HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE '1- I ( - 2 u(:) -'-)
El COUNCIL
UKkLANNING 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. V/43-- P / 55 '-i);,TY,7367 -r)-)
2. ,j1,41,,, RobQ i(kc.._geOric k 1-i i,?S it i',51-1 al r:ri A3CI 0
Z) iii 6/174A
3. (li l- ta, 3 41 ii4iiiL-14`4 r'.--/D7 L ri
4. 1 o Oid G-, lio..k PcaiLi Pit
ff.(ti ic.6 S GY:tha V■A I 0 O3 - /SLR
----? , ,---, ,--,
5. '1)C/t--7k if ())1,.(_vv■A,\-A- 1 I bC)OM C5-,:A. It-=_1-i_{ f- 1/ c 1 1,0 (F)
.i
N,;-%-zi-t, i..- 17.-z 0:4'
6. k ML( Ki■l(P:3;e6bL...6 4 tki/INAt 2_i\--'i i-.)
7.e;e) c g• k,"-4-1,4--5-0/1) ,--40. or...„ I _ ",.... ,ir . C5 -----"- 1 k
„ ....._.- , .--.
i
8. 2-1,- _ 4 T-i i 2 e/ ,
/ 0 o c■ .(j),/poi,A 147,
9. En.ittet oki,o---
10. /----,--#.6. ,......,L__. )<A0srate../.._Ald,A4, giAo•/1.ds,._ ii2=44.- aL6.-7:04--ria /1)-- -2.e.e7
11. r- ....
12. 61t- 0 v-fire LC?. --',-,_ q - t--, /Ce-s--/
13. bCiLlit,A.17 Pi Ilq q 1.9"_I I-116 thip a o
15.
W:\Admtnistrathe Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
CI
COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. Ake+. I _ Ili/Ip-
2. g�L //Lois.#- SGIF®FU. t rTA-h s ad 6✓#� h-7r'
3. L.,-,c.�� rev '(mac ,% `G'c i �,►,,,K' rt�l S i r2-A w� , 4i�i'M�-�L2
4. 4'� A.€ 1 L �a 1 co e Wu-;r£ S .11 is
mss: act
(1 i.... N j . )
6. fil\ \
1 P WA '‘V.S!, r -,t)4->': il-41P (A r- ■:+:1 ,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
T t
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 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 late arrival alternate Jule Hannaford. Representing staff
were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and Council
Representative Jim Murphy.
Commissioner J. Mark Fritzler was absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #03-2891 ERIC AND KAREN PAULSON, 2605 MAPLE RIDGE LANE,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2891,Eric and Karen Paulson, a variance to permit construction of an in-ground pool
that encroaches 32' into the average lakeshore setback on the property located at
2605 Maple Ridge Lane. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2892 DANIEL BARTUS, 1001 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE
Chris Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, requested that the item be taken off consent for
discussion. He indicated that since the property has been demolished, there has been a trash
pile located on the site which has blown trash onto his property. He stated that, as
construction continues, he would like some assurance that the encroaching driveway on the
property would be changed and asked when a home would be built on the site.
Chair Smith removed the item from consent for further discussion after item#3, in order to
give the applicant time to arrive. Furthermore, Smith indicated that, typically, home
construction needs to be completed within a certain timeframe or variances expire on a
property.
Gaffron expected that a home would be built on the site within one year.
OLD BUSINESS
Since staff was short handed, Mabusth indicated that she would be a non-voting member of
the Planning Commission this evening in order to assist Planning Director Gaffron with
staff memorandum and reports.
PAGE 1 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 6:10- 7:42 P.M.
Dr. Robert Gumnit and Francis Graham, the applicants were present, as were their
representatives, Attorney Robert Meller and Paul Hudalla, of Schoell and Madson.
Mabusth explained that the applicants were requesting the following to reconstruct an
existing gravel pathway through wetland to access a 1.8 acre island of land on their
property:
1. Variance: hardcover within the 0 to 75' setback zone from the OHWL of
French Lake where no hardcover is permitted(pathway reconstruction);
2. Variance: grading, filling and excavating within 75' of the OHWL of French
Lake where no grading, filling or excavating is permitted(pathway
reconstruction and wetland mitigation); and
3. Conditional Use Permit: movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material
within the shoreland overlay district(pathway reconstruction and wetland
mitigation).
In addition, Mabusth indicated that the applicants were also requesting the following to
permit keeping horses on an intermittent basis on the island of land on their property:
1. Variance: agricultural use (grazing of horses) within 150' of the OHWL of French
Lake where no agricultural use is permitted; and
2. Variance: a wire fence within 150' of the OHWL of French Lake where no fences are
permitted.
Mabusth reported that this application was tabled at the February 19, 2003 Planning
Commission by a vote of 6 to 0. The applicant was directed to discuss the proposal further
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Department of Natural Resources,
opposing property owners within the neighborhood and to revise the proposal according to
the Planning Commission's comments. She noted that the applicant had taken the Planning
Commission's advice and discussed the proposal with the MCWD and DNR. However, he
has chosen to move forward with the same plan as reviewed in February, with clarification
of some of the concerns voiced at the meeting.
For discussion, Mabusth stated that the application was two pronged: to permit
reconstruction of a 12'X120' gravel pathway for the property owners to access an island of
land on their property; and to allow horses on an intermittent basis on the island.
With regard to the keeping of horses, Mabusth explained that horses are permitted
accessory use in the RR-1B zoning district. Since two acres of pasture are required for the
first horse and 1 acre for each additional horse kept on the property, assuming that all 8.36
acres are available for pasture, the applicants would be permitted up to 7 horses on the
property.
PAGE 2 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Agricultural uses, including grazing, are permitted in the Shoreland Overlay District.
However, this use is not permitted within the shore setback zone. The shore setback zone
for French Lake is defined as 150' from the OHWL. Therefore, horses are not permitted to
graze within 150' of the OHWL of French Lake, as proposed. Mabusth indicated that the
applicants have stated that they have a grazing plan from the Hennepin Conservation
District which they intend to follow. At a minimum, the Hennepin Conservation District
has suggested that a 15' buffer should be maintained between the horses and the edge of
the wetland. The island is surrounded by wetland which, further out, becomes open water
and the delineated edge of French Lake. Mabusth stated that it is possible to consider that
the island is surrounded by wetland, not lakeshore, requiring a 26' setback instead of 150'.
City Engineer
The City Engineer reviewed the application when it was first heard in February. He stated
that a typical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion
control measures should be installed, inspected and approved prior to construction activity.
Since this time, a wetland delineation report has been received and a typical section of the
proposed roadway has been submitted. City Engineer review and approval will be required
prior to issuance of permits.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Written comments have been received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
regarding this application. Mabusth explained that the MCWD has indicated that, as long
as the impacts are mitigated, they would support any action taken by the City.
Department of Natural Resources
The DNR surveyed the applicant's property and determined that the pathway is above the
OHWL of French Lake and, therefore, does not require DNR review or approval. Neither
did the DNR express any concern about the care and keeping of horses on the site.
Mabusth stated that, if the Commission considers the application in two parts, and
approvals are so moved, the approvals should be conditioned by the following:
1. Permit approval from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required prior to
construction on the property;
2. Review and approval from the City Engineer is required prior to construction on
the property;
3. The property owner will have the ability to routinely maintain the pathway, as
approved; and
4. The property owner must sign and return the 120 day review period waiver,
provided by the City on April 18, 2003,prior to May 23, 2003.
PAGE 3 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Chair Smith reminded the applicants that a previous use does not necessarily guarantee
them the ability to return to that original use since some time had passed and new state
statutes had come into play.
Dr. Gumnit reiterated what he felt to be their hardship,which was the inability for them to
access or use 1.8 acres of their property. He stated that, legally, they did have the right to
place a fence on the island near the top; however, they wished to make use of a less
obtrusive low visibility wire fence near the lower portion of the island which would hardly
be noticeable. He pointed out that, if the island were viewed as adjacent to a wetland
versus the lake, he would be allowed to place the fence 26' versus 150' from the
'shoreline'.
Having lived on this parcel for 15 years, Mrs. Graham noted that much has changed in
Orono over the years; where once you commonly saw horses from the road, now you
don't. She stated that they have an extensive set of woods on their property near the road,
which she felt would be absurd to destroy to keep the horses on an intermittent basis. As
environmentally conscious individuals, she pointed out that, at any rate, they should be
allowed access to 25% of their dry land property and to maintain it.
