HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • �
Monday,November 19,2007
� 6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members
present: Chair Ralph Kempf, Commissioners Dick Kroeger,Jaye Ann Zullo,Tess Rice,Kim Kang, �
- - and Michelle Winer. Representing Staff were Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,
Planner Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Jim Murphy was present.
Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 7:06 p.m., and Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term "
Strategy Mike Gaffron arrived at 7:40 p.m. ��
Chair Kempf called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES �
1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 15,2007
Winer moved,Zullo seconded,to approve the minutes of the October 15,2007 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. �
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 9 was added to the Consent Agenda and Item No. 3 was removed from the Consent Agenda. _
Kroeger moved,Zullo seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes.6,
Nays 0. �
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application. �
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
_ *2. #07-3327 TIM LATTERNER WITH DOCK&LIFT,INC., ON BEHALF OF BRAD
� CLOSE, 1214 WILDIiURST TRAIL,PERMANENT DOCK
Winer moved,Zullo seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3327,Tim Latterner
on behalf of Brad Close, 1214 Wildhurst Trail,granting of a conditional use permit for
construction of the proposed permanenf dock subject to the following conditions: One,the�ek�
shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in
conformity with the rules and regulations to those agencies; two,future replacement or
alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
3.. #07-3333 JOHN VOGSTROM WITH VOGUE ICF HOMES,INC., ON BEHALF OF �
WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY,2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERNIIT,6:03—6:11 P.M.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3333 William and Sue Dunkley, Continued)
John Vogstrom,Vogue ICF Homes,was present.
Vogstrom stated the homeowner wanted to straighten the existing seawall along either side of the inlet
to Walters Port cove.
Turner noted that a letter was received regarding this application from the Meaghers, 2720 Kelly
Avenue, and that Staff has sent a letter to the Meaghers answering the questions raised in their letter.
Turner indicated the Dunkleys do not own property on the beach side of the inlet. There is a three-foot
strip of land along the west side of the seawall that is owned by the people at 2699 Kelly Avenue. The
contractor has written permission from the owners of the three-foot strip to do the work. The separate
City Council approval will grant the contractor permission to work on City property.
If approvals are required from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and/or the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District,the City will ensure that are received before the building permit is issued for
the project.
Zullo inquired whether the Meaghers are present tonight.
Vogstrom indicated they are not present.
Turner stated the Meaghers read about the application in the newspaper and live in the general vicinity
but outside of the required area of notification of the public hearing.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
Winer moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3333,John
Vogstrom,Vogue ICF Homes,Inc.,on behalf of William and Susan Dunkley,2709 Walters Port
Lane,granting of a conditional use permit for deadmen repair subject to the conditions outlined
in the Planner's Report dated November 19,2997. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
4. #07-3324 ANN MAXFIELD,4175 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:11 P.M.—
6:32 P.M.
Ann Maxfield,Applicant,was present.
Turner stated Ms.Maxfield experienced some extensive tree trimming by Excel Energy and as a result
erected a six-foot tall privacy fence. The fence was erected without the property owner realizing that
fences in this area are limited to 42 inches. If the Commission finds that grounds exist for granting the
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 dclock p.m.
(#07-3324 Ann Maxfield, Continued)
variance, Staff would recommend the conditions outlined in the Planner's Report be made a condition
of approval.
Maxfield stated the maj ority of her property is located below the grade of the road and the actual
height of the fence from the road is closer to 4 feet, 9 inches,with the exception of a few feet of the
fence that is located on a slight hill. Maxfield indicated people can look down on her property and that
she was unaware there was a fence height restriction at the time the fence was erected.
Maxfield indicated she did have the corners of the property marked on September 19`�'and she has also
notified Mr.Vang of the markers. Maxfield stated the markers are clearly visible.
Kempf inquired whether a surveyor did the work.
Maxfield stated they measured from an iron stake that was erected from the original survey of the
property. As it relates to the right-of-way,Maxfield stated the county has indicated they do not have
right-of-way restrictions along Highway 19. Maxfield indicated she does have signatures from some
of the neighbors stating they do not have any issues with the fence. When Excel Energy trimmed the
trees along the power lines on North Shore Drive, she was left with very little screening,which
prompted the desire for a fence. Maxfield stated in her opinion her fence opposes no risk to the
general public and actually enhances her property.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:18 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:18 p.m.
Kempf indicated he did visit this property and that he can understand the desire to have the fence
along the county road but that the City of Orono only allows a fence six-foot in height along lakeshore
lots that abut a county road. Kempf expressed a concern that the other neighbors in this area would
also erect similar fences if this fence were allowed. Kempf stated he would not be able to support the
variance and encouraged the applicant to plant some screening in that area.
Winer commented she understands how the applicant felt when the trees were removed and
encouraged the applicant to consider constructing a berm and/or planting arborvitae. Winer asked
whether the fence could be reduced to 42 inches in height.
Turner stated the fence could be 42 inches in height.
Kroeger indicated in his opinion the fence does stick out somewhat and that the applicant could plant
some landscaping in that area for privacy.
Turner stated it is possible the fence is in the right-of-way,which would mean that the fence would
need to be relocated.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3324 Ann Ma�eld,Continued)
Zullo stated if the fence were within the right-of-way, she would like to see the fence relocated,but if
it is in an appropriate location, she would be in agreement with Commissioner Winer and that some
landscaping could be planted and the height of the fence lowered.
