the rear lot line (south), leaving
16'-17' depth off the traveled roadway
Dimensions Permitted Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Setback from 75' 49' 48' 50' 53'
OHWL
Rear Setback 30' 0' 10' 10' 5'
Side Setbacks
East 10' 0' 10' 10' 10'
West 10' 17' 10' 10' 10'
Average Lakeshore n/a 9' 16' 9' 8'-11'
Setback
Encroachment
Hardcover in None 1,059 s.f. 1,121 s.f. 1,024 s.f. 1,029 s.f.
0-75' Setback Zone (38.6%) (40.82%) (37.29%) (37.47%)
Hardcover in 75'- 248.75 s.f. 779 s.f. 285 s.f. 285 s.f. 420 s.f.
250' Setback Zone (25%) (78.29%) (28.64%) (28.64%) (42.21%)
With regard to the rear setback and culvert relocation, Chaput stated that the property to
the south of the lot is owned by the Hennepin County Rail Authority for potential use as a
regional trail in the future. Since this property does not have the potential to be developed
by structures, a substandard setback from the rear lot line would not negatively impact the
property owners to the south. Chaput noted that an existing storm sewer culvert that runs
directly beneath the existing home, extending from the pond on the south side of the
PAGE 2 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
railway tracks and emptying into Crystal Bay, was discovered. Since the City would not
permit a structure to be built over a storm sewer, the culvert must be relocated on the lot at
the owner's expense prior to construction of a new structure.
Currently, Chaput stated, the applicant is requesting to construct a house 30' high and 2 1/2
stories. However, the plans do not accurately reflect a half story by the accepted definition.
Due to the fact that the front elevation shows exterior walls on the upper story, exceeding
3' (4' and 5') from the floor elevation to the roof intersection, Chaput stated that the
architect indicated this evening that the plans would be amended to reflect a 3' height.
Chaput reported that staff supports the lot area and lot width variances. Staff recommends
that the proposed 40' x 30' footprint be located 5' from the rear lot line, as outlined on the
Analysis Worksheet as Alternative#3, to provide enough driveway length to safely park a
vehicle.
In addition, staff recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on
the lot per Alternative#3, including lot area and lot width variances, with the following
conditions:
1. A building of no more than 30' and no more than 2 1/2 stories in height will be
permitted to be constructed on the lot;
2. The existing culvert must be located prior to discussions with City staff regarding
relocation. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a survey showing the proposed
relocation of the culvert will be required. A drainage and utility easement will be
required over the relocated culvert as well. The costs of these improvements will be
the financial responsibility of the property owner;
3. Existing and proposed grading and drainage ways should be shown on plans
submitted for a building permit; and
4. Erosion control measures must be installed, inspected and approved prior to any
work on the site.
Paul Rahman, 3335 Crystal Bay Road, preferred Alternative #3 and liked how the home
was pulled back to preserve his views of the lake. He liked the overall plans.
Denny Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, voiced his support for Alternative#3 as well.
Chair Smith complimented the applicant on her efforts to bring the application more near
conformity and agreed with staff's recommendations.
Mabusth encouraged the Commission to include the requirement that the overhangs not
exceed 1 1/2' in their approvals.
Rahn suggested that a minimum width sidewalk be allowed from the home to the
driveway, as well as, minor landings.
PAGE 3 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued)
Mr. McBride indicated that his client had concerns with regard to height and asked that
additional allowances are granted based on the heights of other properties in the
neighborhood.
Hawn stated that the Commission views new construction rather rigidly and that she had
difficulty finding a hardship that would support a height variance.
Gaffron stated that, technically, the other homes in the neighborhood appear to be three
story homes, however, based on their topography, these homes are two stories with
walkouts. Whereas other homes have been aided by their topography, Gaffron noted that
this lot is generally flat and cannot accommodate a basement.
Mabusth pointed out that, if the culvert issue could not be resolved, the application might
come back before the Commission.
Gaffron stated that the assumption is that there is a pipe under the home, which must be
moved as a condition of the approval.
Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2876,
Sevie Lanning, 3329 Crystal Bay Road, based on staff recommendations for
Alternative #3, with the allowance for additional minimum sidewalk from the
driveway to the front landing, and subject to conditions set forth in the staff
recommendations memorandum dated April 17, 2003. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#4) #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, 1926 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, AFTER-THE-
FACT VARIANCES 6:19—6:46 P.M.
Fred Johnson, the Applicant, was not present. Randy and Michelle Chwialkowski, the new
owners, and Todd Knutson, the original designer, were present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicant was requesting four after—the—fact variances for a
second story deck attached to a newly constructed single family residence. They are as
follows:
• To allow a second story deck that is located 27.5' from the OHWL of Lake
Minnetonka where no structure is allowed.
• To allow a second story deck to encroach approximately 5' into the average
lakeshore setback.
• To allow a second story deck that is an additional 120 s.f. lot coverage by
structures for a total 1,620 s.f. where 1,500 s.f. was previously approved.
PAGE 4 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
• To allow an additional 36 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where 2,079
s.f. was previously approved for a total of 2,115 s.f.
The subject property was purchased by the applicant in 2000. The plan was to demolish
the existing residence and construct a new residence on the property. Due to the size of the
lot and all of it being located within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka variances were
required to redevelop the subject property.
City Council liaison Jim White arrived at 6:20 P.M.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant submitted a variance application September, 2000.
After discussions with staff and some redesigning the application was heard at the
November 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed project with hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone to
be 2,079 s.f. (26%) and lot coverage by structure not to exceed 1500 s.f both of which all
lie within 75' of OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The recommendation was based on the
property was currently developed as a single family residence with 2,328 s.f of existing
hardcover and over 1,500 s.f. of structure. The hardcover and structure on the lot would
decrease with redevelopment of the property.
The application moved forward to the City Council and was approved at their December
11, 2000 meeting. Bottenberg noted that the council approved the application and
resolution which stated 3 original copies of a revised survey showing the building plans
and all proposed hardcover be submitted. Also, the site plan/survey shall be in substantial
conformance with the plan attached to the resolution.
The surveys and building plans were submitted for review by the building department.
The survey had been revised and was in substantial conformance with the hardcover and
structure approvals granted by the City Council. However, the building plans submitted
showed a different ground level deck, a screen porch, and a second level deck. The
building official made notations on the plans regarding the decks. The ground level deck
was permitted but not the screen porch, not the second story deck, and not the extra portion
of the ground level deck. A building permit was issued on May 18, 2001. The building
official made notations on the plans regarding the screen porch and second story deck.
Bottenberg pointed out that many inspections took place during construction of the
residence. The building inspector at the time, Marc Davis, never noted that the decks
which were constructed and the decks on the approved plan were not the same. The final
inspection by the building inspector was March 8, 2002. A certificate of occupancy was
issued on March 8, 2002. Bottenberg continued that, shortly after the certificate of
occupancy was issued, Lyle Oman, Building Official,noticed the decks. The approved
PAGE 5 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
plans were reviewed and the builder was contacted by the building official. The contact
was initially by phone and then later by letters on February 24, 2003 and March 5, 2003.
On March 17, 2003, the applicant made application for after-the-fact variances for the
decks. With the application, the applicant submitted a copy of the plans that he used that
he feels indicated he was able to construct the decks.
Bottenberg indicated that, in the opinion of staff, the approved, stamped plan set contains
substantial notations and markings to indicate the upper level deck was not approved. The
approved plan set is supposed to be used for construction. Furthermore, the plans used by
the applicant to gain variance approval clearly did NOT show a second story deck Based
on the above, staff recommends removal of the second story deck and requiring the
applicant to take steps to make the upper level door safe by adding a railing or permanently
blocking it. Bottenberg noted that because there are two lower level doors exiting the
house, staff recommends retaining the lower level deck with railings as-is, and grant a
variance for the additional 36 s.f. hardcover, yielding 2,118 s.f. or 26.4% where 2,328 s.f.
or 29.0%had existed and 2,082 s.f. or 26.0%had been approved.
Mr. Knutson indicated that, after submitting his drawings and plans, he was unaware of
any additional changes made after the initial approvals. He knew only that decks were
involved as part of the proposal from beginning to end.
Mrs. Chwialkowski pointed out that she and her husband had only recently purchased the
property and were confused how the certificate of occupancy could have been granted if
these outstanding issues existed. She maintained that numerous inspections had occurred
during the course of construction and questioned how this wasn't caught until after the
certificate of occupancy had been granted and they had purchased the home. She stated
that they were shocked by the City's letter, since the decks were in existence when they
purchased the home.
