HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE K- I
El COUNCIL
1M'PLANNING 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. fri t(....-ku_g_I 41 i st like, 17f1 :st,,,,,-.42,,,,,z.:"1 f,,,,P
14
,---7
2. --- ---,,.. I- . ihi 3775" --i'ict.. '_ ■It-- - '-, .., c>5 • •().2 m
3. rAfiY Are:c _-: j ' 3 4, .4 ti A%
6)--) •;7 9'3 3
4. -e c A( 0, ,S m c c_.)-k C21-Ll '-c) /1(),/-)-6 fa s , 1
t , 9,„, ,...,, 03 3 3
5• ' kit-T TfA /?- 1 __---7)-1z-_, ?lu-k-t-,,, OA: ,--i- L,.-.Q
90..
b3-2c13i-
/6 3
6. -z-t-fzlic , J 7 7.s- __ -/-';_,-. 4c, (/ / E ( _-„=„30
7. t) x7„,,, „
r I
11( /i
8. & €%, -/t-i-e"---
9 /1
0
P‹?,,I ,
1 1SZ \ .
/ (ys . -A9), 9
- r
10.
i 1. (:(,)-F-i owt( )(aro, illlat )435 _ ;iicitii." L.,uzi)c( 1(c' C:17
12. \_\ .;_a ,\L. ,--). c\--7...EL_,, \ ._______..,
13.
14.
15.
WAAdministrative SupporA(Forms)Tublic Atterulance.wpd
T
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 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, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and
Stephanie Zugschwert. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners
Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi Anderson,
Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth and Cynthia Bremer, and Council Representative Bob
Sansevere were absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #03-2927 JAMES AND LINDA MARTINSON, 1435 PARK DRIVE,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2927,
James and Linda Martinson, 1435 Park Drive, granting a lot width and area variance
in order to construct a new residence on the property subject to the lot meeting
setback, lot coverage by structures, and hardcover requirements. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend tabling of Application #03-2929,Jeff
Martineau, 2565 North Shore Drive, request for a conditional use permit. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#3) #03-2931 TIMOTHY AND KRISTI OSTERBERG, 1045 LOMA LINDA
AVENUE,VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2931,
Timothy and Kristi Osterberg, 1045 Loma Linda Avenue, granting approval of the
front yard setback variance to replace an existing attached garage due to limited
alternative locations due to the configuration and topographical constraints of the lot.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 1 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4)#03-2932 MICHAEL HAYES OF MICHAEL HAYES HOMES ON BEHALF
OF ALBERT TRAPENESE, 3220 BOHNS POINT ROAD,VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#03-2932
Michael Hayes on behalf of Albert Trapenese,3220 Bohns Point Road, granting
approval of the requested variances and conditional use permit contingent upon the
requirement that a vegetative screen and privacy fence be maintained along Bohn's
Point Road, sufficient vegetation and trees must be maintained to provide screening
from County Road 51, and that no access to Bohn's Point Road to the proposed
garage be made. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Applications were heard out of sequence due to the late arrival of applicants.
NEW BUSINESS
(#8) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS,350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE,
VARIANCES, 6:08—6:25 P.M.
Winfield Stephens, the Applicant, was present.
Waataja reported that the applicant requests the following variances to construct a new
residence on a lot subject to a 75' creek setback:
1. Lot area variance to allow a residence reconstruction on a .455 acre lot when 2 acres is
normally required.
2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30' when 50' is normally
required.
3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10' when 30' is normally
required.
4. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 28' when 50' is normally
required.
5. Creek setback variance to allow structure to be setback 68' from the creek when 75' is
normally required.
6. Hardcover variance to allow 2.7% hardcover in the 0-75' zone when 0% is normally
allowed and to allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally
allowed.
Waataja explained that the property is .455 acres located in a 2 acre zoning district. Since
many of the lots in this neighborhood are substantially smaller than the required 2 acres, it
has been staff policy to review these properties against the setback requirements of the V2
acre zoning district, which is a 30' front and rear yard setback and 10' interior side yard
setback. The applicant is proposing 29.6' front yard setback, 10.6' side yard setback, and a
27.7' rear yard setback.
With regard to the creek setback variance, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 75' setback
PAGE 2 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8#03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, Continued)
from a designated creek to all structures. The applicants property is adjacent to Stubbs
Bay Creek and is therefore located within the 0-75' setback zone. The applicant's current
home maintains a 68' creek setback. With the applicant's proposal, a second story is
proposed for the section of the structure that is within the 0-75' setback zone. Waataja
noted that even though the creek setback isn't changing, structure massing is and a creek
setback variance is required for the second story. Due to structure existing within the 0-75'
creek setback, a hardcover variance is required as well. Currently 325 s.f. of structure
exists in the 0-75' zone. The applicant is proposing to add a second story which doesn't
increase the hardcover but adds mass to the 0-75' zone and results in a variance. Because
the applicant is doing substantial renovations which amount to a rebuild, staff would
recommend that all structure within the 0-75' zone be eliminated.
Waataja indicated that it would be staff's recommendation to:
1. Approve the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning
district.
2. Approve front, side and rear yard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located
in a 2 acre zoning district.
3. Deny the hardcover variance request to allow 2.7%hardcover in the 0-75' zone to be
consistent in requiring 100%removal of hardcover in the 0-75' zone with all rebuilds and
lack of a valid hardship.
4. Deny the creek setback to be consistent not allowing structure in the 0-75' setback zone.
5. Approve the hardcover variance request to allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250' zone
due to the limited buildable area in the zone.
Chair Smith questioned if the neighbor had been contacted for his comments on the
proposal.
Waataja stated that no comments had been received.
Chair Smith questioned whether the single story that exists in the 0-75' setback zone could
remain without the addition of the second story.
Stephens indicated that he would leave the corner in the 0-75' setback single story if it
were allowed to remain, adding that he could accept the 30' setback in the back as well.
Rahn concurred with Chair Smith, and asked if the single story corner could remain.
Hawn disagreed, stating that if the structure were to be viewed as a total rebuild, versus a
remodel, the City should enforce the removals in the 0-75' setback zone.
Chair Smith asked what part of the original structure or foundation was remaining.
PAGE 3 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, Continued)
Stephens indicated that he would be reinforcing or replacing most of the foundation to
support the second story and add the wrap around addition.
While he recognized the need to be consistent, Rahn noted that only 1/3 of the total lot was
buildable.
Hawn stated that she would be hesitant to compel a peculiar design in order to pull the
structure out of the 0-75' setback zone. In order to be consistent, Hawn felt the
Commission should either decide to grant the variance based on hardship or encourage the
applicant to redesign closer to conformity.