Maxfield commented her friends and neighbors feel that the fence is an ariractive fence.
Kempf stated the height restriction is an ordinance of the city and that the Planning Commission has
the obligation to enforce the City's ordinances even if they adversely affect certain individuals.
Maxfield stated in her view it is wrong to regulate beauty
Zullo stated she did not mean to imply that the fence was not nice looking but merely was suggesting
that the applicant consider incorporating some landscaping along the fence to help enhance the
property.
Kang indicated she agrees the fence should be lowered.
Winer moved to recommend approval of Application#07-3324,Ann Ma�eld,4175 North Shore
Drive, granting of a temporary variance until December 31,2008,subject to the
recommendations outlined in the Planner's Report.
Kempf stated one of the issues the Planning Commission has to look at is whether the fence changes
the character of the neighborhood, and it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that it does
change the character of the neighborhood.
Rice stated in her opinion she does not feel there is a hardship and that the property can be put to
reasonable use without the six-foot fence.
Zullo seconded. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Kroeger opposed.
Kroeger stated he voted against the motion because in his opinion the fence should be removed in the
near future.
Zullo asked whether there is something that needs to be done with condition number four.
Turner stated there are two adjoining lots that the applicant owns, and if the fence is located on one or
both of those lots,the lots would need to be combined because the City does not allow an accessory
structure on a vacant lot without a principal residence.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #07-3325 GARY DeSANTIS,80 WEAR LANE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:32 P.M.—
6:51 P.M.
Gary DeSantis,Applicant,and Dave Gronberg, Surveyor,were present.
Curtis stated this application was previously reviewed as a sketch plan by the Planning Commission at
the September meeting,where the Planning Commission indicated they generally were in support of
this project. At this time the applicant has submitted a subdivision application for a two-lot residential
plat of property within the RR-1B District,which requires two acres of dry buildable area and 200 feet
of width per lot. The properiy consists of the division of one existing�ve acre parcel resulting in two
2 plus acre parcels. A lot width variance would be required for each of the newly created lots as the
"parent"lot is at the end of a cul-de-sac and the resulting"child"lots would be significantly
substandard in width at their building setbacks.
The property is guided for single family residential use at a density of one unit per two dry buildable
acres. The proposed plat is intended to ultimately conform to this use. The property is not located
within the MUSA and is intended to be served with septic systems and private wells. Primary and
alternate septic locations for each lot have been proposed and have been deemed acceptable by the
City's septic inspector. The proposed use appears to be in conformity with the Community
Management Plan.
The existing wetland is depicted to be located entirely on Lot 2,with a small portion of the buffer area
extending into Lot 1. Lot 1 will contain two dry acres and Lot 2 will contain 2.03 dry acres and
almost one acre of wetland. The proposed lots shown on the proposed plan are irregularly shaped.
Neither of the two lots will meet the City's width standard. Both lots are proposed to access off of
Wear Lane. There is no shared driveway access proposed and it appears the home on Lot 1 would
maintain the existing driveway.
No road improvements are being proposed at this time. Staff would recommend,with the addition of
the fourth lot,that an upgrade of this road to a City standard road should be completed.
The wetland on Lot 2 is classified as a Manage 2,which requires a 25-foot buffer and a 20-foot
structural setback from the buffer. The City will require a flowage and conservation easement over all
wetlands designated on the site.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the City Engineer's
recommendations,both John Smyth and Darren Amundsen. Specific conditions Staff would
recommend include: One,paving of the road and cul-de-sac to City standards;two, adherence to all
MCWD requirements; and three, approval of lot width variances for each lot.
Mr. DeSantis indicated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3325 Gary DeSantis,Continued)
Rice inquired whether the conservation easement would fit under No. 2 of Staff's recommendations.
Curtis indicated it would not.
Rice asked if it would be helpful to have the conservation easement be part of the motion.
Curtis concurred that it should be made part of the motion.
Kempf noted he was not at the meeting at the time this application appeared before the Planning
Commission as a sketch plan and that it was noted in the minutes that Mr. Gaffron had stated that in
granting width variances, there should be a separation between the two house sites that matches the
goals of the two-acre zone. Kempf asked whether Staff has an overhead that depicts the neighboring
house.
Curtis stated she does not but that there is an aerial wetland photo that depicts the property lines
somewhat.
Kempf commented this area appears to be more of a rural area and that the three houses are in close
proximity to each other,which would change the rural area to more of an urban area. Kempf stated in
his opinion this subdivision would negatively impact the two neighboring properties and that the
subdivision is inappropriate for this area.
Winer stated she also was not in attendance at the September Planning Commission meeting,but that
the minutes do reflect there should be a separation between the two houses.
Zullo commented she does not see where the issues concerning the road have been addressed by the
applicant.
Curtis stated Staff would recommend that those issues be addressed prior to the application moving
forward.
Curtis stated to her recollection there was a significant amount of discussion concerning the separation
of the two lots but that there was not a clear direction by the Planning Commission on what the
applicant should do. Curtis stated the issue is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with
what is being proposed for the area. Curtis pointed out that the building sites identified on the lots is
not necessarily the exact location of the houses and the Planning Commission could give some
specific direction on where they would like the house situated.