Mrs. Chwialkowski argued that the City should take issue with the builder and past owner,
Mr. Johnson. She indicated that Mr. Johnson had said nothing to them about these
discussions with the City when they purchased the home in December and closed on it in
March 2003. She questioned how the upper and lower decks impacted hardcover since
they are located over and under one another.
Chair Smith indicated that the current owners have found themselves in an unfortunate set
of circumstances.
Mr. Chwialkowski maintained that removal of the deck would be an undue hardship put
upon them, since the deck was one of the reasons they bought the home in the first place.
PAGE 6 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
There were no public comments.
Rahn stated that not having the original applicant, Mr. Johnson, on hand posed a tough
scenario. He pointed out that, in his opinion, the more important issue was the structural
coverage problem versus the hardcover matter.
Chair Smith pointed out that the current owners could remove the deck and still add an
attractive railing to the upper floor balcony.
Rahn stated that, clearly, the minutes from past meetings with Mr. Johnson refer to a
ground floor deck only.
Mrs. Chwialkowski stated that the deck was critical to them when purchasing the home.
Since the home itself was quite small, the deck added to the homes useable living space.
She referred again to the missed opportunities of the City to correct this error during
numerous inspections and prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy.
As Building Inspector Lyle Oman was present,he was asked to comment.
Oman indicated that, when the deck came to the City's attention, the home was still for
sale and he made numerous efforts to contact the applicant. He indicated that he had been
caught off guard and that a past, ineffective, inspector had not raised this issue earlier.
Mrs. Chwialkowski indicated that she was angry that they were suffering the consequences
of this incompetent City official. She questioned whether it was their fault that the City
had an incompetent inspector that did not catch this problem prior to occupancy or sale.
Hawn encouraged the new owners to pursue Mr. Johnson. She felt they had more than
adequate recourse to go after Mr. Johnson based on an inaccurate disclosure. She agreed
that there was some error put upon them by the City, and that perhaps, the City Council
might rethink this and allow them some leniency. However, as a Planning Commission,
she indicated that they had approved one thing and were presented with something else.
She urged the current owners to plead their case to the City Council,but stated that she
must insist the application be returned to what was originally approved.
Chair Smith indicated that the original applicant, clearly, knew what he had done and that
he was in error. She believed the new owners would be justified in pursuing some
recourse.
Mabusth stated that any prospective buyer can go to the City to look at a homes address
file and learn about a given property prior to purchasing it.
PAGE 7 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
Bremer voiced her concern regarding the application as it affected the new owners. She
indicated that she was torn by the timing of the process and agreed with the new owners
that you'd like to be able to rely on the certificate of occupancy as proof She hoped that
the City Council might offer them some relief
Mabusth indicated that the letters clearly indicated the dates of contact, the last of which
being March 5, 2003.
Mrs. Chwialkowski stated that they had closed on March 8, 2003 and had taken possession
of the home by March 5, 2003.
Although the plans were clear, Bremer asked what actions the Commission and Council
had taken in the past in similar scenarios.
Gaffron agreed that, while the plan sheets were clear, the City Council had ruled both ways
on these types of issues in the past.
Rahn indicated that the legal recourse for the new owner is clearly a civil action. He felt
this to be a proximity and height issue as well. It was well known what was approved and
the builder went ahead any way and built the upper deck and larger than allowed lower
deck.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to deny Application #03-2880, Randy and Michelle
Chwialkowski, current owners of 1926 Fagerness Point Road, denying with some
sympathy the After-the-Fact variances, requiring removal of the second story deck,
and the addition of a railing to make the upper level door safe. Furthermore,
recommending the lower level deck with railings be allowed as-is, and granting a
variance for the additional 36 s.f. hardcover,yielding 2,188 s.f. or 26.4% where 2,328
s.f. or 29% had existed and 2,082 s.f. or 26% had been approved originally. VOTE
Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn suggested that staff continue to monitor Mr. Johnson's building activity in the area.
Mrs. Chwialkowski indicated that Mr. Johnson continues to build in the area.
(#5) #03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, 2941 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANCES 6:46—7:25 P.M.
Curtis and Kathleen Midthun, Applicants, and Tom Bricko, the General Contractor,were
present.
PAGE 8 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, Continued)
Bottenberg explained that the applicants had requested side yard setback, average
lakeshore setback, and hardcover in 75'-250' setback variances to construct a three stall
garage and additional living space to the residence.
After several meetings with staff, Bottenberg pointed out that two different additions were
proposed, first, changing the roof and cantilevering a wall on the lakeside to the existing
residence:
1. An attached mudroom/garage/bedroom addition to the north side.
2. Enlarging the kitchen on the south side of the residence.
3. Cantilevering the wall by 2' on the lakeside of the master bedroom.
4. Raising the roof to accommodate a new patio door on the second level with a
deck and to connect the additions.
Bottenberg noted that the existing residence is located 1.3' from the side property line. The
original proposal was to add a story(kitchen addition) above the basement room which
would also be located 1.3' from the property line. It has since been determined that the
existing foundation needs to be demolished and a new one constructed. The new
foundation and story above it will be located 5' from the side property line.
With regard to drainage, Bottenberg noted that the eaves on the south side of the residence
are shown at 1', leaving a 4' setback from the lot line. Drainage and excess runoff is a
concern. With construction so close to the side property line, there is not room to build a
swale to direct runoff/drainage around the side of the residence to the lake side.
Bottenberg pointed out that rain gutters would be required on the side of the home to direct
excessive runoff away from neighbors. Bottenberg indicated that a revised drainage plan
should be submitted and approved before building permits would be issued.
Bottenberg reported that the proposed additions and removals result in a net decrease of
104 s.f., final hardcover would be 4,894 s.f. (31%). She noted that the applicants had also
proposed to replace an existing deck on the lakeside of the residence that has begun to
deteriorate. However, the deck was shown in the plans with a railing, therefore would be
included in the lot coverage by structures calculations. The cantilevered wall on the north
side to the bedroom addition would be new and not over hardcover, therefore, the amount
of hardcover has a net increase of 32 s.f. On the other hand, the cantilevered wall on the
street side of the kitchen addition would be under the eave, therefore would not increase
the amount of hardcover.
In reference to the average lakeshore setback, Bottenberg noted that the property to the
south, 2967 Casco Point Road, had a main residence and caretaker's house on it until 1977
when the caretaker's house was subdivided off the property. When this was subdivided, it
became an unusually shaped and significantly changed the average lakeshore setback for
PAGE 9 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, Continued)
the two adjacent properties. It was felt that the proposed additions would have little impact
on the views enjoyed by 2965 Casco Point Road.
With the existing foundation removed and a new one to be constructed to accommodate the
one story addition above it, Bottenberg stated that it is staff s opinion that this would
provide the City an opportunity to have the residence conform to the required side yard
setback of 10'. After reviewing the application and hardship, Bottenberg noted that staff
does not see a substantial hardship which would justify the side yard setback variance.
Mr. Midthun stated that, since purchasing the home in 2000, they have worked to preserve
the character of the cottage home, while striving to make it more livable. Currently,he
pointed out that the kitchen is minimal and they would like to add to it and improve it.
While they would be replacing the foundation and giving the lot line a bit of relief, Mr.
Midthun indicated that they need the space for the new kitchen.
Chair Smith inquired about drainage issues.
Mr. Midthun stated that they had no drainage issues in the past, even when a mere 1.3' to
the lot line.
Mr. Bricko indicated that the drainage should improve with the new plans, as the surveyor
had recommended they direct water using a swale and perhaps drain tile as well. He stated
that they would work with staff to create an acceptable drainage plan.
Chair Smith indicated that she had no problem granting the average lakeshore setback
variance due to the subdivision.
Mrs. Gallistel, 2933 Casco Point Road, the northwest neighbor supported the neighbors
application and did not even see the need to move the old garage.
Eric Berg, 2965 Casco Point Road, stated that he would not have a problem supporting a 5'
side yard setback along their property line. He liked the proposal.
Although she could support the application, Chair Smith was hesitant to grant the side yard
setback.
Since the foundation would be replaced, Fritzler indicated that he would support the 10'
side yard setback as recommended by staff.
Mabusth asked if the additions or home could be slid back further to the north to allow
more room.
PAGE 10 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, Continued)
Mr. Bricko stated that the entire home would need to be rebuilt to accommodate the narrow
lot if it were slid back, and the home would lose its 1930's charm.
Mrs. Midthun pointed out that a chimney sits in the center of the home, which needs to be
balanced on either side, hence their design. If they removed a portion from the kitchen
half, the design would appear off-kilter and they would lose any views of the lake from
that room.
