HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2006 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
. 6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Cynthia Bremer, Commissioners David Rahn,Dick Kroeger,Ralph Kempf,Roland Jurgens, and
Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis
and Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Bob Sansevere was present.
Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 1,4, and 5 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
*1. 06-3226 EDWARD AND NANCY BIERMAN,505 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH,
VARIANCE
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3226,Edward and
Nancy Bierman,granting of a setback variance to allow the garage to remain as constructed.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. &3. 06-3234 DA1vIEL HESSBURG,4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE and 06-3235
DANIEL HESSBURG,4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:05 P.M.— 7:09 P.M.
Daniel Hessburg,Applicant;Paul Henry and Dennis Meyer,neighbors,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement with a street vacation for
properties at 4731 and 4725 North Shore Drive. In addition,the application requires lot area and lot
width variances each to allow both properties to remain less than 1.0 acres and less than 140 feet in width;
as well as 75-250 feet zone hardcover variances, side street setback and rear yard setback variances in
order to construct two new residences where two existing residences currently exist. Currently none of
the three existing lots meet the area and width requirements of the LR-1B zoning district.
PAGE 1
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION
�Monday,October 16,2006
� 6:00 o'clock p.m. '
(#06-3234 and 06-3235,Daniel Hessburg,Continued) �
Staff has met with the applicant vario�s times over the summer to research development possibilities on
+
4725 and 4731 North Shore Drive. 4731 North Shore Drive consists of two individual parcels physically
separated by 4725 North Shore Drive. This unique situation is compounded by the extreme topography
of both properties.
The applicant has proposed to combine the eastern lot of 4731 with the adjacent 47251ot,rearranging the
western lot line of 4725 to make the eastern lot of 4731 ten feet wider,which would result in 4731
becoming a 60-foot wide lot and 4725 becoming a 76;foot lot and creating better buildable areas on both
lots. Variances are still necessary due to the resulting lot areas and widths, as well as for side street
setback,rear setback,hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone and bluff setbacks. ,
At the request of Hennepin County and in order to minimize the curb cuts onto the busy county road,the
applicant has proposed a shared driveway to access both sites. The driveway will center approximately
on the lot line and access each side-loading garage. The proposed driveway has a grade ranging from 12
percent to 20 percent. The City Engineer has indicated that the steepness of the driveway should be
re-evaluated and revised to allow for a 20-foot area directly off the roadway with a slope no greater than 2
percent if possible. The location of the house and driveway on the western lot(4731) does not allow for a
20-foot deep apron to be located entirely on the 4731 property and outside the shared drive aisle.
The applicant has indicated he will install a shared tram system to access the lakeshore,which
incorporates a small stair in order to minimize slope impacts. �
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement with street vacation and
variances to allow replacement of the existing two homes on lots that are more equal in size than the
current configuration subject to, one,compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer; two,
the homes meeting the City's height requirement of 30 feet and 2.5 stories; three, submittal of easements
for the shared driveway and shared tramway.
Hessburg stated Staff has been very helpful with their application.
Meyer stated by having both of these properties for sale at one time and being able to develop them both
simultaneously a much more complementary development can be achieved.
Kroeger stated in his opinion it would be more ideal to combine the lots and construct one house rather
than two homes.
Kempf inquired what the situation is with the driveway. �
Hessburg stated he met with a representative from the County and his recommendation is to construct one
driveway from County Road 19.
Kempf commented he is in favor of the shared driveway,noting that it would reduce the amount of
hardcover on the lots. Kempf noted the city Engineer has recommended that the steepness of the
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF TFIE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3234 and#06-3235,Daniel Hessburg,Continued)
driveway be re-evaluated and revised to allow for a 20-foot area directly off the roadway with a slope no
greater than 2 percent if possible. Kempf inquired whether that issue has been addressed.
Hessburg indicated he would be willing to work with the city engineer on that issue.