Since a significant amount of the foundation would be new, Chair Smith encouraged the
applicant to redesign the structure as new construction in order to get what he wants versus
trying to use the old footprint to work from.
Rahn stated that he could support an overage in the 75-250' zone and removal of the
structure from the 0-75' setback, since the lot has a difficult buildable area. He felt the
applicant could add 325 s.f. outside the 0-75' zone.
Hawn agreed that the applicant could be allowed to use the additional 2.7% in the 75-250'.
Stephens indicated that he could redesign to meet their suggestion.
Chair Smith questioned whether the application could be approved as recommended.
Waataja stated that the Commission could approve the application as recommended by
staff and allow the additional 325 s.f. or 2.7% in the 75-250' setback zone.
Although this would be acceptable, Gaffron pointed out that the Council would prefer if
the Commission reviewed the final drawings before moving it forward.
Hawn concurred, stating that she would wish to see the redesign in September.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if the Commission should table the application in order to
allow him to redesign the proposal for the next meeting, at which time, it would move
forward to City Council.
Stephens agreed.
Fritzler moved,Hawn seconded, to table Application #03-2917, Winfield and Nancy
Stephens,350 Crestview Avenue, for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PAGE 4 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
(#6) #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, 90 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCES, 6:25—6:52 P.M.
Deborah Thompson, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that this item was tabled at the July meeting to allow the applicant to
provide additional detail regarding the application. Gaffron noted that the applicant wishes
to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage 11' southeasterly from their existing 848 s.f.
detached garage. The new garage will be located 23.1 feet from the south side lot line,
which is by definition a side street lot line. It abuts the dedicated right-of-way of old
Highway 12 or Wayzata Boulevard. The applicant requests the following:
1. Setback variance to construct a 996 s.f detached garage/pool house/storage
building, 23.1' from the side street lot line where a 50' side street setback is required.
2. Oversize accessory structure (OAS)variance to allow the new building to be
attached to the existing 848 s.f. detached garage via an 11'x 15' (165 s.f.) greenhouse, for a
final accessory structure size of 2009 s.f.(no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f is
allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area).
3. Setback variance to construct a 20'x 45' (900 s.f.) swimming pool 10' from the side
street lot line where a 50' side street setback is normally required.
4. CUP for plumbing in an accessory building.
Gaffron noted that the applicants request for a side street setback variance of
approximately 27'to allow a 23' setback is somewhat supported by the fact that the side
street is no longer in use, and has reverted to natural vegetation. The building to be
constructed is one story with gabled roof. The applicants note that due to topography,
wetlands, the location of existing site improvements, and the existing sewage treatment
mound, the proposed location is the only area where they can accommodate their storage
needs.
Gaffron explained that the Council adopted the Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS)
ordinances in the late 1980's to place limits on the size of individual accessory buildings as
well as on the total square footage of accessory buildings that could be located on a
property. For lots smaller than 2 acres, it was concluded that no oversize accessory
structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f would be considered as
oversized. With regard to this application, the visual impacts of the combined structure are
potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage via a 15'x11'
greenhouse structure. The City has a 10'building-to-building separation requirement not
PAGE 5 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6#03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued)
only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and
building massing.
Gaffron stated that staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not
unreasonable, and the potential locations for such structure are limited because this is a
wooded corner lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessory buildings
plus the greenhouse structure attaching them will total 2009 s.f The property is allowed up
to 2000 s.f of accessory structures in total,but no individual accessory structure over 1000
s.f. Gaffron indicated that connecting the structures with the proposed greenhouse structure
would not strictly be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and would
potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid.
The proposed pool in either of the two configurations provided is about 900 s.f. of surface
area, requiring a minimum setback of 15' from a side or rear lot line,but required to meet a
50' setback from a side street lot line and 10' from other buildings. Staff feels a minimum
of 15' setback should be required for the pool.
Gaffron stated that the proposed garage would include a toilet/sink/shower, and therefore
requires a conditional use permit. He recommended the Planning Commission should
ascertain that the apparent multi-purpose functions of this building do not include use as a
guest house. If that is the case, approval for a CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure
would be appropriate if these findings can be made:
1. That the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be
detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood.
2. That the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the
accessory building.
3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger(it is not; it less than 2 acres in area).
4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height (variances are
requested).
5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property
providing that:
a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically
approved by City or if allowed by City code; and
b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house
CUP is obtained; and
c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as
a dwelling under any circumstances.
Gaffron stated that staff recommends:
a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f accessory building.
PAGE 6 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6#03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued)
b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure.
c) Denial of the side street setback variance for the pool at 10' from the lot line; a 15' side
street setback might be justified, however, based on the size of the pool at 900 s.f., and the
lack of impacts on neighbors by a pool at this location.
d) Consider whether screening should be required if any or all of the variances are
granted.
e) Approval of the request for plumbing in an accessory structure, subject to the standard
conditions.
Chair Smith stated that she supported the staff recommendation and also problems with
oversize structures.
Ms. Thompson stated that they could strive to design something else; however, she
believed they were allowed buildings of 1000 s.f., and a combined total of 2000 s.f. She
maintained that the visual impacts would be minor, since only the edge of the pool
building would be viewable from the street. She pointed out that numerous trees exist on
her property, as well as, the MnDOT parcel and neighbors property. Thompson believed
that the greenhouse would be best suited between the two structures versus tacked on to an
end of one of the buildings.
Chair Smith questioned whether there was any other potential location for the pool house
on the property.
Thompson maintained that there was no other suitable site for the pool house,without
losing the alternate septic site or losing numerous trees which would open up the structure
to the neighbor's. She acknowledged that they could add additional screening.
Zugschwert indicated that she would support the staff recommendation with a 15'
separation.
While she felt they could work with the 15' separation, Thompson indicated that they were
trying to line the pool house and pool together.
Gaffron pointed out that the Ordinance states that a 750-1000 s.f accessory structure
requires a 15' side setback.
Thompson stated that, she believed, the 900 s.f pool included the 5' surround around the
pool itself.
PAGE 7 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6#03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued)
Although not required in Orono, Hawn asked if the applicants had considered a fence.
Thompson indicated that they had not gotten to that point, and that she would assume they
would put in some kind of fencing.
Rahn felt the edge of the pool already met the 15' required setback as proposed.
Hawn encouraged the applicant to thicken up the screening on their property. While she
felt the greenhouse constructed between the two buildings might be the most aesthetically
pleasing alternative, Hawn stated that in order to be consistent the greenhouse could not
attach the two.
There were no public comments.
Rahn agreed that there was no hardship to allow the greenhouse to be placed between the
two structures.
Gaffron pointed out that the approximate 10X15'greenhouse would need to be attached to
the other end of the garage and under the combined 1000 s.f. allowance or moved 10'
away.