Gronberg stated in his opinion the houses are not too crowded and are at least 60 feet apart.
Turner asked how large the triangle is that is depicted on the plans.
Gronberg indicated it is 80' by 50' and that it is bigger than the existing house.
Turner commented that sometimes a surveyor will depict the triangle as actually bigger than what the
house would be, which can cause some confusion.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3325 Gary DeSantis, Continued)
Curtis noted because this lot is over two acres,there would not be a 15 percent structural coverage
limit.
Kroeger stated the two issues deal with the paving of the road and the lot width variance that
apparently is being required due to the wetland.
Kempf stated the issue that concerns him is the need for a lot width variance and the impact that could
have on the character of the neighborhood.
Gronberg stated a house could be constructed behind the septic sites,which in his opinion would have
more of a negative impact on the neighbors.
DeSantis indicated his neighbors are in attendance at tonight's meeting. DeSantis stated a berm and
the planting of trees between the two houses have been discussed with the neighbors and they are okay
with that option.
Zullo inquired whether the screening could be planted prior to the sale of the lot.
Gronberg indicated that would be fine.
Zullo noted the other lots in the neighborhood are two acres in size and that she is not in opposition to
having the minimum setbacks changed. Zullo stated the bigger issue in her opinion is the road being
improved to the standards of a residential road.
Kempf commented that the paving of the road would also help to make the neighborhood more
suburbanized and less rural.
Kroeger asked whether the applicant was agreeable to upgrading the road.
DeSantis stated he is.
Zullo asked whether the other property owners would be involved in paving the road.
DeSantis indicated they would not be.
Zullo stated she understands the desire to keep this neighborhood more rural but that she would like to
see the road upgraded and have it clarified who would be responsible for maintaining it. •
DeSantis indicated the neighbors share in the plowing of the road.
Zullo moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3325, Gary
DeSantis,80 Wear Lane,preliminary plat approval and lot width variances, subject to,one,the
paving of the road and cul-de-sac to City standards; two,adherence to all MCWD requirements;
three,landscaping be provided between the two houses; and four, compliance with all City
Engineer's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Kempf Opposed.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
6. #07-3329 DAVID W.BERG ON BEHALF OF WARREN BERG,3669 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:51 P.M.—7:17 P.M.
David Berg,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, lake setback,
structural coverage and hardcover variances in order to construct a second story addition over the
existing home. The lot is very substandard in width and area and approximately one-third of the
existing house sits ahead of the 75 foot lake setback. The applicants are proposing to construct the
second story above the entire home. Curtis recommended the Commission discuss the issues outlined
in the Staff report.
Staff recommends denial of the side yard, structural coverage and average lakeshore setback variances,
and further recommends that the entire application be denied or tabled for redesign. Additionally,the
applicant's revised plans should comply with all of the requirements of the 2006 International
Building Code.
Curtis indicated she did meet with the applicant this afternoon and the applicant was surprised at the
recommendation of Staff.
Berg stated the property has been in his family for approximately 60 years and the original variance
was obtained in approximately 1970. Berg stated he designed the layout for a new house and then
spoke with Staff. Staff at that time expressed two concerns: hardcover and the fact that the property
had not been surveyed in a number of years. Berg indicated he has had the property surveyed and
found out that the neighbor's fence and cement are actually located on his properiy. Staff then sent a
letter recommending that the hardcover calculations be redone but no other issues were raised at that
time. Berg indicated he basically was taken by surprise at the recommendation of Staff when he
received their report.
Berg stated he has spoken to his neighbor and that he is agreeable to relocating the fence and removing
the concrete,which would eliminate 275 square feet of hardcover. Berg stated he was not aware of the
issues with the average lakeshore setback and the side yard setback and that his neighbor has written a
letter in support of his proposal.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Zullo suggested the applicant consider tabling this application given the issues that still need to be
addressed. Zullo stated normally the Planning Commission would not approve the addition of a
second story given the amount of encroachment into the setbacks and that she would not be in favor of
the project given the amount of structure that already exists on the lot.
Winer indicated she also would like to see this application tabled and redesigned. Winer expressed
some concerns regarding the potential for issues to arise in the event of a fire given the close proximity
of the shed and the houses in this area.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAI�TNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3329 David Berg, Continued)
Kempf stated the negative impact on the neighbors given the expansion of the nonconformity would
relate to their views and the amount of light that would come into their residences, and in his opinion
the expansion is inappropriate given those reasons. The residence currently encroaches into the
setbacks and the applicant should consider eliminating the full second-story addition and perhaps
incorporating some knee walls and a partial second story to help offset the encroachment. Kempf
stated it does appear that this lot may not support a second story given the structural and hardcover
coverage that already exists on the lot.
Berg stated he is not able at this time to comment specifically to all the issues raised since he has only
recently learned of them. Berg indicated there are other houses on the lake across the channel that
have more massing than what he is proposing for his property.
Curtis stated the residences that were constructed new on the channel do meet the required average
lakeshore setback and the side yard setbacks.
Kempf stated that the Planning Commission does not mean to imply that the house would need to be
relocated out of the 75 foot setback but that they would like to see the residence meet the side yard
setbacks.
Turner noted the residences referred to by the applicant also meet the structural coverage limits with
the exception of one house.
