HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE ---) It.) 2
0 COUNCIL
,ISCPLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COMMISSION
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. ri,,i c -i. ,,_( r , / /;,(__/2,IL /7" 3-.Z, / ILL, (7jrc>, (53 cizz,/
2. C\AA--,5.4--c,--v be r ---,1 e()<• v■ ii c=c 4-c.--A
3. (I/2k:(. ,A _i t\,/`-,- -= l\) 13 V2(
4. .--- -.-C- {- 1 i v----., ------= ■-\--?(..,c, v„-,(-_,..) -04- c,,,,o_.,... ;. :-. or-/- zq 9 i .
/LOY -ON 18,- ¼i
6. j tt)/ 0 /C4C-L / --3-- / /;-_-)(Le/J/ -: Ait)0( 6c 4j-- 2 c?et 7
7. 1,,zoN . Secyi\-A c;,\ I L-0:76-1:"( Lo 64n' , C),-1 -
8. -_- _ --4-4 /k/,./t, 7 3---z- /7, -,,,- --7-_-_, , /
/ -
,
9. ,—„ c)Vk v\ r&t- 4--"7-- C 7- 1 iv" _(t. tiCL -
11. .-,./ /4;-I-71 i EIL.c- - i _,-:/--4-
-
..---' -)15‘> 2.-)
12. C her]) L LIL,F-K, (\ t 1 ( ? i,1\4-e/-/i(- c )1 04 —2 6iot -1 t3lezI
1 r 1----,
13. ''' J 6 V\ A k.., LAy'v( L 6A. ( )z,i, ,4-L,'/i c)i- cd-- - Z_Ci 6'1 - etl'ci
14. ,i d, b, ;)(-Q-1L I b -1 cz) / /:; ,',:i, icx5N-oc, () I - - 1c/c/-'7 '-: / ir
15. al, 4://2„4-,z_e_.
7 ,
Ril Ila;1 it ` °14-' 5;'91
1025/ V 12 4- I p 41.0 & 1 --. .?//
WAAdministrative Support\( rms)Tublic Attendance.wpd
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
El
COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
2. iGZ,''z.-Z� f a:e •�-'44,1-7.-7 '1 ='Cy t4 ). Z.:?`ce Y?/14 . o - 9`'`/
Fa�� �� �. ke,act s �Ca 2 c i
t�I
4. � a U��, 97.s 4d( /724170/1-r4 '52,‘/P o y-z5 g
5. v1 (re c Akt - (7 a -Der cz4
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:Udministrative Support\(Forms)Wuble Attendance.wpd
ea
" ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
""` Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair
Sandra Smith; Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, David Rahn, J. Marc Fritzler, Stephanie
Zugschwert, Jeanne Mabusth and Alternate Janice Berg; Representing staff were Planning
Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Joan Ellis.
Chair Sandra Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. 04-2986 JEFF NUTE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS CORP. ON BEHALF OF
SHAWN VAILLANT, 847 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (STAFF:
MELANIE CURTIS)
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2986, Natural
Environments Corp. on behalf of Shawn Valliant, 847 Tonkawa Road, granting a
Conditional Use Permit subject to the following City Engineer's recommendations being
met:
1. The proposed walls will not exceed 3-feet in height and will be screened with
vegetation.
2. Walls are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications
provided.
3. Heavy-duty silt fence with steel t-posts must be installed and remain along the
shoreline through out the duration of the construction process and remain in
place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. VOTE: Ayes 7,
nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #03-2928 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (6:05-6:24 P.M.)
Mike Mischke, the applicant, was present.
Planning Director Gaffron explained that this item was tabled at the Commission's August 18,
2003 meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to re-think his attached garage & second story
addition project. Great concern was expressed about adding a second story that will be so close
to the house to the north. It was noted specifically that encroachment of both side setbacks was
not reasonable, and applicant needs to keep one side open for access alongside the house. The
proximity of the garage addition to the neighbor's garage to the south was also a concern. There
was some support for encroaching the 0-75' zone with garage in order to maintain an open south
side.
Page 1 of 48
10‘. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#2. #03-0928 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING-Continued)
Variances required include 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover, street setback, lake setback, and side
setbacks. The magnitude and hardcover zone balance differs between the two options. For
either option, lot coverage is proposed at 1490 s.f.,just under the 1500 s.f. limit for this small lot.
Applicant has considered a variety of options for expansion of the house itself and has given up
for now on those additions. Mr. Mischke provided two potential revised site plans for a detached
20 x 20' 2-stall garage for consideration, Plan A and Plan B and is requesting to be able to build
a 10'x10' deck on the lake side of the house, 42' from the lake at its closest point.
Plan A is applicant's preferred option. It places a detached side-loading garage 13' from the
house, 5' from the north lot line and 7' from the street lot line. It opens to the south, and leaves
an area of about 20' x 25' for on-site parking and maneuvering allowing two large vehicles to be
parked outside the garage without hanging into the street. Plan A results in 0-75' hardcover of
26.6% and 75-250' hardcover of 57.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2378
s.f. or 34.4% of the entire lot.
Plan B is an alternate suggested by staff to reduce the hardcover. It places the garage 10' from
the house, 5' from the north lot line and 9.8' from the street lot line. It opens to the street, and
leaves a depth of 10'-18' in front of the garage for parking of one smaller vehicle and one larger
vehicle, and includes a 20'x10' side apron for additional parking for complete on-site parking.
This plan leaves the entire south 15' of the lot in yard area. Plan B results in 0-75' hardcover of
31.3% and 75-250' hardcover of 38.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2285
s.f. or 33.0% of the entire lot.
The applicant's primary intent at this time is to remove the existing deteriorated detached garage
and replace it with a larger detached garage.
With the new proposals, the main entry to the residence will remain as the door at the SW corner
of the house with the existing stoop. Applicant still proposes to add non-hardcover walkways
and non-lined landscape beds around the residence (see site plan). A condition of approval
would be a stipulation that these remain as non-hard surface areas, not paved and without fabric
or plastic underlayment.
Applicant is also requesting approval for a 10' x 10' main floor deck extending from the existing
door at the lakeside of the house. The deck will be 42' from the shoreline, and in itself will
constitute approximately 2% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. This deck is clearly for the
convenience of the applicant, and staff does not see a hardship that supports it.
The second story is not proposed with this application.
Gaffron reported that staff would recommend approval of the setback variances for the detached
garage in either of Plans A or B as presented and approval of a hardcover variance for either Plan
Page 2 of 48
} MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
" . Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#2. #03-0928 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING-Continued)
A or B, but not for the 10' x 10' deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-
hardcover materials for walkways.
Structural Coverage. Structural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly
1490 s.f. as allowed by code. The result is that 21.5% of the lot will be covered by structure.
Hardcover. Hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250' zones with either plan will be
reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The trade-off between
plans is that the hardcover is greater in the 0-75' zone with Plan B, but its overall hardcover is 93
s.f. less than Plan A.
There were no public comments.
Rahn and Fritzler agree that Plan B makes vehicle turnaround difficult.
Mabusth complimented the applicant on the planned landscaping of the project.
Gaffron stated he has no problem with either Plan A or B.
Chair Sandra Smith moved, Mabusth seconded to recommend approval of Application
#03-2938, Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road, granting a variance for the deck to
incorporate both of the landings and the stairs not exceeding 100 square feet with as much
of that square footage to the side of the house; and granting a variance to build a detached
garage under Plan B relative to hardcover, and relative to ease of getting in and out of the
property. Motion was amended to add that the deck cannot exceed a four-foot projection
toward the lakeshore from the back of the house. Bremer asked if this motion would only
allow Plan B. Chair Smith responded affirmatively. VOTE: Ayes: 3, nays 4. Motion died.
Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded to recommend approval of the same Application #03-
2938, granting a variance for the deck to incorporate both of the landings and the stairs not
exceeding 100 square feet with as much of that square footage to the side of the house and
the deck not to exceed four feet toward the lakeshore from the back of the house; and
granting a variance to build a detached garage under Plan A. VOTE: Ayes: 5, nays 2.
Motion passed.
Gaffron stated to Mr. Mischke that the application will go before City Council Monday, March
22, 2004.
Page 3 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
` . Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
3. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY"STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE", NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A,
STONEBAY) COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION (6:25-7:05 P.M.)
Chair Smith stated that this is solely a Comp Plan Amendment discussion.
Mr. Trautz and Mr. Johnston, the applicants, were present.
Planning Director Gaffron explained that the meeting packet that Commission received didn't
include backsides of pages and there is a new packet in front of you containing the correct pages.
Gaffron stated this is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment for a re-zoning of property at the
NW corner of Highway 12 and Willow Drive. The applicant has been before the Commission a
number of times in the last few months. It was reviewed at the February 17 meeting at which
time the Commission concentrated on a list of acceptable uses for re-zoning the property(Exhibit
G attached). The request was tabled and a joint work session with Long Lake Planning
Commission was held March 3, 2004 where a discussion of current and pending activities along
Highway 12 was held and discussed whether re-zoning this site might impact redevelopment
efforts in Long Lake. After reviewing this project over the last few months, staff concluded that
the applicant needed some guidance that resulted in the March 1, 2004 letter to the applicant
(Exhibit B).
Based on the fact that that applicants have been advised to come up with a different site plan it is
critical, from a timing standpoint and for the applicant, that the Commission reach a conceptual
conclusion on whether or not the Commission is ready to establish parameters and go ahead with
the Comp Plan Amendment and a re-zoning. Formal action is not being sought at this time, but
direction from the Commission is needed conceptually, that if the number of conditions you
established can be met that the Commission is willing to make that commitment and that would
be taken by staff to the City Council next Monday, March 22. The recommendation on the Comp
Plan Amendment must be made at this meeting in order to conform to the statutory 120-day review
period, which ends April 15 (prior to the next commission meeting).
Staff recommends that Planning Commission:
Discuss and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to
re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses.
1. If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following:
a) Review and confirm the list of allowed zoning uses you determined are
appropriate for this property; and
b) Review carefully the development goals and parameters laid out in the staff
letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be
incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment.
Page 4 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE", NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY 12/WILLOW DRIVE
[OUTLOT A, STONEBAY" COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Continued)
Gaffron stated that site plan issues discussion could be postponed to a future meeting.
There were no public comments.
In regards to the March 1, 2004 letter, Mabusth reiterated the Commission's continuing concerns
about the lack of adequate parking felt necessary, the need to take advantage of providing a view
of the pond with windows and everything facing "in" and how plans from the applicant never
seem to incorporate the Commission's concerns. Mabusth continued stating that the
Commission has accepted the 60-stall Walgreen parking allotment reorientation of entry to the
southwest side. Gaffron confirmed that is correct for that lot, but for the balance of the site, city
code for parking requirements would prevail.
Chair Smith asked what is currently allowed on this site according to the current Comp Plan.
Gaffron responded that the use is currently for professional offices with ancillary retail that
would support the office use, such as a coffee shop. Gaffron continued stating when the
applicant came to the city with primarily a retail plan with two thirds of the site being retail, that
resulted in the need for a Comp Plan Amendment. Walgreen's is more than one-third of the site.
The bank would be considered office under current code.
Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current Comprehensive Plan language.
Gaffron responded no more than one-fourth can be retail, in his opinion.
Chair Smith stated the question for the Commission is whether to deviate from what the Comp
Plan calls for which is office and ancillary retail versus more retail and some office.
Gaffron responded that is correct.
Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighborhood.
Chair Smith always wanted to see it be more in-service and more related to the rest of the Stone
Bay development than is currently proposed. Chair Smith agrees that the March 1, 2004 letter
lays out criteria that meet her desires.