Chair Smith encouraged the applicant to work out with staff what additional screening
might be necessary.
Zugschwert moved,Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application#03-
2919, Kevin and Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtlewood Road, granting approval of the
side street setback variance for the 996 s.f accessory building, plumbing in an
accessory structure, subject to the standard conditions, and a 15' side street setback
variance for the pool subject to staff approved screening. In addition,the
Commission would recommend denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory
structure. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#7) #03-2922 IMAGINALITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, 1655 AND 1685
FOX STREET,VARIANCE, 6:52—6:55 P.M.
Myrna Ornstein, of Imaginality, was present on behalf of the applicant.
Waataja explained that the proposal was originally heard at the July 21st Planning
Commission meeting. At that time the applicants were instructed to work with staff on a
redesign and conduct a wetland delineation. The applicant requests the following to allow
placement of address monuments:
PAGE 8 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7#03-2922 IMAGINALITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Continued)
1. A wetland setback variance to allow a wetland setback of 5' on the east side of the
private drive when a 26'setback is normally required.
2. A wetland setback variance to allow a wetland setback of 12' on the west side of the
private drive when a 26' setback is normally required.
Waataja stated that staff has met with the applicant and concluded that whether identifying
the property is accomplished with an address monument or standard 6"x 6"post/hanging
sign, the effects that they would have on the wetlands are minimal. Staff has reviewed the
wetland delineation report and sight visibility triangle in relation to the location of the
monuments. Because the monuments will be outside both the wetland boundary and sight
visibility triangle, staff is allowing the applicants to proceed with the monument design. A
12' setback is proposed on the west side of the drive and a 5' setback is proposed on the
east side of the drive. Two separate wetland setback variances are required; one for each
monument.
Waataja stated that staff recommends approval of both wetland setback variances with the
stipulation that footing designs be submitted to the building official to verify structural
integrity due to inherent hardships which consist of existing vegetation and wetlands at the
driveway entrance which make it practically difficult to solve the driveway identification
problem.
Ornstein stated that they have succeeded designing a plan that would be outside the sight
triangle and wetland.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2922,Imaginality on behalf of Mike Cashman, 1655/1685 Fox Street, approving the
wetland setback variances with the stipulation that footing designs be submitted to
the building official to verify structural integrity, due to inherent hardships which
consist of existing vegetation and wetlands at the driveway entrance which make it
practically difficult to solve the driveway identification problem. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays
0.
(#5)#03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, 995 WILDHURST TRAIL,350 CRESTVIEW
AVENUE,VARIANCES 6:55—7:01 P.M.
Heidi Nagel, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated that the applicant has down-scaled her requests for variances to exclude the
garage addition and the lakeside deck bumpout, and to now just enclose a slightly smaller
portion of an existing second story deck as screen porch, and construct an enclosed
PAGE 9 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued)
entryway at the front door. The variances include:
1. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch.
2. While hardcover is not increasing with this proposal, it is noted that the 75-250'zone
remains out of compliance with the 1995 hardcover approvals for this property.
Applicant proposes to remove two areas of existing concrete - an apron behind the garage,
and an unused walkway/apron between the front porch and the driveway.
Gaffron reported that staff's recommendation would be to approve the enclosure of the
screen porch per the revised plan over a portion of existing 1St story deck, approve the
extension of roof to cover the portion of the front porch per the revised plan, and that, in
addition to the 225 s.f. of hardcover removals proposed, that an additional 103 s.f. of
hardcover be removed to reduce the site to the 4,910 s.f. limit of the 1995 approval.
Chair Smith questioned how much driveway removals could take place before affecting
access and safety.
Gaffron believed that a 1-2' driveway removal would be inconsequential, noting that the
removals should have been done by the previous owner.
Nagel asked the Commission to table the application once again to allow her to meet with
the architect who has brought up some additional issues with the roofline.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved,Rahn seconded, to table Application #03-2905,Heidi Nagel, 995
Wildhurst Trail, at the request of the applicant for the purpose of redesign. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#9) #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE,
7:01 —7:24 P.M.
Michael Mischke, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant requests a number of variances to construct an
attached garage and second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include:
1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75' setback zone, 46' from shoreline.
3. Second story addition encroaching 2.9 feet from left side lot line.
4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line.
5. Two story garage structure encroaching 12.5 feet from street lot line.
PAGE 10 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued)
6. Hardcover in 0-75'reductions proposed from 1630 s.f.(31.6%)to 1000 sf(19.4%)
where no hardcover is allowed,by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas.
7. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 1216 sf(69.5%) to 952 sf(54.4%).
Additional factors:
- Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s.f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f. allowed).
- Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5' away from this residence (separation
between fireplace chases is 1.7').
Gaffron explained that the property is the second lot south of Coffee Channel, and is
subject to 75' setbacks from two sides. He noted that the applicant proposes to remove the
existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely within the side 0-75' zone, and add a
new 2-stall attached garage,plus add a second story over the existing house and new
garage. Gaffron pointed out that the property is very small, and impacted not only by its
proximity to the lake,but by the proximity of neighboring structures. The house to the
north is only 1'-2' from the side lot line, and the existing separation between the applicant's
house and the neighboring house is 4'-5' (their chimneys are only 1.7' apart).
Gaffron pointed out that the structural coverage on the property will increase from 1333
s.f. to exactly 1500 s.f. as allowed by code. The result is that 22% of the lot will be
covered by structure. In addition, hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250'
zones is proposed to be reduced substantially,primarily by eliminating areas of gravel
driveway. The detached garage moves out of the 0-75' zone, but is replaced with a larger
garage in the 75-250' zone. This results in less open parking area on the property, but still
yields a parking area on the lot with depth from 12'to 21', allowing for one larger vehicle
and one subcompact car in the driveway.
Gaffron pointed out that the main entry to the residence would be the door on the lake side,
with a secondary access through the garage. Applicant proposes to add non-hardcover
walkways and non-lined landscape beds around the residence. He added that the garage
addition is the smallest functional footprint(20'x20') and is located so as to be out of the 0-
75' zone, which places it 6.9' from the south lot line. This also forces the garage to be
nearer the street than the required 30' setback, but as a trade-off it minimizes hardcover.
The street right-of-way at this location is a widening of County Road 19 due to the bridge,
and the street area in front of the lot acts as a shared driveway.
Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore,
relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, Gaffron stated
that staff recommends the following:
a) Approval of the right side and street setback variances for the garage addition.