Kempf noted the garage consists of a substantial amount of structural coverage. Kempf asked
whether the applicant would like his application tabled to allow him some time to review his options
given the fact that a few of the commissioners have expressed concern that the lot may be maxed out
and that they would like to see the addition meet the side yard setbacks.
Zullo stated she would like to see a report by a structural engineer indicating that the foundation would
support a second story.
Curtis noted the City's building inspector has indicated the foundation does not need engineering.
Kroeger stated he would not be in favor of any side yard encroachment and suggested the applicant
consider converting some of the garage space into living space.
Berg stated the garage is finished off. Berg asked if it would still be an issue if the second story does
not exceed the building envelope.
Zullo stated the portion of the second story that extends into the setbacks is the issue.
Curtis indicated she explained to the applicant what he could construct without a side yard setback
variance was that he could construct a stepped in second story that met the ten foot setback. The
applicant is now wondering whether the Planning Commission would be okay if the second story goes
over the exterior wall or whether a lrnee wall should be constructed on the exterior.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3329 David Berg,Continued)
Kempf stated he would like to see some lrnee walls on the outer portion of the second story. Kempf
stated it appears that the applicant could perhaps consiruct a full height addition on the north side of
the house but would have to limit it to lrnee walls on the south side.
Winer recommended the shed be eliminated given the fire hazards.
Kempf suggested the applicant consider some reductions in hardcover on the lot,perhaps by
eliminating either the sidewalk or the ramp in an effort to reduce the hardcover.
Zullo asked what the height restriction would be for the second story.
Curtis stated the height restriction is 30 feet.
Berg indicated the 30-foot height restriction is not an issue.
Kang asked whether the applicant would like to table his application.
Curtis stated the applicant could meet with Staff to discuss the issues and his options further if he
would like. Curtis noted there is no Planning Commission meeting in December and that it would be
back before the Planning Commission in January. Curtis stated the 60-day review period would need
to be extended.
Kempf recommended the applicant also look at his options for reducing the hardcover within the 0-75
foot zone.
Kroeger moved,Zullo seconded,to table Application#07-3329,David W.Berg on behalf of
Warren Berg,3669 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #07-3331 RONALD AND SUZANNE VANACORA,2500 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANCE,7:17 P.M.—8:00 P.M.
Ronald and Suzanne Vanacora,Applicants,were present.
Turner stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to allow 29.73 percent hardcover in
the 75-250 foot zone when only 25 percent is pernutted to provide for construction of a replacement
residence. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing house and replace it with a walkout
rambler with a three-car attached garage.
In reviewing the application,the property is .68 acre in a zone that requires half an acre and requires
100 feet in width. The lot is conforming in size and width but the lot is somewhat uniquely shaped.
The property was originally platted as three lakeshore lots, an outlot for a private road to provide
access to these lots, and a non-lakeshore lot. Two of the lakeshore lots are combined. The combined
property, 2480 Casco Point Road,retains ownership of the outlot but accesses from Frederick Street.
The non-lakeshore lot accesses from Casco Point Road. The applicant's access is also from Casco
Point Road but utilizes the outlot.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007 •
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3331 Ronald and Suzanne Vanacora, Continued)
The Planning Commission should consider whether reasonable use can be made of the property
without a variance. While the lot has an unusual shape,it has a slightly larger 75-250 foot zone than a
rectangular half-acre lot. The portion of the driveway that is on the outlot is not included in hardcover
for the lot.
Staff would recommend denial of the application based on the following findings:
l. While the lot is of unusual shape,it is conforming for width and area.
2. Because of the unusual situation that a portion of the driveway within the 75-250 foot zone is
within an outlot,the property is actually allowed more hardcover than it would be if the
driveway was entirely within the lot.
3. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that it would not be possible to make reasonable use
of the property without the variance.
Vanacora stated they have discovered in purchasing a lot on the lake that there are hardcover issues
that need to be addressed and that it is their intention to make this property their permanent residence
upon retiring. Vanacora stated they have attempted to design a one-level living area which would
accommodate both themselves as well as their elderly parents. The existing house at 31 percent has
more hardcover than what they are proposing. The age of the house makes it more expensive to
remodel than to level the house. Vanacora noted the house would be smaller than the other homes in
the neighborhood and would basically be a small two-level walkout.
Vanacora noted there would be very little vegetation removed in conjunction with this project and that
the new house would be located further back from the lake. The third stall on the garage is to
accommodate visitors' cars and for storage of equipment. By relocating the house further back,it
would help to improve the view of the neighbor.
Vanacora noted there is no hardcover whatsoever in the 250-500 foot zone and that they are only
requesting a variance for the 75-250 foot zone. Vanacora indicated they do not want to construct their
garage in the 250-500 foot zone because it would not be convenient to access and would also result in
the removal of a number of trees.
Mrs.Vanacora commented their lot is wooded and that the home is not visible from the street during
the summer. Vanacora indicated they would prefer not to construct the garage in the 250-500 foot
zone because it would also ruin the appearance of the lot from the street.
Mr.Vanacora displayed the proposed layout of the house and the exterior of the house on the
overhead.
Mrs.Vanacora noted they have eliminated the screen porch and the breakfast area.
Mr.Vanacora displayed a picture of the existing house.
. PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3331 Ronald and Suzanna Vanacora,Continued)
Kroeger asked whether Staff has an overhead that would show the average lakeshore setback of the
other homes in the neighborhood.
Turner pointed out the average lakeshore setback line on the overhead. Turner noted there is a
boathouse that is located on the property.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Turner stated the initial conversation she had with the builder had to do with essentially either gutting
the existing structure and totally rebuilding it or razing the house down to the foundation. State statute
does allow the property owner to reconstruct a structure even if it is nonconfornung as long as there
are no changes to the size of the footprint. Turner stated she did not go over the hardcover
requirements with the builder.
Turner stated the existing hardcover is more than what the applicants are requesting but that the
existing hardcover has 536 square feet of landscape material underlain with plastic,which is typically
not included in the hardcover numbers. If that square footage of plastic is removed from the existing
hardcover numbers,it would result in the proposed hardcover actually being more than what currently
exists.
Kempf stated in his view there are some design issues here that should be reconsidered and that the lot
would support a reasonably sized house without the need for any variances. Kempf stated one option
is to go higher in elevation and possibly adding an elevator. Kempf stated he is in agreement with the
applicants on the location of the garage.
Zullo expressed a concern that the angle of the driveway and the proposed location of the garage
would not be workable for gaining access. Zullo suggested the applicants consider eliminating the
third stall in an effort to reduce the hardcover.
Kang indicated she concurs with the comments expressed regarding the hardcover and that the
applicants should look at redesigning their plans.
Zullo noted the applicants are proposing almost 30 percent hardcover,which is a large amount over
what is normally allowed.
Kroeger concurred that the elimination of the third stall would help reduce the hardcover.
Mrs.Vanacora questioned what exactly is considered to be hardcover and whether the road that goes
to the outlot would be considered hardcover.
Kroeger stated if grass is driven on, it would be considered hardcover.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3331 Ronald and Suzanna Vanacora,Continued)
Curtis indicated a gravel driveway would also be considered hardcover.
Turner noted the hardcover located on the outlot is not included in the hardcover numbers. Turner
stated the drainage from the street to the house appears to be directed around the house toward the lake
and that it is doubtful there is any other place where the runoff could go.
Zullo inquired whether a rain garden could be incorporated to help with the runoff from the driveway.
Turner stated the exact direction of the runoff would need to be determined.
Mr.Vanacora pointed out the area near the driveway where he feels the runoff goes.
Turner noted it appears the applicants' engineer did design the runoff to go around the house.
Mr.Vanacora commented he would need an area to store equipment necessary to plow the driveway
and road. Mr.Vanacora stated given the amount of money paid for the lot,it would negatively impact
the value of the property if they are required to substantially limit the size of the house.
Winer stated from an engineering standpoint,Exhibit H depicts a swale along the west property line
and that it should extend north and south as much as possible. Winer stated the applicants would need
to address the issues raised by the City Engineer.
Mr.Vanacora stated in his view the driveway could possibly be reduced and/or redesigned.
Kempf suggested the applicants consider their options for redesigning their plans in an effort to reduce
the hardcover.
Kroeger noted the applicants could design a house that has a maximum of 25 percent hardcover,which
would eliminate the need to reappear before the Planning Commission.
Mr.Vanacora noted the majority of the landscape plastic is located under the eaves of the house.
Curtis stated the plastic is not included in the hardcover numbers but would still need to be removed.
Zullo indicated the concern is the size of the structure and the 30 percent hardcover being requested.
Schwingler moved to table Application#07-3331,Ronald and Suzanne Vanacora,2500 Casco
Point Road.
Kroeger stated he would like to see a motion denying the application since he would not be in favor of
a hardcover variance.
Kempf indicated it appears from the comments already made that the Planning Commission would not
be in favor of a hardcover variance.
Schwingler withdrew his motion.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAI�TNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3331 Ronald and Suzanna Vanacora, Continued)
Vanacora stated he would prefer his application be tabled in the event he is unable to reduce it to 25
percent.
Turner stated if the application is denied, the applicant would need to wait six months before re-filing
the application. Turner stated if the applicant would like to have the option to come back before the
Planning Commission in a couple of months,he would be able to do that and the Planning
Commission is not obligated to approve any variances at that time.
Kroeger moved,Kang seconded,to table Application#07-3331,Ronald and Suzanne Vanacora,
2500 Casco Point Road, at the request of the applicants. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #07-3332 PRC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF STONEGATE FARM,
INC.,2940 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT, 8:01 P.M.—9:19 P.M.
Susan Seeland with PRC Development,David Nash with MFR.A, and Mike Seeland,PRC
Development,were present.
Turner stated the applicants are requesting approval of a Planned Residential Development of six
single-family houses and preliminary approval of the plat to create a lot for each dwelling, an outlot
for a private road to serve the houses and an outlot for the commonly owned portion of the
development.
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of complete and correct final site, grading,utility, landscaping and buffer
improvement plans with changes addressing the concerns expressed by the City Engineer and
Wetland Consultant.
2. The applicant providing either a copy of the MCWD permit or information from the MCWD
indicating their specific requirements for the applicant for this permit.
3. The right-of-way of the private road increased to 50 feet and front setbacks would remain 30
feet or could be reduced to 25 feet.
4. The minimum house setback from the wetland buffer shall be 20 feet or X number of feet as
determined by the Planning Commission.
