HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE JO V 17, Z C—'(J
❑ COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. , D i r/N /E 7P//';IT i %%i Lc%. /=-/-'/C/,'? O Cy 3 2:9,i- ✓
2. ,/),.pip 6) . . d, ),, tr, r>`w) 5A/ y ' / J? / a ', - ,u�? a C �f
3. rENO/A S XiCle/I Z7.6c2 %%J£c�S /�c Q3-ZYCO
7 fil
4. AyibL 11 1,�',C''J�" ,/; £ttdit.,,,, a,,, 0 3--J--9 r '7
5.''//caki i-c\ t- iNt\,,.,. ,t.;,,, 1, -)z,,, d\i-k. N,),-A.
6. I . k; 1 vgct 4J- ems-- �a , a 3 - �s
7. Ck� i C�' \--o-..-;_`..- L-2),=m (-0(4.Y f)_- , I A) a:3-z,r )
)n 3-..:‘,,8. k,_,-z., . r-o b ( 7L,ivA, / b-A . tv. C.,_ ' 2'1,.-()
a
10. /7,,. �-� 3 / / ,,r. w„ ,,t, ...-. ,a /5-3
11. x.w.rt i.,;.-1'-z._ (lye 5x'14.,1 yt,,.,ex. 1 e - z9n-L
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
t
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:,
Acting Chair Jeanne Mabusth Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, Stephanie Zugschwert
David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzler, and Liz Hawn. Representing staff were Planning Director
Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waataj a, Recorder Kristi Anderson and.
Chair Sandra Smith and City Council liaison Mayor Peterson were absent.
Acting Chair Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
Acting Chair Mabusth submitted staffs preliminary review of the existing accessory
structures on the Dayton property to examine whether or not the barn located at 2885 Little
Orchard Way can be added to the estate at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, as well as, Mr.
Hoyt, the neighbor's, comments with regard to Application#03-2958, a renewal variance
request.
CONSENT AGENDA
*(#1) #03-2960 TIMOTHY AND KELLY MAHONEY, 2760 PHEASANT ROAD,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2960,
Timothy and Kelly Mahoney, 2760 Pheasant Road, granting a front yard setback
variance to allow a front yard setback of 29' where 35' is normally required and 33'
currently exists, due to the existing non-conforming setback, that the encroachment
only includes a roof and is not enclosed, and that the 60' total right-of-way is
excessive and still allows for adequate separation from the house to the paved road of
50'. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#2) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, 350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE,
VARIANCES (6:05 - 6:15 P.M.)
Winfield Stephens, the applicant, was present.
Waataja explained 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.
PAGE 1 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#2) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, 350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE,
VARIANCES, Continued
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 30' when 50' is normally
required.
5. Hardcover variance to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally
allowed.
At the August 18, 2003 Planning Commission meeting the applicant's proposal was tabled
to allow for the applicant to redesign in conformance with staffs recommendation which
was as follows:
1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre
zoning district.
2. Approval of a front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30' when
50' is normally allowed.
3. Approval of a side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10' when
30' is normally allowed.
4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 30' when
50' is normally allowed.
5. Denial of the creek setback to allow structure in the 0-75' creek setback zone.
Because the project was being reviewed as a rebuild, the applicant was instructed to
redesign a footprint which does not extend into the 0-75' creek setback.
6. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75' creek setback zone to allow 2.7%
hardcover when 0% is normally allowed
7. Approval of a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone which would allow for the
buildable area as shown on Exhibit H of the original planning report due to the
limited amount of buildable area existing in the 75-250' zone.
Waataja reported that the applicant has submitted plans which meet the above
recommendation. The footprint of the proposed home meets the 30' front yard setback,
10' side yard setback and the 30' rear yard setback. Also, the applicant has removed all
structure from the 0-75' creek setback zone when 325 s.f. was originally proposed and has
proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone at 45% when 44% was originally proposed. The
applicants proposed footprint also meets the structural coverage requirement as 12% is
proposed when 15% is allowed.
Waataja stated that staff would recommend approval of the revised proposal, as submitted
and shown on the plan dated November 3, 2003, which consists of the following variances:
1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre
zoning district.
PAGE 2 of 41
i r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#2) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS,350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE,
VARIANCES, Continued
2. Approval of the front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30'
when 50' is normally allowed.
3. Approval of a side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10' when
30' is normally allowed.
4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a 30' rear yard setback when 50'
is normally allowed.
5. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 45%hardcover in the 75-250' zone
when 25% is normally allowed due to the limited amount of area in the zone (6,580
s.f.) and the large amount of unbuildable area on the lot(12,000 s.f.).
Mr. Stephens had nothing further to add.
John Lehmeyer, 320 Crestview Avenue, relayed his concern regarding screening along the
northern side of the property where a 10' setback will be granted.
Mr. Stephens stated that he would be open to adding any kind of acceptable screening,
including additional lilacs.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application
#03-2917, Winfield and Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue, granting a lot area, front,
rear, and side setback variances and a hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone, subject to
staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE (6:59—7:18 P.M.)
As the applicants were absent, discussion was postponed.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (6:15—6:59 P.M.)
Judith Pierpont, the applicant, was present.
Gaffron reported that the applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between
these two residential lots, both of which they have owned for many years. The westerly
lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, 1801 West Farm, contains a
principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants'
intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal
accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1801 and its guest house,but only if the
wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement
PAGE 3 of 41
T t
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued
Gaffron explained that in 1990 the applicants were granted a CUP via Resolution No. 2854
to convert a detached stable and garage into a guest house near the northwest corner of Lot
15. At that time the property was depicted as "5-plus dry contiguous acres", considered as
including Lot 14 for density purposes. Condition 2 of Resolution No. 2854 stated as
follows:
"2. The applicants have agreed to legally combine Lot 14,Block 1,The Farm at
Long Lake with the adjacent homestead property by February 28, 1991. Applicants
are hereby advised that if the legal combination is not realized by the specified
deadline date, all residential use of the subject structure shall cease immediately and
applicants shall be required to make the necessary alterations to the guest house
structure so that it may no longer be used for habitation.Applicants shall obtain the
required building permit to complete the alterations."
For reasons unknown to staff, the legal combination has never been completed by the
applicants. They continue to own both parcels, however, and are requesting the lot line
rearrangement in order to maximize the area of the homestead parcel while retaining the
minimum 2.0 dry buildable acres in Lot 14 for future development or sale as a building
site.
Gaffron stated that Guest House conditional use standards appear in Section 78-303(8)(a)
and have interpreted in past applications to mean that a property in a 2-acre zone must
contain 4.0 dry buildable acres of land to qualify for a guest house. Staff is unaware of any
past situations where a guest house was allowed when a portion of the required 4 acres was
wetland. Gaffron also believed it should be noted that the existing guest house is located
very near the north property boundary of Lot 15/16.
With regard to septic system capability, Gaffron stated that the applicants have provided
septic testing indicating that Lot 14 after the rearrangement will have two approved sites
for a 5-bedroom mound system as required by City code. Lot 15/16 has also been
confirmed to have a site for construction of a 5-bedroom mound system should the need
arise to replace the existing system serving the house and guest house. However, the City
Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer,
and it is anticipated that Lot 14 and Lot 15/16 will be served by municipal sewer in the
relatively near future. At the time of attributing sewer units to the various properties to be
served, the guest house on Lot 15/16 will have to be considered under the City's
assessment policies.
While Lot 14 will contain the required 2.0 acres of dry buildable land after the
rearrangement, hardcover calculations which have been provided, shows that existing
hardcover is well below the established limits, and should not be a factor in future
development of the property.
PAGE 4 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued
Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to
the following:
1. Applicants to grant a 20' drainage &utility easement (10' either side of new lot
line) to replace the easements being vacated.
2. Applicants to provide title opinion to confirm ownership of each property.
3. Planning Commission should address whether the Guest House use should continue
to be allowed based on 3 acres dry/1 acre wet. If not, then applicants should be
directed to proceed with removal of its plumbing, or make an application to convert
it to an "accessory building with plumbing" and remove any existing kitchen
facilities.
4. Planning Commission should determine what the intended use is for the driveway
in Lot 14 connecting to Lot 15/16; then determine whether any special conditions
should be considered for continued use of that secondary access if Lot 14 is sold
separately from Lot 15/16.
Ms. Pierpont explained that the original guest house was a converted stable from the
1800's and that they would prefer to leave the guest house as is. She maintained that they
were not proposing to increase the size of the footprint with the proposed changes in the
driveway and would plan to remove the surrounding circular driveway someday.