Kempf stated provided the applicant is willing�to work with the city engineer to address that item,he �
would not be opposed to the two lots since there are a number of other similar sized lots currently in
Orono. Kempf noted the smaller lot to the west is located more in the bluff setback and suggested the line
be moved more toward the center of the lot to help reduce a possible encroachxnent into the bluff setback.
Kempf inquired whether the house on the western lot would still be classified as a three-story house.
Hessburg stated the house has been designed to meet the height requirements of the City. Hessburg stated
it is a two-story walkout.
Curtis stated Staff was not able to evaluate the revised plans that were recently submitted to determine
whether the house meets the two and a half story maximum height restriction of the city. Curtis stated the
applicant's architect has assured her that it does meet the City's height requirement but that she personally
has not verified that at this point.
Rahn commented he likes the differences in the design of the homes and that it would not be possible to
achieve that if the lots were identical. Rahn stated if the two lots were identical,it would be likely that
there would be two very identical homes with side-loading garages.
Bremer stated she also prefers the lots as proposed and the configuration of the driveway. Bremer noted
an easement would be required for the driveway and the tram system. _
- Hessburg stated the tram system is designed not to interrupt the land and would incorporate one three-foot
wide staircase down to the water in the event of a power outage. �
�
Bremer commented one lot would probably be ideal but that she appreciates the effort the applicant has
made to develop these two lots.
Jurgens stated in his personal opinion one lot would be better than two lots and that the zoning in this area
was intended to help encourage combination of the smaller lots into bigger lots.
Rahn noted there are two separate owners of these properties.
Jurgens stated this is a scenario where the City would ask if there is other property available and that in
situation there is other property available to help address the need for variances.
Bremer inquired whether the Commission feels there are allowances or hardships with respect to the
access, site topography, and bluff to allow a home on the westernmost lot(4731),which functionally will
PAGE 3 •
MINUTES OF THE �
� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
. 6:00 o'clock p.m. .
(#06-3234 and#06-3235,Daniel Hessburg,Continued)
be a walk-out home with two levels above but would actually be defined as a three-story house by the
City's current methods.
,
Curtis noted this is a question she would like the Planning Commission to discuss but that it is not
necessarily the case in this application. Curtis stated the challenges of the lot make it very difficult to
construct a two and a half story house.
Bremer stated the Planning Commission is very consistent on its height restrictions and that she would
not be in favor of allowing anything over two and a half stories.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would not be in favor of a residence in excess
of two and a half stories.
Bremer inquired of the Planning Commission whether the home on the western lot should be moved
closer to the county road to allow for reorientation of the driveway.
Curtis noted if the home were relocated closer to the road, a variance to the rear yard setback would be
required but would allow for additional off street parking.
Kempf stated he would not be opposed to relocating the house closer to the road since it is consistent with
the other homes in the neighborhood.
Rahn stated if there is no method for the driveway to be moved closer to the property line,he would not
be opposed to the house being relocated.
Jurgens stated relocating the house closer to the road would result in the driveway becoming steeper
unless the garage is raised and that he personally feels a 20-24 percent driveway is not a good option for
driveways in Minnesota. Jurgens stated there is barely enough room on the western lot to park a car in
front of the garage without hanging over into the neighboring lot. Jurgens stated in his opinion an unsafe
condition is being created with the current design of the driveway.
Bremer inquired whether the house should be oriented further to the west.
Jurgens stated either the house should be moved west or the property line should be moved easterly.
Kempf inquired whether it would be appropriate to relocate the driveway closer to the western property
line.
Jurgens stated that would also create additional issues with retaining the drainage on the lot. Jurgens
stated one solution is to make the houses smaller.
Kempf inquired if the house were redesigned to not encroach into the bluff setback,whether
Commissioner Jurgens would be agreeable to encroaching somewhat on the westem lot line.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3234 and#06-3235,Daniel Hessburg, Continued)
Jurgens stated he is not as opposed to that option but that the houses could still be redesigned.