5. Some, all,or none of the development covenants shall become part of the PRD approval and
are enforceable by the City, as determined by the Planning Commission.
6. The height and design of the perimeter fencing as determined by the Planning Commission.
7. Staff and the applicant exploring construction of a trail along Homestead Road.
8. All plantings that are part of the PRD landscaping to be native materials.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company,Continued)
Seeland stated they have proposed a plan that is environmentally sensitive,with approximately 65 to
70 percent of the site being preserved in its natural site by a conservation easement. If the lots are laid
out in a traditional two acre subdivision,it would leave less area for open space than if the homes were
clustered closer together. Each of the homes has a minimum building envelope of 90 feet,with their
goal being to have 100 feet of buildable area. The depth in the building envelope would not be less
than 100 feet.The front yard setbacks are 30 feet,the rear yard setback minimum to the wetland would
be 20 feet,but they would like to see the buffer increased to 50 feet,with a 20-foot setback from the
buffer.
Seeland stated the cul-de-sac is primarily determined by the grade of the land and the location of some
trees,which will need to be precisely determined by their surveyor. Seeland noted Staff had very few
issues with their application and that their plan was designed to have as low of an impact on the
environment as possible. Each lot would have 60 feet of space between the adjoining houses,which is
intended to help with the runof£ John Smyth has recommended that the rain gardens be relocated out
of the buffer area and possibly eliminating a couple of them,with some drain tile installed,which they
are in agreement with.
Seeland stated they would like to replant the edge of the wetlands to help rejuvenate the wetland areas
and John Smyth has indicated he is fine with that proposal.
Seeland stated some issues they would like the Planning Commission to discuss are the width of the
roadway,the setback from the road, and the fence.
Seeland displayed a picture board of what they are envisioning as the character of this subdivision and
that they would prefer to construct homes that have lower rooflines,with the second story being
incorporated into the roof area. The fence that is proposed is a four board English horse fence and is
not intended to go around the entire perimeter of the property. Another type of fence they would like
to propose is a deer fence,which would be located along Highway 6 by the woodland area and would
be landscaped.
Kempf asked whether the four board fence changes to a mesh deer fence at the edge of the woods.
Seeland stated that it would change to a deer fence in the area near the trees. The English horse fence
is designed to be a five-foot fence.
Turner indicated the 60-inch board rail fence that is being proposed would only be permitted if it were
enclosing domestic animals,but that with a PRD,the Planning Commission can vary from the City's
zoning codes and could find that the fence is appropriate. Turner stated the area where the fence is
being proposed is more common area and is located along the roadway.
Kempf asked how high the deer fence would be.
Seeland indicated she is unsure but that it may be five feet. The intent of the fence is to provide some
measure of security.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued)
Zullo stated she has a problem with the deer fence given the amount of deer that are in this area and
the close proximity of Highway 6.
Seeland stated the deer fence they are proposing is not intended to keep deer out and is only five feet
high. A true deer fence would be nine feet tall.
Kempf noted he did visit this property and that there is a substantial wildlife corridor that extends to
Baker Park,which should be preserved and is being preserved by the applicants' proposal. Kempf
stated he would not be in favor of a chain link fence.
Seeland indicated it is not a chain link fence.
Curtis asked whether it is a welded wire fence.
Seeland stated it is.
Zullo stated she would prefer not to have a fence in that area basically because of the wildlife and that
there should not be an obstruction to the wetland area.
Kempf indicated as he understands the layout of this property,there is a continuous undeveloped area
that provides a connection between the Baker Park and Woldsfeld woods.
Winer asked what the requirement for land area is to construct in Medina.
Seeland indicated it is five acres in Medina. Seeland asked whether there is a regulation against fences
in this area.
Curtis asked where the fences would be located.
Seeland illustrated the areas on their plan where the fences would be located.
Curtis stated the deer fence would collect trash and would not be invisible and that the board fence
would be more attractive,which would allow the wildlife to go under and over the fence easily.
Winer commented she would prefer a three rail fence,which would be compliant with the City's code.
Turner stated the four board fence would need to enclose a domestic animal.
Winer reiterated she would like to see the fence be compliant with the City's code.
Kempf suggested the applicants reconsider the fence.
Seeland asked what her options are for fencing.
Turner stated the code would allow a 60-inch board rail fence that contains a domestic animal.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company,Continued)
Curtis noted this application is a PRD,which does allow some flexibility by the Planning Commission
on the type of fence to be installed.
Zullo stated the design of the board fence fits the character of a horse farm and that the PRD would
allow some flexibility.
Seeland displayed an aerial view of their property and the adjoining areas.
Kempf inquired whether there is a connection between the two preserves.
Turner stated there is not.
Kempf stated that it appears there is some opposition to a fence that would impede the passage of
wildlife into that area.
Seeland noted they are not proposing fencing near the wetland area. Seeland asked whether the four
board fence is acceptable.
Schwingler indicated he is fine with that type of fence.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a four board fence would be acceptable.
Kempf recommended that the applicants develop a more formal landscape plan listing the exact
number and type of trees.
Turner noted this is the preliminary plat approval and that those details would be required at the final
plat stage.
Winer asked what the difference is between a PUD and a PRD is.