Benjamin Whitten, 1889 West Farm Road, voiced his opposition to the proposed lot line
rearrangement. He questioned the process that allowed the applicants to fail to combine
the two parcels as directed by their CUP in 1990. He objected to their request to vacate the
original agreement,redraw the lot line, and allow to site wetlands for their purposes of
septic etc. Although Whitten had no interest in seeing the guest house removed or changed,
as a neighbor, he felt the process had failed to protect him and he questioned the Pierponts
motivation as their property was on the market until recently.
Ms. Pierpont stated that the home had been taken off the market.
Zugschwert asked if the Commission had ever allowed the use of wetlands to be a factor
when determining the propensity of the guest house.
Gaffron stated that the lot area for rural zones does not include wetland regions in the
calculable area of the buildable lot area. He pointed out that, in 1989, that is why the two
PAGE 5 of 41
,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued
lots were to be legally combined. Since they were not combined, and the City failed to
follow up, the Commission should now address this issue.
Pierpont stated that they would prefer to have two clearly distinct lots for their purposes
and which could be assessed independently.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked what would stop the applicants from disregarding, once
again, what the Commission recommends as a condition. As demonstrated by their failure
to follow through on the initial agreement. In addition, Mabusth stated that her support
would hinge upon the removal of the outer circular driveway. She asked whether the
wetland posed a hardship of any kind for the applicants.
As a condition of the rearrangement, Pierpont agreed to the removal of the outer driveway.
Hawn stated that her reservations stem from the fact that the original CUP for the guest
house would not have gone forward if the City and applicant would have followed the
terms of the past agreement citing the combination as a condition of its approval. She
maintained that the Code clearly states that applicants need 4 acres of dry buildable to have
the guest house. She stated that if the applicants wish to retain the guest house structure,
they must remove that which makes it a guest house, i.e. the kitchenette.
Pierpont stated that she hadn't realized her husband had neglected to complete the legal
combination until applying for this application. She pointed out that most of the wetland
appears, to her, to be on her neighbor's property and not hers.
Gaffron indicated that these were the numbers the City was supplied with and reflect 6
acres, one of which is wetland, supporting two structures and a guest house.
Pierpont asked whether the fact that they plan to attach the guest house to their present
home has any bearing on the subject.
Gaffron pointed out that an enclosed connection from the main house to the guest house
would add a new dimension to the proposal and flag additional variance requests.
Although this would change the need for the CUP for the guest house, it would be creating
a new nonconforming structure too close to the lot line.
Pierpont questioned what the issue was, since this home should be viewed as an asset to
the community and they would remove the outer driveway.
Hawn stated that the problem stems from the new precedent that would be set by an
approval of this nature. She reiterated that the applicants had been directed to legally
PAGE 6 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued
combine the lots in order to double the lot size which would allow them to build their guest
house in 1989. While she agreed the home was a beautiful facility, Hawn repeated the
options, which included either meeting the 4 acres of dry buildable or removing the kitchen
in the guest house.
Pierpont reminded the Commission that they would be paying for sewer on two properties,
as well as, creating new space for a potential homeowners and tax payer in Orono, if they
were allowed the rearrangement.
The Commissioners agreed that they could not credit the applicants for the wetland.
Rahn stated that the applicants must comply with the original resolution by either
combining the two lots or losing the kitchen facilities. Since the conditions under which
the original agreement was made have not changed, he asserted that it is spelled out quite
clearly what the expectation is.
Pierpont stated that, although she would lose the kitchen, she believed that sewer has made
a significant change to the original terms of the agreement.
Gaffron stated that if the guest house is converted to an accessory structure with plumbing
by CUP, he would confirm with the City Attorney at a later date whether this could be
made part of the Planning Commission's recommendation at this time. He pointed out that
the accessory structure fails to meet the 15' setback, as has always been the case, and
remains nonconforming.
In order to allow the accessory structure to remain, Acting Chair Mabusth based this upon
the findings that the structure's proximity to the lot line was existent, was used as a guest
house, it sits on a hill with no impact to views, has a natural buffer, and has historical
significance attached to it as a stable.
Although it had been upgraded, Pierpont pointed out that the stable has always had
plumbing.
While he would first check with the Attorney, Gaffron stated that this may offer some
grandfathered status since the plumbing was existent.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of
Application #03-2951, James and Judith Pierpont, 1801-1849 West Farm Road,
granting the lot line rearrangement, subject to staff recommendations, the removal of
the outer circular driveway; and pending City Attorney approval,while the guest
house use must be discontinued with this subdivision, modifying the CUP for the
PAGE 7 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM
ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued
guest house on lot 15/16 to reflect the approval for a CUP for accessory structure
with plumbing based on the findings that the structures situation to the lot line was
existent, the structure had been used as a guest house, does not obstruct views,
affords a natural buffer, and has historical significance as a stable. VOTE: Ayes 5,
nays 1.
Fritzler dissented, stating that the applicants failed to follow the terms of the original
agreement and that the old stable does not necessarily hold historic significance.
(#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE (6:59—7:18 P.M.)—continued
Kara Hutton, the applicant, was present.
Foth explained that the applicants previously requested 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 were requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus
increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f.. The variance included:
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.
The applicants have since revised their request. They are requesting the following:
1. Hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to their existing deck within the
75'-250' zone.
2. Hardcover variance to allow a 10' x 12' shed (additional 120 s.£ hardcover) within the
75'-250' zone.
The applicants are also requesting a hardcover variance to in order to retain 808 s.f of
driveway hardcover which was removed in order to obtain a building permit for an
addition constructed in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003 the driveway hardcover was
reinstalled.
Foth reported that, in August 2003, the applicants were before the Planning Commission
with hardcover variance requests and a request for a variance for an accessory structure
within 75' of the OHWL. The applicants were directed by the Planning Commission to
remove the excess 808 s.f. of hardcover from the 75'-250' setback zone, and with relation
to the shed in the 0-75' setback the applicants were provided with City Code information
regarding a lock box. Since that time, the applicants have provided their plan for hardcover
removals within the 75'-250' setback zone. They are now proposing to add additional
PAGE 8 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
structural coverage (consisting of a 42 s.f. staircase for their existing deck) and to place the
10'x12' (120 s.f.) shed within this zone. In summary, the applicants are requesting a
hardcover variance to add 162 s.f. of hardcover to their 75'-250' zone after the removal of
the 808 s.f. required by the 2000 building permit approval.
Foth stated that Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the hardcover
variance with the following stipulations:
1. Approval of a hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to their existing
deck within the 75'-250' zone.
2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow a 10' x 12' shed (additional 120 s.f.
hardcover) within the 75'-250' zone.
3. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds.
4. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75' zone amounting to 1.7 %.
5. Removal of the shed in the 0-75' zone.
6. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27% coverage per 2000 building
permit conditions (remain at 4,464 s.f.).
Ms. Hutton stated that, after several attempts, they found a landscape contractor that would
be willing to devise a landscape plan to help with the drainage issues faced at this site.
Although they remain skeptical and do not wish to endure water leaking into their home
once again, Hutton stated that they would pursue this route.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the proposal meets the 808 s.f. hardcover removals as
previously requested.
Hawn pointed out that the shed in the 75-250' zone contributes to the hardcover dilemma
and asked whether a hardship exists to allow it.
Hutton maintained that the drainage issues and topography of their lot continue to be the
hardships they face, contributing to their inability to have a detached garage.
Since Rahn believed they should be held to the 2000 hardcover levels, he suggested the
stairs be incorporated into the deck as it is being replaced.
Zugschwert asked whether the experts she had contacted believed that a swale and
landscaping would be sufficient to solve the drainage problems.
Hutton stated that it is still a concern and 2 of the 3 she'd contacted could not guarantee
this to be a solution.
PAGE 9 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
Zugschwert stated that she felt they had provided adequate hardship with the topography of
the site and drainage issues to support their request.
Fritzler disagreed, stating that he did not see a reason to grant a hardcover variance since
the steps could be incorporated into the deck and the shed is additional unsupported
hardcover.
Bremer stated that she had no problem allowing the shed and would approve the
application if the steps were incorporated into the new deck.
Rahn agreed, recognizing the shed met the legal setbacks.
Rahn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, recommending approval of
Application #03-2935, Scott and Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road, granting
approval for a 10X12' shed in the 75-250' setback zone, and incorporating the deck
stairs into the rebuild of the lakeside deck. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting.
(#5) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
VARIANCE (7:18—7:23 P.M.)
Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, the applicants, were present.
Foth reported that the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance for their property on
which they are rebuilding a new home. They are requesting hardcover variances within the
0-75' and 75'-250' zone. The request consists of:
1. Hardcover variance in 0-75' zone of 1.4%, consisting of a staircase to the lake, where
0% is allowed.
2. Hardcover variance in the 75'-250' zone consisting of 35.7%hardcover where 25% is
normally allowed.