Rahn agreed with Fritzler that the setbacks should be maintained. He believed that the lot
offered a great deal more space and was hardpressed to allow this when there was more
room to use. He felt this was a design issue and not a hardship.
Mrs. Midthun indicated that the alternatives, including removing the existing chimney,
were much more costly. She wished to preserve the cottage look of the property and felt
that the design would be ruined of they were to pursue these other options.
Bricko asked if footings could somehow be put under what was currently there.
Rahn stated that he would still be opposed to the project, adding that, typically, the
Planning Commission requires people to pull in new additions to meet setbacks.
While Chair Smith liked the cottage charm, as a Commission, they could not grant the
variance.
Mabusth suggested consideration be given to a lot line rearrangement with the neighbor to
gain the extra 5'.
Mr. Berg indicated that he would not be willing to grant a lot line rearrangement for this
purpose, since his lot was already narrow to the lake.
Chair Smith asked the applicants if they wished to table the application for redesign, since
it was apparent that the Commissioners would only support a 10' side yard setback.
Mr. Midthun asked if the Commission could move on the application subject to their
working with staff to meet the requirements.
Rahn felt comfortable allowing the applicant to move forward in coordination with staff if
they were able to meet the 10' side yard setback.
Mrs. Midthun asked if they could move closer to the lake.
Hawn indicated that if they were to move closer to the lake, then staff would recommend
that the Planning Commission take a second look at the application.
PAGE 11 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, Continued)
Mr. Midthun asked to move forward and work with staff to accommodate the
recommendations set forth.
Rahn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2881, Curtis and Kathleen Midthun,2941 Casco Point Road, per staff
recommendations allowing a redesign of what was proposed to meet a 10' side yard
setback to the south, conforming to all other setbacks, and that the redesign not
project any closer to the lake; in addition, granting an average lakeshore setback and
hardcover in 75'-250' setback variances to construct a three stall garage and
additional living space to the residence which stays at current levels and does not
exceed 4,894 s.f., and is subject to drainage plan approval. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARING- 7:00 P.M.
(#10) #03-2883 DENNIS MEYER, 4655 AND 4685 TONKAVIEW LANE, LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES 7:25—7:35 P.M.
Dennis Meyer, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron indicated that the applicant was requesting approval for a lot line rearrangement
between these two developed residential lots. The applicant owns both properties, and
each contains an existing single family residence. Both lots are substandard in the LR-1B
1-acre zone; the lot line rearrangement would make the larger lot slightly larger(nearer
conformity) and the smaller lot slightly smaller(reduced degree of conformity).
Gaffron explained that the applicant proposes to move the boundary between his two
developed residential lots to reflect the visual lines of occupation as delineated by an
existing tree line. The easterly lot (4655) has contained a residence since the early 1900's,
which encroaches into the street right-of-way. The westerly lot (4685)has a relatively new
home constructed in 1998 pursuant to a lot area variance granted in 1997. No other
variances were granted for this lot, which met the 80% standard for lot width. Although
each existing lot is substandard as compared to the 1-acre LR-1B zoning district
requirement, these lots have remained uncombined and each contains a single family
residence. Therefore Gaffron noted, the two lots are each considered as `lots of record' and
stand alone in terms of their zoning status.
Gaffron continued, pointing out that for many substandard lots in the past, the City has
approached lot line rearrangements from the perspective that the lot areas should remain
the same, neither gaining nor losing area but doing an equal trade. However, that scenario
would not accomplish this applicant's goal of having the lot line match the perceived
visual yard boundary.
PAGE 12 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2883 DENNIS MEYER, Continued)
Gaffron pointed out that approval of the rearrangement involves the granting of lot area
variances for each lot, as well as a width variance for 4655. Therefore, future
redevelopment of 4655 meeting all standards except lot area and width, would not be
required to go through the lot area/width variance process again. Staff recommends
approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the following:
1. Applicant to grant a 10' drainage &utility easement(5' either side of new lot line).
2. Applicant to provide title opinion to confirm ownership of both lots.
3. Lot area and width variance granted for each resulting lot (4655 can be redeveloped
subject to all zoning standards without having to go through area/width variance
process again).
Mr. Meyer stated that he currently had tenants living in the existing home, but would likely
sell the home after the renters moved out in the next several years. He indicated that the
home would probably not be remodeled but torn down when new owners took over. He
believed that the drainage and access made sense with the rearrangement.
Gaffron noted that the rearrangement does not create lots that are any more substandard
than any of the others in the neighborhood, adding that the lot area and width variances
would accompany the newly created lot arrangement.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2883,
the lot line rearrangement involving the properties at 4665/4685 Tonkaview Lane
subject to the conditions 1-3 set forth by staff in the memorandum dated April 14,
2003. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
(#6)#03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, 2730 SHADYWOOD
ROAD, VARIANCES 7:35—7:56 P.M.
John and Cheryl Fiebelkorn, the Applicants, and Todd Obele, Production Manager, were
present.
Chaput explained that the applicant requested the following variances to replace an
existing 399 s.f. lakeside deck with a 550 s.f. lakeside deck:
1. lakeshore setback of 68.3' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75' is
required;
PAGE 13 of 40
t ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued)
2. hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone: 593 s.f. (6.8%) where
none is permitted;
3. hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone: 6,449 s.f. (52.3%)
where 3,085 s.f. (25%) is permitted;
4. an encroachment of 22' into the average lakeshore setback; and
5. lot coverage by structure of 3,225 s.f. (15.3%) where 3,157 s.f. (15%) is
permitted.
The existing deck is beyond repair and requires complete replacement. The deck is
currently"u-shaped"and the applicants propose to fill in the "u" area and replace the rest
exactly as it exists.
Chaput gave a brief historical synopsis indicating that in the summer of 1988, the property
owners constructed a pool, spa and pool equipment building in the 0-75' setback zone
without City approval. In April 1989, the property owners applied for after-the-fact
variances for hardcover on the 0-75' setback zone; average lakeshore setback; structural
setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka; and a side setback variance for the pool
equipment building. The requested variances were denied because a hardship could not be
determined for additional hardcover within the setback zone. The owners were required to
remove the pool and spa and fully restore the property. The pool equipment building was
permitted to remain for the time being,pending an application for a lot line rearrangement.
In June 1989,property owners were granted a lot line rearrangement(adding up to 20' in
lot width from the property to the southeast) and an after-the-fact structure to structure
variance to keep the pool equipment building where it was constructed on the southeast
side of the house. Chaput pointed out that the survey with this application shows a portion
of the driveway to be removed. However, the resolution does not reference any required
hardcover removals and the driveway has not changed to date.
Chaput continued, stating that in October, 2002, the property owners applied for a building
permit to repair their existing lakeside deck. At the footing inspection, the Building
Inspector determined that the deck could not be repaired due to excessive rotting. The
property owners were informed that a new deck would require variance approval.
The existing deck is located 68.3' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and it is proposed
to be replaced in the same location. As it exists,the deck is "u-shaped"and the most
lakeward protrusions are 68.3' from the OHWL. Chaput explained that although the
applicants are requesting to remodel the existing deck to fill in the"u" area with deck, they
do not propose to go any closer to the lake than what exists. Therefore, there is no change
proposed for the setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka.
The deck, located above a portion of the concrete patio, is attached to the house and
supported by posts,placed 4"outside the concrete patio, on the ground. Therefore,the
PAGE 14 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued)
additional deck proposed to fill in the existing "u-shape" of the deck will add 4" of
hardcover along 19.7' of width or 6.57 s.f.. Given this, the hardcover within this setback
zone will increase to 593 s.f. (6.8%).
With regard to lot coverage by structure, Chaput stated that the existing structures on the
property include the house with lakeside deck and pool maintenance shed, totaling 3,074
s.f. (14.6%). Since the deck is proposed to increase in area from 399 s.f. to 550 s.f., the
structural coverage increases to 3,225 s.f. (15.3%) where no more than 3,157 s.f. (15%) is
permitted.
Since the proposed deck expansion increases the amount of structural coverage on the
property beyond the 15% limit and increases hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone,
increasing the nonconformity, Chaput stated could not support the proposed addition
(filling in the "u" area).
Staff could support the deck replacement as it exists today,without the expansion, if the
following hardcover removals were completed prior to footing inspection:
1. 87.5 s.f. of driveway encroaching onto the neighboring property; and
2. 488 s.f. of driveway, reducing hardcover to 404 s.f. (4.6%) in the 0-75' setback
zone and to 6,150 s.f. (49.8%) in the 75'-250' setback zone.