Chair Smith asked the members if there is a compelling reason to move away from the Comp
Plan or should they stay with what was put in the plan not that long ago. If the decision is not to
move away from the current plan, then the city should wait until an applicant comes before the
city with the current use as directed in the Comp Plan.
Page 5 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
` - Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE", NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY 12/WILLOW DRIVE
[OUTLOT A, STONEBAY" COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Continued)
A poll was taken of the members:
Smith: Interested in retail and services that would serve Stone Bay and the immediate
community, and not in favor of a development that veers away from the Comp Plan, especially if
feeling rushed.
Fritzler: Initially, thinking this was a pretty good use and may be worth making a CMP change,
but after meeting with the Long Lake Planning Commission and some of the questions and
thinking that came out of the meeting it became evident we aren't hearing anything from
Walgreen's. Also didn't think the idea of the bank is going to be realized. Rather than seeing
the bank corner go to more retail, the idea of keeping the area more office type use and making
the assumption that the residential development is going to flourish quickly it may be a better
idea not to deviate from the current CMP with the future unknown. Once built, the developer is
out of the community and the city and community has to live with what remains. If criteria
could be set, then may be in favor, but not currently in favor.
Bremer: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The Long Lake meeting was excellent and she got
a lot out of it, but she is interested in keeping the rural flavor of the city intact, but it really is a
city council decision to change the CMP. If the council decides to change the CMP, then the
commission could give the council as much guidance as possible by having a list of uses that
could be recommended.
Zugschwest: Not in favor of amending the CMP.
Rahn: Less in favor of amending the CMP than was in the beginning. If city were being rushed
into making a decision, would be opposed to amending the CMP.
Mabusth: Feels commission is being rushed. Why does it have to be all retail? What can't one
of the lots be office use—given the right mix of use may be in favor of amending the Comp Plan.
Berg: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The city just put the CMP together and to make a
change we need to look at all the possibilities and what exactly we want to see for the city.
In favor of amending the CMP: Jeanne Mabusth
Not in favor of amending the CMP: Berg, Fritzler, Smith, Rahn, Zugschwest, Bremer
Mr. Trautz stated they have reviewed Mr. Gaffron's letter of March 1 and feel confident that the
majority of requests can be accomplished. He said that in talking with potential buyers of Stone
Bay residential area a grocery store is exactly what they don't want. They feel they have come
back with retail uses that correspond with other retail use at that intersection. They feel it is a
Page 6 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE", NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY 12/WILLOW DRIVE
[OUTLOT A, STONEBAY" COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Continued)
retail intersection. In talking about what serves the residents' immediate needs, office space
brings people from out of the area to this site. Mr. Trask feels the current site plan being worked
on is looking at all the criteria, including having the site face "in", and to try and find ways to
incorporate pond aesthetics can be accomplished.
In regards to signing tenants, can't move forward to accomplish until the uses are decided. The
neighborhood of Stone Bay does support concept and uses proposed at this site. Mr. Trautz also
felt they were at a positive place five months ago.
Chair Smith stated that the applicant has been extraordinarily patient with the commission over
the last five months. When a Comp Plan is put in place, members feel being rushed may feel
like years instead of months when considering making a fairly large comprehensive change.
In regards to reviewing the list of approved uses (Exhibit G), Mabusth voiced a concern over
approving item#21 "Retail food of all varieties and home supplies"that might include
restaurants.
Gaffron explained that restaurants would be covered under a CUP list. Retail foods would apply
to Walgreen's that will sell some retail foods. The question is at what level that store becomes a
grocery store and is there some limitation you would like to put on it.
The Commission determined that#21 would stay on the list.
Mabusth suggested a disclaimer to say they couldn't have a drive up window. Gaffron said that
the Conditional Use list would be amended and say that any of the uses that are permitted retail
and service business uses as well as B-6 permitted uses, if it's a drive-through it's a CUP.
Commission recommends applicant go before council, get a conclusion on the Comp Plan
amendment, then come back to Planning Commission with a revised site plan, if necessary.
Bremer stated, and the entire Commission agreed, that Exhibit G is the compilation of uses for
the council to review with the CUP disclaimer addition.
The Commission agreed that all points in the letter of March 1 clearly stated the Commission's
desires.
No formal motion needed at this time, given the clear direction of the polling.
No formal minutes from the Long Lake joint meeting were taken.
Page 7 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- - Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #04-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD, AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCES (7:06-7:25 P.M.)
Claryce B. and Lyle K. Johnson, the Applicants, were present.
Curtis explained that Claryce and Lyle Johnson are the property owners at 1398 Rest Point Road.
The current use of the property is for rental and in the summer of 2003 did some interior re-
modeling and constructed the grade level deck at that time.
As they did not require permits for the interior improvements, the applicants believed a permit
was not required for the deck. Tonight they are requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance
for the 0'-75' in the 75' to 250' zone and an after-the-fact lake setback variance for the deck.
The hardcover level in the 0'-75' zone is 1.14%; the 75'-250' zone with the deck is 43.2%
hardcover. Without the deck, the 75'-250' zone was 41.3% and the 0'-75' was zero.
The after-the-fact lakeside setback variance for the deck which is located 70' from the lake
where 75' is required.
Planning staff recommended denial of the after-the-fact variances as no hardship has been
identified to allow this 60 square feet of hardcover within the 0'-75' zone and for the 114 square
feet within the 75'-250` zone or the five foot encroachment to the lake setback.
Chair Smith clarified that this request is to replace an existing deteriorating deck although no
photos have been found to substantiate that there was a previous deck.
Applicant stated that the original deck existed in the 1940's. In 1963 that deck was replaced and
enlarged and the most recent deck would be the third replacement.
Chair Smith stated that normally the commission is sympathetic to rotting decks but the
commission needs something to indicate that it is a safe setting for the homeowner. The
commission also needs substantiation that there was a deck previous and without it makes the
decision to approve new construction a lot harder.
Applicant had in her possession this evening a picture of the first deck built in the 1940's and
offered it to Curtis.
Chair Smith asked Curtis if the photo shown this evening made a difference in her
recommendation
Page 8 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4. #04-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD,AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCES-Continued)
Curtis stated that the deck in the photo actually looks like a landing. She stated she talked to the
assessors about how big they would have indicated, a deck versus nothing on the property that
just would have been a landing. The assessor responded that if the object were a landing it
would not be indicated on the assessor's report.
Chair Smith stated the photo looked like a landing. Applicant stated they called it a porch in
those days. Chair Smith also indicated that to the commission, a landing is important for safety.
Hennepin County Assessor visited the site in the summer of 2000 and a deck was not noted on
the site plan(Exhibit E).
Applicant stated this is a floating deck and they are amenable to amending the deck.
Chair Smith stated the current deck is 14-1/2' by 12'.
Bremer asked what the size was before 1963. Applicant responded the deck was 12' x 5' and that
the lakeshore has eroded over the years.
Chair Smith asked staff what would be allowed today as a landing to provide a safe entrance and
exit to this property.
Rahn stated that a 3' x 3' landing is considered safe for building code standards as a minimum
excluding steps.
Mabusth stated that the neighboring homes extend a great deal towards the lake.
Staff indicated the current deck extends 14-1/2' beyond the home five feet into the 0-75' setback.
Audience member Ralph Kemp, 3675 Togo Road, stated the deck should not extend beyond the
75' and in looking at the photos the house next door does protrude well beyond the deck.
Chair Smith asked staff what size that would make the deck. Staff responded 12' x 9-1/2'.
Mabusth stated that this is not an average lakeshore situation in terms of blocking the view from
each other.
Chair Smith informed the applicants that 25% hardcover is allowed on the property and this
property is at 43.2% hardcover in the 75'-25' zone and asked staff if here are any hardships that
Page 9 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4. #04-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD,AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCES-Continued)
should be considered. Staff responded that the road is difficult to park on and get in and out and
that the driveway is not excessive in size.
Mabusth stated this is a hardship lot. It has the 0-75' on both sides indicating a peninsula.
Rahn stated that no steps should go into the 0-75' so steps should be on the side of the house.
Mabusth noted there is no hardcover in the yard and as long as the deck part is removed it is zero
percent in the 0'-75' zone.
Bremer asked applicant what they think about reducing the deck to 1963 size.
Applicant said they wish to keep the deck large enough to place one or two chairs because as
people get older they are not as active getting around. Applicant stated they had no problem in
reducing the deck to meet the 75' setback including steps to the side.
Rahn stated he would be satisfied with a 50 square foot deck or 5' x 10',big enough for two
chairs.
Applicant again asked for 5' x 12' deck.
Chair Smith asked staff to sketch on the plan what that size deck would look like— a grade level
deck that would not extend into the 0'-75' setback with steps to the side. Steps that extend
toward the lakeside but do not extend into the 0-75' would be approved as well as long as the
deck is not made any wider.
Mabusth moved and Chair Smith seconded to approve the after-the-fact variance
application for#05-2982 for Claryce and Lyle Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road allowing the
existing deck to be altered to a 5' x 12' dimension, stairs to be constructed towards the lake
side but not extending into the 0'-75' setback area and be three feet in width. VOTE: Ayes:
7 nays 0.
5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE (7:24—7:43 P.M.)
The applicants are requesting the following variances:
1. After-the-fact hardcover variance within the 75'-250' zone to allow 58.2%hardcover where
25% is allowed and 52.2%was previously approved.
2. After-the-fact side yard setback variance in order to allow the newly constructed deck to
remain at 4.2' from the side lot line where 10' is required and the home is setback 3.2'.
Page 10 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE —Continued)
3. After-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 3.5' into the average lakeshore
setback with the newly constructed deck.
4. After-the-fact structural coverage variance to allow 21.4% structural coverage where 1,500
s.f. (17 %) is allowed.
Hardship: Staff does not find hardships to support the after-the-fact variances.
The applicants, Sean and Leah Daly, are the property owners at 605 Park Lane. This property is
.2 acres. The applicants are requesting after-the-fact variances in order to allow newly
constructed decks to remain, and allow re-construction of a new 2nd story deck. After
purchasing the property the applicants removed the existing decks that were rotted, unsafe and
not functionally efficient with the layout of the home as they existed. They also removed
sidewalk, and installed boulder walls in order to make their property more functional. Not
realizing that permits were required, the applicants replaced the decks.
The applicants are also requesting to replace a 2nd story deck(36 s.f.) on the lakeside of the
property. The existing house is set back 3.2' from the side property line where a 10' setback is
required. The deck, which was replaced, encroached equally into the side yard setback. The
applicants, in rebuilding the deck, have maintained the setback at 4.2' from the side lot line
where 10' is required.
The previous owners received variance approval for a garage addition in 1986, which limited the
75'-250' zone to a total of 52.2%hardcover, and the 0-75'zone to 2.5% (see Exhibit J). Since
1986, a shed, decks, driveway, and additional hardcover have been added to the property without
City approval. The applicants have removed approximately 142 s.f. of hardcover from the 75'-
250' setback zone, including a paved sidewalk on the north side of the home. When the
applicants purchased the property it had a total hardcover level of 61.2%.
Permits were not obtained in the reconstruction and removal of the decks, sidewalk, and other
hardcover in order to accurately document the square footage removed. Had a permit been
applied for by the applicants; the property would have been reviewed and the new, un-permitted,
deck and hardcover additions would have been noted and the building permit most likely would
not have been granted without bringing the property back to the approved 1986 hardcover levels.
Staff has included the Hennepin County Assessor's report (Exhibit D)to illustrate the size and
configuration of the decks, which were reconstructed by the applicants.