While the applicants' initial request was for hardcover and side setback variances in order
to construct a new residence on the 0.71 acre lot within the 2-acre zone, the Planning
Commission at their October 20th meeting asked the applicants to redesign their home
meeting all of the required setbacks for the LR-1 A zone. Foth pointed out that the
Planning Commission did feel that there was a hardship due to the location of the lot, the
shared driveway situation and the inability to park on Cty Rd 15 to grant some level of
hardcover variance for this project.
After several meetings with Staff and another visit with the Planning Commission at the
November 5th work session the applicants have designed a home to meet all of the required
setbacks. The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance within the 75'-250' zone of
PAGE 10 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE,
VARIANCE, Continued
35.7%where 25% is allowed. The applicants' request for a variance within the 0-75' zone
is merely a formality as the 1.4%hardcover in this zone represents an allowed 136 s.f
staircase to the lake.
Foth stated that staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variances as proposed;
Hardcover within the 0-75' zone at 1.4% and hardcover within the 75'-250' zone to be at
35.7% and that the applicants remove all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. Since
staff finds a hardship to approve the hardcover variances as requested due to the nature and
location of the shared driveway and the inability to park vehicles along County Road 15.
Acting Chair thanked the applicants for working with the City and Planning Department
staff to resolve their differences.
Ms. Newkirk acknowledged that it had been a terrible experience.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2953,
Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, granting both a hardcover
variance in the 0-75' zone of 1.4% consisting of a staircase to the lake and the 75-250'
zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, subject to the
removal of all landscape fabric and plastic liners. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:23—8:00 P.M.)
David and Tara Gross, the applicants, were present.
Foth explained that the applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance in order to allow
a 2380 s.f. sport court within 6' of the side lot line where 30' is required
Foth provided the following background, in June 2003, the applicants were notified by a
letter from Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was
required for their newly constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified
that the sport court did not meet the required 30' side setback as it was placed less than 6'
from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in
raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height
restrictions. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required,
and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work
PAGE 11 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continued
conducted on their property. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court,
which the applicants signed, placing the responsibility for obtaining permits upon the
property owner.
In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to remove the
2380 s.f. sport court. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport court and
applied for an after-the-fact variance. A letter from Planning Director, Mike Gaffron,
dated September 10, 2003, informed the applicants that their variance application was
incomplete pending submittal of several items. Staff did not want the issue to be
overlooked and sent a letter to the applicants requiring submittal of the materials by
November 1, 2003 or removal of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action by
the City. At that time, Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into
compliance with City Codes.
On October 31st Staff called the applicants because the materials had not been submitted
and notified them that the materials were to be submitted by 10 am Monday, November
3rd. There was a misunderstanding regarding who was to be responsible for submitting
each of the required items which was causing the delay in material submittal.
Foth stated that, typically, a 30' side yard setback is required; the current setback of the
sport court is between 3.5' and 6' from the eastern side property line. The applicants are
asking the Planning Commission to allow a structure 2380 s.f., which is 1380 s.f. larger
than the threshold which triggers the increased setback of 30', to be set back less than 6'
from the property line. Additionally, the setback requested by the applicants is
significantly less than would be required for even just a small storage shed. The applicants
have proposed additional landscaping screening consisting of arborvitae between the sport
court and the eastern property line. In addition, Foth noted that the garden was located by
the surveyor approximately 3-4" over the property line and should be located entirely
within the applicants property.
Foth pointed out that City Code Section 86-66, indicates a permit is required for
construction of structures in excess of 1000 s.f. and are subject to additional setback
requirements. Had a permit been applied for in this case, the applicant and the contractor
would have been made aware of the 30' side setback for oversized sport courts (which are
treated as tennis courts).
Foth reported that Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variance request
based on a finding that if there are too many restrictions caused by other site features and
amenities, then these factors are not hardships but are reasons that the site cannot support
an additional amenity.
PAGE 12 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continued
Ms. Gross indicated that the garden issues had been solved and were no longer in question.
Mr. Gross explained that their intent to construct a sport court in this location was by no
means meant to be a malicious act. He indicated that he and his family moved to Orono
two years earlier and have been heavily involved in the community. Having looked at their
options for constructing a sport court last spring, they settled on this location as it was
visible from the kitchen windows and proceeded without objection from adjoining
properties. Gross stated that, in fact, the adjoining neighbor had no objection at the time
but instead asked to use the sport court when complete. In addition, he had seen several
full size tennis courts and sports courts on property lines throughout the area and had no
concerns about its placement.
Although the intent was to build the sport court 10' from the property line, which they felt
was meeting code based on others they'd seen, due to grade changes the court was shifted
to merely 6' off the property line. Mr. Gross stated that, after construction, Bruce Vang
approached the applicants and said we'd have to apply for an after-the-fact variance. In so
doing, the Gross' hired Gronberg and Associates to handle the matter and provide the City
with the necessary paperwork they required. Gross stated that, unbeknownst to them, the
deadlines were missed, after which he placed repeated phone calls to his representatives to
provide the necessary papers.
Mr. Gross believed the proposed alternate location would place the sport court on the blind
side of the home and cause the removal of eight large spruce trees. Instead, Gross
proposed they plant significant landscaping to improve the existing situation.
Acting Chair Mabusth recognized that the applicants had been put in a difficult situation.
Ms. Gross indicated that, typically, all of the contractors they'd ever dealt with had always
pulled the permits for them, and it was not apparent to them that it was their responsibility.
Gross questioned if the Code had been changed recently to reflect a 30' rather than 10'
setback.
Gaffron indicated that the oversize structure Code dates back 10 years.
Paul Tichy, 2615 Countryside Drive, stated that, as the adjoining property owner, he
wished for further clarity and definition of what the codes exist for it not to protect the
integrity and values of property owners. He pointed out that, while it is their preference to
preserve the natural state of their property, they did not wish for bad things to happen for
the neighbor.
PAGE 13 of 41
.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continued
Acting Chair Mabusth pointed out that, specifically, the rules regarding sport courts exist
to protect adjacent neighbors from the additional noise and disturbance the courts, and
lights, create by nature.
Gaffron asked the Commission whether they could find any hardship that would support
the approval of the proposed location, had the application come to them before-the-fact.
Although she could appreciate their concern about visibility, Acting Chair Mabusth stated
that, had they come in prior to construction, they would have been asked to test for septic
and move it closer to meet the 30' setback.
Gross acknowledged that, while they could try to reduce the size of the court to fit within
the City Code, at great expense, he questioned how the additional 4' would eliminate the
impact that noise and children might have.
Bremer asked what the sport court would have to be reduced by to allow it to remain 10'
from the property line.
Gaffron indicated that accessory structures of 0-750 s.f. require a 10' setback, from 750-
1500 s.f. require a 15' setback and so on.
Hawn stated that this is the second time she had heard of this sort of setback issue being
created by sport courts and asked why this continues.
Bremer pointed out that the contract with Sport Court clearly states it is the homeowner's
responsibility to pull the permits.
Gross stated that, having never been in a position where the contractor hadn't pulled the
permit, they simply had overlooked that aspect of the contract in the excitement of getting
their sport court. He reiterated that they never would have walked willingly into this
predicament and noted that his proposed options placed a pretty significant impact on him
and his family.
Fritzler maintained that the applicants must reduce the size of their sport court and keep
any fencing within limits as well.
While she would not have voted to support the current placement of the sport court if
they'd come before the Commission first, Hawn asked whether a time limit should be
placed on the courts removal or new placement.
PAGE 14 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continued
Gaffron stated that weather conditions may warrant a removal/relocation deadline of June
2004.
Bremer questioned whether the applicants had spoken to their contractor about their role in
creating this problem.
Gross stated that the contractor referred them to the contract.
Tichy, the neighbor, questioned whether Sport Court should have proceeded without a
permit knowing what they do about limitations within Orono. He pointed out that Sport
Court has acknowledged that Orono is one of 5 communities in the metro area with more
restrictive setback allowances than most. He argued that Sport Court might have a bit more
liability in the situation than they have been leading the Gross' to believe.
Craig Jones, owner of Sport Court, stated that for 18 years he has been the one to pull
permits for his clients; however, he had recently changed this policy and put the
responsibility of this upon the customer. Unfortunately, as in this situation, Jones stated
that he has learned this is not an effective alternative and has reversed his policy so that he,
the contractor, pulls the permits. Jones stated that he was familiar with Orono's rules
regarding setback,having spoken to Lyle Oman in the past.
Fritzler asked why the contractor didn't question the fact no permit was posted at the site.
He stated that he would not be in support of granting the after-the-fact request.