PAGE 11 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued)
b) Conditional approval of the left side setback and lakeshore setback for the second
story house additions
- the second story should be setback 8-9' from the lot line to maintain a 10'
separation between the two homes (i.e. only a 1-2' encroachment of side
yard); however, requiring a full 10' side setback would not be inconsistent
with recent approvals,primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to
avoid future maintenance issues...
- applicant to confirm the structural ability of the existing foundation to
support a second story, and address the degree of removals intended to
allow a determination that this will not become a total rebuild.
c) Approval of hardcover proposal,with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-
hardcover materials for walkways.
Given the difficult parking situation along Shadywood, Chair Smith inquired whether the
parking design of the application might accentuate the problem.
Gaffron reiterated that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near
the bridge, which acts as a shared driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking
problems.
Chair Smith asked what future `maintenance and openness issues' might arise.
If the home were situated just 2' from the lot line, Gaffron indicated that it would be
difficult to maintain the home, or even erect a ladder that would not sit on the neighbor's
property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for
repairs as well.
Rahn stated that, personally, he would like to see a 10' side setback maintained and a
longer driveway. He believed it would be more acceptable to allow an encroachment into
the 0-75' setback a little bit in exchange for a 10' side setback. In addition, he suggested
the garage be slid back into the home and that the second story be stepped back on the
other side so no further massing of the encroachment occurs.
Mischke stated that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway
would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage.
Hawn asked whether the foundation had been evaluated to see if it could support a second
story. She asked why the applicant would not simply rebuild versus remodel.
Mischke stated that he had plans to have the foundation examined; however, felt he could
not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick façade currently in place.
PAGE 12 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued)
Hawn pointed out that the applicant would be gaining only half the second story size he
desired if it were stepped back and slid into the garage.
Mischke indicated that he would need to determine how the 10' requirement the Planning
Commission was recommending would impact the design of the home.
Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application for redesign purposes.
Mischke asked if the Commission could approve a portion of the design in order to allow
him to proceed with the garage addition.
Gaffron felt this would be difficult given the proposed second story above the garage, since
the Planning Commission had not yet determined their comfort level with the entire
property.
Mischke asked for further direction.
Chair Smith stated that she would be comfortable with the staff recommendation.
In addition, Rahn asked the applicant to include a 10' setback from the garage and no
further encroachment on the other side.
Hawn recommended that the applicant have the foundation evaluated to ensure it could
support a second story before proceeding.
Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road, felt that, aesthetically, the design would be a nice
change.
Mischke stated that he also had a signed letter of support from the neighbor on the channel.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application #03-2928, Michael Mischke, 1972
Shadywood Road,for the purpose of redesign.VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Mischke asked if other Commissioners, as well as Rahn,were opposed to leaving the
garage where proposed.
Hawn and Chair Smith indicated that they were not against it.
While he empathized with the applicant, Rahn stated that he was against it from the
standpoint that there should be access to the lakeside from at least one side of the home for
maintenance, as well as, safety reasons.
PAGE 13 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued)
Chair Smith stated that she could support encroaching further into the driveway area to
obtain a greater side yard setback.
Hawn stated that she was opposed to a rock walkway to the front door, since as Fritzler has
pointed out on many occasions, the walkway is often resurfaced after the first year.
Mischke asked what the Commission would suggest instead of rock.
Gaffron suggested the applicant reconsider where the main entry should be placed.
Hawn indicated that she would be receptive to or prefer allowing a wooden slat walkway,
in lieu of the rocks, as a better way to access the front door.
Fritzler indicated that he agreed with Rahn's earlier reservations.
(#10) #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND
DELORES LITTLE, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE, 7:24—7:38 P.M.
Jeff Ripley, Applicant's representative, and the Applicant, Mr. Little, were present.
Foth indicated that the applicant requests a hardcover variance in order to construct a 22'x
25' garage over existing driveway hardcover. The variance includes:
1. Hardcover variances for the 0-75' and 75'-250' zones. Hardcover in the 75'-250'
zone is currently at 60.5% (10,753 s.f.) and in the 0-75' zone is at 4.91% (378 s.f.).
The nature of the hardcover is changing in both zones resulting in a full hardcover
review.
Foth explained that, in 1986, under previous ownership, variances were granted for
construction of a 2nd story deck and stairway comprising 0.16%hardcover within the 0-75'
zone where no hardcover is allowed and 37.6%hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where
25% is normally allowed. A 3' structural encroachment into the 0-75' zone where no
structure is allowed was also approved. The total hardcover amounts approved were
0.16%in the 0-75' zone and 37.6% in the 75'-250' zone.
In 1995 under the previous owners, variances were granted to permit construction of a two-
story addition constituting additional hardcover in the 75'-250' zone in excess of the 25%
normally allowed. As a condition of this hardcover variance approval in the 0-75' zone
was limited to 0.2% and the 75'-250' zone was limited to 5,777 s.f. (31.7%). Although the
additional shared driveway within the 75'-250' zone was not figured into the hardcover
within that zone, Foth stated that for staff purposes it was now included. Therefore,per
Resolution#3610 (5,777 s.f. + 1,518 s.f. for additional driveway) 7,295 s.f. total
PAGE 14 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND
DELORES LITTLE, Continued)
hardcover was approved in the 75'-250' zone. The owners were required to remove the
landscape hardcover detailed in Resolution# 3610.
Foth explained that the current applicants are proposing to construct a 22'x 25' 2-stall
attached garage on existing driveway. She noted that the Planning Department Staff
recommends an approval of the hardcover variances per the following:
1. The fabric and/or plastic under landscaping beds be removed as well as
additional hardcover added since the 1995 variance approval which results in
a total of 314 s.f. in the 0-75' zone. Currently there is 378 s.f. of hardcover within
the 0-75' zone where hardcover is normally not allowed. Hardcover in this zone
consists of landscaping and a portion of paved patio, stairs and landing for the 2nd
story deck.
2. The 3,774 s.f.within the 75'-250' zone be removed to bring the total hardcover
in the 75'-250' zone to 6,979 s.f. (39%). Plastic and/or fabric has been added to
the landscaping beds since the 1995 variance where the fabric and/or plastic was
required to be removed. Additionally, since that time paver walkways, deck and
home bump-outs have been added causing the hardcover to increase beyond the
1995 approved levels. This 3,774 s.f. to be removed should include 3,331 s.f. of
plastic and/or fabric from landscape beds and 443 s.f. of deck,pavers and etc.
Chair Smith asked if Ripley could respond to the questions of removals.
Having just spoken to the owner, Ripley stated that removals were being taken care of.
Gaffron asked what the removals would consist of, pavers,portions of the driveway, etc.
Ripley stated that the applicant would accept staff's recommendation.
Mr. Little stepped forward and pointed out that the paver walkway was the only access to
the rear yard.