Commissioner Hannaford arrived at 6:30 P.M.
Chair Smith questioned where a shelter on the island might fit into the picture for the
horses.
Graham stated that,technically, they could build a gazebo on top of the knoll.
Bremer encouraged the Commission to consider the application as two separate items.
Dr. Gumnit reiterated that they wish to have safe access to the island to maintain it and,
separately, would like to be allowed to put up a wire fence to keep their horses
occasionally.
Gaffron concurred that, legally, the applicants do have the right to build something if they
meet the 150' setbacks.
There were no public comments.
Dr. Gumnit distributed two letters of support from his nearest neighbors, Mr. And Mrs.
Colwell of 1130 Old Crystal Bay Road, and Mr. Kendall Ellis of 1020 Old Crystal Bay
Road. Both neighbors supported the application, indicating that it maintained the rural feel
of the neighborhood.
PAGE 4 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Hawn asked if other neighbors who had voiced their opposition in February had any new
comments or whether Dr. Gumnit had been able to speak to any of them.
Dr. Gumnit indicated that he had made several attempts to contact those individuals and
had left numerous messages, to no avail. He stated that he had, also, left voicemail
messages for members of the Planning Commission to contact him if they had questions or
comments; however, received no return calls.
Chair Smith stated that the Commissioners, likely, had no need for further clarification.
She asked the Commission for their thoughts with regard to the repair work.
Hawn stated that she had visited the site that day, which after rain had fallen all day; she
found the pathway to be largely under water. She asked which pathway proposal others
liked best, stating that she preferred the culvert.
Dr. Gumnit indicated that he would pursue the reconstruction options with the City
Engineer after gaining Commission and MCWD support.
Rahn stated that his opinion had not changed from the February discussion. He believed a
12' width to be more than what was needed for maintenance and felt a smaller pathway
would be more appropriate.
Dr. Gumnit pointed out that the DNR determined the existing pathway as a 12' width and
that they were not trying to widen it. Based on conversations with environmental
landscapers, he stated that, in order to maintain the island, they would like to be able to
bring over a tractor to turn the soils and begin a prairie restoration project. He added that
the restoration of the gravel surface would only require 120 cubic yards of fill; whereas,
their mitigation would double for that in the wetland area.
Mabusth indicated that the City would support a prairie restoration effort.
Chair Smith noted that, in similar applications where applicants wished to access their
property, the City has allowed repair to do so. She questioned how this was any different.
Mabusth concurred, stating that the applicants wish to seek access to their island, whether
the Commission wishes to see the end use or not.
Gaffron continued, noting that no variances would be necessary for the prairie restoration.
Bremer stated that she would support their being allowed to restore the pathway based on
the City Engineer and MCWD requirements.
PAGE 5 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Dr. Gumnit reiterated that a 12' width is what has always existed, and they were merely
asking to repair this by filling the sagging middle and creating a `crown' for the water to
run off of.
Chair Smith asked for comments with regard to the keeping of horses.
While acknowledging that the horses would not be kept near the wetlands year round,
Hawn voiced concern with regard to the amount of phosphorous delivered by each of the
horses over the course of a year into the wetland. She asked what type of manure
management plan they would use.
Dr. Gumnit stated that,while Hennepin County suggested that they maintain a buffer from
the wetland of approximately 26', in addition, they could try to gather some of the manure
by rake behind the tractor.
For both aesthetics and the environment, Graham maintained that they would be able to
manage the hill, prairie, and manure problem.
Chair Smith asked the Commission how they could manage the number of horses or
control the timeline to which they were allowed to be kept.
Gaffron pointed out that, since the variance would be transferred with the property and not
the owners, consideration should be given to setting limits, if the Commission so chose.
Chair Smith asked whether the MCWD would find any reason to look unfavorably on the
application.
Hudalla stated that, after meeting with the DNR, Hennepin County, and the MCWD, Rene
Schubert of the MCWD indicated that as long as the work was mitigated, the MCWD
would not have a problem with it. Once again, he noted that the DNR did not express any
concern about the horses.
Since the City adopted the DNR's own ordinances as their own, Mabusth found it difficult
that they had no problem with the horses being kept near the water's edge.
Zugschwert found it difficult to distinguish between the `shoreland' versus `wetland'
boundary of French Lake.
Gaffron stated that the average OHWL would be the entire perimeter of the property,
whereas, only 1/5 of the shoreland area is actually open water.
PAGE 6 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Bremer was cautious whether the Commission should treat this area as a wetland versus
shoreland, since this could then be a precedent setting case.
Although Rahn believed that the applicants should be allowed to access their island, he had
difficulty finding a hardship to allow the horses to be kept there. He believed that there was
more than ample suitable space elsewhere on the property to keep the horses.
Bremer concurred.
Zugschwert indicated that, if viewed as shoreland, she agreed, if viewed as wetland she
could not.
Hawn indicated that she was sympathetic to the applicants and wished to see the woods
preserved. Although she did not want to see the applicants return asking for a variance to
build a shelter on the island for the horses, she felt this to be the best location.
Graham maintained that she would be allowed to construct a temporary shelter without
permission. She questioned the residents' opposition in February, since those individuals
could not even see her property from their locations, and emphasized her immediate
neighbors backing.
Hawn reiterated that she would like to support their being allowed to keep horses on the
island,but would not support a building being constructed to house them.
Hannaford stated that he would be inclined to support their application with periodic visits.
Chair Smith suggested they limit the number of horses, for instance three, during certain
months of the year. She felt that by putting restrictions on the property, the site would be
protected for perpetuity. While she wished to see the woods maintained, she also felt that
limitations should be set to detensify the use of the island.
Graham stated that she had no idea how the restrictions would effect their use, adding that
winter use might be possible. She indicated that, over the past 15 years, they have tried to
obtain additional property to do a bigger project with,but failed. Since the horses were
housed elsewhere, she ensured the Commission that they would visit on an intermittent
basis and did not want to be too restricted by further regulations.
Chair Smith asked for staff recommendations.
Gaffron felt that allowing access through the wetland on an improved path would not be
precedent setting; however, he questioned how the Commission wished to define the
PAGE 7 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
hardship on the second matter. He questioned whether the Commission believed the
applicants should have a right to that use or if it should take place elsewhere.
Mabusth stated that the hardship could accompany the fact that 1.8 acres of their dry land
on the island is surrounded by water; therefore, it is considered shoreland' by new zoning
standards.
Chair Smith maintained that, while the overall property could support 7 horses, she did not
believe the island or knoll could do so. She recognized that if they were to be fed by
pasture, the applicants would be required to provide more acreage than that provided by
the knoll.
Graham reiterated that they would only be keeping their horses when they had free time,
for instance weekends or weeks off for vacation.
Hawn maintained that it was the Commission's responsibility to look at the bigger picture
and impose restrictions that would accompany the property should ownership change.
Chair Smith moved to approve the reconstruction of the gravel driveway, not to
exceed 12', and the intermittent keeping of no more than 4 horses on the knoll at one
time, for no more than two weeks at a time.
Since their three horses, currently, would only visit the location and not be kept there
permanently, Graham stated that she did not wish to be limited further.
Hawn questioned why the applicant was resisting this compromise, since the Commission
was led to believe that the horses were only to be kept for infrequent visits from the start.
Chair Smith reiterated that, without restrictions, the Commission would not likely look
upon this application favorably. She stated that the Commission could table the
application, move to deny without restrictions, or move to approve with restrictions, if the
applicants wished.
The applicants Attorney asked for a three minute consultation from 7:27—7:30 P.M.
Upon their return, the applicant's attorney stated that they would accept the terms that not
more than four horses be allowed at one time, and asked that the intermittent language be
defined as not more than four weeks at a time.
Hawn suggested that, coupled with a manure plan, they stick with two weeks at a time,
with a five day interval between visits, for a total ten week maximum a year.
PAGE 8 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Chair Smith withdrew her original motion.
Chair Smith moved, Zugschwert seconded,to approve Application #03-2869,Dr.
Robert Gumnit, approving the reconstruction of the gravel driveway, not to exceed
12', and the intermittent keeping of no more than 4 horses on the knoll at one time,
for no more than two weeks at a time, for a maximum of 20 weeks in a given calendar
year, accompanied by a manure management plan, for the property located at 1100
Old Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 3,with Hawn,Rahn, and Bremer
dissenting.