Fritzler moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2950,David
and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive, a request for an after-the-fact variance to
allow a 2380 s.f. sport court within 6' of the side lot line where 30' is required.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1.
Zugschwert stated that she would grant the request with additional screening. She believed
it was unfortunate that the Gross' were caught in the middle; whereas, the Sport Court
organization has once again begun pulling the permits for their clients.
Based on the denial, Todd Unless, 2630 Countryside Drive West, asked for clarification of
when the removal must take place given the time of year.
The Commission agreed that removal or relocation should be complete by June 2004.
PAGE 15 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS—8:00 P.M.
(#6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h)
and 78-1577, REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Acting Chair Mabusth opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Seeing there were no public
comments, Mabusth closed the public hearing and postponed Commission discussion
following new business.
NEW BUSINESS - Continued
(#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (8:01 —8:25 P.M.)
Judy and David Zoschke, the applicants, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant is appealing City Staff's interpretation of the
conclusions of the Planning Commission and Council in relation to the extent of hardcover
removals required per Resolution No. 4920, adopted February 24, 2003
Gaffron reported that in February 2003, the Zoschke's were granted a variety of variances
in order to replace a deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose part of it as a porch.
The applicants agreed to remove hardcover including landscape areas lined by
plastic/fabric as well as patio area in the 0-75'zone. However, the applicants are disputing
the square footage and extent of patio removal agreed to; they do not believe they agreed to
the removals as depicted in Resolution No. 4920,but to a lesser removal that allows the
upper patio, stairway, and a 3'portion of lower patio adjacent to the retaining wall, to
remain.
Staff was initially advised by the Zoschke's in July that they disagreed with the Resolution
diagram and the extent of the removals required. Staff reviewed the zoning file and the PC
and Council minutes to determine whether any documentation therein would support or
refute the Zoschke's position. Gaffron indicated that the initial conclusion reached was that
the square footage to be removed was not documented in either set of minutes, but the
Council memo of 2-20-03 clearly indicates a 681 s.f. removal, which was reflected in the
attached resolution adopted by Council on 2-24-03.
Staff has contested that the Zoschke's had opportunity to review the resolution and exhibit
prior to its adoption, and had further opportunity to review it between its adoption and the
time they individually signed it more than a month later. The Council did place this item
on its Consent Agenda, so no discussion was held at the Council level for this item.
PAGE 16 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Continued
Gaffron stated that he'd discussed this application in July with Jennifer Chaput Zierke who
was the Orono staff person responsible for the Zoschke application. Jennifer, currently the
City Planner for Long Lake. advised Gaffron that the resolution, exhibit and memo
accurately reflected what she believed to be the required removals. Gaffron stated he then
requested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the
meeting to determine whether any new information could be gleaned from the tape. After
reviewing the tape she indicated that she could reach no conclusion as to the exact extent
of removals required. She did indicate that there was discussion that occurred in relation
to Gaffron's drawing the potential removals on an overhead transparency at the PC
meeting. While it would be useful if that transparency was available, as is the City's
standard practice, transparencies and duplicate copies of documents are discarded from the
zoning files at the end of the review process.
To further the review Gaffron stated that he brought the matter informally before the
Planning Commission after their August or September meeting, and the few members
present who were part of the February review did not have a clear recollection of the
details of the required removals. This inability to reach a consensus generated a September
25 letter to the Zoschke's suggesting they could file an appeal. I did not offer the
Zoschke's the option of filing for a new variance application, although that option was
perhaps available; this could still be an option depending on the outcome of this appeal,
but also puts them at risk of re-opening the entire hardcover issue and an even more
negative result, from their perspective.
Gaffron stated that the applicants' position is that they have removed all but a 2.5' strip of
the lower patio, which was retained to support the retaining wall. They believe the
stairway leading to the upper patio, and its adjoining spillway, need to be retained for
drainage purposes and to retain access to the lower yard. They further want to keep the
upper patio as it is accessible to family members who cannot traverse stairways. The
applicants indicate they have removed a total of 447 s.f. of concrete to date, as well as the
plastic landscape bed liners, which leaves them 234 s.f. short of the 681 s.f. removals
required per the resolution.
Gaffron pointed out that this appeal process is intended to allow for consideration of
whether the administrative actions taken by Staff(i.e. the interpretation of what hardcover
was required to be removed)reflects the intent of the Planning Commission and Council.
Since this was on the Council's consent agenda, the primary review focus will be at the
Planning Commission level, who could reach a variety of outcomes, including one of the
following:
1. Determine that the staff interpretation as noted in Resolution No. 4920 correctly
reflects the Planning Commission's intent.
PAGE 17 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE,2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Continued
2. Determine that the staff interpretation does not correctly reflect the Planning
Commission's intent, and provide staff with direction to clarify and correct the resolution.
3. Reach no consensus as to whether the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to
Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome).
The applicants could, if they disagree with your conclusions, file for a new variance and
attempt to demonstrate a hardship that would support the granting of variances. In staff's
opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the place of a new variance application.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she recalled discussion regarding the removal of
staircases, which resulted in the applicants retaining the upper staircase and retaining wall,
removing the lower stairway, and keeping the concrete area. Upon revisiting the site once
again, Mabusth stated that she felt the northern steps could be removed instead of the
lower access steps.
Mr. Zoschke stated that, in his recollection, he had asked to retain the lower steps and lean-
to which were allowed in the discussion.
Bremer concurred.
Zoschke indicated that he would remove the walk going down to the lake once the northern
stairway was removed. He maintained that the 681 s.f. figure was incorrect, since the
removal of either staircase would fall short more than 100 square feet.
Hawn pointed out that the appeal could only be based on comments from Commissioners
who were present at that previous meeting.
Gaffron concurred, stating that only the people who were in attendance at that meeting
should address whether the resolution represents what was intended. He asked if the
Commission agreed that the 681 s.f. figure was the correct number.
Acting Chair Mabusth agreed that the 681 s.f. figure could not be met in any combination.
Rahn questioned where the 681 s.f. figure had come from, whether it was a combination of
all the concrete patios on the property, or who had come up with that number.
Gaffron stated that staff could easily recalculate the square footage to come up with an
appropriate number if the Commission could agree upon which things were meant to be
removed. He stated that the hardcover calculation worksheet is most often completed by
PAGE 18 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE,2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Continued
the surveyor. Gaffron indicated that he could recall a need to retain the upper patio
walkway from the house.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she failed to recall any conversation that stated the upper
patio portion was to be removed. She maintained that the 681 s.f. figure was incorrect.
Bremer stated that she would trust the direction laid out in the Minutes which focus on the
removal of the concrete patio and not the specific square footage. She believed the
discussion centered on the visuals and less on the specific numbers associated with those
items to remain or be removed.
Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the Commission make a recommendation that designates
certain elements of the drawing versus the specific numbers. She encouraged the
Commission to evaluate what has been removed already and what's the difference between
this and what is further to be removed, such as the staircase along the north side. She
noted that she also recalled discussion that would allow the applicant to retain the walkway
to the lean-to structure, as well as, the connection between the upper and lower level stair
area.
Gaffron stated that if the Commission could conclude that the proposed drawing was
correct and that numbers were not specifically discussed, staff could recalculate the
removals based on their recommendation.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, to recommend approval of Application#03-2866a, an
Appeal to Resolution #4920, based on the conclusion that the proposed drawing is
correct, the Commission directs staff to recalculate based on the drawing how much
hardcover was to be removed, determine how much has been removed, and how
much additional is to be removed in the 0-75' zone upon the applicants choosing.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0,Abstain 2. Hawn and Zugschwert abstaining.
8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
(#7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71
REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES
Acting Chair Mabusth opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. As there were no public
comments, Mabusth deferred further discussion following New Business Applications.
PAGE 19 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS - Continued
(#10) #03-2959 TIMOTHY J. LATTERNER, 2032 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE (8:27—8:42 P.M.)
Timothy and Sheryl Latterner, the applicants, were present.
Foth reported that the applicants request the following:
1. A hardcover variance in the 75'- 250' setback zone in order to reduce their existing
hardcover from 65.1% (82.2% including rock and plastic) to 61.2%where 25% is
allowed.
2. Side yard setback variances for the residence in order to add a pitched roof where a flat
roof currently exists and add a full 2nd story where currently a '/2 story exists at a
substandard setback of 5.8' where a 10' side setback is required.
3. Side yard setback variance in order to change the roof on the existing garage and
carport that is currently setback 4.5' from the property line where a 10' side setback is
required.