Gaffron recommended the applicant consider removals from the driveway, approximately
3' wide 100' long, as well as, a reduction of the paver pathway.
Fritzler suggested the applicant reduce the size of the deck and paver pathway.
Little stated that he could accept removing 1 1/2' from either side of the driveway.
PAGE 15 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND
DELORES LITTLE, Continued)
While the driveway was to be redone at a later date, Ripley pointed out that they could
redo the driveway sooner to meet removal guidelines.
Since the applicants were receptive to driveway removals, Gaffron suggested the
Commission try to determine a square footage amount.
Fritzler maintained that the concessions would need to get them back to the 1995
approvals.
Gaffron indicated that the applicants could work with staff to find the necessary removals.
Hawn suggested no permit be issued until the removals occurred.
Gaffron noted that the removals are required to be done by the time of the footing
inspection.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved,Rahn seconded to recommend approval of Application#03-2930,
Streeter and Associates on behalf of Richard and Delores Little, 2775 Shadywood
Road, contingent upon staff recommendations that hardcover does not exceed the
1995 approvals, the removals are identified prior to City Council approval, and that
fabric, as well as, other removals are removed prior to the footing inspection. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0
(#11) #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA
MACDONALD, 2480 OLD BEACH ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:38—
7:56 P.M.
Gary Nece, on behalf of the Applicant, and Dan Duffy, the architect, were present.
Waataj a explained that the applicant requests the following to allow the construction a
three car accessory building with attached entertainment and toilet rooms and to remodel
the existing guest suite above the existing attached garage:
1. A conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building for the new
detached garage/entertainment room.
2. A conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing
attached garage.
3. A variance to allow a separate water meter for the new plumbing in the new detached
garage/entertainment room and the new plumbing above the existing attached garage.
PAGE 16 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA
MACDONALD, Continued)
4. Hardcover variance to allow 35% hardcover in the 75-250' zone to continue with the
additional hardcover being added in the 250-500' zone.
Waataja noted that after review of the application it was determined that a conditional use
permit would also be required for the non-rental guest apartment above the existing
attached garage. This is because the improvements include separate bathroom and kitchen
facilities. Further review revealed that the property is currently over in hardcover in the 75-
250' zone. The proposal only adds hardcover to the 250-500' zone within the limits
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Because hardcover is being added to the property, the
whole property comes into play for hardcover review.
Since the applicants are proposing to construct a detached three car garage with an attached
entertainment room including bathroom facilities, Waataja stated that this requires a
conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building so it can be reviewed against
the following conditions listed in the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing
will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood.
2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the
intended use of the accessory building.
3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger.
4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height.
5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property
providing that:
a. The accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless
specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City Code.
b. The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house
CUP is obtained.
c. The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for
use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
The proposal meets all of the above requirements; therefore staff is recommending
approval of a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the proposed detached
garage/entertainment room.
Waataja continued,noting that the applicant is also proposing to remodel the existing guest
suite above the existing attached garage. This includes adding a toilet room, closets, and
kitchen facilities which also requires a conditional use permit for a non-rental guest
apartment due to its ability to be used as a full time apartment.
PAGE 17 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA
MACDONALD, Continued)
With regard to the water meter variance, the Ordinance requires that utilities for non-rental
guest apartments not be metered separately which is what the applicant is proposing.
However, Waataj a stated that city staff directed the applicants to design the utilities where
they would be contained within the property boundaries. To do this,without tearing the
entire house down, a separate meter must be installed. The intent of this condition is to not
have a separate address paying for the separate meter. The applicants have indicated they
will not be using the apartment as a means for income but rather for convenience for their
guests and therefore meet the intent of the condition set forth in the conditional use permit
requirements.
Waataja indicated that, since the applicants are proposing a larger accessory building than
the two car garage that currently exists, hardcover is ultimately being added to the
property. The new building will be located in the 250-500' zone and will meet the 30%
hardcover for this zone. However, the 75-250' zone is currently over on hardcover and
because additional hardcover is being added to the property, this extra hardcover is up for
discussion.
All work is being conducted in the 250-500' zone. The applicants are adding a larger
garage and a new patio connecting the pool and entertainment room. In addition, they are
proposing a net loss in driveway(combination of new pavement in the 250-500' zone and
reducing pavement in the 75-250' zone by 239 s.f.). This brings the total added hardcover
in the 250-500' zone to 860 s.f Potential removals at a 1:1 ratio of added hardcover would
be consistent with what has been approved previously. This would amount to a reduction
of 860 s.f. hardcover within either the 75-250' or 250-500' zones or combination thereof
Waataja explained that staff recommends:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building for a
toilet room in the new detached garage/entertainment room.
2. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the
existing garage.
3. Approval of a variance to allow a separate water meter because the conditions of the
existing water services would require the house to be torn down to be able to add the
proposed plumbing using the existing meter.
4. Approval of a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone subsequent to hardcover
removals which amount to the area of hardcover being added (either in the 250-500' zone
or the 75-250' zone or a combination thereof).
Chair Smith reiterated that the apartment would not be a rental apartment.
PAGE 18 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA
MACDONALD, Continued)
Nece questioned their ability to consider a wood slat deck something other than hardcover,
as was suggested in an earlier application this evening for a walkway.
Chair Smith maintained that a wood slat deck is different than a walkway situation. She
stated that the Commission considers the uniqueness of each application, and in the City's
opinion, a deck is not necessary hardcover.
Duffy indicated that the utilities, as well as, sewer were big issues for consideration. He
pointed out that the applicant made an effort to contain the new construction to the 250-
500' zone based on staff's recommendation, and remove some of the hardcover in the 75-
250' zone. He encouraged the Commission to recognize this effort and work with them or
consider making concessions as well.
Hawn stated that she believed the applicant must still find an additional 860 s.f. of
removals in order to be consistent.
While Rahn indicated that the Commission has been holding discussions regarding
hardcover and nonhardcover,he maintained that these definitions would not be made this
evening; therefore, the deck would be considered hardcover.
Zugschwert stated that the 1:1 removal ratio is consistent with what has been required of
other applicants.
Hawn pointed out that there was a great deal of driveway hardcover on the property and
suggested the applicant consider removals.
Duffy indicated that he, too,believed they could accomplish the removals.
Given the fact that the removals will take place, Rahn encouraged the applicant to work
with staff to identify the specific removals prior to moving to City Council.
Nece stated that they could cut the driveway back and garage for 629 s.f. of removals and
remove part of the block patio as well.
There were no public comments.