Chair Smith moved, Bremer seconded, to approve part one of Application #03-2869,
Dr. Robert Gumnit, approving the reconstruction of the gravel driveway to the knoll,
not to exceed 12', subject to staff conditions, for the property located at 1100 Old
Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
As the application would be moving forward to the City Council with this partial
recommendation, Gaffron reminded the applicants that the 120 day waiver needed to be
filed.
(#2)#03-2892 DANIEL BARTUS, 1001 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE, 7:42—
7:48 P.M.
Todd Knutson, the draftsman and applicant's representative, was present.
Although the neighbor, Mr. Morgart had to leave, Mr. Knutson indicated that he had
spoken to him in the hallway, supplied him with his business card, and promised to follow-
up with Mr. Bartus on his concerns. Mr. Knutson indicated that the driveway would be
moved,no detached garage built, and that the debris would be cleaned up. He added that a
home was intended to be built as soon as permits were obtained.
Chair Smith encouraged Mr. Knutson to have the applicant clean up the debris as soon as
possible.
Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, approving Application #03-2892, Dan-Bar Homes,
1001 Wildhurst Trail, granting a lot width variance to permit construction of a new
home on the parcel. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 9 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING- 7:00 P.M.
(#13) #03-2900 WM. YALE SMILEY III AND TIMOTHY J. MAHONEY, 2730
AND 2760 PHEASANT ROAD, REARRANGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY
LINE 7:48—7:55 P.M.
Mr. Smiley, representing the applicants, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants were requesting approval for a lot line rearrangement
between these two developed residential lots. Mr. Smiley would be acquiring a portion of
the Mahoney property near the road for construction of an attached garage addition. In
exchange, Mahoney would gain an additional 5' of width from the house to the lakeshore,
resulting in an equal acreage trade.
Since both existing homes meet required setbacks, and the proposed attached garage and
deck additions will meet the required 10' side setback and average lakeshore setback when
the lot line rearrangement is completed, Gaffron noted that staff recommends approval of
the lot line rearrangement. He added that approval should be subject to the applicants
granting a 10' drainage and utility easement(5' either side of the new lot line) and they
provide title opinion to confirm ownership of each property.
Mr. Smiley had nothing to add, however, commented that many of the homes along the
road are 20' apart, whereas, these homes would have a 40' separation.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03-2900,Wm.
Smiley III and Timothy J. Mahoney, 2730 and 2760 Pheasant Road, a lot line
rearrangement subject to the two conditions presented by staff. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays
0.
(#4) #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, 1280 AND 1290 SPRUCE PLACE,
VARIANCES, 7:55—8:50 P.M.
Ed and Gerda Toth, the applicants, and Peter MacDonald, the architect, were present.
Mabusth explained that the applicant was 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;
PAGE 10 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
4. 3,303 s.f. (30%) hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone where
2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; and
5. grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no
grading nor filling is permitted.
The Planning Commission heard this application at their Monday, April 21, 2003 meeting.
With a vote of 7 to 0, the Planning Commission tabled the application to allow the
applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback zone to "between 25%and 30%"
and to no more than 2,783 s.f. (15%) of structural coverage on the combined lots by
redesigning the proposed home. The requested variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover
within the 0 to75' setback zone, and grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL appeared
to be acceptable to the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
Mabusth noted that the proposed house has been redesigned to reduce the hardcover in the
75' to 250' hardcover zone from the previously proposed 4,483 s.f. (38.36%)to 3,303 s.f.
(30%). The structural coverage has also been reduced from 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) to 2,505
s.f. (13.5%), meeting the maximum permitted on the lot.
With regard to the City Engineer's comments, Mabusth presented 5 comments, several of
which include:
1. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take
storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place;
2. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce
Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake;
3. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%;
4. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of
which will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be
removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary
sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut
off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City's public
works department; and
5. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on
site.
On behalf of staff, Mabusth reiterated that hardcover variances have consistently been
denied for new construction on similar sized(approximately '/2 acre) lots in the V2 acre and
1 acre zones over the past 4 years. Staff could not support a variance for hardcover in 75'
to 250' setback zone for new construction on this lot since, in staffs opinion, no suitable
hardship could be identified.
PAGE 11 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Staff recommends approval of the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75'
setback zone, and grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, with
the following conditions:
1. Application for combination of lots 3 and 4 must be made prior to issuance of a
building permit;
2. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take
storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place;
3. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce
Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake;
4. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%;
5. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of
which will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be
removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary
sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut
off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City's public
works department; and
6. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on
site.
Mr. Toth indicated that he, and his wife, enjoyed the peaceful neighborhood and
appreciated the neighbors support as voiced at the previous meeting. He stated that they
had reduced the iteration of the plans, and, he believed, returned with a set that met the
parameters as established at the last meeting by the Commission. Mr. Toth felt the home
would do much for the values in the neighborhood, offered a reasonable plan, and he
hoped the Commission would look upon the plan favorably.
While she admitted that the Commission had given them hardcover parameters within 25-
30%, Chair Smith indicated that, it was her intention, perhaps mistakenly, that the
applicants would return with something more like 27-28% and not the entire 30% in the
75-250' zone.
There were no public comments.
Hawn stated that she would like to see the project scaled back to meet the 25% allowance.
Bremer found if difficult to deny the applicant 30%hardcover, when the Commission was
the one that had given them direction to hold the hardcover to within 25-30%. She
maintained that the applicant had followed the Commission's direction, and should
therefore be granted their request.
Having been the Planning Commission liaison to the City Council at the latest meeting,
Rahn indicated that the Council sent the neighboring application#03-2886, for Mr. And
PAGE 12 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Mrs. Killian at 1300 Spruce Place, back to the drawing board with the recommendation to
get the hardcover to 25%. It seemed apparent to Rahn that the Council would like the
Commission to tow the line on the 25%hardcover requirement. Although no vote was
taken, the Council gave the impression that the application would have been denied rather
than tabled, if the full Council were present.
Although Hawn had been present at the past Planning Commission meeting during which
the Commission gave the applicant misdirection, she believed now that they should try to
hold them to 25%hardcover in order to avoid a similar problem at the Council level.
Since there was little hardship which demonstrated the need for more than 25%hardcover,
Chair Smith was hesitant to send them forward with 30%.
Mr. MacDonald argued that the evening's discussion was a reversal from the last Planning
Commission meeting. He maintained that, since the full Council was not present at the last
meeting, Rahn could not deduce that the application would have been denied a greater
hardcover variance. He made a case that the 2 acre zoning district Ordinance in itself
imposes a hardship on applicants with smaller parcels.
Chair Smith reminded the Commission that the Council had given them clear direction, as
of late, to adhere to the 25%hardcover allowance. Although she agreed that the new home
was beautiful, she acknowledged the need to hold to the hardcover numbers.
MacDonald maintained that the City had granted many variances in excess of 25%
hardcover over the past several years.
Chair Smith admitted that the City does make exceptions when the land warrants it. On the
other hand, she noted that when new construction, like this, offers little in the way of
hardship, they must adhere to the percentages.
While she apologized for the misdirection given the applicants the last time, Hawn stated
that the Commission would be doing the applicants no favor sending them forward to the
Council only to be denied their application.
Mr. Toth voiced his disappointment in being vastly misguided by the Commission the last
time they met.
MacDonald asked for the opportunity to repeat his powerpoint presentation given during
the first hearing, since the applicant had gone to a great deal of time and expense to
redesign his application to fit within the Commission's guidelines.
PAGE 13 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Since the Commission had viewed MacDonald's presentation the last time, Chair Smith
encouraged him to be brief and focus on the portion of the presentation that focused on
their specific hardship.
MacDonald began reiterating that the overlay Ordinance is what has created the hardship
for smaller lots. He pointed out that they had succeeded in removing all of the hardcover
from the 0-75' setback zone, and reduced the hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 47%to
30%.
Chair Smith asked if what MacDonald was really requesting would be that the Ordinance
be revised from the existing 25% allowance.
MacDonald noted that, while on a 2 acre lot in the zoning district, a 12,000 s.f home is
more than ample, on a 50' lot, 25% creates a small `dog house'. He maintained that
special consideration must be given to smaller lots and pointed out that Orono is one of the
only lakes communities that subtracts the 0-75' from its hardcover equation. He shared
what he believed to be applications in which variances for hardcover over 25%were
granted.