Curtis stated the differences are outlined on page two of the Planner's report.
Turner stated the applicants would need to come back for final approval, at which time all the items
specified would need to have been addressed.
Curtis stated if the applicants receive preliminary plat approval,they would not need to come back
before the Planning Commission unless they make some changes to the approved plan.
Seeland stated they have hired a company who specifically designs wetland areas for wildlife and that
they would like to design an area that is more wildlife friendly by using a mixture of wildlife seed mix
and plants. Seeland stated any future purchasers of the lots would need to enter into a contract
requiring them to maintain the buffer. Seeland stated that John Smyth has indicated he would be
agreeable with markers that are flush with the ground rather than upright markers.
Turner stated an ariractive buffer is also more likely to be retained and maintained by.a homeowner.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued)
Seeland stated the intent is to appeal to people who would like to live in a conservation subdivision.
Kempf commented in his view the applicants are doing a fabulous job in developing this property and
noted the covenants would be enforceable by the City.
Seeland commented the homeowner's association would also help monitor the conservation areas.
Seeland stated the amount of truck traffic on Homestead Trail has increased and that she is unsure how
that could be reduced. Given the increased traffic, Seeland indicated she is in agreement with a trail
along Homestead Trail.
Kempf asked whether the current design will have a trail paralleling Homestead on their property.
Seeland stated they would be happy to provide an easement for a trail.
Kroeger noted there is a trail on the north side of County Road 6.
Seeland stated the question is whether there would also be a trail along Homestead.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like to see a trail along Homestead
Trail.
Kempf asked if there are park dedication fees on this property.
Turner indicated there would be.
Seeland asked if the trail would count against the park dedication fees.
Turner indicated that would be a decision for the City Council.
Kroeger stated there appears to be an issue with the road right-of-way.
Seeland questioned why there is a 50-foot right-of-way required.
Turner stated the City's code requires a 50-foot right-of-way, and that with a 50-foot right-of-way,
there would be 24 feet of pavement, a three-foot gravel shoulder on each side of the roadway, and then
13 feet of property that would be owned by the homeowner's association, as well as a 10-foot utility
easement.
Zullo stated she would be willing to reduce the right-of-way.
Turner stated the necessary width of the right-of-way may be an issue for the City Engineer to
determine.
Nash noted this is a private road that would be maintained by the homeowner's association and that
technically he is unsure how City code could be applied on the right-of-way portion.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued)
Turner stated the City's Code speci�es there has to be a right-of-way.
Kempf stated he would be fine with adjusting the setbacks.
Turner stated the fire marshal has indicated that 24 feet would be satisfactory if parking was restricted
to one side of the roadway. Turner noted the applicant has suggested 22 feet.
Seeland stated she would like the opportunity to speak with the fire marshal on the width of the
roadway. Seeland stated the width of the roadway in front of her house is 18 feet and that in her view
22 feet on a private road would be more than adequate.
Kroeger pointed out that the road tends to become narrower with each snowfall,especially if the road
is curvy.
Seeland pointed out the location of two fire hydrants.
Turner stated the fire hydrants would need to be located in the spots designated by the fire marshal.
Kempf commented he would like to review the final plan since the City Engineer has not reviewed the
plans.
Turner noted the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has provided some extensive comments
regarding the project. Turner stated the difference between preliminary and final plat approval would
be the filling in of the details,like the type and number of trees to be planted, and perhaps some
corrections to the utility plan. Turner stated the Planning Commission would be making a
recommendation on the preliminary PRD plan and that they could indicate whether they would like to
review the final PRD.
Kempf commented he would like to see the final PRD plan and questioned whether it would delay the
proj ect if the applicant had to come back before the Planning Commission.
Turner stated it is unlikely a second review by the Planning Commission would delay the application
since there would be a number of small details that would need to be resolved prior to the application
proceeding to the City Council.
Kroeger inquired whether there is a secondary emergency access to the development.
Turner stated the fire marshal has indicated it is not necessary.
Seeland noted they have shortened the cul-de-sac. -
Kroeger asked whether there would be an actual gate at the entrance to the subdivision.
Seeland stated it is a monument and it would be designed to allow the homeowners to add a gate if
they so choose.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued)
Turner noted there is a setback that the gate would need to meet from the road.
Kempf asked whether the Planning Commission would like to see this application again prior to final
PRD approval by the City Council.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it would not be necessary to review the final
PRD plan.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m.
Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail,Medina, stated he does have a couple of concerns regarding the
configuration of the subdivision. Williams stated the existing zoning on the Medina side is five acres
and that the clustering of these six houses should be seriously considered since the land use of this
property would be inconsistent with the neighboring municipality.
Williams stated the residents on Homestead Trail are concerned about the impact this subdivision
would have on their neighborhood and the increased traffic that would be generated. Williams noted
during rush hour there are sometimes 15 cars backed up attempting to get onto County Road 6.
Williams stated the City of Medina has passed an ordinance banning truck traffic on city streets in
Medina and that Homestead Trail is unfortunately a county road,which has resulted in the truck traffic
being pushed onto their road. At the present time Medina is discussing with Hennepin County about
the possibility of Homestead Trail being converted back to a city street. In the interim,the City
Council has been restricting truck traffic that have applied for construction permits from using
Homestead Trail. The Open Space Task Force in Medina has also classified Homestead Trail as a
scenic road. This development is inconsistent with that classification.