Gaffron stated the City has 37 accesses in 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline that have varying uses
that are of different widths and topography and the City Council in its comprehensive plan made it very
clear that they would not vacate any accesses to the lake.
Jurgens stated one reason for the 20-foot setback is because the City is unsure what the future use of this
area would be.
Rahn inquired whether a front-loading garage was considered for the narrower lot.
Hessburg stated they did consider that but it did not allow for any off-street parking and that it would
require vehicles to back up onto the county road,which poses a safety concern.
Gaffron pointed out there would also be an eight or ten-foot drop in elevation,which would result in a 30
percent slope. Gaffron stated the third garage stall on the easterly lot would need to meet a 30-foot
setback and would require a variance.
Rahn stated if the engineer deemed it more appropriate to encroach into the unimproved sireet,he would
not be opposed to that.
Bremer pointed out the hardcover on the 47251ot is at 41 percent in the 75-250 foot zone and that the
hardcover should be reduced. Bremer stated it is likely the Planning Commission would allow some
amount of hardcover over the 25 percent limit given the topography of the lot,but that it would be
difficult to approve 41 percent.
Hessburg gave an example of a house that he has recently constructed with only a two-car garage and
how it has been extremely difficult to sell. Hessburg noted the 37-foot piece of land cannot be sold
separately and must be attached to one of the two lots.
Jurgens stated there is enough buildable area between the rear setback line and the bluff line that a
different configuration for the house would work.
Rahn stated he would not be in favor of the third garage stall and suggested that the applicant consider a
two-story house rather than a rambler for this site.
Bremer concurred with the comments of Commissioner Rahn.
Jurgens noted the shared driveway cannot be moved further west
Hessburg stated they have had four different surveys conducted and three different house plans created in
an attempt to design a house on each of these lots that meet the City's requirements. Hessburg reiterated
that it is difficult to sell a house at this price with only a two-car garage.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3234 and#06-3235,Daniel Hessburg, Continued)
Bremer stated allowing some variances on the westerly lot is reasonable but that the footprint for the
house on the easterly lot should be reduced.
Kempf stated for the larger of the two homes,the garage jogs to the east four feet,which adds additional
hardcover for the driveway, and that if the shared driveway were relocated to the west four feet,that
would help to reduce the hardcover and allow for some parking in front of the garage.
Hessburg stated that could be redesigned.
Rahn stated the hardcover on the larger lot should be reduced and that the plans should be revised.
Hessburg expressed a concern that his application would be delayed another month. Hessburg stated he
wanted to start consiruction this fall.
Rahn stated if the application were moved forward to the City Council,there is the possibility that the
City Council may elect to send the application back to the Planning Commission if the plans are revised
significantly,which would cause the applicant to lose even more time. Rahn inquired whether the City
Engineer has had an opportunity to review the revised plans.
Curtis stated to her lrnowledge the city engineer has not reviewed the revised plans.
Kroeger expressed doubt that the City Council would approve 41 percent hardcover for this lot.
Kempf concurred that the City Engineer should review the plans prior to the City Council reviewing it.
Hessburg stated he is agreeable to working with the City Engineer.
Bremer stated the problem the Planning Commission has with the application is that there are a number of
issues that have not been fmalized, such as the drainage and the hardcover, and that these issues should be
resolved prior to the application proceeding forward to the Council.
Hessberg requested the Planning Commission provide some guidance on the hardcover for the larger lot.
Hessburg noted his purchase agreement is contingent on the City Council approving his proposal for the
two lots. Hessburg stated the problem with the two-story is whether he can get 50 percent of the
foundation below grade.
Curtis stated she has not conducted an analysis to determine whether the revised plans would comply with
the City's proposed zoning code amendment on definitions of basement and story.
Rahn stated he would feel more comfortable approving the application if the City Engineer has made
some recommendations on these plans.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006 �
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3234 and#06-3235,Daniel Hessburg,Continued)
Hessburg inquired if the Planning Commission could provide him with a number that the hardcover
should be reduced to.