Chair Smith indicated that it was not up to the Commission to rewrite the variances this
evening and suggested Mr. MacDonald hold conversations to that end with the City
Council as well.
While shape, grade, and drainage all constitute elements of hardships, Hawn stated that,
unfortunately, size alone cannot constitute the hardship. She reminded the public that the
variance and Ordinance process is not a perfect science and that, occasionally,mistakes are
made.
Bremer maintained that many of the applications cited by the architect were remodels, and
not new construction, therefore the approvals for those variances may be misleading.
Gaffron concurred, stating that the comparison of remodels to new construction was like
comparing `apples to oranges'.
MacDonald encouraged the Commission to look at the intent of the variance. He
maintained that his applicant was proposing to create a better situation for the lots. He
believed the City had gotten to a point of being too legalistic, and not considering each
specific application on its own merits. Once again, he encouraged the Commission to
weigh what would be best for the property versus the overall consequences of their
decisions.
PAGE 14 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
While Mabusth recognized the dilemma the City had created by looking at rebuilds versus
construction, she questioned how setting this precedent without formal discussion with the
City Council would impact the process.
Chair Smith agreed, stating that a larger discussion was required than could be had this
evening with regard to variances for new construction versus rebuilds. She added that this
was the City's only opportunity to get the property into greater conformance with what is
currently required, since size is not an accepted hardship. She indicated that the applicant
could ask to be tabled, or they could ask for a motion, which would likely be for denial, in
order to make their argument to City Council.
While he was not present at the last meeting, Hannaford felt the applicant had followed the
direction given by the Commission and that it would be unfair to deny the applicant's
proposal.
MacDonald asked if the applicant would be penalized by a time restriction if they moved it
forward to Council and it were denied.
Gaffron indicated that, if the application moved forward with a recommendation for denial,
and the City Council chose to table the application for redesign, it would return before the
Planning Commission.
Hawn and Rahn both indicated that the architect's objections were a matter of policy and
the Ordinances would not be changed in one night.
Bremer reiterated that,based on prior discussion, the Commission gave the applicants
direction, they met it, and now they are being told they do not comply. She felt this was
unfair.
MacDonald asked for a motion.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded,to recommend denial of Application #03-2885, Ed and
Gerda Toth, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, due to the hardcover issues in the 75'-250'
setback zone. The Commission would recommend approval of the lot area, lot width,
and grading variance requests. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2, Bremer and Hannaford
dissenting.
Bremer and Hannaford disagreed, stating that the applicant had met the guidelines set forth
by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting.
PAGE 15 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING- 8:00 P.M.
(#14) #03-2903 CITY OF ORONO PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, 8:50—9:15 P.M.
Gaffron reported that the City Council had identified a need to provide additional potential
locations for personal wireless service antennas in the City aside from the two municipal
water towers. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow such antennas on existing
or future City emergency warning siren towers as a conditional use within the LR-1C, RR-
lA and RR-1B zoning; a potential future siren tower at the Orono golf course would also
be in the RR-1B district.
Gaffron explained that the ordinance amendment as drafted does the following:
Section 1 revises existing LR-1C language to allow personal wireless service antennas
only upon the municipal water tower and not upon other municipal structures.
Section 2 adds `Personal Wireless Service Antennas' to the list of conditional uses in the
LR-1C district, and establishes conditions and performance standards under which such a
CUP would be granted
Section 3 revises existing RR-1B language to allow personal wireless service antennas
only upon the municipal water tower and not upon other municipal structures.
Section 4 adds `Personal Wireless Service Antennas' to the list of conditional uses in the
RR-1B district, and establishes conditions and performance standards under which such a
CUP would be granted
Section 5 adds `Personal Wireless Service Antennas' to the list of conditional uses in the
RR-1A district, and establishes conditions and performance standards under which such a
CUP would be granted.
Section 6 merely establishes the effective date of the ordinance amendment.
Gaffron indicated that staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, subject to any
revisions the Planning Commission finds appropriate. Note that the City has been under a
moratorium on issuance of permits for siting of wireless telecommunication facilities and
structures in all zoning districts since November 13, 2001 and the moratorium is scheduled
to expire June 10, 2003,by law the City must then supply additional locations. Gaffron
reviewed specific subsections of the ordinance and asked the Commission for additional
comments.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 16 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14 #03-2903 CITY OF ORONO, Continued)
Bremer indicated that in Section 2, subsection j, the size of the cabinets is not identified
and left vague. She questioned what size cabinets would be reasonable to house new
technology.
Gaffron stated that language would be added to the section that explains that the size of the
cabinets would be determined by the City Council, based on the consultant's opinion.
As discussed during the work session, Rahn questioned where the requirement of screening
for the cabinets ended up.
Gaffron indicated that he would add language addressing the screening of cabinets, at the
carrier's expense,to the ordinance.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the Ordinance
Amending Orono Zoning Code Sections 10.25, 10.27, and 10.28 pertaining to
Regulations for Construction and Placement of Personal Wireless Service Antennas
and Towers. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
(#5) #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST,
PUD CONCEPT PLAN, 9:15— 10:05P.M.
Rich Revering of Ultieg Engineering, Paul Karlson of Ravia Real Estate, and George
VanHouten of Ravia Real Estate,were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted revisions to the 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 proposed use of the 2.6 acre property
is now two 3-unit office buildings for unit ownership, and a 5-unit equivalent building for
condo office, i.e. leased rooms with common reception areas, etc. as opposed to owned
units.
Gaffron presented a summary of revisions as follows:
1. Reduction in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11.
2. NE Building reduced from 5 to 3 units,pulling it further south from Sugar
Woods neighborhood.
3. Five-unit West building will be designed and marketed as individual office
spaces with common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc. These
will be leased spaces rather than individually owned units.
PAGE 17 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
4. Additional screening is added along north and northeast boundaries of site
to buffer from adjacent residential uses.
5. Applicant is suggesting the new plan has 42,000 s.f. gross square footage
but contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes.
Using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs are 2.79 stalls per
1000 s.f of gross floor space; 2.79 x 42,000/1,000 yields a 114 stall
requirement. Gaffron stated that he was comfortable with 10 stalls per unit.
6. Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Services
Director regarding the grades for the service road and parking areas. The
grades recommended by the City Engineer provide difficulties for designing
the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant has indicated that they
will accept the `approval of the City Engineer' as a condition of approval,
we do not have a revised plan that meets the City Engineer's
recommendations.
7. Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping
Center and have gained his general agreement to a 20' driveway connection
to the north end of the property, subject to no runoff additions to the OSC
property.
After reviewing 16 issues for discussion, Gaffron indicated that the plan revisions would
appear to be addressing some of the major concerns brought up by the public and the
Planning Commission at the April meeting.
Gaffron reported that staff believes the mix of owned/leased office spaces proposed is an
appropriate and relatively low-intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6
uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character. Staff is less
concerned about the parking needs given the reduction in units and the data supplied. We
still need to consider potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use.
Despite applicant's hope that the road grades can be worked out to allow the walkout use
intended, the proposed road and parking lot grades are still an issue, and applicant should
be advised to submit a revised grading plan addressing the City Engineer's
recommendations.
Planning Commission should address and if possible reach a final conclusion on site
planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following:
a) Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of:
- appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties,
traffic, etc.
-building setbacks, height, number of stories
-basement/walkout exposure and elevation views
- driveway layout, site access, interior circulation
PAGE 18 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued)
-building design, facade materials, etc.
- any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage
b) Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public
c) Landscaping, screening needs
d) Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter
e) Parking capacity, whether basis for proposal is acceptable
f) Pedestrian access, walkways
g) Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping
Center site
h) Any concerns about the revised proposal to provide a mix of owned and leased
units
i) Any other topics of importance
Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility
easements as required.
Revering stated that, in response to the neighbors, Ravia deleted two units from the
proposal. He indicated that they would be submitting grading plans to Greg Gappa and the
City Engineer for review and was comfortable that they would be able to come to an
agreement.
Chair Smith felt that the intensity and character were good, as well as, the limits set on the
retail use. She believed the parking situation was a definite improvement.
Gaffron asked if 20%was too high a percentage for retail use and whether there was much
retail located in their other locations. He suggested the retail use be defined as an ancillary
use not to exceed 10% of the space.