Williams encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the impacts to the residents on Homestead
Trail and the environmental issues that would be created by this development.
Kempf asked what Williams would like to see done with the property.
Williams stated he would like each lot to be two acres in size,which would eliminate the need for a
road and would reduce the amount of iraffic on Homestead Trail since some of the homes would have
access off of County Road 6.
Zullo asked whether the City has heard from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on this
development.
Nash indicated they have not submitted anything to the Watershed District at the present time and that
their ordinance requires 60 percent phosphorus removal,which has been addressed but still needs to be
reviewed by the Watershed District.
Kempf stated the City has spent considerable time and money reviewing properties similar to this site
and that in his view this project is in conformance with the City's objectives.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3332 PRC Development Company,Continued)
Kroeger commented in his view the project is within the spirit and letter of both the City's Code and
the Comprehensive Plan.
Kroeger moved to recommend approval of Application#07-3332,PRC Development Company
on behalf of Stonegate Farm,Inc.,2940 Sixth Avenue North,Preliminary PRD,subject to the
following conditions: 1) Submission of complete and correct final site,grading,utility,
landscaping and buffer improvement plans with changes addressing the concerns expressed by
the City Engineer and Wetland Consultant; 2)The applicant provide either a copy of the
MCWD permit or information from the MCWD indicating their specific requirements for the
applicant for this permit;3)the right-of-way of the private road be increased to 50 feet and with
a house setback of 25 feet; 4)The minimum house setback from the wetland buffer shall be 20
feet; 5)All of the development covenants shall become part of the PRD approval and
enforceable by the City; 6),the height and design of the perimeter fence shall be limited to a four
rail fence 60 inches in height; 'n The City is given a dedicated easement for a trail along
Homestead Trail; and 8)All plantings that are part of the PRD landscaping to be native
materials.
Seeland asked whether the condition could be that they strive to achieve wetland plantings and given
some leeway on native plantings. Seeland stated they would be willing to comply with the native
plantings within the wetland buffer.
Kroeger amended his motion on Condition No. 8 to require all plantings that are part of the
PRD landscaping be native materials or other appropriate plantings as approved by Staff.
Zullo seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Winer opposed.
Winer stated she was opposed given the comments of John Smyth contained in his memo dated
11/1/07.
(Rice leaves at 9:18 p.m.)
Zullo moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3332,PRC
Development Company on behalf of Stonegate Farm,Inc.,2940 Sixth Avenue North,
Preliminary Plat approve,subject to modification of the plat to address the concerns expressed
by the City Engineer,the Wetland Consultant,and to reflect any changes in the PRD. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0. �
*9. #07-3334 KEVIN AND DEPTISE REILLY,3405 HIGH LANE,PRELIMINARY PLAT
Kroeger moved,Zullo seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3334,Kevin and
Denise Reilly,3405 High Lane,preliminary plat approval subject to the City Engineer's
recommendations,both John Smyth and Darren Amundsen. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COiTNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 22,2007,AND NOVEMBER 13,2007
Kempf reported on the October 22"d City Council meeting,noting that all five applications were
placed on the Consent Agenda. Considerable discussion was had during the public portion of the
meeting with Ed Garlock conceming the placement of gravel on city-owned property and the need to
remove the gravel. Kempf stated there was also an issue with the amount of state aid Orono would be
eligible to receive based on the calculation of state aid roads within the City.
Curtis stated that issue is still up in the air and that the City does hold underlying easements on all the
private roads and the roads are constructed to city standards.
Kempf stated Westonka's Superintendent Borg also gave a brief update to the City Council on the
school district.
Curtis stated the City Council did approve the Zimmerman application with some minor changes to a
second story deck and some additional rain gardens. Curtis noted that application would be back
before the City Council next week for final approval.
Turned stated the Council did approve the retaining wall on Big Island.
11. OTHER ISSITES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis noted a joint work session with the Council has been scheduled for December.
Gaffron stated the joint work session will need to be delayed until January because the City Council
will need to address some other items.
Curtis stated in an effort to move applications forward, Staff would like to have the plans moved
forward even if there are some outstanding engineer comments that need to be addressed unless there
are major changes that the applicant is required to make. Curtis stated the applications do not appear
before the City Council until those items are addressed.
Curtis stated at the request of the City Council, Staff has been requested to streamline their reports and
requested that the Planning Commission provide feedback if there are issues they would like to see
further addressed in the report. Curtis stated Staff tends to cull it out in the report if there is an item
that does not meet City regulations.
Turner asked if the Planning Commission would like a section that would provide a summary of the
variances being requested and a basic motion that the Planning Commission could follow.
Kempf stated he would prefer not to have Staff provide the motion and that he would like the motion
to be based more on what was discussed.
(Winer leaves at 9:33 p.m.)
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 19,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Other Issues, Continued)
Curtis stated the exact variances being requested could be laid out under Staff's recommendation.
Curtis stated it is also helpful if Staff gives their report prior to the applicant speaking.
12. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON NOVEMBER 19,2007,AND DECEMBER 10,2007
November 19—Kroeger
December 10—Kang
ADJOURNMENT
Zullo moved,Kempf seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:37 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
�
alph Ke pf, Chair
PAGE 23