Rahn moved, Zugschwert seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-2933,
Gary Nece on behalf of Robert and Brenda MacDonald, 2480 Old Beach Road,
approving the conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building for
a toilet room in the new detached garage/entertainment room, approving the
conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing
garage, approval of a variance to allow a separate water meter because the conditions
PAGE 19 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA
MACDONALD, Continued)
of the existing water services would require the house to be torn down to be able to
add the proposed plumbing using the existing meter, and approval of a hardcover
variance for the 75-250' zone subsequent to 1:1 hardcover removals which amount to
the area of hardcover being added (either in the 250-500' zone or the 75-250' zone or
a combination thereof). VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting.
In Fritzler's opinion, the hardcover removals would likely return at a later date.
As in all cases, Gaffron stated that the City could only ensure the removals were complete
at the time of the footing inspection.
(#12) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, 7:56- 8:23 P.M.
Scott and Kara Hutton, the Applicants, were present.
Foth explained that the applicants request after-the-fact hardcover variances and an after-
the-fact lakeshore setback variance in order allow a 10' x 12' shed within the 0-75' zone
and after-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25%within the 75'-250' zone. Additionally,the
applicants are requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the
structural hardcover by 42 s.f.. The variance includes:
1. Hardcover in the 75'-250' zone of 31.9 %when 25% is allowed and hardcover in
the 0-75' zone at 1.7 %when 0% is allowed.
2. Accessory structure within the 0-75' setback where none are allowed.
Foth indicated that although the property doesn't have actual navigable lakeshore, this
property is situated adjacent to wetland within Lake Minnetonka. and is within 75' of the
OHWL of Lake Minnetonka,therefore requiring the 75' setback.
In 2000 the applicants applied for a building permit to construct an attached 2-stall garage
and 2nd story addition. At that time staff noted that the property exceeded the 25%
hardcover for the 75'-250' zone from the OHWL. The applicants worked with staff and
reduced the hardcover to that which is allowed by code, as a condition of the building
permit issuance. Foth noted that in April 2003, it was found that the driveway hardcover
that was required to be removed had returned and a 10'x12'shed was added to the property
approximately 35' from the OHWL (within the 0-75' zone).
Currently the property is over on hardcover in both the 0-75', and 75'-250' zones.
• 0-75' = 1.7% (134 s.f). where none is allowed
• 75'-250' = 31.9% (5272 s.f.) where 25% is allowed
PAGE 20 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12 #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, Continued)
The applicants are proposing to further increase their hardcover by 42 s.f for a staircase
addition to their existing deck, and are requesting for the hardcover to remain over the
maximum with a total of 5314 s.f. within the 75'-250' (32.2%).
Foth stated that it would be staff's recommendation to:
✓ Deny the after-the-fact variance to encroach into the 75' lakeshore setback.
✓ Approve the after-the-fact hardcover variance with the following stipulations:
1. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds.
2. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75' zone amounting to 1.7 %.
3. Removal of the shed in the 0-75' zone.
4. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27%coverage (total allowed to remain
4,464 s.f..
Hardship: Staff does not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to exceed 27% in
the 75'-250'zone.
Chair Smith questioned whether Engineer Kellogg's recommendation should be included
as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Ms. Hutton explained that they were faced with major runoff problems after removing the
original blacktop in 2000; therefore, they were forced to replace the blacktop. The
applicants shared a picture board of photos showing the spring water runoff damage to the
living space and garage caused by the removal of the blacktop.
Chair Smith encouraged the applicants to consider the recommendations made by the City
Engineer to consult a landscape engineer to build drainage swales in lieu of the blacktop.
Mr. Hutton maintained that their home is located very low on the property and street;
therefore, is subject to the entire neighborhood's runoff. He maintained that huge amounts
of runoff flows through his property each spring and they did not wish to face the water
problems again.
Chair Smith asked what else on the property could be removed to reduce hardcover.
Mr. Hutton indicated that a small concrete deck in back could be removed for a small gain,
as well as, a portion of the turnaround in the driveway, and a small portion of retaining
wall. He pointed out that they had few removal options and, in fact, stated that they had
asked the City to allow them to build an attached garage higher up in 2000 and were told
that was not a good planning option.
Gaffron stated that the calculations reflect a difference of 808 s.f. as to what was originally
approved.
PAGE 21 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12 #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, Continued)
Chair Smith indicated that the Commission could table the application in order to allow the
applicant time to find 808 s.f. of removals, or they could move forward following staff
recommendation to get back to the driveway situation as approved in 2000 with a drainage
swale.
Mr. Hutton stated that he did not want to be put in the same situation as he was before, and
be faced with the same quagmire along his house as he has been the past two years. He was
hesitant to follow the engineer's recommendation if it was not the answer to solve the
drainage problems they face.
Fritzler stated that, it was the engineer's opinion, other plantings could be used at a slight
grade to move the water past their home versus the blacktop.
Ms. Hutton reiterated that they did not want to have water in their home again.
Chair Smith repeated the engineer's recommendation that a drainage swale may work even
more efficiently at directing water flow than did the blacktop. She suggested the applicants
table their request in order to pursue the swale option with landscapers to see if they
believe it could work.
Mr. Hutton argued that the water runoff issue did put them in a hardship situation, he
questioned what his back-up plan might be if the swale does not succeed and he is faced
with water once again.
Hawn stated that the applicants could be allowed to keep a small portion of blacktop near
the home and have the swale direct the water flow away from the garage and house.
Rahn suggested the applicants speak to landscapers to determine how best to direct the
water.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith asked the applicants to consider moving the shed out of the 0-75' zone,
keeping in mind that moving the shed forces it to become part of the hardcover equation.
She suggested the applicants consider replacing the shed with a lockbox.
Mr. Hutton asked the Commission to table his application.
Fritzler moved, Hawn seconded,to table Application #03-2935, Scott and Kara
Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road, in order to give the applicants time to consult
landscapers regarding a drainage swale. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 22 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13) #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, 3135 CASCO
CIRCLE,VARIANCE, 8:23—8:59 P.M.
Bruce Meese and Maureen Murphy, the Applicants, and Carrigan Curtis from Stonehouse
Designs,were present.
Waataja reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new
home:
1. Lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home on a .49 acre lot when .5 acres is
required.
2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home where the width at the shoreline
and 75' setback is 60' when 100' is normally required.
3. Hardcover variance to allow 6%hardcover in the 0-75' zone when 0% is allowed and to
allow 37%hardcover in the 250-500' zone when 30% is allowed
Originally, Waataj a stated that the applicants applied for a variance to remodel the existing
home and allow an existing,non-conforming 8' setback in the southwestern corner of the
home to remain to try and save an existing large maple tree. After reviewing the plans and
conversations with the architect it became apparent that the majority of the existing home
was to be demolished to accommodate the renovations, and if the true intention was to
save the tree the home should be shifted north. Because of this staff directed the applicant
that the project would be reviewed as a rebuild and that the home should be shifted to meet
the 10' setback requirement. The applicant agreed to this and submitted new plans
applying for a lot area and lot width variance.