Historically, in reviewing similar applications, staff has consistently applied 0-75' setback zone
hardcover overages to the 75'-250' zones. This property currently has 10.17%hardcover in the
0-75' zone where none is allowed. Consequently, the 420 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone
shall be applied to the 75'-250' zone, which brings the hardcover level for the 75'-250' zone
from 58.2 % to 67%.
Page 11 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE—Continued)
The level of hardcover and the substandard setbacks are not uncommon in this neighborhood
where small lots and lack of on-street parking make the give and take between unnecessary
hardcover and safe vehicle parking a constant tug-of-war. This may help to explain the
unapproved 220 s.f. gravel parking pad, the installation of which did not require permits from the
City, however, this additional hardcover is reviewed at the time of a permit application and/or
during a variance review.
Although, the requests in this situation are not excessive, and although the hardcover reductions
the applicants have done to the property have resulted in a better situation than when they
purchased the property, staff still finds that this is no justification to allow retention of hardcover
that would not have been approved if legally requested.
The new deck is located 3.5' into the average lake setback. Although the applicants
reconstructed the new deck no further toward the lake than the existing deck, the existing deck
was constructed without City approvals and cannot be legally replaced to this extent without a
variance.
Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be
asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Staff finds that although the applicants replaced existing decks on their property and did not
increase the size or the setbacks of these existing decks, the existing decks did not have City
approval. However, due to the fact that size and location of the decks (which were replaced)
were not approved by the City, there are no hardships for which to justify allowing bigger decks
than were approved to remain.
In addition, to base subsequent hardcover levels and approvals on unapproved decks would not
be in keeping with the City's practice. Therefore staff does not find that a hardship exists to
allow the current level of hardcover on the property.
A letter from the applicant's neighbors, Shane and Kris Rudd, 601 Park Lane is included in the
packet supporting the reconstructed deck because of increased safety and in receiving an after-
the-fact variance for both the deck and the side yard setbacks (attached).
Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, and
average lake setback variances.
Applicants stated they were concerned that the existing decks on the property when they
purchased the home were rotting and the second story deck was ready to fall off the house with
large gaps in the deck boards that were dangerous for their children. The sellers did not tell them
Page 12 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE—Continued)
that the decks were non-compliant. Applicant was told the square footage on the home was the
maximum allowable footprint as long as you stay within the existing footprint with
improvements. They started simply trying to repair the decks, but that turned into having to
replace the decks.
Chair Smith stated that if permits had been properly applied for that the commission likely
wouldn't have granted them at the time.
Applicant asked what is the difference between repair and replacement. Chair Smith stated that
the decks installed by the previous owners shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Chair Smith answered the applicant's questions by stating that the commission could allow for
safe landings out of doors,but not allowing for the reconstruction of the deck in its full size, as it
previously existed before it started to rot.
Gaffron said that the building inspector would likely go out and view the deck with the applicant
or his builder and look at what needs to be replaced, what can be salvaged and normally if it
looks like it will be more than what can be easily replaced the inspector will consider it a total re-
build. Gaffron further stated that in many circumstances repairs do turn into re-builds.
Rahn asked how many square feet in the decks? He voiced concern on how the square footage
went from 110 square feet approved in 1986 to 259 square feet currently.
Zugschwert asked for the current deck size today? 225 square feet total, including the stairs (not
the upper deck). (Exhibit B).
The upper deck is over the lower deck.
Rahn asked if the sliding doors on the home at the upper deck were always there. Applicant
confirmed the doors were always there. Rahn inquired about the shed.
Audience member Shannon Berger, 594 Parkway, moved in five years before the applicants and
the stated that the shed was there. Berger stated that the deck was very unsafe for young
children.
Audience member John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood, stated he believes applicant should be able
to replace the old decks because the real estate agent represented the property as conforming.
They are trying to retain what they have.
Curtis stated the gravel portion of the driveway is 220 square feet. A 599 square foot driveway
with backup apron was approved in 1986 and the hardcover today includes the current blacktop
driveway of 573 square feet and gravel portion of 220 square feet totaling 793 square feet.
Page 13 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE,AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE—Continued)
Rahn stated there is recourse against the previous owner. The shed needs to be re-located out of
the 0-75'. However, applicant may not be able to re-locate to be out of the zone, so may have to
be removed from the property to be conforming. The deck should meet the average lakeshore
setback
Rahn moved, Zugschwert seconded approval of#04-2988 After-the-Fact variance for Sean
and Leah Daly, 605 Park Lane to remove the shed out of the 0'-75' zone, removing portions
of the deck that encroach in the average lakeshore setback and no more than 36 square foot
second story deck so as to not increase hardcover.
Chair Smith asked Rahn if an amendment to the motion could state that this property has reached
its maximum hardcover. Rahn stated he doesn't like to predict the future.
VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0.
Five minute break.
6. #04-2989 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD, PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION (7:51-8:00 PM)
Christopher Diesen, the applicant, was present.
Curtis stated that Christopher Diesen is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot
subdivision at 1100 Townline Road. The property is located on the east side of Townline Road
between Watertown Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad. On the west side of Townline
Road is the City of Independence. The current zoning for the property is RR-1A, One Family
Rural Residential District that requires five-acre minimum lot sizes. The property is guided for
Rural Residential in 2000—2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of five acres.
The 13.79-acre property contains wetland and has areas of challenging topography to the east.
Lot 1 (Tract A on overhead) has total of 6.14 acres with 5.985 buildable acres. The wetland is to
the front of the lot along Townline Road. Lot 2 has 7.65 acres with 7.58 dry buildable acres.
With the exception of the variance request for a lot width, this lot meets RR1A standards.
The applicant is proposing the side-by-side subdivision as opposed to the back lot due to the
topography of the eastern portion of the property and the proposed 220 feet lot width for Lot 1
and 270 for Lot 2 have been deemed satisfactory by staff. Reasonable building envelopes have
been determined and all setbacks will be met for buildings within the reduced lot widths. No
variances will be needed. Feasible, preliminary and alternate septic sites have been identified
and approved by the city by the septic inspector. Both lots are proposed to be served by the
existing driveway with access easements. Based on the information provided, the preliminary
Page 14 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6. #04-2989 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD, PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION-Continued)
plat meets city requirements and the planning department recommends approval of the
application.
Chair Smith inquired about the letter from neighbor Dick Rudd and if there was any impact on
this application.
Gaffron stated the neighbor to the north was concerned if the survey was correct. The survey has
been deemed correct. The property has been torrensed and where the lot line is indicated is
correct. The fence is on the applicant's lot line.
No comments from the public.
Mabusth moved, seconded by Fritzler the approval of Application #04-2989, 1100 Townline
Road, approving a 2-lot subdivision of some 13.79 acres within the five-acre zoning district
of the city. Each lot meets and exceeds the area requirement except for the lot width and
the lot width has been found to be adequate by the staff. It is on a dead end road and
consistent with the lot widths of the adjacent properties within the five-acre zone. Also,
this approval is based on findings of satisfactory septic testing for these two rural lots,
having both the primary and alternate site. This approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer.
2. Implementation of the recommendations 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. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
No trail is shown on the roadway.
VOTE: Ayes: 7; nays 0
7. #04-2990 PATRICK AND LORING KAVENEY, 1444 BALDUR PARK ROAD,
VARIANCE (8:00—8:05 PM)
Patrick and Loring Kaveney, the applicants, were present.
Patrick and Loring Kaveney are the property owners of 1444 Baldur Park Road. The property is
0.19 acre located within the LR-1C half-acre zoning district. The applicants are requesting lot
area, lot width, and hardcover variances in order to construct a new residence at 1444 Baldur
Park Road on a lot 8600 square feet in area and 47 feet wide where 21,780 square feet of area
and 100 feet of width are normally required. Hardcover variance is requested in order to
construct a 1,500 square foot home, 582 square foot driveway, 127 square foot sidewalk, and a
minimal 121 square foot deck. The lot area and lot width variances are a formality in re-builds
Page 15 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7. #04-2990 PATRICK AND LORING KAVENEY, 1444 BALDUR PARK ROAD,
VARIANCE-Continued)
where the lot of record does not conform to the requirements of the zoning district. The
hardcover variance is not an uncommon request for this neighborhood. The city code 78-1403
allows the applicant structural coverage on their lot of 15% or 1500 square feet, whichever is
greater. The 1500 square foot footprint consists of 29%hardcover within the 75'-250' zone.
With the addition of the driveway, minimum sidewalk and deck all meeting setbacks of the
zoning district, this brings the property to 44.98% hardcover within the 75'-250' zone with
having zero percent hardcover in the 0'-75' zone. As the size of the lot serves as the hardship in
this situation, planning department staff recommends approval of the variances as requested.
Chair Smith said it looks like driveway access looks adequate and is asking Curtis if she agrees.
The property has reached maximum hardcover and the city doesn't want applicants coming back
asking for more driveway. Staff responded that it is a two-car wide driveway that tapers at the
road.
There were no public comments.
Bremer stated this application should be used as a model.
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded to approve Application #04-2990, Patrick and Loring
Kaveney, 1444 Baldur Park Road approving the requested variances for lot area, lot width
and hardcover and according to the application numbers and find that the hardship here is
the lot width. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0
8. #04-2991 PAT FLEMING,4760 NORTH ARM DRIVE W. VARIANCE (8:05-8:10
P.M.)
Pat Fleming, the applicant was present.
Curtis stated that the Fleming property is located within the RR-1B, two-acre minimum zoning
district. The applicant is requesting variances from the 50' front yard setback requirement as
well as a variance from City Code 78-1435, which requires detached garages and accessory
structures to be located behind the principal building setback. A creek bed runs down the side of
the"L" shaped property with the home and the existing driveway on the eastern half. Septic
systems soil treatment areas are located directly behind the home to the north. Therefore, due to
topographic features, the location of the septic system and the orientation of the home on the
property satisfy that there is a hardship to allow for the detached garage to be located in the front
of the principal building. Staff, however, does not find a hardship for the encroachment of the
required 50' front yard setback.
Page 16 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8. #04-2991 PAT FLEMING, 4760 NORTH ARM DRIVE W. VARIANCE-Continued)
Planning staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the detached garage to be located
closer to the street than the principal structure and denial of the request for a reduced front yard
setback. Applicant has agreed to meet the 50' front yard setback in discussions they had tonight
with the planner.
Applicant confirmed he agreed to meet the 50' front yard setback.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if he is willing to shield the view from the golf course to the
south with additional trees. Applicant responded that he is willing to shield with additional trees
but asked how many and what type. Staff will work with applicant to give him some direction
and not be over burdensome.
Gaffron asked the number of acres of this property. Applicant responded 1.8 acres. He asked if
horses would be on the property. Applicant responded no.
Commission staff members agreed that the new configuration works better for this property site.
Applicant stated that Curtis was very helpful in re-thinking the design on the garage to meet the
50' setback requirement. The applicant will turn the garage so the garage door and entrance face
the east and the gable end garage door goes away and gable end will now face North Arm Drive.
There were no public comments.
Fritzler moved, Mabusth seconded to approve the variance request for #04-2991, Pat
Fleming, 4760 North Arm Drive, noting that the property is now conforming on the street
setback and changing the angle of the garage rotating it 90 degrees and working with staff
to shield the view from the golf course to the south with trees. VOTE: Ayes: 7; nays 0
9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES (8:12-8:50 P.M.)
Ron Potas, the applicant, was present.
Gundlach indicated that the applicant requests the following variances in order to replace an
existing 1/2 story with a full 2nd story and to change pieces of the roof that are currently flat to
pitched, all while staying within the existing footprint:
1. Side setback variance to allow a west side setback of 5.6' at the garage when 10' is
normally required and 5.6' currently exists. The changes at this non-conforming setback
are a current flat roof will convert to a pitched, hipped roof.
2. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10' into the average
lakeshore setback when a 10' encroachment currently exists.
3. Hardcover variance to allow 42% hardcover in the 75' —250' zone when 25% is
normally allowed and 42% currently exists.
Page 17 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
Gundlach indicated that the existing V2 story will be torn off to construct a full second story, and
the sections of roof that are currently flat will change to pitched, all while staying within the
existing footprint of the current 1 V2 story home. The applicant is also proposing to complete an
interior renovation of the existing first floor and proposing to keep the existing outer walls of the
first floor as well as the foundation, flooring, and existing grade level deck, which got variance
approvals in 1992. In staff's opinion the work proposed doesn't seem to reach the 50% volume
or value threshold and therefore isn't being reviewed as a rebuild.
However, Gundlach indicated it is important to discuss the particulars of what is being removed
and what is being proposed as new and the comparison of before and after appearances of the
exterior envelope of the home.
Gundlach went on to discuss the changes to each floor as follows:
The applicant has stated that an interior remodel of the first floor is proposed. A main interior
wall will be removed so as to open up the first floor and to provide the support for the second
floor. Many of the rooms will remain within the first floor but will be remodeled. All perimeter
walls will remain as well as the flooring and deck on the lakeside, which again, received
approval in 1992 through the variance process.
The V2 story will be taken off and replaced with a full second story. Currently, dormers make up
the %2 story. The section of the house encompassing those dormers will become a full story,
where the current angled walls will become straight with a pitched roof above. The areas above
the garage and the northeast corner of the home will not become a full second story, but the flat
roof will be replaced with a pitch.
A partial basement exists as well as crawl spaces that were added after initial construction of the
home. These spaces will not be touched with the improvements the applicant has proposed. The
applicant has also stated that the existing foundation will support the second story and no work
on the foundation will be necessary with this project.
Gundlach continued that current setback on the northwest side of the lot is conforming at the
house (21.5 feet) but is only 5.6 feet at the attached garage. The applicant isn't proposing a full
story above the garage but a flat roof will be replaced with a pitched roof and become a %2 story
with windows in the gabled roof. This requires a side setback variance because the nature of the
structure at this side lot line is changing from flat to pitched. It should be noted that the
overhangs of the proposed pitched roof would encroach less than the overhangs of the flat roof.
Gundlach indicated that all of the proposed changes will take place within the 75' —250' zone.
No new hardcover is proposed and the changes will take place within the existing
Page 18 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
footprint of the home. A hardcover variance is required because the existing hardcover is
non-conforming at 42% when 25% is normally allowed. One minor change, not in hardcover but
the envelope of the existing home, is that a covered entry is proposed over the existing stoop.
The roof extension is proposed to be the same size as the stoop, which is approximately 4' x 8'
or 32 square feet. This does not constitute additional hardcover but it is changing from merely
hardcover to structural coverage.
Gundlach added an average lakeshore setback variance is required because the existing home
encroaches approximately 10 feet into the required setback. Because the applicant is proposing
to build up in this non-conforming setback a variance is required. At the corner where the
greatest encroachment into the setback is occurring, a full second story isn't proposed as
illustrated in the elevations. However, pieces of the home that were currently flat or a ''V2 story
will now be either pitched or a full story. It should be noted that the house to the southeast,
where the greatest impact occurs due to the encroachment, was rebuilt in 2002 further from the
lake than the past home creating the change in the average lakeshore setback line causing the
applicants home to become non-conforming.
Gundlach continued by addressing the hardships with each variance.
Staff finds that a hardship exists to warrant approval of the side setback variance. The original
home was constructed sometime in the 1940's with the attached garage constructed in 1973 at a
setback 5.6 feet from the property line. Sometime shortly after that the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted requiring a 10' setback. Where this non-conforming setback occurs the applicant isn't
proposing a new story but rather a hipped roof where a flat roof exists. The Planning
Commission should discuss the effects of going from a flat roof to a pitched roof in this non-
conforming setback.
Staff finds a hardship exists to also grant the hardcover variance. The property is currently at
42% in the 75' —250' zone when 25% is normally allowed. The applicant is proposing changes
to the envelope of the building but not new hardcover where non-hardcover currently exists.
Variances were granted in 1992 to allow construction of the lakeside deck and no illegal
hardcover has been added since those variance approvals. The only notable change is that
approximately 32 square feet of roof will be added over existing hardcover to create a covered
entry. The Planning Commission should discuss adding structure where hardcover currently
exists, and if any removals should be required to account for that change.
Lastly, staff also finds that a hardship exists to grant the requested average lakeshore setback
variance. The northeast corner of the home encroaches the furthest into the average lakeshore
setback. The applicant isn't proposing a full second story at this corner but to change to a
pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists. The house, at this corner tapers west to an
encroachment of 2 feet. This piece of the home will go from a 1/4 story to a full story but any
views the neighbor may have, if any, are minimally impacted. After conducting a site visit, staff
Page 19 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
has determined that any views the neighbor has over this current flat roof will be minimally
impacted when going to a pitched roof. Also, the neighbor who is affected by the improvements
constructed a new home in 2002 further from the lake than before, which in turn made the
applicant's home non-conforming and thus creating a hardship. The Planning Commission
should discuss the impacts of changing the envelope of the structure at this corner and whether
views are obstructed.
Gundlach recommends the commission discuss the following:
1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable reviewing this as improvements rather than a
rebuild?
2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable accepting a pitched roof where a flat roof currently
exists, which increases the envelope of the structure, in areas where setbacks are non-
conforming?
3. Are there major issues going from a '/2 story to a full story on a lot that's at 42%hardcover?
4. Should hardcover reductions be required? Possibly the non-conforming shed by the attached
garage?
5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Gundlach stated that staff recommends approval of this application but encourages the
commission to ask for further hardcover reductions in consideration of the issues just mentioned.
Chair Smith asked staff if they are absolutely sure the foundation is of sufficient constitution to
take on the addition. Gundlach responded that the applicant has addressed those issues and is
putting in special trusses to support the second story. Applicant responded that the architect has
not verified this. The existing house is 18"block (18' x 8' x 12') and the new addition is all 16"
block. Architect will sign off, but hasn't yet, but he will before final drawings. Gundlach spoke
with the building inspector and he indicated that special trusses should suffice.
Mike Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road,believes this is a great addition to the neighborhood.
John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road can't determine where this property is located.
Applicant responded that it is located south of the Super American station.
The neighbor to the north also thinks it is a great addition to the neighborhood.
Tom Stokes, a building contractor, has been to the property and believes this structure is sound.
Rahn inquired if the second story floor was staying or going.
Page 20 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
Applicant said the floor system is going because they are removing the part of the wall on the
inside and that gives a new load structure and a steel beam would have to be put in plus roof
(floor) trusses become the ceiling of the lower level.
Rahn questioned if there is a 5.6' area with a 4'jog. Elevations don't show that 4'jog. After
discussion, applicant finally indicated the survey is correct and that there is a 4'jog (not
perfectly square) in this shop area that is adjacent to the garage and they do not intend to fill that
in. It will remain.
Rahn further indicated this is a major renovation and clearly a re-build.
Applicant stated moving the house to the southeast would affect the front entry of the home and
re-doing the garage would be a huge issue for them.
Commissioner Rahn confirmed ceiling heights with the applicant.
Fritzler stated that he felt the project was well beyond the 50%threshold.
Chair Smith continued by noting the location of three sheds:
1. Lakeshore
2. South of garage— smaller
3. Garage further down from the smaller shed
Applicant stated the sheds have been there 23 years.
Bremer stated that the home has also been there that long and the applicant is changing the home.
Bremer asked what the applicant could do to take away some of the accessory structures in
exchange for encroachments.
Chair Smith would like to see all three accessory structures removed.
Bremer inquired if two small sheds were removed, not including the garage, how much
hardcover would be gained.
Gundlach responded a total of 83 square feet (60 square feet outside the 0'-75' and 23 square
feet inside the 0'-75'). Additionally, if you remove the two sheds in the 0'-75' you go from
1.3% to 1% and if you take the shed out of the 75'-250' you go from 41.9% to 41.5%.
Bremer stated she would approve the application if the two small sheds were removed.
Fritzler stated he would vote against the proposal unless it included the removal of the old garage
out by the street because there is a lot of hardcover there that could be given up.
Page 21 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
Ralph Kemp, 3675 Togo Road, suggested making the new two car garage a three car attached
garage and eliminate the other garage that would remove 1/2 of the hardcover and reduce the
circle driveway.
Applicant said they store a boat and other things in the detached garage.
Bremer stated whether the applicant really needs a four-stall garage.
Berg stated the commission shouldn't be designing this property. We should be reviewing what
is before us.
Applicant stated it would cost approximately$50,000 to add two more garages.
Bill Tiller, property owner to the north, is concerned about the view that he would see as a
neighbor of a four-stall garage.
An informal poll was taken and all but one commissioner would approve the application with the
removal of the two sheds.
Applicant was reluctant to remove the shed near the lakeshore. The shed is 6' x 3' with 6'
height.
The Commission informed applicant he could have a 4' x 5' lockbox (20 square feet) on the
property and remove the shed.
Mr. Mischke (#03-2928) indicated he is interested in having a lock box on his property as well.
Commission responded he may have one.
Berg moved and Mabusth seconded to approve Application #04-2992,Ron Potas, 2190
Shadywood Road approving the staff recommendations as follows:
1. Side setback variance to allow a west side setback of 5.6' at the garage when 10' is
normally required and 5.6' currently exists. The changes at this non-conforming
setback are a current flat roof will convert to a pitched, hipped roof.
2. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10' into the
average lakeshore setback when a 10' encroachment currently exists.
3. Hardcover variance to allow 42% hardcover in the 75' —250' zone; however, this
has been reduced to 41.5% because of the removal of the shed and the additional
removal of the second shed at the lakeshore. VOTE: Ayes: 6; nays 1, Fritzler
dissenting
Chair Smith indicated to the applicants that the commission serves as a recommending body and
that the City Council has the final determination on the application.
Page 22 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Continued)
Applicant inquired whether the motion included his ability to re-side the garage located near the
street. Chair Smith indicated the applicant doesn't need commission approval and just needs to
put that information into the building permit request.
10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP (8:51-9:30 P.M.)
Chris Valerius, the applicant and her husband, was present.
Gundlach explained the applicant is proposing to convert the existing residence located at 2377
Shadywood Road to a coffee shop with bakery and restaurant type uses. The current residence is
a non-conforming use as the property is zoned B-1, Retail Sales District. The applicant's
proposed use, although conditional, is a conforming use of the B — 1 district. As noted in Exhibit
C, the applicant is an experienced business owner that has operated coffee shops in the Cities of
Long Lake and Mound.
Gundlach continued stating that the applicant is proposing several improvements to allow her to
conduct business at this site, the major ones being conversion of a residential home into a
commercial business (requiring a building permit), a 20' x 32' (640 s.f.) addition to the existing
structure (requiring a building permit), and a drive-through facility. The other improvements
proposed are landscaping, removal of the existing, non-conforming shed and screened porch, the
addition of a grade level deck (requiring a building permit), construction of parking stalls and
interior changes to accommodate a commercial business (requiring a building permit). As noted,
many of these improvements require a building permit that in turn requires a commercial site
plan review. The purpose of a commercial site plan review is to allow the City to complete a
comprehensive review of the site in an effort to bring it closer to conformance.