Chair Smith questioned whether there was anywhere they could remove the necessary 3%
structural coverage.
Mabusth had difficulty suggesting additional removals. She acknowledged that the
driveway reduction would reduce hardcover in the 0-75' setback to 4.6%, which she could
find acceptable.
Mr. Obele indicated that the applicant was already cutting into existing concrete to place
the footings, in order to avoid any additions to hardcover, and he could not come up with
further removals to meet the requirement.
Mabusth reiterated that she felt the applicant must not exceed the 15% structural coverage
allowance.
Chaput inquired about the shed on the property.
Hawn suggested the applicants redesign the deck and fill in the'U' shape to meet the 15%
allowance. She felt the issue was a structural coverage matter versus hardcover problem
and suggested they work with the design by cutting off corners etc.
PAGE 15 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued)
Rahn agreed that they could redesign an attractive curving deck which would not exceed
the 15% and fill in a portion of the `U' shape.
Chair Smith concurred, encouraging the applicants to tweak their design in order stay
within the 15% allowance for structural coverage.
Mr. Obele agreed that this would be doable.
Mr. Fiebelkorn pointed out that the driveway removals were never required as part of his
past application and argued that the removals were suggested at the time as one way to
keep his pool and spa. Since he had been required to remove his pool and spa, the
driveway removals were moot, therefore he should not be required to remove driveway
hardcover now.
Chair Smith thanked the applicant for the history with regard to the driveway removal and
asked Gaffron for further detail.
Gaffron indicated that it would be staff's recommendation to require additional driveway
removals as a condition of this application.
Mrs. Fiebelkorn stated that they wished to merely repair the existing deck and make it
useable.
Chair Smith indicated that, without additional removals, the Commission would likely not
look favorably upon any further additions.
Hawn agreed with the applicant that they should be allowed to replace an existing deck, as
long as they stay within the 15% structural coverage figures do so.
Mrs. Fiebelkorn pointed out that requiring the removals of additional driveway space
would cause them difficulty in maneuvering in and out of their driveway onto County
Road 19. She maintained that traversing the driveway safely with less blacktop would
place an undue hardship on them. She indicated that the adjoining neighbor's driveway
also encroaches on their property and indicated to her that the 86 s.f. encroachment did not
trouble him.
Bremer indicated that she would not support driveway removals if they were to pose a
safety hazard.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 16 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued)
Although the current neighbor did not take issue with the encroachment, Chair Smith
believed that at some time a future neighbor might take issue with the encroachment. She
questioned whether the applicant should be required to remove the 488 s.f. of driveway.
Bremer reiterated that the driveway was necessary for safety in maneuvering and
maintained that the past resolution and minutes never required the driveway removals. She
agreed that the structural coverage should not exceed 15% and that the lakeside deck
should be no closer to the lake than the patio. All but Fritzler agreed that the driveway
removals should not be a condition of the approval.
Mabusth moved,Rahn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03-2884,
John and Cheryl Fiebelkorn,2730 Shadywood Road, granting variances to replace an
existing lakeside deck that does not exceed the 15% lot coverage by structure
allowance and does not protrude beyond the paved patio beneath it. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 1. Frtizler felt the encroaching driveway should be removed.
Recess taken from 7:57-8:08 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING—8:00 P.M.
(#11) #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST, PUD
CONCEPT PLAN 8:08—9:35 P.M.
Representing the Applicant were Chuck Alcon-Project Manager, Paul Carlson- Steve
Paetzel -Architect, and Rich Revering—Engineer/Surveyor.
Gaffron explained that the Applicant had submitted an application for B-6 PUD General
Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. The property
was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001. The intended use of the property is a 13 unit office
development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus
lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately 1500 s.f.
The 3 office buildings would include one 3-unit and two 5-unit buildings. Total gross
square footage of office space is 41,000 s.f. Gaffron stated that the intent would be to sell
each individual unit into independent ownerships and plat a common area to be owned by
the building ownership group. The common area would contain the shared parking
facilities, landscaped areas, and sidewalks. An ancillary need would be to vacate portions
of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2
approvals.
Since this application is at the PUD general concept plan/preliminary plat stage, Gaffron
indicated that it requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process
allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential
PAGE 17 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commercial/office development, as well as
enhance the quality of such development.
Originally, Gaffron reported, the property was part of a 7-acre tract that was platted into
two lots for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2, 4.5 acres) was rezoned to RPUD
and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot 1,
Orono Ambar, and was rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Lot 1 is the subject
of the current application.
Gaffron continued with a brief history of the parcel, noting that development of a 25,000
s.f. office building on Lot 1 was granted General Development Plan Approval via
Resolution No. 4704 on October 22, 2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit
Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established that the only
permitted principal structure on Lot 1 is a 25,000 gross s.f. 2-story office building with
underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that
building are general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a
general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The
building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up
to 20% of the gross floor area of the building.
Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for
the office building, and filed Application No. 02-2771 with the City in March 2002,
proposing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1. That application
resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant
opposition to the project based on the size, orientation and intensity of the proposal.
Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real
Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the
proposed office project.
With regard to the surrounding land use, Gaffron pointed out that directly to the north of
the subject property is a residential neighborhood called "Sugarwoods". The only buffer
between the applicants' office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40' wide
platted outlot that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions
were placed on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of
trees greater than 2" in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the
proposed development. The 40' buffer outlot is generally wooded.
The subject property is located on Highway 12 and the Orono Ambar Senior Housing
development is located to the east. Two parcels that are located west of the subject
property are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot
directly adjacent to the west and surrounded on two sides by applicant's property contains
nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop.
PAGE 18 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
As General Concept Plan Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning
and development process, Gaffron noted that review of this application should focus
primarily on the following areas:
- Impact on adjoining properties
- Building location, height, architectural materials and building design
- Landscaping and screening
- Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs
- Parking arrangement
The 3 proposed office buildings are one or one-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level,
with approximately 3,000 s..f. of gross floor space in each unit(1500 s.f. per level).
Gaffron indicated that parking areas are required to be set back at least 20' from the front
property line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3' of side property lines, except
property lines adjacent to an"R" district require a setback of 10'. The property is
surrounded on two sides by residential property and therefore the required 10' setbacks are
critical.
Number of Parking Stalls:
Required= 1 per 200 s.f. of"net usable floor area for office use"
(Net= 39,000 s.f. +/200 = 196 stalls required)
Total stalls required = 196
Total stalls proposed = 71
Proof of parking = 42
Total parking = 113 (short 83 stalls)
Parking spaces required by Orono Code for office use is one space per 200 s.f. of net
usable floor area. The proposed plan requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total
number of parking stalls shown on the plan, including proof of parking, is 113. Based on
these numbers of parking stalls, Gaffron pointed out that a 42%variance would be required
for the number of parking stalls proposed.
Gaffron indicated that he visited two other similar developments identified by the
developer - Fernbrook Town Office Park in Plymouth (west side of Fernbrook Lane 1/4
mile north of Hwy 55) and Forestview Town Office Park in Maple Grove (south end of
Forestview Lane, 1 block east of Hemlock Lane on south service road of 694/Hemlock
exit). Both sites had 2-level office units similar in size to those proposed. Fernbrook had
rear walkouts, Forestview had rear lookouts with no lower level exits.
Parking at Fernbrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at 5:15 p.m. There was no
on-street parking available nearby, but it didn't seem to be a problem. Parking at
PAGE 19 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Forestview (8.2 stalls per unit)was nearly full at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking
occurring on the adjacent street. In Gaffron opinion, this site had a parking issue.
Gaffron reported that the applicants were proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per
13 units or 5.5 stalls per unit, with a maximum potential for 113 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit.
By contrast, Orono code would require 15 stalls per unit. He maintained that, despite the
attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now,
staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per
unit in order to eliminate the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or
Orono Shopping Center lots. Gaffron acknowledged that the office use would most likely
consist of low traffic appraisal or insurance offices, however, one could not be sure this
would be the case.
With regard to their water management plan, Gaffron explained that all roof and parking
lot runoff would be collected via catch basins and transported via underground storm
sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Senior Housing site, discharging to
the existing NURP pond located at the northwest corner of Brown Road North and
Highway 12. Gaffron pointed out that capacity and design of this pond were previously
deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for
development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals.
The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations be
provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the
capacity to serve the proposed use. Gaffron noted that revised drainage calculations would
be required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current
proposal goes forward as well.
Gaffron pointed out that the topography of Lot 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent
parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast corner. The land slopes to the
northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the
southeast corner of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods
directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1.