With regard to the issues for discussion, item#6, the City Engineer's concerns, Revering
was confident that the concerns could readily be addressed and submitted to Bonestroo. He
stated that he had discussed the capacity of the pipe with Greg Gappa and they were both
comfortable using it.
Gaffron found that acceptable.
PAGE 19 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued)
Item#8, the retaining walls on the west side would consist likely of one 6' high modular
block wall. Revering added that the landscaping would potentially be made up of vines to
screen the walls, since there is little space for shrubs or bushes in the landscaping.
Gaffron inquired whether an emergency access between the site and the adjoining Orono
Shopping Center would be acceptable with Ravia.
Revering agreed an emergency access should be available, at a minimum.
Gaffron and Revering concurred that pedestrian space would be easy to accommodate.
Revering indicated that they would be moving certain trees to fill in the gaps between the
development and the Sugarwoods properties.
Gaffron noted that during the next phase, Wally Case,the City's consultant, would review
the landscaping plan, and make a recommendation which would include a fairly dense
buffer. Gaffron also suggested the developer assist the neighbor in filling in the old
driveway access area from Sugarwoods.
Revering indicated they would be happy to do so.
Regarding item#14, Revering indicated that the trash enclosure would be made of the
same material.
Karlson explained that each unit would display an individually engraved nameplate,with
an overall office park sign near the entrance.
Gaffron suggested that they ensure the office park sign meets all of the setbacks and does
not cause negative visual impacts from Highway 12. He noted that the base would be made
of similar brick matching the building and illuminated from within.
Hawn asked if the representatives had held additional meetings with the neighbors.
Gaffron stated that no new comments had been received since the last meeting.
Marilyn Mileusnic, 2110 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that, while she was pleased to see that
they had downsized the development, she believed that it was still too much for the site.
She indicated that she would be interested in seeing the hardcover percentages versus the
greenspace.
Karlson stated that they had done their best to add greenspace between the center by
adding Colorado spruce to block the parking from view.
PAGE 20 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued)
Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that she had phoned Gaffron about receiving
the brochure. She indicated that she, too,believed the use was too intense for just 2 acres.
Ms. Ricks stated that she would like to see the number of rentals reduced even further,
perhaps by two more. As the dumpster was nearest her property, she asked about its
placement and time trash pickup would occur.
Karlson indicated that they were open to a better location, however, he could not guarantee
pick up at a certain time.
Rahn suggested limitations be put on the hauler in terms of pick up times, and believed the
noise ordinances, restricting noise prior to 7AM and after 8PM, would suffice.
Gaffron felt they could address this concern by attempting to get a daytime hauler.
Karlson ensured the neighbor that the dumpster location would be completely enclosed and
shielded.
Ms. Mileusnic stated that she was more skeptical about the elevations, since the
construction of the apartment buildings, as they were much more obtrusive than the
residents were first led to believe.
Karlson stated that it was their intent to be good neighbors and believed the apartment
buildings next door would tower over their buildings.
Gaffron reminded the residents that the development would be built on higher elevations to
begin with and might appear higher as a result. He suggested the applicant put together a
side by side elevation comparison between their proposal and the neighboring apartments.
Revering asked what the next step would be.
Gaffron indicated that, if approval was recommended this evening, Ravia would then seek
concept plan approval from the City Council which defines all that is necessary in the final
plans.
Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2889,
Ravia Real Estate, LLC,2060 Wayzata Boulevard, PUD—General Concept Plan
Review/Preliminary Plat Review, subject to staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
PAGE 21 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
(#6) #03-2890 MEADWOOD, INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK CREE, 3120 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 10:05—10:35 P.M.
Robert Swanson, Meadwood, Inc., on behalf of Mark Cree, was present.
Gaffron reported that the applicants were requesting a hardcover variance for the 75-250'
zone to allow 9,970 s.f or 36.75%where only 6,783 s.f. or 25% is allowed. The applicant's
agent has proposed the use of a paver system (`Uni Eco-Stone') as a method to mitigate the
excess hardcover,which if the pavers are considered as 0%hardcover would still yield a
75-250'result of 27.5%. Gaffron introduced Robert Swanson to present a permeable pave
system for the Commission's consideration.
Chair Smith asked if the representative could answer the Commission's concerns with
regard to the property and variance request.
Swanson did not have general knowledge of the application.
Gaffron suggested the Commission discuss details of the application with the owner or
general contractor.
Swanson indicated that it was his intention to encourage the Commission, and Orono, to
consider permeable pavement as a potential pavement alternative. He explained how the
downspout system would collect water runoff until it steeps off into the soil. He
maintained that the system would require little maintenance and that concerns with regard
to an unstable surface were not warranted.
Since hardcover was an important issue and runoff an even greater concern near the lakes,
Mr. Swanson encouraged the City to take a serious look at the permeable paver system as a
legitimate alternative.
While Chair Smith felt the product was interesting, she believed too many other questions
accompanied this application and asked how the Commission could get the property
owners themselves, or their contractor, to be available for discussion.
Gaffron pointed to the original approvals for the 26' driveway, stating that the applicants
struck a deal with the City, which they should be required to uphold.
Chair Smith stated that this was the wrong application for the product to use as its trial in
Orono. She acknowledged that Mr. Swanson had been put in an awkward and
disadvantageous position.
PAGE 22 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2890 MEADWOOD, INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK CREE, Continued)
Mabusth stated that the City needs to involve many more levels in order to begin
discussions and make recommendations for a new product such as this system.
Gaffron maintained that what exists currently on the site is 32%hardcover versus the
original approvals for approximately 27%hardcover several years ago. He believed the
applicants would need to answer many questions before the City would consider their new
application.
Rahn stated that the original approvals allowed 25%hardcover; whereas, many things have
continued to be built since that time. He pointed out that there were far too many issues
with the application other than just the permeability issue Mr. Swanson wished to discuss.
There were no public comments.
If staff expresses an interest, Chair Smith indicated that time needs to be spent in a work
study to analyze the potential of the product.
Gaffron suggested the Commission leave the hardcover issue with the applicants and staff
to pursue, and indicated that it would take some effort to understand how and where the
permeable paver system has been used successfully. Given the condition of staff, Gaffron
acknowledged that an evaluation of the product would not even be on any radar screen for
priorities. While he believed the City should consider the merits of products like this,
Gaffron cautioned the Commission from labeling it non-hardcover due to the precedent
this would set.
While Gaffron indicated that he would be happy to work with Mr. Swanson over the long
term, the application would likely be tabled this evening due to the concerns inherent in the
application.
Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, recommending Application #03-2890,
Meadowood, Inc.,Mark and Nancy Cree, 3120 North Shore Drive, a request for a
hardcover variance in the 75'-250' zone be tabled for more information, and that the
presence of the applicant or their representative is requested for further
consideration. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#7)#03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, 4125 HIGHWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCES, 10:35— 11:17 P.M.
John and Roberta Henrich, the applicants, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants proposed to remove the existing house and construct
a new house on the property. The lot is located in the LR-1B zoning district requiring a
PAGE 23 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued)
minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width of 140'measured at the lakeshore and at the
75' setback. They were requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized
lot (0.66 acre) having a conforming lot width of 150'-157'. An average lakeshore setback
variance is requested for an encroachment of approximately 8'by the proposed house. The
existing detached garage will remain, requiring a variance to allow an accessory structure
without a principal structure during the construction period. Also requested is a hardcover
variance for the 75-250'zone to allow 37.71%where only 25% is normally allowed.
Gaffron noted that the site plan centers the new house within the 75-250'zone meeting all
required lot line setbacks but encroaching slightly past the average setback. The new house
would encroach only 2-3' further past the average setback line than the existing house, and
would have insignificant impact on neighboring views of the lake. The house location
approximately 107' from the lakeshore meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new
structures. Gaffron continued that the existing detached garage is less than 20 years old and
is in good condition. It contains a storage area below which fits well with the topography
of the site.
Once again, Gaffron stated that the primary concern is the hardcover variance request. The
Planning Commission and Council have been fairly consistent in denying hardcover
variances for new construction unless a distinct hardship can be demonstrated. He pointed
out that structural coverage is proposed at approximately 2370 s.f. or 8.3 %, well within
the 15 % limitation.
With regard to bluff impacts, Gaffron reported that if the existing deck remains in place, it
has a legal nonconforming status in regard to the bluff setback, as it was constructed in
1990,prior to the 1992 adoption of bluff ordinances as part of the Shoreland ordinance. If
it is replaced, it will require a variance to the required 30' top-of-bluff setback requirement
for structures.