Gundlach indicated the applicant is proposing a building addition to follow the same setback on
the north side of the lot(along Lyric Avenue) as the existing structure. The existing structure is
non-conforming at this setback with a setback of 24' when 35' is required. To extend this line of
the building, a side street setback variance is required. The existing shed and screened porch,
also within the required yards, will be removed bringing this side of the lot somewhat more
towards conformance.
Gundlach continued that the applicant has proposed a drive through and parking stalls in the rear
of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires an unobstructed rear yard of 30 feet. This
includes all pavements for parking, drive isles, and sidewalks. With the applicant's proposal a
rear and north side yard parking variance is required to accomplish the drive-through and parking
stalls shown on the submitted survey.
Page 23 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing a coffee shop with a bakery and restaurant. This is
classified as a Class I restaurant under the B — 1 conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Class I distinction doesn't specifically address additional requirements but the proposed use
must comply with the general conditional use permit standards dealing with the health, safety
and general welfare of the community or neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that creating a
drive-through on this property poses significant safety issues for drivers using the City owned
parking lot. The Planning Commission should discuss if additional conditions should be
required in conjunction with the restaurant use. The applicant has preliminarily indicated to staff
that it will be a deli style food service.
Gundlach explained that few hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested building and
parking setback variances when in conjunction with a drive through. Gundlach continued that a
drive-through is not an automatic allowed use, but rather a use that is allowed should the site be
large enough and configured such that a drive-through could be accommodated under the official
controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i.e. within setbacks). Therefore, staff would not recommend
approval of variances merely to accommodate a drive-through facility. Gundlach stated that staff
also finds that a variance should not be granted to allow parking stalls to be located up to the
property line in the rear yard when 30' setback should be required. The location of these stalls
forces customers to either cross traffic entering the stalls or backing into traffic leaving the stalls.
This is due to a drive aisle serving the City owned parking lot located behind the applicant's
property. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit K.
He concludes that the site "does not lend itself to a drive through operation".
Gundlach concluded that staff does find that some hardships may exist due to the restrictive
building setbacks and that part of the applicant's property was taken to improve the City owned
parking lot,which lessens the amount of buildable area on the lot. However, a building addition
of the same size proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there may
not be enough room to accommodate parking. Staff would recommend that the applicant explore
a site plan that doesn't include a drive-through and variance requests could be entertained at that
point.
Gundlach stated that an alternative plan is included in the report regarding a drive-through
coming off of Lyric Avenue and exiting at the rear of the lot onto the drive isle of the City owned
parking lot. Staff feels that the same issues exist as far as conflicts, safety and setbacks are
concerned as the proposed plan. Gundlach continued that staff originally encouraged the
applicant that if a drive-through is a must, to keep it off of the Lyric Avenue side of the lot in an
effort to eliminate intersection safety issues at Lyric Avenue and Shadywood Road.
Page 24 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
Unfortunately, neither plan achieves the safety or functionality standards the City should expect
with a drive-through facility.
Gundlach noted the following issues for consideration:
1. Can the property support a drive-through?
2. Does the Planning Commission feel there is a valid hardship to warrant approval of the side
setback variance to construct the requested addition?
3. Should the applicant consider the same use but without a drive-through? Could a safer
parking stall arrangement be implemented?
4. Does the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be associated with
approval of the proposed coffee shop/bakery/restaurant use? Or, is the use proposed
reasonable but the site plan should be revised?
5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Gundlach stated that staff recommends denial of the plan as proposed. The applicant should
consider revising her site plan to not include a drive-through, and revise the parking stall
arrangement so that customers are not conflicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking
lot.
Gundlach also noted that a new plan has been passed out tonight by the applicants showing a
new configuration for a drive through. However, the new plan creates a give and take situation.
It doesn't need a parking setback variance for the rear yard, but rather a front yard parking
setback variance. Because they are proposing to bring the drive aisle through the front yard,
additional hardcover is required causing the property to need a hardcover variance.
Chair Smith clarified that Gundlach would look favorably on the application except for the drive
through. Gundlach affirmatively confirmed.
The applicant stated she was the owner Lake Country Coffee in Long Lake and another shop in
Mound. They now want to concentrate on one shop in this beautiful home built in the 1930's.
Applicant further stated the busiest hours of operation are between 6 and 8 A.M. and that traffic
thereafter is 1-2 people every 1/2 hour.
The applicant stated she conducted a study of traffic through the parking lot for three days and is
included in the packet.
Page 25 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
The applicant continued that a drive through is important for the disabled so they don't have to
get out of their cars and for parents with children, and a variance is not for parking stalls, but for
pavement and stall location and for the location of the drive through aisle.
Chair Smith inquired whether applicant would consider a carhop service for those people who
don't want to leave their car. It was confirmed that they did that at their Long Lake shop.
Applicant said they know their customer's needs because they are regular customers and they are
only stopping for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Their customers have asked for a drive-up service, however
she would also consider a car hop or walk up service if a drive through were not approved.
The applicant continued that they are offering to take down two existing structures, one attached,
one detached to make this process go smoother.
Chair Smith indicated she thinks the structure is very charming.
The applicants added they propose grass and landscaping to include vegetable and flower
gardens to give a family feel, like a home.
Bremer inquired about how traffic flows after people back out of their parking stalls.
Gaffron responded that you back out into traffic and can go either way. The main exit is out to
Lyric Avenue.
Bremer stated the new plan indicates a third planned driveway.
Gundlach responded that was an alternative before discussions were held. It became a safety
issue at the intersection of Lyric and Shadywood rather than the driveway itself.
Applicant said three parking stalls would suffice rather than four.
Rahn stated that accessibility to those stalls means people have to cross the drive-through.
Applicant stated all drive-throughs are that way and cited Dairy Queen and Culvers as examples.
Gundlach said that a traffic analysis hadn't been done and stated that possibly the traffic
frequency isn't such a concern, but rather safety and functionality issues are most important.
A car would enter the drive-through at the corner of Lyric and the drive aisle for the city owned
parking lot and exit onto a main drive aisle. In regards to the parking stalls you back into a drive
aisle in the parking lot and when you park in a stall you have to cross over the drive-through lane
to get to the door and those are the issues the city engineer placed in his March 9, 2004 letter
(attached).
Page 26 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
Audience member John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road, suggested eliminating the parking
stalls and just provide the drive-through. If someone is going to walk into the store they can park
in the big parking lot. Traffic is in and out of the parking lot all the time.
Applicant said that is why she is offering two to three parking spaces tucked up near the home
and would like to keep at least two spaces.
Rahn suggested the city engineer review the new plan presented this evening.
If commission prefers the second plan, we can table this item until the city engineer can review
it. The applicant is fine with tabling the item.
Gaffron stated that commission needs to look at the building design and exterior materials so that
the commission is proud of this new addition to the Navarre neighborhood and secondly that it
meets our code in terms of exterior wall finishes, for instance, it has to be face brick or natural
stone or specially designed precise concrete units or factory pre-fabricated finished metal frame
panel construction or something else you can approve.
Gaffron suggests looking at the building elevations to make sure the commission understands
that the building is a square box attached to a house with a steeply pitched roof with dormers.
Mabusth asked if the B1 residential ceases on this property. Gundlach responded in the
affirmative and stated that no one is presently living there.
There is currently a second story on the home that will remain and be used for storage and office.
Mabusth stated to the applicant that the new plan presented to them tonight will be tabled until
the city engineer can review it. It is important for the applicant to have detailed plans on the
exterior finishes and the elevations completed so that when the applicant comes back to the
commission everything is ready and causes no further delay for them. She suggested that the
current home looks like a residence and the commission would like it to look more like a coffee
house—a cottage type structure but a commercial structure.
Rahn asked if the roof was flat on the addition. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Gundlach stated that she has spoke with the building inspector and he indicated there are several
issues to discuss in converting residential property to commercial and can be handled under the
building permit phase because that would require the completion of some detailed plans.
Page 27 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
Fritzler said there are a few issues to consider by the next meeting:
1. Traffic flow from a safety point of view at Lyric and County Road#19: There could be
cars with boat trailers attached coming around a turnaround drive-through and into that
busy intersection.
2. As far as the building itself looking like a home it will still look like all the other homes
and if Navarre's plan is implemented the question is will the home conform to Navarre's
improvements.
3. This building will contain a kitchen where baking occurs which could be viewed as a
restaurant and there are possible fire department issues to address like sprinklers.
Bremer asked for the commission to confirm that they are comfortable with the setback issues:
1. Side setbacks,parking setbacks, building setbacks
2. CUP
The commission agreed they are comfortable with all except the drive-through.
Applicant asked if they could approve everything except the drive-through this evening. Chair
Smith responded that relative to what is before the commission they are comfortable with:
1. CUP
2. Building setback variances
3. Parking setback variances except for the drive-through lane, and these items should be
approved together.
Items added to the list for further review are:
1. Have the city engineer review the new drive-through as indicated on the new plan the
commission received tonight
2. Applicant to supply building elevations
3. Applicant to supply more information on the exterior finish
4. If this building is deemed a restaurant, what kind of fire controls need to be in place
Overall direction is being given tonight,but detailed review will have to be done at the next
meeting once all the information is supplied to the city. The commission agrees that the use of
the property is good.
Mabusth asked what would be the hours of operation. Applicant responded that the Long Lake
shop was open 5 A.M. — 5 P. M.; shop in Mound is 5 A.M. to 11 P.M. and think the new shop in
Orono/Navarre would be open 5 A.M. to 10 or 11 P.M. at the latest seven days a week. It really
depends on the public's demand.
Page 28 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A
COFFEE SHOP—Continued)
Mabusth moved and Smith seconded to table Application #04-2993, Chris Valerius, 2377
Shadywood Road, providing applicant additional time to work with the city engineer
regarding drive-through aisle through the property, parking on the site and preliminary
review with the building inspector about a fire suppression system, exterior materials, and
building elevations. VOTE: Ayes: 7 Nays 0.
11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (9:30-10:25 P.M.)
The applicant, Steve Johnston, was present.
Gaffron explained the property is located on the SW side of Highway 12,just south of the Luce
Line Trail in the northeast quadrant of Orono. The property is bounded on the west by the new
Highway 12 /Railroad corridor; on the east by existing Highway 12; on the south by the Summit
Park Cemetery in Wayzata; and on the north by the Luce Line Trail (developed lots north of the
Luce Line are in Long Lake). The property was vacant until 1987, at which time a day-care
center was constructed. It has been operated until recently pursuant to the conditions of a
Conditional Use Permit per Resolution No. 2075 dated 11-10-86. The day-care building is
currently vacant.
Orono property to the west and east is guided and zoned for single-family residential use at a
density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The property west across the railroad has been developed for low-
density SFR uses for many years. The property across Highway 12 to the east contains a church
building that has undergone a variety of tenants. The cemetery property to the south in Wayzata
is guided for institutional uses and is zoned for Low Density Residential. Lots to the north of the
Luce Line in Long Lake are guided for single family uses (R-1) with a minimum lot area of
10,000 s.f. and 75' width, i.e. SFR at 4 units per acre. However, the existing single-family lots
abutting the north side of the Luce Line in this area range from 1/4 acre to 1-2/3 acres in area.
The property is zoned RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential, which allows the development of
single family homes at a density of 1 unit per 2 dry buildable acres. Other permitted uses in RR-
1B include municipal buildings, and public parks or playgrounds. Conditional uses allowed
within RR-1B include public/private/parochial schools; nursery schools (day-care); churches;
golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, camps, private parks/playgrounds; commercial
greenhouses; private recreation areas of various types; Planned Residential Developments (PRD)
limited to detached SFR at one-unit/two acres; apiaries; public stables or barns; riding
academies; hospitals; and libraries.