Furthermore, at the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6' high would be
needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to
the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, the
south end of the property would consist of a grassy slope, the service road, the retaining
wall, and the 48' wide 2-level façade with windows. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer
indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site
exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. This may have some impacts on the
parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot
grades are 0% - 5%).
PAGE 20 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Gaffron indicated that sidewalks were proposed to connect between the individual units
and the parking lot, as well as a continuous service walk along the walkout side of the
buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. Attention would need
to be paid to retaining walls near the parking area as well. It was determined that a
walking trail connecting to the northwest corner of the property had little value, since it
would not connect to any existing or planned trail system.
With regard to the overall landscaping plan, Gaffron indicated that development of this site
would be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping. He noted that the applicants
submitted landscaping plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the corners of
the property. The B-6 Code requires a screen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least
6' high) not less than 50% opaque be located along lot lines between commercial uses and
residential uses. While such screens might also take the form of a berm or retaining walls
where the parking lot is recessed, Gaffron explained that, in addition, a landscaped buffer
can soften the views of retaining walls.
Gaffron maintained that staff's opinion would be to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative
screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood . It would
seem less necessary to provide such screening along the east side of the NE and SE
buildings; a 6' privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from
the view of the building.
Gaffron indicated that the proposed plans for signage were included in the application and
reminded the applicant that the subject property would be allowed 190 s.f of signage,
based on the Code standards.
While the applicants would be required to provide further detail, Gaffron acknowledged
that proposed plans for lighting were included as well.
Gaffron presented the floor plans and elevations for the buildings, as well as, the drawings
of the facades. He explained that the facades most visible from off-site contain substantial
architectural features to enhance their appearance and break up the visual length of the
buildings. He believed that the applicants had provided a design that was sensitive to the
surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building,
while being the functional rear of those offices, offer stonework, columns, bays, and styled
windows. The 6/12 pitched roofs will have asphalt"shingles" for a textured look. Siding is
Hardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a
cultured "river rock" and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the
appearance of those higher facades.
He continued, noting that the middle units (2/5, 1/3) of each building have a 6' deep
proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the
PAGE 21 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curved window feature of
the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhances the
quality of these units.
Gaffron indicated that staff was satisfied that the building design was of a quality
appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the
east.
In conclusion, Gaffron presented the Commission with 16 issues for discussion and site
planning issues a-k for consideration. He stated that it was staff's opinion that, in general,
the office condo concept proposed was an appropriate and relatively low-intensity use of
this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. Staff further believed the design of the
buildings were attractive and of a residential character. However, staff was concerned
about the parking needs, about potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial
use, and how this site would visually impact or be impacted by existing surrounding uses.
Gaffron indicated that staff also has concerns about the proposed road and parking lot
grades, and would suggest that the applicant submit a revised grading plan addressing the
City Engineer's recommendations.
Mr. Alcon stated that the 13 units were designed similar to townhomes which would be
sold for office use. He mentioned that Ravia had two other developments in Burnsville
and at Saunders Lake North and South in Minnetrista for people to view a sample of their
work.
Alcon noted that Ravia had recently held two neighborhood meetings with the Sugarwoods
residents and the public in order to address any concerns in the community. He commented
that Bill Wear, owner of the neighboring strip mall, indicated that he would prefer a loop
access through Outlot D versus the straight driveway access from their development to his
center. While generally in agreement, Alcon stated that the loop would require construction
easements etc. He added that Mr. Wear also requested sidewalk access to his mall. During
the neighborhood meeting with 4 Sugarwood residents, Alcon indicated that there were
concerns with regard to buffers and access.
While she was quite interested in viewing the landscape plan, Chair Smith asked if the
developer could salvage and reuse any of the existing trees on the site.
Alcon indicated that they would like to move several pines in the center of the property if
size permits.
Gaffron noted that most of the others would likely be removed.
PAGE 22 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Dr. Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, commented that he felt the townhome office
development was an appropriate design, however, he did not wish to see the site overbuilt.
In excess of 39,000 s.f.of rental space, he was concerned that this small parcel could not
support this size of development. As proposed, this development is nearly 50% larger than
the 26,000 s.f. design presented by Orono Ambar. Berg asked the City to be sensitive to
the fact that this proposal is 50% bigger than that which was previously presented on this
mere 2.6 acre parcel. Once again, while he could support the concept, the architectural
elements, and low use, Dr. Berg requested that the City require the developer to provide
adequate protection from this site to Sugarwoods and reduce the size of the development to
better suit the parcel.
Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that her parcel backs up to the proposed
development where there is a gap in the trees between her property and the site. In essence,
she noted there is a virtual driveway to her property and she was concerned that the
development would seem pretty obtrusive in back of her. She stated that she, and many
others, have concern regarding the safety of the numerous children that live in
Sugarwoods. She felt the development had too large a density for the 2.6 acre site.
Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, agreed with the other neighbors who had
spoken and wished to add her concern for the children, due to the proximity of Sugarwood
and the project's parking lot.
Chair Smith asked if fencing the back side of the development fit into the landscape plan.
Gaffron indicated that the City could require a 6' high privacy fence along the lot line at
the rear of the property, however, the proposed loop on Outlot D would impact that option.
He noted that the fence could run along the Outlot if it were determined to be City owned.
Mabusth asked staff to determine who owned Outlot D.
Ms. Ricks asked why Outlot D was necessary for a service road in the first place, if
Highway 12 was moving.
From staff's perspective, Gaffron stated that Highway 12 congestion will be awful for the
short term, in the long run, traffic will be cut in half,before slowly building up again. From
a planner's perspective, Gaffron maintained that the City does not want to give away its
rights to the service road just in case something changes. For instance, he added that, if
Mr. Wear wants a loop through Outlot D to provide access to his mall, the lights then
become an issue.
PAGE 23 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Richard Apple, 2101 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that although a 1 1/2 story townhome
style office complex sounds attractive and minimal in height, he asked how tall the actual
elevations would place this project.
Gaffron explained that, by definition, the buildings meet the definition of a 1 1/2 story
building with a walkout basement level. This also would include the main level with
parking and the added 1/2 story for a total height of 25'-35' with peaks. In his opinion, the
proposal would meet the 30' height limit, although elevations might give the appearance of
exceeding those.
As with any growing business, Mr. Apple inquired what might happen to parking if the
tenants expanded and grew requiring more employees and space.
Having recently been in negotiations with the City himself, Dr. Berg asked if any thought
had been given to a more conservative complex whose parking better meets the codes. He
suggested eliminating 2 units from either end in an effort to downsize the project and allow
more room for landscaping and parking. He felt the parking seemed more than inadequate
for the size of the development.
At 113 proposed parking spaces, Gaffron agreed that the development falls far short of the
196 required spaces.
With an apparent 60% hardcover ratio uphill, Ms. Ricks asked where the water runoff
would go.
Gaffron explained that the stormwater management plan indicates that water runoff would
be collected in catch basins which would extend to existing ponds on the Senior Housing
site. He noted that the City Engineer has asked for confirmation regarding this pond/basin
plan.
Alcon indicated that the end units consist of one unit apiece, with both and upper and
lower floor. By eliminating the end units they are losing two and not four units. He
reiterated that the parking will depend on who the tenants are and pointed out that the code
gives a general recommendation for parking, reality could require more or less.
Dick Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, asked how many parking spaces were typically
required per unit based on 13 office units, with an upper and lower level, and 3,000 s.f of
office space. He pointed out that not only will the number of employees will impact
parking, but so will the expected number of customers.
By Code, Gaffron stated that the City requires 15 stalls per unit. He pointed out that the
proposal offers 71 stalls to be built now and an additional 42 in proof of parking.
PAGE 24 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Mr. Schommer felt that the development had a greater density than could be supported by
the small parcel.
Based on staff recommendations, Chair Smith asked the Commissioners to consider the
scale and character of the buildings, in terms of:
- appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties,
traffic, etc.
-building setbacks
-building height, number of stories
-basement/walkout exposure and elevation views
-parking location and orientation
- driveway layout, site access, interior circulation
- Building design, facade materials, etc.
- Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public
- Landscaping, screening needs
- Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter
Hawn stated that she felt the use was too intense and did not provide enough parking. She
found the design and height acceptable. While she believed it to be an improvement from
the Ambar proposal, Hawn took issue with the parking supply and would rather see too
much than too little parking provided.
Chair Smith indicated that she would be hesitant to support an access loop that ran outside
the development through Outlot D to access the strip mall.