Waataja explained that upon further examination of the plans it was discovered that the
new home would meet the hardcover requirements in the 75-250' zone but the 0-75'and
250-500' zones, as they currently exist, are over on hardcover. Due to the rebuild, the
whole lot is reviewed for hardcover compliance and has required the applicant to now
apply for hardcover variances.
Because the house is being rebuilt and not renovated a lot area and lot width variance must
be reviewed as a formality. The lot is approximately 21,392 s.f. or .49 acres in area,just
short of the 22,000 s.f(.50 acre) requirement. The property measures 60' in width at the
shoreline as well as at the 75' setback line, 40' short of the 100' width requirement. This
is generally the characteristics of lots in this neighborhood. Waataja explained that the
applicants bought the property this past winter. The new plans meet the hardcover
requirements for the 75-250' zone. Because the house is being rebuilt the entire lot is
reviewed for hardcover compliance. Both the 0-75' and 250-500' zones are non-compliant
as they currently exist.
In the 0-75'zone there is approximately 14% of hardcover. This includes a circular
concrete patio, fire-pit, stairway,boulder retaining walls, and deck. The applicants have
agreed to remove the circular concrete patio and fire-pit which results in 355 s.f. or 7.4%
PAGE 23 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, Continued)
of the hardcover in the zone. There also are retaining walls consisting of 53 s.f. or 1.2%
hardcover in the zone. The applicants have not mentioned removing these and the slope
leading to the lake is steep and highly vegetated. Thus, the walls are probably being used
to control drainage and protect the deck. There is also a 226.26 s.f. lakeside deck which
results in 5.0% of the hardcover. The applicants did minor repairs to the deck and would
like to keep it. Lastly, the stairway is an allowed use on the 0-75' zone and was not
counted in the 14%hardcover figure and can remain.
To be consistent in reviewing rebuilds, Waataja stated that staff would recommend that the
lakeside deck be removed. This would limit the hardcover in the 0-75' zone to retaining
walls (53 s.f.) and the allowed stairway. If the deck were removed, hardcover in the 0-75'
zone would be 53 s.f. or 1.2%when 0% is normally required.
In the 250-500'zone there is approximately 2,194.5 s.f. or 34.8%hardcover. This includes
the existing garage which has non-conforming setbacks, a concrete patio, and a
conservative driveway. The applicants would like to tear down the existing garage and
rebuild a three car garage meeting setback requirements. The concrete patio would be
removed. The driveway would remain conservative and include a turn-around for safety
purposes. The proposed hardcover, taking into account the new garage and revised
driveway, would bring the hardcover to 2,332.5 s.f. or 37%. Staff has found that the new
garage and revised driveway are reasonable and that attempts have been made to meet
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Waataja reported that staff recommends:
1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home.
2. Approval of the lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home.
3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone when 0%
is required to be consistent with what has been approved on rebuild lots.
4. Approval of the hardcover variance to allow 37% hardcover in the 250-500' zone when
30% is required due to the minimal area allotted in this zone and sight visibility triangles
which result in a larger driveway.
Ms. Curtis pointed out that, while the lakeside deck seems to be the issue, the wooden slats
of the deck structure do serve a function of holding up the steep slope.
Murphy stated that they covered up the original concrete wall with wood planks in an
effort to improve it aesthetically.
Chair Smith asked if the concrete wall acted as a retaining wall.
Waataja stated that the concrete wall does appear to be holding up the grade, although the
deck portion of the retaining wall does not appear to serve the same function.
PAGE 24 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, Continued)
Meese stated that the deck helps to alleviate the steepness of the stairway.
Chair Smith noted that the Commission has allowed steps where the grade has been
exceptionally steep; however, she questioned whether they have allowed decks for safety
purposes in rebuild situations.
Gaffron stated that, in most cases, rebuilds have dictated removal of decks in lieu of a
landing on the steps.
Fritzler maintained that the deck, as is, could not stay.
Hawn pointed out that the yard consists of a very compromised slope. She questioned
whether the removal of the deck which helps to support the wall would upset or do more
damage to the site than would be allowing it to remain. She was unsure if the very removal
of the deck would jeopardize the very shoreline they are striving to preserve.
Rahn believed the deck portion of the retaining wall was not necessary for the wall system
to remain, although he would make an allowance for a landing with excess space to house
a lockbox. He felt consistency dictated the decks removal.
Zugschwert agreed with Hawn that there is a need to ensure the integrity of the wall
system.
While she noted the Commission was divided on the deck, Chair Smith added that the
Commission could support the lot width and area variance requests.
Hawn stated that she had trouble supporting the need for a three car garage, when a two car
garage would suffice, and hardcover was in question.
Murphy stated that, while she felt they were making numerous concessions, she also
believed the three car garage would be good for resale and storage. She maintained that the
three car garage would not impact any views and would help them to save some of the
trees on the site.
Curtis pointed out that the top part of the building pad was extremely small and that no
matter what size the garage they would be over on hardcover there.
Rahn asked if the Commission could accept the applicants borrowing from the 75-250'
zone where little has been used in order to beef up the 250-500' zones.
PAGE 25 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, Continued)
By borrowing the square footage of one zone and moving it to another, Waataja pointed
out that the applicants would be at 26.5%hardcover, in excess of merely 140 s.f.,which
could likely be removed elsewhere.
Gaffron pointed out that the deck is in the 250-500' zone. Although he was hesitant, he
suggested the garage could be moved closer to the road, thus reducing the length of the
driveway, it would be harder to screen.
Murphy pointed out that moving the garage back would cause the loss of numerous tall
spruce trees, and since the road is so narrow, and her car had been hit parked along the
road once, it would be better for the neighborhood to keep parking contained within their
property.
Gaffron stated that the hardship could be considered the small size of the zone at the top of
the site.
Chair Smith asked whether they might still consider an oversized two car garage.
Waataja stated that it steps back from 23.5' to 21.5' and has three separate doors.
Hawn stated that she would accept the smallness of the zone, since she believed it would
be better to have the parking away from the road in this situation.
Gaffron reminded the Commission of the example of the Cable property, where the
applicants chose a too narrow driveway for their three car garage in order to meet the 25%
limit.
Rahn suggested they consider some reductions in driveway cover, even though he agreed
the zone was too small.
Zugschwert stated that she was unwilling to force the applicants to remove their three car
garage in order to achieve a 7% gain in the zone the Commission deems as a hardship.
Chair Smith asked for an opinion on the deck in the 0-75' zone.