Page 29 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
The property is within the defined Rural Area of Orono as shown on CMP Map 3B-2. The
property is mapped and guided for Rural Residential Use, 2-acre minimum lot size in the 2000-
2020 Land Use Plan.
The property is about 12 acres to start with but will be reduced to the new Highway 12 right of
way takings. There are just under 4 aces of wetland on the property to the south towards the
cemetery. The wetlands are approximately one mile from Lake Minnetonka, and drains
eventually to Brown's Bay through a series of small creeks and wetlands. The location within
the watershed is not a significant factor in whether this property should be re-guided.
The dry buildable area of the property is about six and one-half acres.
Gaffron stated that the applicant requests an amendment of the Orono Community Management
Plan(aka"the CMP" or the "Comprehensive Plan") to allow development of this 6.5 acre site at
an Urban Residential density of up to 6 units per acre, with twinhomes or townhomes. He noted
that the proposed use would require the following actions by the City:
• Amendment of the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan to convert the status of the
property from Rural to Urban (i.e. this application);
• Establishment of standards within the CMP for future use and development of this
property(to be drafted if amendment moves forward);
• Rezoning to allow high-density multi-family development (probably to RPUD); and
• Approval of a RPUD development plan, subdivision and development agreement
Gaffron stated that the conversion from Rural to Urban status would require the extension of
urban services to this site, including municipal sewer and water. It is unknown whether the
current water connection to Long Lake is viable for such a development.
Gaffron reviewed the 2000-2020 Comp Plan areas identified for higher density development.
The applicant's property is not among those identified for such a change.
Gaffron noted a number of factors to be considered for this property:
1. The property is to some extent an"orphan", with relatively little relationship to the
development that surrounds it.
2. The day-care use at the site apparently has not had much success in recent years, due to
factors not fully known to staff but potentially related to vehicular access difficulties.
3. The range of potential uses within the existing RR-1B Rural Residential zoning for this)
site include the development of single-family housing (up to 3 homes at a 2-acre density)
as well as a variety of institutional,public or private uses.
Page 30 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
The property is at a highly visible location to traffic entering Orono from the east.
Development at this site might be considered as a `main entrance' to Orono, and as such
will inherently set a tone as to the character of the City.
4. The property abuts the Luce Line Trail, which as it traverses Orono has a completely
different feel than it does in Plymouth to the east; a rural feel rather than a suburban feel.
Due to topographic constraints, development of a multiple family residential use on the
site will likely be in close proximity to the trail, and have a potentially negative impact on
the rural character of the trail.
5. Attached multi-family housing, and such housing at the densities proposed, would be
inconsistent with existing and expected residential development surrounding the property.
While the property in Long Lake to the north is zoned to allow up to 4 units per acre, it
has developed in the past with a wide range of lot sizes and at a lower density than it is
zoned for. A recent subdivision at the south end of Lindawood Road created a total of 5
single family lots from 4.2 acres of land, a density of just over 1 unit per acre.
Gaffron suggested the commission consider the following questions to be answered to assist in
determining whether the proposed amendment should be approved:
1. Is the property currently guided in a manner that allows the owner some reasonable use
of the property?
2. Does the unique location of the property suggest certain types of uses may be more
appropriate than others?
3. Would re-guiding the property tend to promote some specific goal of the City in terms of
land use?
Given that the areas recently re-guided for higher density housing have not yet developed, isn't it
premature to consider additional areas for higher density? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to
wait until those areas have developed, then consider whether additional such areas are
warranted?
Similarly, if in the future the areas to the north in Long Lake are redeveloped at a higher density,
would that be a more appropriate time to consider higher density at this site?
Gaffron briefly explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as stated in detail in the
packet.
Page 31 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
Gaffron indicated that Staff recommends denial of the request, for the following reasons:
• The basic characteristics used to establish the areas recently re-guided higher density
residential use are not present at this site. Primarily, the site is not near a commercial area that
can provided the urban services, nearby shopping, public transportation, walkability, etc. that
were compelling reasons for the recent re-guidings.
• Insertion of higher density housing into the defined Rural Area for a property that the
owner finds difficult to develop does not necessarily promote or advance the City's housing
goals of providing life-cycle housing where appropriate services can be provided.
• The property does have a variety of potential uses under the current Rural status and RR-
1B zoning, and the fact that the property will now have a freeway along its SW boundary does
not in itself suggest that those uses are no longer viable. Frankly, if the site is acceptable for
multi-family housing units, why isn't it acceptable for single family units as currently guided?
• The development of housing at a density of 6 units per acre on this site, or potentially as
many as 18 units of townhomes, would be totally inconsistent with surrounding development.
• The potential negative visual and related activity impacts associated high-density
residential development abutting the Luce Line Trail would be inconsistent with the City's vision
for the Rural Area.
• The areas re-guided for higher density housing in the 2000-2020 CMP have yet to be
developed, and it is premature to consider additional areas until those initial areas are developed.
Applicant had an opportunity to talk about the project. He said that he is fine with tabling this
application after a little discussion this evening and if the decision is to wait until there are higher
density developments in place that would also be fine with him. He explained the daycare
facilities didn't work on this site because after parents picked up their children they found it very
difficult to turn left (west) onto Highway 12 because of the heavy flow of traffic.
Public member, Alfred Bronte, 925 W. Wayzata Blvd., is not interested in having townhomes on
this property. He stated the area is all residential. It is planned for single-family homes.
Public member, Dick Reinhart, 985 Old Long Lake Road, asked if traffic flow didn't work for
the daycares, what makes the applicant feel it would work for multi-family housing.
Applicant responded that the large majority of traffic leaving the site would turn right (east)
because it would largely be commuter traffic.
Page 32 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
Reinhart also stated that coming home headed west in the evening, traffic would have to make a
left hand turn across eastbound traffic.
Applicant responded that there is not a lot of eastbound traffic to cross in the evening.
Public member Roland Jurgens, 340 Turnham Road, is in favor of the project and feels it would
be aesthetically pleasing and a nice entrance to the city.
Resident at 915 W. Wayzata Blvd. is opposed to the project. It would add to the congestion and
we don't know most of the traffic would turn east and we don't know that for sure. He also
stated the proposed plan means up to 36 homes equals 72 people equals 1.45 cars per home.
Applicant mentioned that proximity to retail is right in the area where in fact it is not.
Homeowners would have to travel to Wayzata or Long Lake for services. He doesn't feel there
is any benefit to the project. Traffic problems are prevalent in the area; it won't help traffic on
the Luce Line trail, nor the impact on the wetlands.
Public member Susanne McRunnel, 915 W. Wayzata Blvd, is concerned about what land will be
available for the animals if developed.
Chair Smith responded that they wish they could leave the property as a park or a preserve
forever but that probably won't happen.
Chair Smith questioned the opposing public members in the audience regarding the optimum use
of the property.
Reinhart answered by telling the commission to leave it rural at a two-acre minimum.
Public member Darrell Anderson, 920 W. Wayzata Blvd. said to keep it zoned at a two-acre and
three houses.
Applicant stated he is interested in hearing what neighbors in the area think about this project.
MNDOT took '/z of the two-acre lots to build roads, which disturbed much of the lot to the west
of the daycare facility. With one daycare facility on site a factor of the sanitary sewer is
important—still need to do some kind of system with a lift station and whether you leave the site
as two-acre or something more in density the site will need sewer.
Reinhart stated the city should have one house per acre. Do what is best for the city and
residents. He doesn't want high density right when you drive into the city.
Chair Smith thanked the audience for their comments.
Page 33 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON,REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
Fritzler stated he doesn't see this as a pressing issue to re-zone. Any construction on this site
would be going on while Highway 12 is being constructed and would create more of a traffic
problem.
Applicant responded about the difficulty of how to engineer the site with steep banks to the Luce
Line. MNDOT is trying to find a place for all the dirt that will come from Highway 12
construction and he would like to put the dirt on this site.
Chair Smith stated that if the two-acre minimum remains, that the dirt placement still could
happen in conjunction with the development of Highway 12.
Chair Smith determined a poll of the commission was needed.
Berg said she finds the site hard to see as a two-acre site and thinks it is a site for higher density
but doesn't know what density. Does not see 6 units per acre for sure as that is too dense.
Applicant wants to table the application, not withdraw the application. He said his client is not
interested in a two-acre site. His client is not any hurry to develop the site and can come to the
city every six months.
Gaffron stated that if the council denies the application, the applicant couldn't come back to the
commission for six months. If the commission tables the application it would be useful to
provide applicant with some guidelines for what the commission would like to see for this site.
Gaffron also asked if the commission would like to look at the project again in a month or two
depending on the applicant's needs.
Chair Smith indicated that it seems five out of seven commissioners would like the property to
stay at a two-acre minimum for the foreseeable future so it may be better to deny the application.
She doesn't see what would change in a month or two to change the commission's stance.
Gaffron asked if the project had been brought to you at two-units per acre would that have
changed any opinions.
Chair Smith asked if this was an opportunity for cluster housing. Gaffron responded
affirmatively. He continued by saying three houses could be placed clustered together via a PRD
at a low density that doesn't take up the whole site. You could locate them on some portion of
the site that is efficient and save more of the wetlands.
Chair Smith said the Fleming property is cluster housing around a wetland.
The applicant stated the cluster system needs more than the one septic system.
Page 34 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO
DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT-Continued)
Gaffron stated that cluster housing could be done under the current two-acre zoning. Three
houses could be put in one clump in one corner, save the rest of it and that wouldn't require a
CMP amendment. It's the density, the total number of units on the site that requires a CMP
amendment. He continued by saying we make a CMP amendment when we see a huge benefit to
the city for some need that's not met.
Gaffron stated he has given the commission a long list of reasons not to re-guide the property at
this time.
An unidentified public member asked if an Alzheimer Care Center would work on this site.
The commission responded that an institutional use would be possible.
Reinhart asked about the sewage issue with three houses on a two-acre site.
Gaffron responded that you would need city sewer.
Smith moved and Mabusth seconded a motion to table Application #04-2994, Landform
Engineering Company on behalf of Swervo Development Corporation, 875 W. Wayzata
Blvd. requesting an amendment of the Orono Community Management Plan (aka"the
CMP" or the "Comprehensive Plan") to allow development of this site at an Urban
Residential density of up to 6 units per acre,with twinhomes or townhomes.
VOTE: Ayes: 7; Nays 0
12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT
AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES (10:25-10:45 P.M.)
The applicant, Bob Carlson, was present.
Gaffron explained the applicant is applying for a lot area and width variance to construct a new
single family residence on this property that abuts Ferndale Marsh. A permit for removal of the
existing residence was applied for in February of this year. The property has contained a single-
family residence for many decades. Applicant was advised during the building permit review
process that while this property exceeds 2 acres in gross area, it is less than 2 acres in dry
buildable area and is within the 2 acre zone, subject to Zoning Code Section 78-72(B)(2) as
noted above.
It should also be noted that until May 1998, when Ordinance No. 176, Second Series was
adopted, rebuilding on this lot would not have required an area variance, as it would have
received credit for all of its wetland area.
Page 35 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT
AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES—Continued)
Gaffron noted that the survey presented does not match the tax parcel dimensions shown on
County plat maps. The northerly part of Lot 4, all wetland, is owned by the Nature Conservancy
according to Hennepin County. A revised, corrected survey will be required, or evidence that the
survey is correct.