Mabusth agreed that the need to use the Outlot for an access route did not present itself
here and she would be interested in seeing a traffic light to help with access to the
development.
While she would prefer to see an access driveway, Chair Smith inquired how dead ending
the parking lot would impact the development.
Gaffron indicated that the fire marshal might have an issue with dead ending the parking.
Revering stated that the original intent of this rear access to the parking lot was merely to
provide an untraveled access for emergency use. Only through conversations with the
neighboring business had access to the mall been considered.
Bremer stated that she felt the use was far too intense and the only way to gain more
parking would be to reduce the number of units.
Chair Smith agreed and called for the applicant to deintensify the use.
PAGE 25 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
While he was fond of the looks, Rahn concurred that the scale should be reduced.
Mabusth asked for comment with regard to the City Engineer's request to reduce the
grades.
Gaffron noted that the grades at the south end would change the impact of the
development.
Having heard from many neighbors, Chair Smith supported the need to control the
ingress/egress from the site.
Keeping in mind the elevations, Mabusth asked how these would impact the views for
Sugarwood residents. In terms of safety, she inquired whether a berm or fence would be
most effective near the rear property line.
Gaffron believed either a fence or berm would suffice to screen the development from
Sugarwoods, and felt there was adequate room to add these things.
Revering questioned the grade requirements as noted by the City Engineer, for example the
12% versus 8% driveway grade, and the 4% versus 5% parking lot grades, and requested
an opportunity to speak to the Engineer regarding his recommendations. After speaking to
various communities about special use roads, Revering indicated that it was their opinion
that these grades should not be a large issue, whereas, they could pose significant cost
issues.
Chair Smith indicated that if Ravia could satisfy Gaffron and Kellogg, the Planning
Commission would be pleased as well.
With regard to the parking capacity and whether a variance is supported, Chair Smith
asked for Commission comment.
Bremer asked what the parking requirement was for Dr. Berg's proposed medical building
down the road. Given the size of each 3,000 s.f. unit, she maintained that it would not be
unheard of that a medical office could move into this development.
Gaffron indicated that the medical office complex had been required to supply 1 stall per
200 (had it been a retail site, the requirement would be 1 per 150). He agreed that more
parking could be necessary, as he'd observed at the Maple Grove site.
Rahn reiterated that the units and parking would be tenant driven, therefore, the
Commission should be prepared for the worst case scenario.
PAGE 26 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Mabusth maintained that the City should not be granting variances for new construction.
Chair Smith asked for opinion's regarding underground parking.
Alcon indicated that it was not their preference to provide underground parking. He stated
that tenants would be hesitant to purchase the units if they felt parking to be an issue.
Paetzel, the architect, indicated that the lower levels of each unit would be typically used
for storage, infrastructure, offices, etc. He indicated that the units would not support, for
instance, a phone bank tenant there,but instead would be designed to accommodate 5-6
employees and a few customers at a time.
Fritzler asked if the handicap parking requirement had been addressed.
Gaffron pointed out that 6 stalls had been proposed with ramps to the lower floor.
Mabusth asked whether a variance should be required in a planned unit development in the
first place.
Gaffron indicated that the Commission needs to be comfortable with a standard
requirement which it could relate to other developments, for example the Navarre office
site. He asked whether owners would be allowed to sublease their units.
Alcon indicated that, typically, that has not been allowed. He noted that people purchase
the units to use for their personal office space, generally, lawyers, accountants, insurance
providers who wish to be located near their client base. He added that the sublease could
be a condition of the plat.
Chair Smith stated that she was uncomfortable with the proposed proof of parking took
away the planned landscaping. She felt the need to assure the residents of Sugarwood that
more landscaping would be required to preserve or protect their development.
With regard to access, Alcon pointed out that the neighboring strip mall had requested a
sidewalk be constructed which connects to his property. Alcon indicated that the
developer had no problem with that.
Chair Smith asked if staff were comfortable with the signage and lighting proposed thus
far.
Gaffron indicated that, in general, the proposed lighting seems to be just enough to
accommodate the development and individual entryways. He noted that further details
would need to be provided.
PAGE 27 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued)
Paetzel stated that each individual entryway would be illuminated and signified with their
prospective signage.
Fritzler questioned whether adequate separation existed between buildings for emergency
access.
While the buildings would be set up for sprinklers, Gaffron indicated that he would wait
for comment from the fire marshal on other matters.
Chair Smith asked if the Commission felt there were any other topics of importance for
discussion. She summarized the Commission's position that their biggest concern
continues to be density and suggested that the applicant detensify the use to allow for
additional parking. Furthermore, she encouraged the applicant to add to the landscaping
plan to protect the Sugarwood development.
Mabusth asked if they could provide the applicant with further direction with regard to the
parking balance.
From earlier discussion, Chair Smith felt that staff would be comfortable with 10 stalls per
unit. She believed other options for access would need to be examined.
Gaffron learned and shared that Outlot D was City owned and would not be contemplating
use in the near future.
Chair Smith stated that they would prefer the applicant stay out of the Outlots and that they
would be comfortable with the applicant working with staff with regard to access.
Since the development would be surrounded on two sides by residential use, Mabusth
recommended the applicant take parking, the intensity, and landscaping under serious
consideration.
Gaffron asked if the Commission and applicant believed they had been provided with
enough direction to revise the PUD proposal.
Rahn indicated that the applicants have been advised that the greenspace and parking needs
to increase, and the density decreased. He pointed out that the Commission would not look
favorably upon underground parking as an option at this site.
Alcon understood that intensity,parking, and landscaping need to be addressed. He stated
that they would concentrate on these issues and return with options. He appreciated the
valuable feedback the Commission and public had provided them in their process.
PAGE 28 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Chair Smith complimented the developer on their sensitivity and initiative having hosted
public meetings to address neighbors concerns in advance.
Chair Smith moved,Bremer seconded, to table Application #03-2889 Ravia Real
Estate,LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, PUD—General Concept Plan
Review/Preliminary Plat Review for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Hawn requested that the applicant provide the Commission with additional data regarding
current tenants residing in their other developments.
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
(#7) #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, 1280 AND 1290 SPRUCE PLACE,
VARIANCES 9:35— 10:45 P.M.
Representing the Applicant was Peter MacDonald, the architect, JoEllen Hurr.
Chaput reported that the applicants were requesting the following variances to permit
construction of a new residence on the property:
1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required;
2. a lot width of 99' at the OHWL and the 75' setback from the OHWL where 140' is
required;
3. 111 s.f. (1.47%)hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone where none is
permitted;
4. 4,483 s.f. (38.36%)hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone where
2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted;
5. 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f. (15%) is permitted; and
6. grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where neither grading
nor filling is permitted.
Chaput explained that two lots, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, 9,253 s.f. and 9,300 s.f., were
proposed to be combined with this application to create a lot size of 18,553 s.f. where
43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required. The lots are 49' and 50' in width, to create a combined lot
width of 99' where 140' is required. Since this is new construction, variances are required
for lot area and width.
Chaput indicated that the proposed home would be located outside of the 0-75' setback
zone, however, a stone retaining wall within this setback zone due to the grade changes,
totaling 111 s.f. (1.47%) of hardcover where none is permitted was requested to remain
There is currently 2,538 s.f. (23.05%) of hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where
2,753.25 s.f. (25%) is permitted. She explained that the applicants propose to increase
hardcover within this zone to 4,225 s.f. (38.36%), exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f. (25%)
PAGE 29 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
maximum permitted. The proposed hardcover is comprised of mainly the house,which
exceeds the allowable structural coverage on the property.
Since the existing house is located within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka,
demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling
and grading before the new home can be constructed farther back on the property. Because
grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the OHWL is prohibited, a
variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work within the
75' setback from the OHWL.
Chaput noted that no comments to date have been received from the City Engineer.
After presenting 8 issues for consideration, Chaput stated that staff could support the
variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone and grading within
75' of the OHWL.
However, staff could not support the variances for hardcover exceeding 25%in the 75' to
250' setback zone nor structural coverage exceeding the 15%maximum permitted. It is
the City's policy that all new construction meet the hardcover and structural coverage
requirements when possible. Given the size of the combined property, Chaput maintained
that it is possible to meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements and still build
a new home.
It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two
potential 50' lots that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single
9,000 s.f. lot next door, i.e. 46% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structure. In fact, in 1986 the
City declared that 1290 Spruce was unbuildable and released it for sale to adjacent owners
to make their property more conforming, despite the fact that each of the two lots had been
assessed for sewer. Chaput pointed out that it is staff's opinion that comparing the
applicant's double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at 1270, is not a
reasonable comparison.