Fritzler maintained they remove the deck and allow 52 s.f. for a landing and lockbox spot.
Meese questioned what they would do if the deck was removed and they found they had to
replace it, i.e. replacing one hardcover for another.
PAGE 26 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, Continued)
Gaffron stated that if they found the retaining wall was in need of replacement, they would
have to reapply to do so. He noted that nonconforming structures at the lakeshore is limited
by code and new construction encourages removal.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2936,Bruce Meese and Maureen Murphy,3135 Casco Circle, approving the lot area
and lot width variances, denial of the hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover in
the 0-75' zone, and approval of the hardcover variance request to allow 37%
hardcover in the 250-500' zone. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hawn dissenting.
Hawn stated that she would permit the deck on the 0-75' setback zone to remain to ensure
the integrity of the slope.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M.
(#14) #03-2937 BOB MORLOCK, 980 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION, 8:59—9:18 P.M.
Bob Morlock, the Applicant, and Brad Wells, of Coldwell Banker, were present.
Waataja reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot
subdivision to be known as Englund Third Addition located at 980 North Shore Drive. The
property is zoned RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District which requires 2 acre
minimum lot sizes. The property is a 4 acre parcel to be divided into 2, 2 acre lots.
Waataja noted that the existing home on the property would be removed and that the
property is not located within 1,000' of lakeshore and therefore not subject to hardcover
requirements. Since all proposed setbacks are taken from proposed 40' x 40' house pads, it
should be noted that the proposed lots have enough buildable area to accommodate a house
much larger than the 40' x 40' pads.
Waataja explained that the property abuts County Road 19; therefore, Hennepin County
has jurisdiction over access and has reviewed the preliminary plat but failed to send
correspondence to their recommendation to date. The applicant has indicated that the
existing drive access will be utilized for Lot 2 and that a new drive access from Co. Rd. 19
will be established for Lot 1. The City Engineer has recommended a shared driveway
agreement to minimize curb cuts on Co. Rd. 19. While the issue of a private drive or
additional Co. Rd. 19 access should be discussed, Waataja stated that the Planning
Department staff would recommend that the City follow the recommendations of the
County on this issue.
PAGE 27 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14 #03-2937 BOB MORLOCK, Continued)
With regard to Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Waataja pointed out that 10'
drainage and utility easements are proposed around all perimeter property boundaries and
5' on either side of the shared boundary in conformance with City requirements. In
addition,private driveway easements shall be dedicated for a shared driveway access
arrangement should a shared driveway be required.
Because most of the drainage flows north-northwest on both proposed lots, the City
Engineer recommends than some type of"no-grading" zone be established along the north
property lines of both lots due to steep grades. This could be done in the form of
conservation easements. This would prevent future owners from total clear-cutting for
lawn and therefore, slow storm water run-off rates from the site.
Waataj a indicated that staff recommends approval based on the following conditions:
1. Submission and approval of a final plat.
2. Implementation of the recommendations of Hennepin County.
3. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer.
4. Subject to standard fees and easements.
5. The existing house and associated sheds be removed prior to issuance of building
permits for either lot.
Morlock indicated that he had met with Hennepin County representative Zutterstrom last
week and was surprised that his comments had not yet been received by the City. Morlock
reported that Zutterstrom saw no sight distance issues with the additional curb cut and
would support their proposal.
Chair Smith asked for any further discussion on the application.
Waataj a stated that the Engineer had recommended a conservation easement in an effort to
prevent further erosion to the steep slopes, thus identified as the `no grading zone'.
Wells questioned the need to limit future owner's rights of the property. He pointed out
that the grades do not appear to be as severe as the Engineer has indicated.
Morlock asked where the easement would be.
Rahn pointed out that the future developers of either lot would be required to submit a
drainage and grading plan to the City prior to construction; therefore, the City could track
the `no grading zone' in that way.
Gaffron indicated that there would be no way to eliminate all of the water runoff from the
southerly lot to the northerly lot; therefore, warranting the need for a minimal 20-30'
easement and drainage plan.
PAGE 28 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14 #03-2937 BOB MORLOCK, Continued)
Waataja agreed, stating that, while the City Engineer was not specific, they could see the
need for a 20' minimum buffer.
Wells asked what sort of impact this might have on a potential homeowner who might like
to build a walkout residence.
Gaffron asked if the applicant had spoken to MCWD about any concerns they might have.
He mentioned that, in January, the City adopted a new stormwater management plan which
encourages the City to look for ways to manage water runoff that doesn't impact owners
adversely. Gaffron believed that the engineer had this in mind when suggesting a
vegetative type of buffer to direct water.
While the Planning Commission did not need to be party to this discussion, Hawn
interjected that they could recommend approval of the application subject to conversations
held between the applicant and the engineer, as well as, the requirement for Hennepin
County's recommendation regarding the additional curb cut.
Chair Smith moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2937,Bob Morlock, 980 North Shore Drive, granting preliminary plat approval for a
2-lot subdivision subject to staff recommendations, conversations with the City
Engineer, and Hennepin County recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 28 AND AUGUST 11, 2003
Gaffron reported that the Council supported many of the Planning Commission
recommendations; however, the Commission may need to review the Zoscke application
heard in February. He explained that the applicants have been directed to make removals
via the resolution that were not discussed in the Planning Commission meeting. After
reviewing the Minutes and tapes from that meeting, Gaffron indicated that it was difficult
to come to a conclusion as to what was to be removed.
Hawn suggested Gaffron inform the applicants that they can file an appeal to the resolution
and be heard by the Commission once again.
Gaffron pointed out how important it is for the Commission to be as specific as possible
about how much and where removals need to occur when considering applications. He
indicated that he would encourage the applicants to go through the appeal process.
PAGE 29 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 18, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#15 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Continued)
With regard to the August 11, 2003 Council meeting, Chair Smith reported that all of the
applications except the Ziebarth were on the consent agenda. Gaffron noted that the
Ziebarth application was tabled in order for the applicants to meet the requirements of the
Planning Commission recommendation. Gaffron stated that it would be heard for the third
time by the Council next week.
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron stated that a Work Session will be held on September 3, at 5:30 P.M
Zugschwert suggested that the Commission spend some time examining the rebuild versus
remodel situation in order to establish guidelines to follow for future applications.
Based on the Commission's suggestion, Gaffron indicated that he would look into
scheduling a public hearing to review minor amendments to the recodification code during
the upcoming work session.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 21,2003
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, approving the Minutes of the July 21,2003,
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON AUGUST 25,2003 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2003.
August 25 —Fritzler September 8 —Zugschwert
ADJOURNMENT
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:40
P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
5----1/1^-c-
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 30 of 30