Foth explained that the applicants' existing home is setback 5.8' feet from the side yard
where a 10' setback is required. The home has a flat roof on the rear porch and a V2 story
in the middle portion of the upper level. The applicants wish to add a pitched roof above
an existing flat-roofed porch make their current 1/2 story a full story. The applicants have
proposed removal of all of the plastic lined rock landscape areas and will be replacing
those areas with sod. The total hardcover reduction is proposed to be 296 s.f., not taking
account of the 1644 s.f. of rock lined landscape areas which will be removed.
Furthermore, Foth stated that, in order to repair a leaking roof, the applicants would like to
add a pitched roof to their flat-roofed porch and bring the pitch down and add V2 story to
the existing V2 story. The applicants feel that their water leakage problems could be solved
by removing the dormered windows and adding the pitched roof to their porch. As part of
this application the applicants would like to alter the roofline of their existing garage to
include the existing carport. Staff found that no permit had been obtained for the carport.
The carport is currently 3.5' from the property line and approximately 5.5' from the
neighboring garage roof. Staff believes expansion of the garage roof to make this
nonconforming carport more permanent is not appropriate and not supported by hardship.
Foth indicated that Planning Department Staff recommends:
1. Approval of the hardcover variance in order to reduce the level of hardcover on the lot
from 65.1% to 61.2%within the 75'-250' setback zone.
2. Approval of the side setback variance to allow the construction of a pitched roof over
the existing flat-roofed porch 5.8' from the side yard where 10' is required.
3. Approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current %2 story into a full
story 5.8' from the property line where a 10' side setback is required.
PAGE 20 of 41
i
t
°;
x
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10) #03-2959 TIMOTHY J. LATTERNER, 2032 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
4. Removal of the 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage from 24.8% to
21.4%.
5. Removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds.
Mr. Latterner stated that they had recently purchased the property and hoped to repair the
problem due to water leakage on the top floor. In addition, he indicated that they would
replace the current four types of roofing material with one standard design.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the carport would not be allowed.
Latterner indicated he could accept that.
Some discussion with regard to the removal of additional bituminous driveway ensued,
resulting in the applicants retaining the current surface amounts to provide safe access to
County Road 19 and accommodation for four drivers.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the applicants remove the additional 5' paved section
along the rear of the garage and replace it with sod.
Dr. Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road, the neighbor to the south, supported the applicants
request to retain the bituminous surface of the drive, since it is extremely difficult to
maneuver and safely access Shadywood Rd.
Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2959, Timothy and Sheryl Latterner, 2032 Shadywood Road, granting a hardcover
variance reducing the current level of hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 65.1% to
61.2%; approval of the side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a
pitched roof over the existing flat-roofed porch 5.8' from the side yard where 10' is
required; approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current V2
story into a full story 5.8' from the property line where a 10' side setback is required;
Removal of the 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage from 24.8% to
21.4%; and removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds. VOTE: Ayes 6,
nays 0.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT (8:42— 10:00 P.M.)
Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates, and Bob Carlson, applicants' representative,
were present.
PAGE 21 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
Gaffron explained that this is a proposed 3-lot residential plat of property located on the
southwest shore of Lydiard Lake. The proposal includes:
- keeping the existing residence, guesthouse and tennis court within a 6.3 acre
lakeshore parcel (Lot 1);
- development of a new 11.5-acre lakeshore building site for construction of one new
home in the near future (Lot 2);
- creation of a 5.8 acre non-lakeshore parcel to be acquired by the adjacent property
owner, has potential for future residential development (Lot 3).
- creation of an outlot for a private loop cul-de-sac driveway primarily serving Lot 2
but also functioning as an emergency vehicle turnaround
Gaffron continued, stating that the applicant proposes to construct a new home southeast of
the existing residence. The property is zoned for 2-acre lots and is not in the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area, and therefore will continue to be served by septic systems and wells.
The site is mostly open fields and abuts the DNR's Wood Rill Scientific and Natural Area
to the immediate south. Access to the property is via a long, narrow private road that
exists pursuant to a variety of easements between property owners. The property itself
does not abut a public road. The private road currently serves 4 homes, and will serve 5
homes (and a potential 6th)upon completion of the subdivision. While the applicant does
not want to subdivide to the highest possible density under the 2-acre zoning, future
subdivision potential exists. Staff has worked with the applicant and her consultants to
ensure that the ability to meet City codes for future subdivisions is not compromised by the
current proposal.
Gaffron acknowledged that road access is perhaps the single greatest concern identified by
Staff regarding this subdivision, relative to the following site conditions:
1. The property does not abut a public road, but is accessed via a private
road/driveway within a cartway established in 1882 from what today are properties owned
by Winston and Hawn, and within a private easement over the adjoining Winston property.
The cartway is not maintained by the City. Its legal status is somewhat unclear to staff and
this will require some review by an attorney...
2. The private driveway/road serves 4 existing homes, and will serve 5 or 6 homes as
a result of the subdivision.
3. The private driveway/road does not end in a cul-de-sac, but rather branches off to
individual driveways which each have a driveway loop near the residences.
PAGE 22 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
4. The portions of private driveway/road serving multiple homes is generally only 12-
14' in paved width, and at the point it enters the applicant's property is approximately
1000' from Spring Hill Road.
5. The private driveway proposed to serve a new residence on Lot 2 will extend an
additional 1600' into the property; that house will be 2600' or about 1/2 mile from Spring
Hill Road.
Gaffron pointed out that Fire Marshal Bill Meyer was asked to comment regarding the
access standards required for emergency vehicles. Meyer has indicated the access should
be brought up to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code standards, which include: 1) an
unobstructed road width of 20', 2) surfaced to support the imposed loads of and provide
all-weather driving capabilities for fire apparatus, 3) for any segment of private road or
driveway serving more than two homes.
The City Engineer has suggested that the potential use of the roads be considered in
determining what road width standard to use, and notes that the minimum width for 3-6
dwelling units would be 24'.
Based on Orono Code Section 82-282 regulating access to subdivisions, Gaffron explained
that the City has the authority to require improvements to the private road as a condition
of subdivision approval, should the City so choose. The applicant would have to determine
whether such improvements would be allowed under the terms of the various easements
providing access to the site. The City should require an underlying `Road, Drainage and
Utility Easement' for the entire corridor; again, the question is whether the applicant has
the ability to provide such an easement. Inability or refusal to meet the City requirement
could be a basis for subdivision denial.
With regard to a Staff Recommendation regarding road improvements, Gaffron stated that,
despite the complexities imposed by the easement situation, based on the code
requirements staff must recommend that a 50' corridor be platted from Spring Hill Road to
the proposed cul-de-sac loop, and a 24'paved private road be constructed within that
corridor. This may not be to the liking of the owners and users of the road, as it will
change the character of the area. Further, actual construction of such a road potentially
would require wetland encroachments in the cartway area. Gaffron recommended the
Planning Commission discuss whether there is a basis to allow the proposed subdivision
without requiring road upgrades or at least corridor dedications.
As the subdivision will be trigger park dedication, the proposal will be submitted to the
Park Commission for their review in early December, to determine whether land
dedication is required or merely a park fee for each of the two new building sites (Park Fee
PAGE 23 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
would be $5,550 per lot for Lots 2 and 3 under the 2003 fee schedule; Lot 1 as an existing
residence would not be subject to the Park Fee).
Gaffron noted that the City Engineer has indicated that stormwater treatment provisions
should be added to the plan. In addition, the subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and
Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance for a total fee of$32,400.
Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and
confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems.
Gaffron explained that a small portion, approximately 300 s.f. of the proposed driveway
loop in the Outlot would be within 75' of the OHWL where no hardcover and no roads or
driveways are normally allowed per Code Sections 78-1286(c) and 78-1288(a). A variance
is necessary for any new road or driveway construction within 75' of the OHWL.
Gaffron pointed out that the property is primarily open fields, with perhaps only 10% of it
being wooded. The only woodland impacts anticipated are related to the loop driveway,
where the loop center is intended to remain wooded but the driveway will result in some
removals. While there are no historically significant features on this property known to
staff, the location of the property with bluffs abutting a water body suggest the potential
for archaeological significance. The applicant should contact the State Historical
Preservation Office (SHPO) and inquire as to the need for an archaeological review.
Gaffron presented a summary of Issues for Discussion:
1. Width variance for Lot 3 - typical for lots abutting a cul-de-sac.
2. Hardcover variance required for any roadway expansion within 75' of OHW.
3. Road upgrade to meet City Code and Minnesota Uniform Fire Code standards:
a) should upgrade be required?
b) to what standard?
c) does applicant have authority to do upgrade over existing easements?
d) environmental and aesthetic impacts of upgrade?
4. Would/should voluntary limitations on the future development of these lots
influence the City's position on road upgrades?