Chaput stated that staff would recommend tabling the application to allow the applicants to
decrease hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback zone to no more than 25% by redesigning the
proposed home. A home located 30' from the street with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f. of
sidewalk could have a 2,050 s.f. footprint.
Architect Peter MacDonald, designer for both the Toths and Application#03-2866 for the
Killians, gave a detailed presentation on his firm and philosophies. He reviewed the 0-75'
setback ordinance and 75'-250' setback ordinance for the Commission in an effort to
determine the spirit in which it was created. He indicated that after meeting three times
PAGE 30 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
with City staff and the homeowners of both applications, they have proposed to pull both
homes out of the 0-75' setback zone and reduce hardcover from 46%to 38%.
Ms. Hurr, a past Council and Commission member, reminded the Commission that the two
parcels being combined could be sold as 2 substandard lots. Instead, the applicants have
proposed to do the `right thing', which is to combine the two lots into one useable parcel.
MacDonald maintained that the applications present a better lower impact alternative to the
City, taking into consideration the unique situations posed by the topography of the sites.
He believed that the end results get to the heart of, or the intent of the ordinance, which is
to consider the plight of the landowner and the hardship that 50' lots, zoned as if larger,
places on residents.
Killian commented that his lot, 1300 Spruce Place, is a unique fan shaped parcel which
places a disproportionate amount of land in the 0-75' setback zone. He argued that
granting him a variance would not alter the essential characteristics of the property, and in
fact, would enhance the parcel by eliminating the hardcover in the 0-75' setback.
Although economic consideration alone is not an allowed hardship, Killian pointed out that
they have gone to the added expense of returning the parcel to its former state.
MacDonald noted that special consideration should be given to features unique to the land,
but variances can also be granted to preserve the enjoyment of substantial rights of the
property owners. He maintained that strict enforcement of the ordinance would prevent
enjoyment for his applicants based on the V2 acre usable lot only being allowed 1100 s.f.
when zoned as a larger parcel.
Hurr mentioned that she and the architect had met with several neighbors over the
weekend.
Nancy Anderson, 1260 and 1270 Spruce Place, supported construction of the Toth home.
She found it to be a lovely design and felt that special consideration should be given to the
Toth's who she hopes could restore the original grade,which was changed illegally by
previous owners. She stated that she was led to believe that lot 1290 was an unbuildable lot
and questioned whether this was the case or if it could be sold as a substandard lot. Mrs.
Anderson felt the new home would be a positive addition to the neighborhood in light of
the past drainage issues caused by the illegal grading.
John Walker, 1310 and 1318 Spruce Place, stated that the street is comprised of a number
of new homes and remodels which has been a long time coming. He indicated that the
small neighborhood was a cohesive group and believed the hardcover removals in the 0-
75' would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
PAGE 31 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Jim Bull, 1330 Cherry Place, indicated that the proposal fails to be consistent with the
amount of hardcover required by the City as compared to other 100'+ lots. He believed the
architect could design an aesthetic home that took up less space.
Hurr urged the Commission to be consistent in all facets of development, not just old
versus new.
Chair Smith found all other variances acceptable, except the structural coverage and
hardcover variance requests.
Rahn wished to see an alternate plan which did not exceed the 15% structural coverage
amount and hardcover requirements. He felt the overages were design issues and not
hardship driven, in fact, he felt the applicant was not far from meeting the 15% allowance
with a little work.
Fritzler and Mabusth agreed with Rahn.
If the applicant met the 15% structural allowance, Chair Smith asked whether the
Commission could support their exceeding the 25%hardcover requirement since they are
removing so much hardcover from the 0-75' setback zone.
Hawn questioned whether that was reasonable since the Commission generally holds firm
on new construction.
Mrs. Anderson pointed out that the existing residence is very close to falling into the lake
and slips away more daily as erosion continues at 1300 Spruce Place. She felt the applicant
had really no choice than to pull it back and it is fair to give him incentive to do so. Due to
the inconvenience of construction, she also preferred to see both homes under construction
at the same time.
Mr. Walker pointed out that the citizens along Spruce Place have chosen to underground
all of their own utilities and had been in contact with public works regarding this
transition.
For ease of discussion, Bremer asked that the two applications be considered separately.
She pointed out that the Toth home does not meet the 15%, whereas, the Killian home does
meet this figure.
MacDonald stated that they could tweak the Toth design to meet the 15% structural
limitation.
PAGE 32 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Chair Smith asked once again if the Commission would be willing to make any allowances
for the 75-250' zone.
Zugschwert asked if there should be incentive provide to people who are doing repairian
work to their property.
Hun reminded the Commission that instead of one application, the two lots could become
two substandard applications.
Gaffron disagreed, stating that the City would still deem the second lot as unbuildable and
not permit anything.
Bremer inquired about the change in grade proposed.
MacDonald pointed out that the applicants would be removing the existing structure and
correcting the grade which was illegally dug out. He reiterated that it is the intent of the
applicants to work with the City and neighbors to restore and improve the lakeshore.
Hun added that the City could make restoration a condition of their application.
Chair Smith summarized her thoughts in support of the fill, lot area, lot width, small
amount of hardcover in the 0-75', structural coverage at 15%, and her willingness to make
the allowance in the 75'-250' in excess of 25%.
Mabusth reminded the Commission that lot coverage by structure does not take into
consideration driveways, sidewalks, and impressed upon the applicant the need to not
exceed 30%hardcover in the 75'-250' zone.
Rahn felt it was appropriate to leave those determinations up to staff.
From the drawings and slides, Hawn felt the driveways were not excessive due to safety
concerns.
Hun suggested they table the application and take this recommendation back to the Toth's.
She reminded the Commission how important it was to consider the improvements they are
getting pulling everything out of the 0-75' setback.
Although she recognized staff's recommendation regarding the new construction element,
Chair Smith felt she could support 25-30%due to the excessive trade-offs being gained in
the 0-75' setback zone.
PAGE 33 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Chair Smith moved, Fritzler seconded,to table Application #03-2885, Gerda and Ed
Toth, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, in order to give them the opportunity to redesign
the application to meet the 15% structural coverage limitation and not exceed 30%
hardcover in the 75'-250' setback zone. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#8) #03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, 1300 SPRUCE PLACE,
VARIANCES 10:45— 11:04 P.M.
Dennis Killian, the Applicant,Peter MacDonald, the architect, and JoEllen Hun-were
present.
Chaput explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances to permit
construction of a new residence on the property:
1. lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required;
2. hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is
permitted;
3. hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone: 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) where
2,298 s.f. (25%) is permitted;
4. grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor
filling is permitted; and
5. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.
As details of the application were previously discussed with the preceding application,
Chaput reported that staff could support the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-75'
setback zone, grading within 75' of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone.
However, staff could not support the variance for hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75'-250'
setback zone.
In her opinion, Mabusth indicated that this lot does posses certain hardships, the odd shape
and its proximity to the bluff.
Hun suggested viewing the lot as if it were a rectangle when giving consideration to
buildable space.
As mentioned earlier, MacDonald pointed out that the existing home is in the bluffs, which
is not a good place to be, it was their intent to pull the home back out of the bluff 85'.
Mr. Walker, the adjacent neighbor, was in full support of the proposal.
Hawn stated that she was inclined to consider the shape of the lot when evaluating the
hardcover limitation and was comfortable with allowing 36.6% as presented.
PAGE 34 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, Continued)
Mabusth concurred that it was interesting to look at the existing hardcover being pulled
back entirely out of the 0-75' setback into the 75'-250'. She questioned what additional
elements were left to be included in the calculations.
MacDonald maintained that it would be more difficult to maneuver in and out of this
driveway and safety dictated why they allowed for more driveway in this scenario.
Hawn indicated that she was inclined to recommend this proposal since she saw little way
to further limit the driveway or hardcover removals.
MacDonald mentioned the odd shaped fan lot which diminishes buildable space in the 75-
250' setback.
Chair Smith questioned whether it was reasonable to allow 36%hardcover.
Rahn agreed that it was atypical to see so much space in the 0-75' setback in comparison to
the 75'-250' setback zone.
Hawn noted that the house meets setbacks and structural coverage allowances.
While she did not wish to be inconsistent, Bremer stated that different and supportable
hardships exist for this property.
If viewed as a rectangle, Zugschwert indicated that she, too, could support this application.
Fritzler was hesitant to support a hardcover allowance of 36%. He felt that went too far.