Gaffron explained that the proposed hardcover in the 75-250'zone is 6,280 s.f. or 37.71 %.
The applicant has included in his letter of request a number of factors which he believes
are hardships that support the variance request. These factors include the ability to park
numerous vehicles off of Highwood Road which is very narrow and has only minimal
ability for on-street parking. A hardcover variance was granted for the site in 1990
resulting in a reduction from 43.6% to 43.0% in the 75-250' zone.
Whereas the house footprint is increasing in size from about 1240 s.f. to 1600 s.f. and the
new house is not excessive for the lot, the ancillary hardcover is the primary issue for
discussion. Gaffron maintained that it is staff's opinion that a site plan could be developed
that would accommodate the proposed new home on this property without the need for a
hardcover variance. However, that would require substantial changes to the character of
the lot, and would potentially result in less off-street parking availability.
PAGE 24 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued)
Gaffron relayed staff recommendations, as follows:
• Approval of the variances for lot area based on the fact the lot is developed as a
single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not
be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot.
• Approval of the average setback and accessory structure variances as described
above. Determine whether the deck will remain in place or whether a variance to
top-of-bluff setback would be allowed for its replacement.
• It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3-4 years to deny the
variance for exceeding 25%hardcover in the 75-250' zone for new construction. In
order to approve the request, Planning Commission must make findings about the
unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property.
Mr. Henrich pointed out that their structure was quite modest at merely 8% coverage and
that they had built the garage in its current location in an effort to maintain the unique
landscaping aspects of the property, including the grove of lilacs. He maintained that the
access was designed in its current configuration based on City recommendations and
numerous discussions. He stated that one of their hardships was exiting the driveway
safely in the winter due to the grades. In addition, he noted that it would take a pretty
significant amount of reworking and a great deal of money to make enormous changes to
the lot and its character to accommodate the requirements.
Gaffron concurred that it would take a great deal of substantial changes to make the
property conform, which in turn would change the entire character of the property.
While they looked into remodeling, Henrich acknowledged that the home was 80 years old
and in need of total repair. They had decided to rebuild and felt their hardships justified
their application.
Although cost was not an acceptable hardship alone, Hawn agreed that the property was
steep and that it would be very expensive to change it.
Mrs. Henrich stated that they had made attempts to rework the garage in the design phase
only to be confronted with new drainage issues.
Henrich stated that he would be hesitant to remove, or lose, his relatively new and
serviceable garage in order to construct his home. He was given a variance and built the
garage in 1990 and felt removing the garage would have little impact on the placement of
the house.
PAGE 25 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued)
Rahn stated that the Commission would ask the applicant to remove the old shed in the 0-
75' setback and replace it with a lockbox.
Henrich stated that he believed the steep grade provided them with adequate hardship to
also keep the shed.
Hawn concurred with Rahn regarding the shed.
While Gaffron stated that, if money was not an issue, someone could change the grade, the
access, and the entire character of the property to make the design conforming, he
questioned whether that should be the goal of the Commission. He added that parking is
an issue for residents along Highwood and the added space they have serves a use to the
neighborhood.
Chair Smith questioned whether the necessary changes to make it conforming would
require exorbitant amounts of fill.
Gaffron indicated that it would require a lot of fill to change the property, which, in turn,
could create drainage issues.
Bremer questioned how cutting the size of the home down to meet requirements would
work.
At merely 1600 s.f., Henrich maintained that cutting the house down an extra 100-200 s.f.
would not impact hardcover significantly,but would impact their livability.
While he did not feel the size of the home to be an issue, Rahn felt that other removals
were warranted. He suggested that they remove the shed, design a smaller deck, and
remove some of the driveway hardcover. He agreed that the topography of the property
presented a hardship.
While she concurred, Bremer stated that they would need to be clear that it was the steep
elevations that presented the hardship, unlike the Toth's whose project warranted a basic
redesign.
Rahn stated that, short of regrading the entire topography of the site, they could not
redesign the application.
Hawn encouraged the applicants to find additional hardcover removals.
PAGE 26 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued)
Chair Smith indicated that she felt there was significant hardship to support the variance
request and would be comfortable allowing the applicant to work with staff to find
additional removals to get closer to 25%.
Bremer deferred to staff to work with the applicant to find additional removals,while
maintaining safe access for the applicant.
Henrich indicated that he would be happy to work with staff to find some additional
removals.
Mabusth concurred, stating that, in her opinion, there were sufficient or definite hardships
to the land to recommend approval of this application.
Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2893,John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, granting lot width, average
lakeshore setback variances, and a variance to allow an accessory structure without a
principal structure during construction on the property; VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to table the variance for hardcover in the 75'-
250' setback zone for the purpose of redesign.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#8) #03-2894 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SMITH, 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 11:17— 11:25 P.M.
Mr. Smith, the applicant, was present.
Mabusth explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances to permit
replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75' of the OHWL of Lake
Minnetonka:
1. 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone where none is
permitted;
2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the
OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and
3. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.
Mabusth noted that the City Engineer had requested additional information with regard to:
1. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the
stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the
lakeside;
2. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and
3. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan.
PAGE 27 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2894 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SMITH, Continued)
Overall, Mabusth indicated that staff recommends approval of variances to replace existing
retaining walls and steps within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka as proposed with
the following conditions:
1. The existing deck within the 0-75' setback zone requires structural repairs and
will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed; and
2. Prior to issuance of the necessary City permits, the following must be submitted
and approved by the City Engineer:
a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of
the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the
hardcover from the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot
lines,proposed and existing contours, etc.;
b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the
project; and
c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan.
Mr. Smith questioned why the reminder with regard to the existing lakeshore deck must be
part of this approval, since it had nothing to do with the current application.
Hawn stated that, as variance approval moves forward, the Commission and staff would
like this to remain to reiterate to current or future owners their position with regard to the
lakeshore deck.
John Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, as his nearest neighbor, Mr. Henrich stated that he
supported the improvements 100%.
Zugschwert moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-
2894, Douglas and Robin Smith,4195 Highwood Road, granting 4.6% hardcover in
the 0-75' setback zone where none is permitted; grading, filling, and excavating of
more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the OHWL; and placing fill in a bluff impact
zone where no fill is permitted subject to staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
(#9) #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS, 665
FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, 11:25— 12:09 A.M.
Mrs. Bastiaens, the applicant, and Bruce Boeder, her representative, were present.
Gaffron explained that Mr. Bastiaen's contractor was issued a building permit in January
2003 to construct a new residence on the property. The property contains an existing old
house and detached garage which the applicants wish to continue to use for dwelling
purposes during construction of the new residence and further wish to continue to use as a
temporary guest house and detached garage for a 24-month period after completion of the
PAGE 28 of 39
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,
Continued)
new principal residence. This would require a Guest House CUP approval, and a variance
to the lot area requirement. The building permit was issued subject to an agreement
requiring applicant to remove the old house within 30 days after issuance of a C.O. for the
new house if the CUP is not approved.
Gaffron reviewed the fact that, Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling
unit to remain in place on the property after construction of a new principle structure,
except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit is approved by the City Council.
Since by definition the parcel is a corner lot, the north lot line of the property is considered
as the front lot line, and the east lot line abutting the right-of-way of Ferndale Road North
is considered the side street lot line. Gaffron explained that the applicant wishes to
continue to use the existing driveway access to North Ferndale Road during the duration of
the temporary CUP, although the new home accesses the private road informally known as
`Lydiard Road' to the north of the property. For the 24-month period staff would not
oppose this plan.
After review of the existing septic system, it was deemed that the septic serving the old
house is functional but non-compliant with the 3' separation from seasonal saturation rule,
and under City codes would normally have to be replaced by the end of December 2010.
However, the drainfield for the old system is minimal at best and is close to the foundation
of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic Systems Inspector Matt
Bolterman, it is staff's recommendation that the old house sewer line be connected to the
new house septic system during the temporary continued use of the old house.
With regard to the lot area variance, Gaffron pointed out that the City has consistently
ruled that the language `All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house'
means that the lot area must be 200% of the zoning district standard area; i.e. for the
2-acre zone the lot area must be 4 acres. The applicant's old house is about 35' from the
new house, hence the property could not be subdivided to allow both houses a 30' side
setback; furthermore, the lot is only 2.3 acres, so no subdivision is feasible.