5. Status of second dock and pathway.
PAGE 24 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
In conclusion, Gaffron stated that with regard to the health, safety and welfare obligations
of the City must to some extent be balanced against the negative impacts of creating an
appropriate access situation. The unusual length of the private road and the individual
driveways extending from it, create a unique rural character that is becoming rare in
Orono, but also creates practical problems for the provision of fire protection services.
City Code standards require a 24'paved private road within a 50'private road outlot to
serve a development of this magnitude. We have required such road standards for private
roads serving as few as three homes; this road will serve 5 or more homes. Given the
recommendations of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, staff must recommend that the
road be upgraded from Spring Hill Road to the loop cul-de-sac, to a 24'paved width if this
subdivision goes forward.
If Planning Commission finds that there is some basis for reduction of the paved width, it
should not be reduced below 20' in order to comply with the Fire Code standards.
Any recommendation for approval should address the list of`issues for discussion' and
make a recommendation on each topic. The subdivision is subject to the standard fees,
easement dedications, etc. as noted in the text.
Gronberg stated that the applicant was merely adding one new home at this time and would
discourage the construction of a full fledged road which would, in essence, change the
quaint character of the area.
Evan Rice, of Faegre and Benson Law Firm, representing the Hawn's, 625 Spring Hill
Road, who share access points with the applicant, pointed out that the applicants do not
have an access easement running across the Winston property wider than 20'. He indicated
that his clients object to the expansion or further burden of those access points from Spring
Hill Road which would require the applicant to obtain an additional 10' from wither
property owner. He stated that, since no such agreement exists to date, and until access
issues are resolved, more time devoted by staff and the Commission would not be
recommended, since these approvals would be premised on certain agreements taking
place.
Eleanor Winston, 755 Spring Hill Road, stated that, while she was not present to block the
subdivision, she wanted to preserve the unique character of the area. She urged the
Commission to require more than the minimum amount of pavement,which would
negatively impact the wetlands. She asked why the loop access area was necessary, since
the residents could construct their own driveway loops.
PAGE 25 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
Gaffron explained that the loop was proposed for two reasons; first, the code requires that
the lots abut a private or public road. While a cul-de-sac is also acceptable, Gaffron
pointed out that no one wanted to see a big open cul-de-sac in this area when they could
preserve some of the trees with the loop. He added that the loop will provide emergency
vehicles with adequate turn around space and give people who inadvertently come down
the private road an opportunity to turn around.
Winston explained that it was her intention to purchase a portion of the subdivision in
order to preserve it and put a conservation easement over as much of the area as possible.
She stated that they do not wish to see the area destroyed by the construction of a lot of
houses built there. Winston pointed out that no one had approached them with regard to a
bigger easement at this time, and indicated that they would have to think twice about
granting a greater easement.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would concur with the City Engineer's
recommendation with regard to street widths and suggested staff seek the City Attorney's
opinion over expanding easements in a cartway. She indicated that she would feel more
comfortable addressing access to these parcels only, and further suggested consideration be
given to turning the access to lot 2 into an outlot.
Gaffron stated that it would be unusual to require an outlot and require a road be built in it.
Acting Chair Mabusth further suggested that the outlot be registered in joint ownership of
the properties, in an effort to save the City from future difficulties.
Gaffron indicated that,while making the driveway an outlot made sense, the City would
want to put an underlying easement over it. Gaffron encouraged the Commission to make
a recommendation of what should happen for the future and have the lawyers work out the
details to revise as necessary. He acknowledged that it would be difficult to make the road
20' without some impact to trees and the cartway.
Bremer asked what degree of impact a 20' roadway would have on the wetland
encroachments.
As the subdivision would be located 1/2 mile from Spring Hill Road, Gaffron stated that the
road would need to be a minimum of 20' wide for safety reasons.
Rahn asked if Orono had ever allowed homes to be built without adequate fire access or
sprinkling systems.
Gaffron stated that none came to mind.
PAGE 26 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
Knowing what fire trucks need for access, Fritzler stated that 20' is adequate, but
necessary, in order to access these properties. Although he did not feel either neighbor
would offer additional easements through the cartway.
Gaffron pointed out that the Van Eeckhout proposal did not proceed because the developer
was unable to obtain a 50' corridor for a roadway 24' wide to support the 4-6 lot
subdivision they proposed.
Bremer commented that this supports the need for a wider corridor all the more.
Rahn pointed out that the applicants subdivision had the potential to result in 5 homes, and
he believed the City must plan a roadway accordingly. He urged the Commission to
assume the worst case scenario.
Gronberg stated that they were not coming in with a proposal for 7 homes at this time. He
believed the City would have ample opportunity to improve the proposed roadway solution
if more homes were proposed later.
Carlson stated that Ms. Wildman felt as her neighbors and wished to preserve the character
of the neighborhood. He indicated that they had provided the City with a site sensitive
design.
Gaffron stated that if the Commission deems that adding one home is appropriate, and
addressing the issue of more development later as these are proposed, he suggested the
Commission consider the addition of covenants to the recommendation.
Acting Chair Mabusth felt better address plates distinguishing the residential properties
was necessary. She asked if the applicant would be comfortable with the Commission
placing restrictions on the development of the properties.
Zugschwert asked if the Commission could legally deal with the possibility of future
subdivisions now by setting limitations on development.
Rice indicated that covenants could be placed over the properties if the current owners
were willing to allow it. He suggested getting all of the stake holders involved at that time
to afford them a certain level of comfort in creating the deed restrictions or covenants for
preservation.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if these covenants might impact the value of the lots.
PAGE 27 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
Rice stated that undoubtedly they would, positively or negatively, since many potential
buyers are looking for more open space and elbow room they may be willing to pay a
premium.
Gaffron stated that the addition of covenants provides the City and neighbors with an
attractive option and stability by setting limitations on development. Rather than seeing the
plots subdivided further into smaller 2 acre sites, the covenants provide the City with a
basis to keep limitations set.
Winston stated that she would look favorably upon covenants, and acknowledged the fact
that a covenant her mother placed over a portion of their property would be running out in
2005. She felt a covenant would provide the neighborhood with assurance for a period of
time, say 20 years, and help in future City planning efforts.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that if restrictive covenants were added to the
recommendation, she would expect an upgrade to the roadway if further development to
the south occurred.
Rice stated that his clients would be impacted by these upgrades and would not look
favorably upon this requirement.
Fritzler asked if these upgrades would need to be mandated at the time of development or
now.
Gaffron stated that it would be best to resolve the roadway issues in advance.
Bremer stated that she would be concerned letting the recommendation proceed this way
without looking at the lessons learned from past similar mistakes by allowing these skinny
roadway s to remain without plans for upgrades. While she stated that she would go along
with a recommendation without roadway improvements if only one house is proposed, she
would not support approval if more development will occur.
Zugschwert could support the proposal retaining the rural character of the neighborhood
with the development of one additional homesite.
Gaffron stated that the proposed loop and long private driveway would provide
accessibility for fire. While the covenants would limit further development for a period of
time, he acknowledged that other improvements would be necessary at that time. He
encouraged the Commission to review other aspects of the proposal, including road width.
PAGE 28 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
Carlson asked if the City could cover the zoning of this subdivision specifically by limiting
future development altogether.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, unfortunately, the City cannot spot zone.
Gaffron asked whether this proposal would put a future planning commission in an
awkward predicament.
Rahn questioned whether road width will alone limit development.
Bremer asked if the outlot or driveway could be jointly owned by the three property
owners.
In that case, Gaffron indicated that easements would suffice.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned the dock situation and why the Wildman's had allowed
the neighbor dock access.
Winston stated that, historically, the neighbor to the north had run a dock all the way
across the wetland to reach the water,which was not allowed. The Wildman's then offered
to let this neighbor position their dock on their property.
Gaffron stated that there was no specific code that applied to Lake Lydiard and mentioned
that the dock easement could be based on a simple handshake agreement which could be
an issue with potential new owners.
Winston stated that the neighborhood has an informal agreement that the trail is open to the
lake, which is marked with wood chips. She noted that this was one of the nice things
about the neighborhood in general and she hoped that Orono would not get too picky about
overseeing where the neighborhoods trails are located.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, to recommend approval of Application #03-2961, Nina
Wildman, 745 Spring Hill Road, granting the Preliminary Subdivision based on the
findings that all standards for development of the lots within the natural environment
lake area of Lydiard Lake to be satisfied, no bluff impacts, and all setbacks have been
met; accessing via a private driveway on lot 1 subject to the standards set forth,
creating an outlot for future potential subdivision of lots 1-2-3 with access granted to
lot 2, requiring restrictive covenants to limit development for 30 years on lots 1-2-3,
noting that road improvements will consist of a loop; and no standard be set limiting
the number of docks on Lydiard Lake, subject to all other fees and staff
recommendations, Park Commission review, approval of the variance for lot width of
PAGE 29 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, Continued
lot 3 on the cul-de-sac loop, and minimal hardcover for 0-75' setback to allow the
loop.