Without zones, Rahn suggested evaluating the total lot coverage due to the restrictive size
and dimensions of the property. He felt this was probably similar to the last application.
Gaffron suggested that the Commission give thought to adding an incentive section to the
code to allow for these types of trade off scenarios.
Killian indicated that he would prefer to move the home back further on the property and
rebuild versus remodeling the residence that sits on the bluffs currently.
Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application#03-
2886, Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place, granting lot area, hardcover
within the 0-75' setback of 2.47% -with the exception that no hardcover be added
outside the lakeside doors, hardcover in the 75'-250' setback zone of 36.6% variances,
grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading
nor filling is permitted, and placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is
PAGE 35 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, Continued)
permitted in order to construct a new residence on the property. VOTE Ayes 4,Nays
3, Bremer, Chair Smith, and Fritzler dissenting.
(#9) #03-2887 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC.,4753 NORTH SHORE
DRIVE,VARIANCES 11:04—11:50 P.M.
Bob Pieper and Steve Sexton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, were present.
Chaput reported that the applicants were requesting the following variances to permit
construction of a new residence on the property:
1. lot area of 8,172 s.f. (0.19 acres)where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required;
2. lot width of 50' where 140' is required;
3. rear yard (street) setback of 19.2' where 30' is required;
4. side yard setback of 7.6' where 10' is required;
5. 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone where none is
permitted;
6. 2,051 s.f. (46.8%) hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone where 1,095
s.f. (25%) is permitted;
7. 1,504 s.f. of lot coverage by structure where 1,500 s.f. is permitted;
8. 15' setback from the top of the bluff where 30' is required;
9. 6' +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and
10. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.
Chaput explained that the proposed house is located 19.2' from the rear lot line where 30'
is required. Currently, the existing detached garage and driveway area are primarily in the
County Road right of way. With the proposed plan, the detached garage is removed and the
driveway is relocated onto the property. The 22' setback will leave room to park two or
three vehicles off the right of way.
With regard to lot coverage by structure, Chaput indicated that the only structure proposed
on the property is a 1,504 s.f. house, exceeding the 1,500 s.f. permitted. Due to the size and
dimensions of the proposed house, a number of other zoning ordinance requirements are
unable to be met,but could be met(or magnitude of variances reduced)by making the
house smaller.
There is 3,791 s.f. of area in the 0-75' setback zone. There is currently 480 s.f. (12.6%) of
hardcover within this zone where none is permitted, however, Chaput pointed out that the
hardcover in the 0-75' is not proposed to change with this application. On the other hand,
in the 75'-250' setback zone, the hardcover is proposed to increase to 2,051 s.f. (46.8%).
Other than reducing the size of the home, there do not appear to be any other potential
hardcover removals.
PAGE 36 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2887 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., Continued)
Chaput continued by noting that the top of the bluff is located 84' from the OHWL at
976.1' in elevation. The bluff impact zone is defined as the land within 20' from the top of
the bluff. Within this zone,no structures or accessory facilities (except stairways, landings
and lock boxes) are permitted. The lakeside of the proposed house encroaches about 6' into
the bluff impact zone where no structures are permitted.
As a follow-up to contact made with the DNR, Chaput stated that they would prefer a 20'
setback to the bluff and that efforts be made to preserve the vegetation in order to avoid
slumping. Hennepin County has indicated that they prefer that a turn-around drive on site
instead of requiring a driver to back out onto the County road.
Since the proposed home is new construction, Chaput reported that staff can not support
the side yard setback variance. Although the applicants are proposing a home of the
allowable size for a lot of this area, the lot coverage by structure and side yard setback
variances could be eliminated and hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback zone could be
further reduced by reducing the size of the proposed home.
Staff recommends approval of the following variances, amended from the original
application to reflect 10' side setbacks, to permit construction of a new residence on the
property:
1. lot area of 0.19 acres (8,172 s.f.) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required;
2. lot width of 50' where 140' is required;
3. rear yard (street) setback of 19.2' where 30' is required;
4. 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone where none is
permitted (staff would also support a reduction in deck sizes—see below);
5. 1,957 s.f. (44.7%) hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone where 1,095
s.f. (25%) is permitted;
6. 15' setback from the top of the bluff where 30' is required;
7. 6' +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and
8. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.
Chaput continued that approval of the above-listed variances should be conditioned on the
following:
1. a permit must be obtained from Hennepin County to change the access to the
property;
2. comments from the City Engineer should be incorporated into the proposed plan
when received; and
3. comments from the DNR should be incorporated into the proposed plan when
received.
PAGE 37 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2887 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., Continued)
In addition, Chaput acknowledged that the Planning Commission may choose to further
reduce hardcover in the 0 to 75' hardcover zone by requesting that the two existing decks
be reduced to the permitted 32 s.f. landings.
Mr. Sexton stated that it was not their intention to go over the 1,500 s.f. structural
allowance and that they would be able to stay within that number if they could move the
house off center slightly. He admitted that they could decrease the size of the decks,but
maintained that the landings were necessary for safety. He felt their hardship hinged on
the size of the lot and the proximity of the bluff. He pointed out that they had gone to great
lengths to minimize the driveway and sidewalks given the size, and even had incorporated
a tuckunder garage.
Mary and Gary Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive, stated that the existing house is an
eyesore and they would support the new construction. They noted that the current garage is
too close to the roadway and is a safety concern.
Marilyn Crawford, 4745 North Shore Drive, questioned whether the new construction
would obstruct their views of the lake or sunset.
Sexton indicated that the home would not impact the average lakeshore setback.
Fritzler maintained that the applicants need to maintain the 10' side yard setback.
Bob asked if they could lengthen the home in order to achieve the 10' side yard setback.
Chair Smith agreed that they would have to hold them the 10' side yard setback and 1,500
s.f structural coverage limitation.
Gaffron stated that it is the City's goal to allow for a full length car to park safely in the
driveway. He felt the applicant could be allowed to move forward 1' further into the bluff
encroachment and 3' towards the roadway to accommodate 10' side setbacks and not lose
building area.
Fritzler moved, Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2887,
Minnetonka Custom Homes,4753 North Shore Drive, granting lot area, lot width,
and a rear yard setback variance of 19', reducing the decks in the 0-75' setback to
meet the permitted 32 s.f. landings, a hardcover of 46.8% in the 75'-250' setback
variance, a 10' side yard setback be maintained, furthermore allowing a 14'setback
from the top of the bluff where 30' is required, and placing fill in a bluff where no fill
is permitted, subject to the City Engineer's report, Hennepin County
recommendations, and the staff conditions contained in the memorandum dated
April 17, 2003. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 38 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MARCH 24 AND APRIL 14,2003
Fritzler reported that all of the Planning Commission items were on the Council consent
agenda for the evening of March 24, 2003.
Hawn reported that the April 14, 2003 meeting consisted of the Bichanich application
which was deemed a conforming lot.
Gaffron indicated that Bottenberg was directed by the City Council to compile a survey of
lots which exist in the 1 acre and 2 acre zoning district. He questioned how wide a home
should be allowed to get when it's being built on a 100' lot in certain zoning districts. With
regard to Bichanich, the City Attorney cautioned the Council that they not create a new
code allowing side yard setback variances where no hardship exists on a conforming lot.
Bottenberg reminded the Commission that when an applicant maximizes the size of their
house to meet the 1,500 structural coverage allowance, they oftentimes realize they have
not left any room for a driveway in their calculations. She maintained that the house needs
to be reduced to allow for the driveway, not the other way around, maximizing and then
asking for a driveway variance.
Fritzler felt that, while 50' lots offer built in hardships due to size, consideration should be
given to the variance process for 100'+lots in a '/2 acre or 2 acre zoning district.
Gaffron agreed that, from a staff perspective, it is much more difficult to hold people to a
standard when there is no set standard or a division between rebuild versus remodel.
Rahn suggested the Commission consider eliminating the 1,500 s.f. structural coverage
figure in lieu of a straight percentage.
(#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron reminded the Commission that a work session was scheduled for May 7, 2003 at
5:30 P.M. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider making a motion for debate in
order to focus the Commission efforts in a timely manner.
Chair Smith indicated that she would be attending the Growing Smart in Minnesota
seminar on June 10 and asked others to consider joining her.
PAGE 39 of 40
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 21,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 17,
2003
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 17, 2003
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 3 —
Bremer,Mabusth, and Zugschwert.
(#15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON APRIL 28, 2003 AND MAY 12, 2003.
April 28 —Chair Smith May 12 -Rahn
ADJOURNMENT
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
12:02 A.M. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:02 A.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 40 of 40