After reviewing the issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends
approval of a temporary guest house CUP and lot area variance for same, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use
the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives.
2. The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home
occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code.
PAGE 29 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,
Continued)
3. The applicant shall, upon completion of the septic system serving the new house on
the property, connect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable to
the City, and discontinue use of the existing septic system serving the guest house
structure.
4. The guest house use shall be allowed only for a period of 24 months beginning with
the date of final Council approval of the CUP. At the end of the 24 month period
the property owner shall discontinue the guest house use and shall remove the
structure no later than 30 days after the end of the 24 month period.
5. The existing driveway connection directly to North Ferndale Road may be
continued only during the 24 month period for which the guest house use is
allowed. Within 30 days after the end of the 24 month period, the driveway
connection to North Ferndale Road shall be eliminated, and the driveways and
entrance regraded to permanently eliminate direct vehicle access to North Ferndale.
6. Any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the conditions of approval.
With regard to the staff recommendations,Mr. Boeder stated that, since the existing
system was functioning, the applicant objected to the requirement that they connect to the
new septic system. While the new home would be ready for occupation by July 11,
Boeder requested that the applicant be allowed to keep the driveway accessing Ferndale for
parking purposes indefinitely, since Lydiard is so narrow.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant intended to remove the home in two years after their
son's graduation.
Mrs. Bastiaens confirmed that the home would be removed in two years and that no
improvements were to be made to the residence during that time.
Mabusth indicated that the Ferndale driveway access would be subject to Greg Gappa's
approval.
Mrs. Bastiaens stated that they get many complaints when they, their workers, or guests
park along Lydiard due to the narrowness of the roadway.
Hawn stated that she opposed the application and saw no hardship which would entitle
them to the request. She believed that once the certificate of occupancy was granted, the
applicant could fight the City two years down the road when time for the removals comes.
PAGE 30 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,
Continued)
Rahn agreed that once the certificate of occupancy was granted, the City would lose its
leverage.
Gaffron indicated that the guest house can require a CUP.
Rahn questioned what conditions the City could attach to the CUP, suggesting they require
an escrow of funds to ensure the removals take place.
Boeder stated that they would be willing to post a bond or make a deposit of some kind.
Mrs. Bastiaens pointed out that, although they own 6 acres, they were unable to subdivide
the property due to easements and the corner lot location near Ferndale and Lydiard.
Gaffron indicated that it was the applicants' intent to subdivide their property into three
parcels; however, due to ROW's, Lydiard, and easements, the applicant's lot was
significantly reduced down to its usable 2 acre form.
Bremer stated that, as long as a sunset provision and escrow were required, she would be
comfortable recommending approval of the application. She asked if the applicants could
retain the accessory buildings after the two year period if they removed the plumbing from
them.
Gaffron stated that they could retain the accessory space without plumbing. He questioned
whether the City was getting a better bargain by obtaining a contract with the applicant that
they will remove the space after two years.
Mrs. Bastiaens stated that she would be willing to sign a contract to remove the buildings
after two years.
Gaffron believed the escrow would provide the city with adequate leverage.
Hawn and Rahn indicated that they could not find adequate hardship to support the
application and were concerned with setting a precedent.
Zugschwert stated that she would find hardship, due to the fact that the City's easements
and ROW's infringed upon their usable property or ability to subdivide.
Bremer reiterated that she could support the application with the escrow and sunset date
clause.
PAGE 31 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,
Continued)
With regard to the septic, Gaffron indicated that the City was concerned how the old septic
might impact the septic for the new residence.
Boeder stated that, as an engineer, Mr. Bastiaens was willing to take the risk and was
comfortable with the old septic.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded,to deny Application #03-2896, Franciscus Bastiaens,
665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House CUP and variance to the lot
area requirement. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Chair Smith,Bremer, and Zugschwert
dissenting.
Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2896, Franciscus Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House
CUP and variance to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendations,
except that the applicant be allowed to utilize the existing septic system; and that a
two year sunset date and financial arrangement between the applicant and the City
Attorney be agreed upon. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 3, Hawn, Rahn, and Chair Smith
dissenting.
Chair Smith moved, to recommend approval of Application #03-2896, Franciscus
Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House CUP and variance
to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendations except that the
applicant be allowed to utilize the existing septic system; and that a one year sunset
date and financial arrangement between the applicant and the City Attorney be
agreed upon. Motion failed for lack of a second.
After three failed motions, Gaffron indicated that the application would move forward to
the City Council for their recommendation.
Mrs. Bastiaens voiced her frustration with the City that her 6 acre property had been
reduced to a mere two acre usable parcel, and now the City had seen fit to even further
restrict their use of their property.
(#10)#03-2898 MIKE AND JULIE WHITTINGTON, 1981 FAGERNESS POINT
ROAD,VARIANCES, 12:09— 12:20 A.M.
Mrs. Whittington, the applicant, was present.
Mabusth explained that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit construction of a
deck and stairs 5' in height onto the existing home, requiring 5,596 s.f. (41.56%)hardcover
within the 75' to 250' setback zone where 3,366 s.f. (25%) is permitted.
PAGE 32 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2898 MIKE AND JULIE WHITTINGTON, Continued)
Mabusth presented the property's history, stating that in 1984, applications were filed for
an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances to construct stairs, retaining walls
and planters within 75' of the lake; and for excessive hardcover in the 0-75' and 75'-250'
setback zones. The resolution permitted 250 s.f. of hardcover in the westerly 0-75'; 5,500
s.f. in the 75-250'; and 1,500 s.f. in the easterly 0-75' (not including roadway). The
resolution also stated that, "...any future improvements to this property involving an
increase in hardcover must be matched with the removal of existing hardcover".
While the applicants have stated that they have removed a significant amount of hardcover
over the last few years, Mabusth indicated that staff cannot support increasing hardcover in
the 75'-250' hardcover zone by 86 s.f. when the existing hardcover already exceeds the
25%permitted. Mabusth pointed out that staff could support construction of the deck
above the existing concrete patio, not exceeding the existing 5, 510 s.f. (40.9%)hardcover
in the 75'-250' setback zone.
Mrs. Whittington stated that they removed 1,000 s.f. of plastic over the past several years.
Mabusth explained to the applicant that they would not get a credit for the removals of
plastic.
Whittington indicated that there was little to remove other than the house. She
acknowledged that 79 s.f. of boulders and a pathway were all that could be removed.
Chair Smith insisted that the applicant find 86 s.f. of removals to hold them to their
existing hardcover calculations before reaching City Council.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2898,
Julie and Mike Whittington, 1981 Fagerness Point Road, permitting construction of a
deck and stairs over an existing patio 5' in height onto the existing home as long as
the total amount of hardcover per staff recommendations does not exceed that which
is already present on the property, and before the application appears before the City
Council the calculations and removals will have been made. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#11) #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA
LEE AND THOMAS DEVEAU, 680 TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCES, 12:20—
12:51 A.M.
David Bieker, of Denali Custom Homes, and Thomas DeVeau, the applicant, were present.
PAGE 33 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES,INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE
AND THOMAS DEVEAU, Continued)
Gaffron indicated that the applicants proposed to remove an existing house and construct a
new house on the property located at 680 Tonkawa Road. The lot is located in the LR-1B
zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width of 140'measured at
the lakeshore and at the 75' setback. They are requesting variances to permit new
construction on an undersized lot (0.54 acre)having a lot width of 64'. Also requested is a
hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 29.15%where only 25% is normally
allowed.
Gaffron explained that the lot currently contains an existing residence structure which the
owner wishes to replace. The site has steep slopes, and although a formal bluff analysis
has not been done, the 0-75' zone appears to likely meet the criteria for a bluff. However,
both the existing and proposed homes are outside of the bluff impact zone, and no work
within the bluff impact zone is currently proposed. He noted that existing retaining walls
and stairways in the 0-75' zone are in good condition and no changes are proposed.
The proposed hardcover in the 75-250'zone is 3,311 s.f. or 29.15%. The proposed house
plan indicates a 4'x14' deck on the lakeside of the house. The house is up against the 10'
side setback on both sides. Gaffron pointed out that another way to reduce hardcover
would be to re-orient the garage to be end loading, with a narrow driveway extending to
the 250' line, then construct a backup apron and perhaps even an additional detached
garage in the 75-250' zone where hardcover is available. This would require re-design of
the home, and applicant has stated an end-load garage would not provide the entrance view
of the home he is hoping to achieve by side-loading. However,with the same footprint as
currently proposed, a savings of about 200 s.f. (1.8%) of hardcover could be realized.