Gaffron asked if the road upgrade requirement would be tied to this approval. He
suggested the Commission add the notation that if the covenants are not found to be
acceptable, there would be no approval of the subdivision.
Acting Chair Mabusth amended the motion adding that the recommendation to City
Council contain language that if the covenants are put in place, the road upgrades
will not be required at this time from Spring Hill Road to the outlot; however, if the
covenants are not found to be acceptable, the approval for the subdivision will be
rescinded. Zugschwert seconded. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0,Abstain 1, Hawn abstaining.
Gaffron indicated that he would address some of these issues with the City Attorney and
noted that the application will appear on the December 8, 2003 Council Meeting.
Carlson found this delay to be acceptable in order to have all issues addressed prior to
Council.
Recess was taken from 10:00— 10:07 P.M.
(#12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE (10:07— 10:40 P.M.)
Joanne Switz, the applicant, was present.
Waataja explained that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new
home on the property:
1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres
is normally required.
2. Lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is
normally allowed.
3. Hardcover variance to allow 44%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8% currently
exists and 25% is normally allowed.
Waataja indicated that the applicants have bought this property under the contingency that
the appropriate approvals are received from the City. The current conditions on the lot
consist of nonconforming hardcover in the 0-75' zone and 75-250' zone. The applicants
are proposing to tear down the existing home and construct a new home completely within
the 75-250' zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the existing boathouse. In
PAGE 30 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
doing this, a standard lot area variance and a hardcover and structural coverage variance
are still required to construct the proposed home.
Since the applicants have met with staff to discuss their proposal and what the City
consistently requires with rebuild situations, the applicants are aware that the hardcover
and structural coverage proposals are excessive to what has been consistently approved
with rebuild situations but have decided to move forward without any re-design.
Waataja reported that, currently, a home exists within both the 0-75' zone and the 75-250'
zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home
with a 3,895 s.f. footprint entirely within the 75-250' zone. The applicants have also
agreed to remove the boathouse near the shoreline, therefore no variance is required for the
0-75' zone. However, the applicant is proposing a 3,895 s.f. footprint home, 72 s.f. of
walk, and 1,060 s.f. of driveway in the 75-250' zone which puts the hardcover for the zone
at 44% requiring a variance. The proposed house footprint puts the lot at 19% structural
coverage when 15% is allowed thus requiring a variance. The existing house meets the
15% structural coverage limit.
Waataja explained that staff finds no viable hardships to approve the hardcover and
structural coverage variances as proposed. Staff would consider supporting a hardcover
variance due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a driveway turn-around
however, not the proposed 44%. This 44% also doesn't include any decking or patio and
staff feels that the 44% has the potential to get even larger in the future. Staff has advised
the applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and
some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised that staff is not entirely opposed
to a hardcover variance however the proposal needs to be re-worked to a hardcover
percentage much less than the proposed 44%.
The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% structural coverage. Staff
advised the applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on rebuild
situations. Staff will hold to this suggestion as new homes have consistently been held to
15%. No hardship exists to allow structural coverage in excess of 15% due to the
allowable building pad of 3,093 square feet.
In conclusion Waataj a stated that staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in
size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed.
2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage
when 15% is normally allowed.
PAGE 31 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when
38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed.
Switz maintained that she was unaware until recently that the 15% structural coverage
requirement was a steadfast rule. She pointed out that the lot is extremely wide but shallow
which is the root of their hardship. Switz noted that the hardcover presently on the site far
exceeds code parameters and indicated that they would be removing all of the hardcover in
the 0-75' zone and reduce the overall hardcover by 11%. She maintained that reducing the
design further would be difficult for them to accommodate her elderly parents. While she
would be willing to reduce the structural cover to a certain degree, she stated that overages
in hardcover would be necessary to make up for the need to have a 1300 s.f circular
driveway accessing County Road 19.
Acting Chair Mabusth recognized the hardships of depth and access to County Road 19;
however, felt the City needed to tow the line on structural coverage for new construction.
She asked about potential decks.
Switz stated that they would be willing to sacrifice decks to obtain more living space.
Hawn stated that she could not support the variance requests for new construction, since
they would be setting a precedent.
Switz asked whether she could be allowed 44%hardcover if the structural cover could
meet 15%.
Waataja stated that the home is currently at 38% hardcover in the 75-250' zone and 22% in
the 0-75' zone.
Rahn stated that oftentimes once the home meets 15% structural cover, applicants can
evaluate where the hardcover numbers fall and can base their minimums of what's
absolutely necessary. He acknowledged that he would be willing to consider a small
hardcover excess taking into consideration the need for the circular driveway.
Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the Commission could vote on the application as
proposed or table it to allow her to meet with staff and strive to achieve the 15% structural
cover figure and hardcover allowance.
Switz stated that she had Waataja supply her with revised calculations based on 15%
structural cover and found that the home would still exceed the hardcover allowance, and
hardly be under 44%.
PAGE 32 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE, Continued
Waataja stated that if the home maxed out its 15% structural coverage allowance, it would
still exceed 39%hardcover after adding in the driveway and sidewalks.
Gaffron explained that the issue then becomes whether the applicant has the `right' to max
out their 15% structural coverage allowance or needs to reduce their structural cover to fall
within hardcover regulations.
Although the Commission could supply the applicant with some guidelines, Hawn stated
that she would need to see a new design which better meets the new construction
standards.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked the applicant whether she wished to table or proceed to
Council.
Switz asked to proceed.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend denial of Application
#03-2962, Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road,based on the findings set
forth by staff. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#13)#03-2963 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, 2605 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:40— 10:43 P.M.)
Peter Johnson, applicant's representative, was present.
Waataja explained that the applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to
expand the existing garage structure situated immediately south of the main facility.
Waataja indicated that the applicant has proposed to construct a 20'X75' (1,500 s.£)
addition to the existing garage structure on the property with three overhead doors and two
steel access doors.
Although she would recommend the Commission consider whether additional screening is
necessary, Waataj a stated that staff would recommend approval of the plans as submitted.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, having visited the site, she saw no need to add additional
screening.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 33 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13) #03-2963 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, 2605 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, Continued
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, recommending approval of
Application #03-2963,WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard,
granting approval to construct a 20'X75' addition to the existing garage structure as
the project meets all standards of the Industrial District. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET,
PRELIMINARY PLAT (10:43— 11:15 P.M.)
George Stickney, the applicant, and Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, were
present.
Waataja reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 6 lots on
one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell Bay Estates. She acknowledged that
all of the proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width,
and setbacks.
Waataja pointed out that the surrounding development is residential property in all
directions with Maxwell Bay of Lake Minnetonka to the direct south. She stated that the
applicant has proposed a private road approximately 590' in length with a cul-de-sac
serving the lots. While the City Engineer has not submitted his comments, the applicant
will be required to meet all his recommendations prior to Council review.
Waataj a continued, noting that the applicants would be required to dedicate the standard
easements. She pointed out that the applicant has also proposed stormwater ponds to be
situated on lots 3 and 4, as well as, the northeast portion of lot 6.
With regard to tree preservation, Waataja pointed out that the applicants have submitted a
tree preservation agreement which states that no trees shall be trimmed or removed within
20' of the lot boundary. In addition, the agreement provides strict penalties for tree
removal consisting of a 2 to 1 replanting of at least 6" diameter trees.
Waataja pointed out that copies of the proposed septic plans were submitted and reviewed
by the City's septic inspector, who is recommending approval.
Waataja indicated that staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the
following stipulations:
1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer.
2. Implementation of the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
3. Submission and approval of the final plat.
4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements.
5. Demolition of the existing home and any outbuildings prior to any site grading.
6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
PAGE 34 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether there might be any bluff issues with the
subdivision. She asked if upgrades of the road were warranted.
Waataja indicated that they had not performed that analysis.
Gaffron acknowledged that there could be potential bluff issues and indicated that this
would have to be determined.
Waataja stated that the upgrade would not meet 24', adding that this had been explored in
the past and found to have limitations to how wide the road could be.
Stickney stated that the applicants were sensitive to tree preservation and had also met with
both neighbors to address any concerns they might have. In an effort to resolve the
drainage issues faced by the Maass, neighbors at 3175 Fox Street, Stickney stated that they
would propose a catch basin at the top of the property to catch runoff that currently runs
over onto the Maass property. A second drainage berm would run the edge of the lot line
where the current driveway is situated directing flow towards the lake.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked where the access to the development would take place.
Stickney stated that access would be past the existing entry gates and 230' retaining wall.