Gaffron noted that the need for a lot width variance was identified by staff during the variance
review. He explained how lot width was measured for this oddly-shaped site. Gaffron indicated
that the wetlands on the property are shown based on the City's 1974 wetland maps and to some
extent on the topography, using the 929.4' contour. Topography is not shown for the entire site,
however. No wetland delineation has been completed, due to winter conditions. The wetland
boundary shown on applicant's survey appears to be consistent with the topography of the site
based on the City's topo map. The exact area of wetland cannot be determined unless or until a
wetland delineation and survey is completed. The exact location of the wetland boundary and
the exact area of wetlands is probably not critical to the application, in that whether the site
contains 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 acres dry buildable, it is still `buildable' for residence purposes in
staff's opinion. However, at any location where construction approaches less than, say, 40' from
the perceived wetland, it would be critical to know the exact boundary. A wetland delineation
should be conducted as soon as weather permits to allow for verification of the boundary.
However, I do not believe it is necessary to delay this variance application process for the
delineation.
Gaffron noted the reasons why this property is considered as abutting a wetland and is not
considered as lakeshore. He notes that Orono's wetland setback requirement is 26'. While the
proposed residence and amenities appear to more than meet this requirement, portions of the
existing driveway are within 26' of the wetland. Most of this encroachment is proposed to be
eliminated, by removing the driveway and relocating it inland. However, at the point where the
driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26' setback. He suggested two options to consider:
A) Grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain; or
B) Require that all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the alley to be
vacated, be relocated to meet the 26' setback. Because the MCWD requires a 35' buffer,
it would be appropriate to move the driveway so that it meets a 35' setback from wetland
at all locations.
Gaffron stated that Staff would recommend Option B. This will avoid the need for a wetland
setback variance. The applicant should be asked whether there are any reasons this cannot be
accomplished.
Gaffron summarized the hardships that support the lot area and width variances. However, he
noted that Staff does not find any hardship that would support a wetland setback variance to
continue the driveway in its nonconforming location, and would recommend its relocation to
avoid the variance.
Page 36 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT
AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES—Continued)
Applicant stated he is requesting a wetland setback variance because he is interested in saving
the mature hardwood trees which would be lost by moving the driveway closer to the neighbor.
The trees and existing vegetation provide a privacy buffer. He also stated a wetland setback
variance was received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Gaffron stated that the property is providing some mature trees for screening and city staff would
like to work with the applicant to try to avoid trees being disturbed. This is an existing situation
that for the most part is getting better because this driveway currently hugs the edge of the
wetland and now will disappear because of the reconstruction and won't be as big an impact.
Topographically, there is a hill and if the trees weren't there the question is would the hill be
problematic or would you just cut through it.
Chair Smith asked if one of the conditions would be to protect those trees if driveway stays
where it is. Gaffron responded affirmatively.
Chair Smith said the commission had just received today a letter dated March 12, 2004, from
Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Ferndale Road who stated he is opposed to the project. Chair
Smith read the letter into the record:
"Commission Members: In regards to Item 12. 04-2996, I disagree with the requested variance.
The property is across the street from my home at 1055 West Ferndale Road and the variance
could affect the future value of my residence. Thank you. Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West
Ferndale Road, Orono."
There were no other public comments.
Chair Smith said he gave no reason for why it would affect the value of his property.
Applicant stated Mr. Gaffron did a fine job in explaining the project.
Gaffron stated the wetland delineation couldn't happen until the beginning of May. Staff's
specific request on this application is that we not issue a building permit and/or we not do a
footing inspection until we have the wetland delineation in hand for the purpose of measuring
setbacks. Road restrictions will also come off at that time and everything can get done that first
week in May. The question is will the wetland delineation show the location of the wetland as
being very near the existing driveway. If the wetland turns out to be 10' from that driveway, is
the commission more uncomfortable than if it is 25' instead of the required 26'.
Mabusth inquired whether the driveway has been in its current location for a long time. Gaffron
responded it has been there for 40 years or more.
Page 37 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT
AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES—Continued)
Berg made a motion and Mabusth seconded Application #04-2995, Bob Carlson, Jyland
Homes, 1070 W. Ferndale Road to approve the lot area and lot width variances to allow
construction of a new residence on the property subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to provide a survey prior to issuance of building permit, that contains
complete topography for the site to satisfy staff that wetlands will not likely be
encroached.
2. Applicant to provide wetland delineation survey to verify no wetland
encroachment and confirm the actual dry buildable area of the site. This should be
required prior to footing inspection.
3. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall provide evidence that legal
combination of the three tax parcels and the vacated road has been completed.
4. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall either provide a survey that
reflects Nature Conservancy ownership of northerly portion of Lot 4 per Hennepin
County plat maps, or shall provide suitable evidence of applicant ownership of that
property.
5. Applicant shall protect the trees near the driveway during construction.
6. Applicant shall relocate all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the
roadway to be vacated, to meet required wetland setback and/or MCWD buffer
requirements, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence.
VOTE: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0
13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD,
STREET VACATION (10:25-10:45 P.M.)
The applicant, Bob Carlson, was present.
Gaffron explained the applicant's request is to vacate the portion of right-of-way which was
dedicated as public roadway on the plat of North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka in 1902
(See Exhibit D). This right-of way is functionally a private driveway today, although in 1902 it
served as an alley for dry-land access to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of North Shore Cottage Acres. Lots 4
and 5 have since been the subjects of subdivisions to create additional small parcels on each side
of the alley. These small parcels were at some point in time acquired by a prior owner of Lot 4,
and have become part of the 3-parcel grouping proposed for construction of a home at 1070 West
Page 38 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD,
STREET VACATION-Continued)
Ferndale Road. The parcels have never been legally combined; legal combination should
become a requirement of this vacation and the related variance request, application#04-2995.
Gaffron noted that Zoning Code Section 78-9 governs the vacation of streets, alleys, and public
grounds. He indicated in past vacation requests, the City has determined that vacation may be
appropriate when:
1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property.
2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated
right-of-way as road except for utilities and access purposes.
3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose.
He indicated it is staffs opinion that these three conditions are applicable to the segment of right-
of-way proposed for vacation. The only City utilities in place within this right-of-way are a
gravity sewer line and manhole that only serves the applicant's property. Because the City may
need to maintain this line and manhole in the future, an easement for utility purposes only should
be granted over the roadway being vacated. Other utilities potentially using the right-of-way
likely use it only to serve the applicant's property. The gas, electric, telephone and cable T.V.
utilities have been notified of this vacation request; no response has been received as of this
writing, however, similar easements will be required if needed by the utility companies. Staff
wants to hear from the utility companies before taking this request to city council.
No properties will have their legal access affected by the vacation of this right-of-way. The
portion of right-of-way to be vacated does not provide access to the lake, nor to any other
properties. It serves no apparent public purpose.
The vacation will result in the entire segment of right-of-way reverting to the ownership of the
applicant. A condition of approval will be that the vacated right-of-way be legally combined with
the other three tax parcels to create a single tax parcel for use as a building site.
A neighbor to the east has written a letter that appears to support the granting of the vacation
request.
There were no other public comments.
Gaffron indicated that staff recommend approval of the vacation of the portion of right-of-way as
requested by the applicant, subject to:
1. General utility easements to be granted if any of the utility companies confirm the need for
easements.
Page 39 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
_ Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD,
STREET VACATION-Continued)
2. The vacated property shall be legally combined with the adjoining three tax parcels:
(02-117-23 43 0002, 02-117-23 43 0004, 02-117-23 43 0006)
Mabusth moved and Rahn seconded to approve Application #04-2996, Bob Carlson,Jyland
Homes, 1070 West Ferndale Road, requesting a vacation of an un-named road right-of-way
created in the North Shore Cottage Acres. This approval is subject to the applicant
granting general utility easements over any of the utility company's lines and need to
confirm easements and also vacated property shall be legally combined with the adjoining
three platted parcels. VOTE: Ayes: 7; Nays 0.
14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCES (10:48-11:25 P.M.)
Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, was not present. Mike Gaffron reported in his absence.
Gaffron explained the application request and indicated that Greg Gappa, Public Services
Director was unable to be present at the meeting. He asked that the commission please review
Exhibit C, the memo from Mr. Gappa, which explains the need for this project and the
characteristics of the project.
Gaffron noted that the wetland in question is not on the City's 1974 wetland inventory, and
therefore is not defined as a"City-protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
administers on the City's behalf. The City has chosen to make the applications for variance and
CUP although it could be argued that this wetland does not fall strictly under the City's
ordinances.
The project is being proposed under the WCA "de minimus"rules because it involves less than
400 s.f. of wetland area being filled. This means that the amount of fill and the impact of that fill
is so minor as to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s.f. at the SE corner of the
wetland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has slightly relocated the proposed driveway fill
so that there will be no filling closer than 6' from the property line to the south. This complies
with City requirements that do not allow filling within 5' of a lot line.
The filling will impact a 12 cubic yard area of flood plain. An equivalent volume will be
excavated adjacent to the NW corner of the floodplain area within the right-of-way as equal
mitigation.
The proposed driveway will be 10' in width and 180' in length, and will provide a driveable
access point for the north half of the island. This access will replace the access drive that was
Page 40 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCES—Continued)
formerly used on the north side of the wetland. That access was on private property, and the
owner recently converted it to lawn area. The City has long held that the City has an obligation
to provide reasonable access to the interior roads on the island for the occasional service vehicle,
and for the needs of the few inland properties that do not abut the lakeshore.
The driveway will constitute filling of 25 cubic yards of gravel in the 0-75' zone, requiring a
CUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% impervious surface in the o-75'zone.
These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by
limiting the width of the driveway to 10'.
With passage of the WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City
as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the WCA regulations. These
regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of wetland alteration activities, which
are seen as positive rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts
when they are unavoidable.
The appropriate applications are being made to the MCWD. MCWD approval shall be required
before the project may commence.
Gaffron noted that this application was prepared by Public Services Director Greg Gappa with
the assistance of John Smyth, Water Resource Specialist with Bonestroo & Associates, the City's
engineering and environmental consultants.
Because wetland alterations are not allowed by Orono Code except by variance, the activity is
required to be justified via the demonstration of a hardship. The commission was asked to review
the hardship statements within the application packet. The need for access to inland properties is
a valid hardship that supports this variance request. The locations of the few access points to the
island were platted a century ago,before motorized vehicles were common. The access points
generally were platted at low points in the topography, for obvious reasons. This is one of the
only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary
from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to provide access to inland lot owners. Access
cannot be provided without work in the 0-75' zone.
Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland
alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland,
excavation within 26' of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per
the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the
wetland, and subject to MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction
activities.
Page 41 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCES—Continued)
Chair Smith asked for clarification on that the property owner was reclaiming his private
property that had been used for public access. Gaffron responded affirmatively.
Gaffron further stated this property owner suffered the public's use of his property for many
years.
Chair Smith confirmed that there is access elsewhere, but doesn't provide for access to this part
of the island and that is why this is needed.
Gaffron stated that these access points were dedicated in plats 100 years ago and generally they
are at the low points in the topography so that people could drive their horse and buggy up to the
low point at the bluffs and that is probably why this one is located at the low point here. For
whatever reasons it has become a wetland. We don't know if it has always been a wetland. It is
not on the city's protected wetland list or map. Because of the wetland delineation process,
however, the area is wetland.
Public member Sheryl Uran, 120 and 140 Big Island, owns property on either side of the
wetland. She thought wetlands were "sacred cows". She spoke to the MCWD and they say a
wetland can't be filled unless there is no other viable alternative and every alternative should be
exhausted before a wetland is filled in. She said her property has been surveyed three times in
the last four years for this particular road and the stakes have been moved every single time. To
her knowledge, the other roads have not been surveyed. So the wetland has always been looked
at and not the other accesses. One inland property owner has asked for access. She spoke to
Greg Gappa and he stated he has no plans to do anything for the roads. It is the furthest point
away for any of the inland properties. There are other access roads that can be used. For
example, the road by Gabriel Jabbour's property is partially paved and goes to all the inland lots.