Gaffron pointed out that the City Engineer's inspection revealed serious concerns with the
proposed grading plan which need to be resolved before this application would move
forward. He shared three issues for consideration and indicated that staff would
recommend:
•Approval of the variances for lot area and lot width based on the fact the lot is
developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service
and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot.
•Denial of the hardcover variance for hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250'
zone, based on the fact that a house could be constructed on the property meeting
the 25% limit.
•Tabling of the application for revisions to meet the 25% limit, and for submittal
of a revised grading and drainage plan addressing the concerns of the City
Engineer.
PAGE 34 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE
AND THOMAS DEVEAU, Continued)
Mr. Beiker stated that the applicant's hardship lied in the narrowness of the lot, steep
grade, and rough terrain. After consulting Planner Bottenberg, Bieker stated that they
made numerous changes to minimize the plans and pull the home back 20' to minimize
driveway hardcover. He stated that they had made attempts to redesign the driveway, to
make it an end loading garage, and still fell short 170 s.f. Bieker pointed out that the
hardcover would be reduced from 40%to 29%with the current plan. Finally, he stated that
he was confident they could resolve the drainage issues.
Mr. DeVeau stated that they had outgrown the home years ago, and contemplated
remodeling; however, they decided to build a new home since the costs would be similar.
Mary Torkelson, 670 Tonkawa Road, voiced she and her husband's support for the new
home. She felt the proposed residence would be a good addition to the neighborhood. She
noted that the new home built next door to the DeVeau's current residence severely
impacted the DeVeau's views of the lake.
Bieker pointed out that the retaining walls could not be removed and serve a real purpose.
Based on the fact that the lot was undersized, Chair Smith stated that she did not have
much problem with the application. She asked the applicants to provide the City Engineer
with the appropriate drainage information. She encouraged the applicants to squeeze the
hardcover down closer to 25%.
Hawn asked whether they could move the excess hardcover out of the 250' setback zone.
Gaffron indicated that pulling the structure back 15' would not help reduce the hardcover
by any significant amount and would adversely affect the home's views. He stated that
even if he pulled the home back to gain 150 s.f. and turned the garage to be end loading,
which would gain 200 s.f., they would not be much closer to 25%hardcover.
Mabusth indicated that the hardcover for these narrow lots would explain why most of the
homes have detached garages at the top of their properties along this stretch.
While they could probably build a detached garage, Gaffron stated that they would have a
considerably long walk to the house. He maintained that the applicants could lose little in
the 0-75' setback, since the retaining walls, steps, and landings were necessary.
Chair Smith noted that the Commission would be hard pressed not to get closer to 25%.
Hawn asked whether they could consider the fact that the applicant's views would be
severely limited if they were forced to pull the home back even further, especially after the
PAGE 35 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE
AND THOMAS DEVEAU, Continued)
neighbor had been granted an average lakeshore setback variance which further restricted
his views.
Gaffron felt this to be a legitimate hardship,plus, the neighboring home was also at a
higher elevation.
Mabusth reiterated that, the fact that, the applicants are required to have hardcover in the
75-250' setback due to the steepness of the grade, they have lost the ability to use that
hardcover elsewhere.
Rahn referred to the fact that smaller lots require smaller houses, while at the same time
acknowledging that the home was modest. He questioned whether the garage could be
turned to end loading in order to gain some extra square feet.
Bieker reiterated that, since the neighbor was given an average lakeshore setback variance,
the applicant could not pull his home further back and still retain his lake views.
Gaffron acknowledged that, if you figured in the steps, walkway, rock walls, and retaining
walls in the 75'-250' setback, which is an unusual circumstance, one could argue that he
deserves a credit for those things,plus a potential credit for the neighbors' encroachment.
Bremer suggested he be granted a 2% credit for these circumstances.
Bieker felt that an additional credit could be given for being unable to pull the home back
10' further, which would allow them to meet the 25%hardcover.
Chair Smith reviewed the hardship position as the steepness and grade of the lot, the
narrowness of the lot, and the encroachment of the neighbor.
Bremer suggested the Commission determine at what point a lot is considered `narrow', in
some future discussion.
Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2901,
Denali Custom Homes/Melinda Lee and Thomas DeVeau, 680 Tonkawa Road,
granting approval of the variances for lot area and lot width, as well as, hardcover in
excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone, based on the credit circumstances aforementioned,
the narrowness of the lot, and the steepness of the grade, and subject to approval of a
drainage plan to permit construction of a new residence on the property. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PAGE 36 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2902 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC., 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 12:51 — 1:00 A.M.
Peter Johnson, Council for Monies Automotive Group; Michael Anger, supplier of the
storage tanks; Tom Maddox and another representative of WJM,were present.
Gaffron explained that WJM Properties had applied for an amendment of their CUP and
site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 4845. The amendments
include the following:
1. Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep
and wholesaling operations (`Motor Fuel Stations' are a conditional use in the
Industrial District).
2. Refinishing the east facade of the existing building with EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building.
3. Approval to construct a 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to
the east property line.
With regard to the access driveway, Gaffron indicated that the applicants were advised in
Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4845 that access to the site may change in the future
and applicant agreed to discuss the matter at such time that the City or adjacent landowners
initiate such discussion. Applicants have initiated discussion with Long Lake to attempt to
gain access to Industrial Boulevard to the east via a route behind the golf dome. Public
Services Director Greg Gappa is in favor of such a driveway, and it has long been our goal
to establish access to/from the industrial park to signalized intersections and eventually
eliminate direct accesses to Highway 12. The proposed access would be angled to align
with the east-west driving aisle within the existing parking lot.
Gaffron acknowledged that there were a number of issues to be resolved before such a
connection could be realized, not the least of which was poor soils and wetlands for most
of the corridor. However, the City would support such an access if the applicants would be
able to obtain it, and the City would want to discuss the potential for establishment of
easements through the WJM property to serve adjacent industrial park parcels.
Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for the private motor fuel
station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access
to the east, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and
shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. Gaffron noted that the Fire
Marshall had relayed that he had no problem with the use of the storage tanks.
PAGE 37 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12 #03-2902 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC., Continued)
2. Applicants shall agree to work with the City in establishing easements as necessary
to access adjacent properties if applicants are able to gain access via the proposed
easterly corridor.
There were no public comments.
Gaffron asked the applicants if they found the terms of the easement requirements
acceptable with regard to the proposed easterly corridor.
Johnson indicated that, although expensive,he was unaware of additional problems and
couldn't foresee any since they had not gotten to that point.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-
2902,WJM Properties LLC, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West, granting approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for the private motor fuel station and the amendments to the
commercial site plan for façade changes and the access to the east, subject to the staff
conditions discussed earlier. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF APRIL 28 AND MAY 12, 2003
While most of the applications were on consent, Chair Smith reported that the City Council
required that the Bichanich application adhere to the 30' side yard setbacks.
With regard to the May 12, 2003 City Council meeting, Rahn indicated that, as mentioned
earlier, the Killian application on Spruce Place was tabled and the Council clearly sent the
message that they expected the Planning Commission to hold the line on the 25%
hardcover requirement.
Zugschwert questioned whether the 25%hardcover allowance was too restrictive, since so
many applications request this variance for construction. She indicated that during her
Commissioner training, the trainers stated that, if the same type of variance request is
received over and over, it may be too restrictive. She asked if the Council and
Commission should reconsider the validity of the ordinance.
Gaffron stated that, up until four years ago, rebuilds and remodels were held to the same
standard, since that time, the City has become more restrictive.
Rahn asked whether thought should be given to granting people credit for building a new
home versus rebuilding a poor one. He felt greater incentive should be provided to promote
PAGE 38 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#15 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Continued)
rebuilds that do more good for the property than remodels of existing bad conditions. He
stated that the opposite had occurred to date; therefore, making bad situations worse.
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
There were no other issues.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 21,
2003
Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, approving the Minutes of the April 21, 2003,
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON MAY 27, 2003 AND JUNE 9, 2003.
May 27—Hawn June 9 - Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved, Chair Smith seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting
at 1:10 A.M. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 A.M.
n 4
tip "Vi '`
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 39 of 39