He reiterated that they have proposed 6 properties without variances and commented how
nicely it will lay out.
David Maass, 3175 Fox Street, stated that drainage is a continual problem for them as their
home is located at the lowest site in the area. Beyond his drainage concern, Maass asked
whether the County drain pipe directing flow from across the road might cause additional
problem.
Although there was no report from the City Engineer at this time, Acting Chair Mabusth
assured Mr. Maass that the Engineer would be reviewing the applicant's drainage plans
and making recommendations.
Gronberg indicated that the County indeed had a catch basin near the road which would
not be eliminated, but enhanced to slow down the runoff. In addition, he stated that they
have proposed to create a 2' swale along the property line to retain the runoff on this site,
which will likely result in solving the current drainage problems faced by the Maass
altogether.
Maass promised to provide the City with photos of the current runoff situation in an effort
to assist the City with its planning.
PAGE 35 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK,3250 FOX STREET,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued
Ms. Maass requested that the trees near the driveway be preserved to ensure adequate
buffer.
Gaffron stated that the use of light equipment should not impact those trees.
Gronberg stated that he would be willing to work with the Maass' to locate an acceptable
place to daylight the drain.
As somewhat historically significant, Hawn asked if the existing home could be preserved
and relocated.
Stickney stated that if someone were inclined to do so, they could relocate the house in
sections.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicants were interested in pursuing septic sewer.
Stickney indicated that this could be an option, not too far off in the future.
Gronberg acknowledged that this could potentially make their properties more valuable;
however, they were not interested in delaying the project in the hopes that it will come
soon.
Gaffron asked if Public Works Director Gappa had passed along any comment on City
sewer.
With a stub at the end of Oxford, Waataja stated that costs could be shared with the church.
She stated that she would follow-up with Gappa prior to the City Council meeting.
Gaffron pointed out that the Little Orchard residents were amenable to protect the bluffs
area and retain the natural look of their shoreline. He encouraged the applicants to maintain
the natural look of their shoreline, in order to avoid the mowed grass shoreline, in the 0-75'
zone.
Stickney reiterated that they've attempted to place restrictive tree covenants within their
policy to do this.
Hawn moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application #03-2964, Bruce and Kris Paddock and George W. Stickney, 3250 Fox
Street, granting preliminary plat approval with the following stipulations:
1. Acquisition/Implementation of recommendations by the City Engineer prior to
Council.
PAGE 36 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14)#03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued
2. Implementation of the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
3. Submission and approval of the final plat.
4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements.
5. Demolition of all structures prior to any site grading.
6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
7. Implementation of Tree Covenants.
8. Consideration of bluff impacts.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Gaffron pointed out that if sewer were to happen, ensuring the specific proposed building
pads and grading for those may not be necessary.
Gronberg acknowledged that without the need for identified septic sites, the location of
each building pad would be more flexible.
(#6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h)
and 78-1577, REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Foth reviewed the Summary of proposed changes to the regulation:
1. New regulations regarding parking vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in"R"
districts in excess of 14,000 lbs GVW.
2. Housekeeping and terminology changes.
3. Special Mobile Equipment was specifically defined and regulations were added. In
the past, storage of special mobile equipment was regulated to be stored inside an
enclosed structure by the introductory paragraph of City Code 78-1577.
4. The inclusion of utility trailers within 78-1577(d).
5. Change in the required setback for parking and storage of recreation vehicles and
mobile homes to maintain consistency with the setback for utility trailers - within a rear or
side yard, no closer than 5 feet from the property line
Foth explained that, historically, special mobile equipment and vehicle parking was
addressed within the introductory paragraph of 78-1577 regarding exterior storage. This
revision of City Code Section 78-1577 is in part to maintain consistency between the
various code sections that deal with parking, to establish additional updated standards
PAGE 37 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h)
and 78-1577, REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, Continued
commensurate with the residential nature of Orono, and to address the wide range of
vehicle uses within our community.
At the last two Planning Commission work sessions the Planning Commission discussed
amending the Commercial Vehicle parking regulations (78-1491(h)). Out of those work
sessions it was determined that the code section regarding vehicle storage on private
property was a better fit within the Exterior Storage section(78-1577) of the Zoning
Ordinance. Recreation vehicles and motor homes will have overlapping coverage in both
the Zoning Ordinance (Section 78-1577) and within City Code Section 90-1 Manufactured
Homes and Trailers (police enforced) due to the different enforcement components.
Foth indicated that Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend
approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council.
Fritzler asked for clarification of what constitutes `mobile storage' in page 1 of 6 of the
Ordinance.
As this was existing language, Foth deferred to Gaffron to explain the term.
Gaffron stated that anything not attached to the ground constitutes mobile storage. Mobile
materials could be scaffolding,boards, etc. and is intended to be a catch all term. He
questioned whether the Commission would prefer to define the term further.
Fritzler acknowledged that it would be difficult to stop defining mobile storage, since it is
specifically designed to cover so much.
Hawn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application #03-2966, Code Revision, City Code Sections 78-1749(h) and 78-1577.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71
REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES
Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission initiated discussions on this topic in
December 2001 primarily in response to concerns that too often, remodeling projects were
resulting in nearly total removals of existing structures, and the "pre-existing structure"
basis for granting of certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was being abused.
PAGE 38 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71
REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES, Continued
The problem was quickly identified as the lack of a threshold level of removals after which
a mere `remodel and addition' project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to
meeting all current standards.
The initial consensus was that the City should adopt a formal policy establishing threshold
percentages of newly constructed or reconstructed spaces that would define a project as a
rebuild subject to meeting all code standards.
Gaffron continued, stating that during 2003 an amendment of the Nonconforming Uses
section(10.03 Subd. 5, now recodified as Section 78-71)was drafted to reorganize that
section and add standards specifically addressing nonconforming structures. Planning
Commission reviewed the latest draft on November 5 and suggested a number of further
revisions and slight reorganization. The current draft reflects the Planning Commission
recommendations and includes additional paragraph titles for clarity. The current draft
accomplishes the following significant revisions:
- It separates the provisions pertaining to "Nonconforming Uses" from those pertaining to
"Nonconforming Structures";
- It eliminates the `36-months after 1-1-75' sunset provision for lawful nonconforming use
of:
1) land not involving a structure or 2) involving a structure with value less than
$3000 on 1-1-75
- It eliminates the language that made the existing section pertinent only to uses, not to
structures
- It eliminates language that suggests the Council will look favorably on the granting of
variances where a situation existed legally under prior laws (prior to 1975)
- For nonconforming structures, it distinguishes between "Involuntary Destruction" (fire,
war, acts of God, etc.) and"Voluntary Destruction" (intended demolition in order to
rebuild) and establishes separate standards for each case:
Involuntary Destruction: retains threshold after which rebuild must be
conforming at `damage is 75% or more of fair market
value'
PAGE 39 of 41
, .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71
REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES, Continued
Voluntary Destruction: establishes that if less than 50% of fair market value
is retained, or if less than 50% of pre-existing volume
remains then entire structure and site must be made
conforming
- It establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming residence structures
as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of nonconforming accessory
structures
Gaffron stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission review the attached
Zoning Code revision, hold the required public hearing, make any necessary changes, and
recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the `involuntary destruction' should apply to the
nonconforming uses section of the Code as well, as a way to eliminate nonconforming uses
in the community.
Gaffron indicated that he would have to consult the City Attorney on this suggestion.
Hawn asked how the Commission would be administering `voluntary destruction'.
Gaffron stated that the City would need to be provided with specific details of what is
proposed to stay or be removed in a project in order to determine at what point it has gone
past 50% and needs to conform.
Hawn questioned how one would establish value.
Gaffron pointed to the value guidelines used in determining permit fees. He maintained
that this revision will give staff and the Commission a standard to justify rebuild versus
remodel.
Waataja stated that the element citing the removal of`50% of the volume of a structure'
will be extremely useful, along with value, in determining the standard.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of
Application #02-2829 Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures
Amendment—Zoning Code Section 78-71. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 40 of 41
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 17, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 2003 AND NOVEMBER
10, 2003
Fritzler reported that most of the Planning items of October 20, 2003, were contained on
the Consent Agenda.
Rahn stated that all of the Planning items were put on the Consent Agenda for November
10, 2003.
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
There were none.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20,
2003
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to Approve the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 20, 2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON NOVEMBER 24, 2003 AND DECEMBER 8, 2003.
November 24—None Available December 8 —Hawn
ADJOURNMENT
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:54
P.M. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:54 P.M.
-Thi2,41ve . A4(64-Nfit,d
T%-witiliMillclr, Chair
PAGE 41 of 41