The one that is on either side of Bruntjen's property has never been looked at as viable where
rush and small trees are the only thing standing in the way of access.
Chair Smith inquired what other accesses have been given consideration.
Gaffron responded that the city has considered two other potentially viable access points:
1. West side next to Jabbour's property, which is used by everybody on the
island
2. Downhill from Bruntjen's property
Gaffron then stated there are other properties that need to get access and they have potential of
going in on the west end, coming around the side of the large wetland. There are trees in the
right-of-way and the city has told people not to cut trees in the right-of-way. Some of the right-
of-ways are located next to wetlands and the city normally doesn't like trees being cut next to
wetlands. Staff believes people should develop on the island in ways that do not require they
Page 42 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCES—Continued)
have constant and total use of right-of-ways. From a safety perspective there is a need for
access.
Gaffron noted he believes the city should potentially be developing three access points on the
island and named them on the map. However, it should be noted that the city doesn't have the
dollars to develop them all at the same time so they are proceeding to improve one access at a
time. This one has gotten started at the request of more than one neighbor and letters are in the
packets applauding the city for trying to get something useful. Gaffron agrees with having more
accesses, but the city is limited to what they can afford in a time frame that works.
Public member David Lovelace, 220 Big Island explained the access situation on the island and
admitted he started the whole access issue and wants all three access sites developed. At the Bay
Place location the lake levels comes up various years that makes access difficult. Mr. Lovelace
stated he would bear the cost of the gravel with his neighbors.
Public member John Uran, 120/140 Big Island who has lived on the island for 30 years asked
Lovelace where he is building his house on that property and how close would it be to the
access? Lovelace's preference is to have his dock access near to where he will have his cabin or
house. He has a covenant restriction with the owner that he purchased the land from.
Uran asked Gaffron why the city would fill a wetland at this point to provide access when you
have two other places to provide access. He suggested the whole island be surveyed. Lovelace
stated he is not asking to fill the wetland.
Public member Valerie Walsh, 180 Big Island is located five properties down from property
access and didn't receive any public hearing notice. Gaffron stated notices are required to go to
residences within 350'. She wants all three accesses developed.
Public member Dorothy Parsons agrees with Ms. Walsh. She stated her son carried 20 sheets of
plywood up to her home because they don't have road access. She also said the alley next to
Parson's home is not accessible. A septic system needs to go in and they need access to the back
of the property.
Chair Smith suggested this item be tabled and suggested that Greg Gappa meet with all island
homeowners to come up with an access plan. She also appreciates homeowners are interested in
helping out financially and with letting the commission know what access points would be
desirable to them.
Public member Parson asked what the city needs from them. Chair Smith responded that having
all of tonight's participants make sure they sign in on the attendance form and note that they are
Big Island residents so that Greg knows who was here tonight.
Page 43 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCES—Continued)
Smith moved and Mabusth seconded to table Application #04-2997, City of Orono, for a
CUP to provide vehicular access from the lakeshore to the interior platted road system
between lots 38 and 39 at Morse Island Park on Big Island.
VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0.
SKETCH PLANS
15. #04-2987 HASHEM BUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET SKETCH PLAN.
Gundlach reported that the applicant was not present and the commission temporarily put this
item on hold and moved to the next item.
16. #04-2998 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN
The representative, Henry Lazniarz, and his builder, Tom Goodrum, were present.
Gaffron explained this is a sketch plan for a proposed 7-lot residential plat or PRD of property
abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek. Five concept plans have been presented for
consideration.
Each proposal includes development of a private cul-de-sac road accessing from Brown Road
South,plus extensions to serve various outlying or back lots. The property is in the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site is wooded
and contains an existing single-family residence constructed in the 1920's.
This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Commission and Council
during the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been
proposed, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site.
The owners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts, have taken legal action to have their existing
easement declared as usable for access to the property. The City Attorney is still reviewing
documentation provided to him, but his initial conclusion is that the 40' easement does in fact
provide the applicant with the right to create a road to serve multiple lots over that easement.
Henry Lazniarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres. He
apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this.
Gaffron reviewed the points in the staff memo relating to the property.
Tom Goodrum handed out colored renderings of the five concept plans.
Gaffron noted that applicants have provided the commission with a number of concept plans and
most of them could be done in a planned residential development with a standard plat. The
Page 44 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#16. #04-2998 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN
-Continued)
commission is looking at a variety of variances for lot widths, perhaps for lot areas. There are
some back lot situations that are potentially difficult and it might be worth our while to start
talking through them and that will bring up specific issues to address. Gaffron explained each of
the five concepts. See Exhibit A-2 for each of five Concept Plan A-E.
In reviewing Concept Plan A, Gaffron noted the creek is an amenity whose value can't be
judged. There are wetlands on the property. There is also the Luce Line Trail along its south
boundary.
Gaffron noted once the required setbacks are put in, as this is a back lot, we are looking at 150%
of the standards so instead of the 50' there would a 75' setback from the trail. You start to look
at the real buildability of this site and what does it do to the character of the Luce Line if this is
built.
He continued by saying if we are to give this applicant one unit per two acres through a PRD one
of the things we ought to be pushing for is to not let this area abutting the Luce Line be
buildable, and either acquire easements over this or have this as part of their park dedication.
Chair Smith stated she is familiar with this site and can't envision a house there and asked if this
meets DNR setbacks. Gaffron responded that DNR doesn't give the city specific setbacks from
the trail, and the creek setback is 75'. He continued by saying the DNR hasn't developed a
specific setback from the Luce Line and city code says that if this was a side lot line we would
have a 30' setback. An accessory building that was fairly small could get as close as 10' to the
trail boundary.
Access to the lot abutting the trail is by crossing the creek somewhere, and will require some sort
of bridge and that means the DNR and MCWD would need to give approvals.
Bremer asked how that would affect fire department access. Gaffron stated that with any of the
properties with 1,000' long driveways that are 12' wide it is difficult to sometimes get fire trucks
to the property. This property would not have city water,but have private wells so there is an
issue for the fire department having to bring water in to the property to fight a fire.
Applicant stated he is interested in dedicating the area from the creek to the Luce Line and wants
seven properties on this site.
Gaffron concluded with Concept A with saying this is a series of lots essentially coming off a
single road system where you are parallel and potential issues where a home might be built.
Gaffron explained that Concept B has the same corridor to get to the south end,perhaps some
"gerrymandered" lots at the end of the cul-de-sac to get out to the properties up by Long Lake.
Page 45 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#16. #04-2998 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN
-Continued)
There is a cul-de-sac in this area with some smaller lots on either side of it taking advantage of
the walkouts to the southwest to the southeast and puts the cul-de-sac in a fairly flat area of the
property.
Gaffron noted that Concept C has smaller lots up against the city boundary with Long Lake. Lots
seem to match those lots to the north in Long Lake. There are larger lots to the south with the
cul-de-sac and taking advantage of some areas for walkout houses. Applicant is sensitive to not
placing houses on top of an existing house nearby. Doing more with the large area, five small
lots, one lot is an outlot and this area is one of the potential areas for stormwater ponds.
Somewhere on the property there will have to be a stormwater pond to take the drainage from the
road. There is access to the outlot on the north.
Regarding Concept Plan E, Gaffron noted that it clusters six small lots in the central area,
preserves all of the north side as open space, creates a distinct uniform neighborhood and places
the new road on top of existing driveway.
Chair Smith inquired how the city can set aside forever preserving outlots when the city does
clustering. Gaffron responded that the city has a variety of options including easements, land
trust ownership, etc. He noted the city hasn't done any cluster housing in the past.
Mabusth suggested the city should think about Northgate or Sugarwoods with 2-acre densities
with clusters, one road so you won't impact that property or the driveways.
Gaffron said this option has the highest intensity use, leaves the outlot alone and the wetlands
could be protected by a conservation easement for unbuildable area east of the project and south
of the project from the creek to the Luce Line.
Builder is interested in considering putting another lot in the public roadway system west of the
outlot area and leave the outlot area alone.
Chair Smith asked Gaffron about setbacks. Gaffron stated that if you do a cluster development
the city should establish special setbacks for this plat that match the zoning. Also, look at what
kind of housing the builder wants to place on the property.
Gaffron explained that Concept D clusters one-acre lots in the central area as a uniform
neighborhood. It separates the smaller 1-acre lots with standard 2-acre lot to the north and south,
preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll.
Fritzler stated his concern for fire safety. Fire department would have to bring in drop tanks;
there are no hydrants and no way to run a line.
Page 46 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#16. #04-2998 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN
-Continued)
Gaffron asked the builder what kind of housing he is planning to place on the property, single
family residences versus attached. The applicant stated he is interested in this plan for detached
single-family as it allows for larger lots in one area. Could place smaller instead of larger homes
on these lots from 4,000 square feet down to 2,000—3,000 square foot homes.
Gaffron noted if cluster housing is used the road should be private and asked about any other
common spaces other than the road, or will the rest of it becomes platted as individual lots.
Open spaces would be maintained by an HOA. It could be that the builder does a development
where houses are on pads and all the open space around it is maintained by an association or
houses on pads and lawns are maintained by the homeowner.
Mabusth suggested a 50' setback adjacent to the existing two-acre single-family residential sites.
Exterior homes should conform to this requirement. Audience member, Chuck VanEeckout,
seller of the property, indicated that the two lots in question are both heavily wooded lots.
The Planning Commission members noted they generally favor Plan E.
Berg inquired whether there would be a trail down to the Luce Line. The applicant thought
possibly a trail easement.
Fritzler wants to make sure that the trail is not snowmobile accessible.
Gaffron stated there should be a review of possible bluff sites on the property. There should be
an archeological significant review by SHPO. The applicant should look for tree and/or
woodland buffers within the property boundaries where there is high density along there to keep
buffers from the neighbors and tree preservation is important and protective covenants can be put
in place.
Applicant stated he will come back to the commission with a plan.
15. #04-2987 HASEHM ABUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET, SKETCH PLAN
Applicant or surveyor was not present.
Bremer moved and Fritzler seconded to table Application #04-2987 to the next meeting.
VOTE: Ayes: 7; Nays 0.
Page 47 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 15, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
17. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meeting February
23, 2004 and March 8, 2004.
February 23, 2004: A-1 Rental had their green space increased, the west widened out and native
grasses and rock drainage implemented.
March 3, 2004: Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road. Applicants received their 38%hardcover.
Sansevere not estimating a policy to give credit for removal of a structure in the 0-75' —this was
a 3-2 vote.
Council is looking at having a work session on re-builds.
4753 North Shore Drive received a variance, but not a CUP and have to put hardcover back to
where the adjoining side grades back.
Hickory Fine Homes: The south lot waived for stormwater, no lot charge for becoming
buildable at $10,000 and not park fees as they are already paid.
18. Other issues for discussion
Ralph Kemp and Roland Jurgens were introduced to the commission as the new commission
members.
19. Planning Commission Approval of Minutes of February 17, 2004
Mabusth moved and Fritzler seconded a motion to approve the minutes of February 17,
2004. Chair Smith and Berg abstained due to their absence at the February meeting.
VOTE: Ayes 5; Nays 0.
20. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 22, 2004 and April 12,
2004.
Mabusth said she could attend the March 22 meeting. Roland Jurgens will attend the April 12,
2004 meeting.
The Planning Commission set Wednesday,April 7, 2004 for a work session.
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded a motion to adjourn the March 15, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting at 12:05 a.m. VOTE: Ayes: 7; Nays 0.
J nne Mabusth, Chair
Page 48 of 48