Sansevere stated in his view the Planning Commission has given the applicant good guidance on how his
plans should be revised and that it is difficult for the Planning Commission to give someone a definite �
number on the hardcover that would be allowed on a lot.
Bremer suggested the applicant table his application to continue to work with staff on his proposal.
Bremer opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Andrew Rascher,4705 North Shore Drive,inquired what the issue is with the driveway. Rascher noted
there is another property with a steep driveway and he is not aware of any issues with that driveway.
Rahn stated one issue with the driveway is the inability for a large car to park in the driveway without
encroaching onto the neighboring property and that the second issue deals with the desire of the Planning
Commission to obtain the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to voting on this application.
Hessburg stated the driveway could be move further westward to help address those issues.
Bremer closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Rahn stated the fewer variances that are requested,the more favorably the application would be looked at.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#06-3234 and Application#06-3235,Daniel
Hessburg,4725 North Shore Drive and 4731 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
�Hessburg inquired whether the Council would approve impervious pavers.
Bremer stated at this time the City is not interested in approving the use of impervious pavers.
*4. 06-3236 T.J.BONNETT,60 SMITH AVENUE,VARIANCE
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3236,T.J.Bonnett,
60 Smith Avenue,granting of a deck setback variance,subject to a condition that the deck must
remain open,uncovered,and cannot be converted to a screened porch or a room.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. .
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
*5. 06-3237 YARDSCAPES ON BEHALF OF CHLOE H.MORGAN, 1480 BOHNS POINT
ROAD,VARIANCE
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3227,Yardscapes on
behalf of Chloe H.Morgan, 1480 Bohns Point Road,granting of a hardcover variance to allow
replacement of the swimming pool patio and deck. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. 06-3238 VOGUE ICF HOMES ON BE�IALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,2709
WALTERS PORT LANE,VARIANCE,7:08 P.M.—7:49 P.M.
William Dunlcley and Susan Dunlcley,Applicants, and Erik Vogstrom and John Vogstrom with Vogue
Homes were present.
Turner stated the applicant is requesting lakeshore and average lakeshore variances to allow a second
story to be added to the existing residence. Turner stated the applicant's surveyor has confirmed that the
existing hardcover is at the amount that is allowed for this property.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to certain hardcover removals proposed by the
applicant and the submittal of an annotated survey.
Susan Dunkley stated the house was originally constructed in 1961 and has a very low, flat roof. Dunkley
noted they have had to replace the roof three times in the 20 years they have owned the house and that
they would like to replace the flat roof with a pitched roo£
William Dunkley stated they have not changed the hardcover on the lot since they removed a large
�amount to be able to add the entry. .
Bremer opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bremer closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Rahn noted the hardcover would remain the same under the proposal.
Gaffron noted the entire house is located within 75 feet of the lake and that more structure would be
added in that zone but the footprint would not be increased.
. Tuxner illustrated the space for an elevator that has been added to the house.
Kempf commented there are a number of homes along the lake that tend to resemble hotels and that this
would be one of those. The proposed addition gives the appearance of an enormous amount of massing.
Kempf noted there is a substantial amount of glass proposed on this house.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
, Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3238 William and Sue Dunkley,Continued) .
Susan Dunkley stated the majority of the glass currently exists on the house. Dunkley displayed pictures
of their house and the neighboring residences,noting that their residence is lower than the other homes in
the area.
Rahn inquired whether the ceiling heights on the first floor would change.
Erik Vogstrom stated they would over the center and right {viewed from the lake} wing.
Rahn commented the house would have the appearance of a three-story house. •
Dunkley stated in comparison to the other homes in the area,the home sits at a lower elevation.
Bremer stated from her personal perspective she is in favor of the proposal given the fact that the
applicant's house is already intrusive to the neighbors and the expansion would not further impact their
views of the lake.
Jurgens stated in his opinion this application is altering the characteristic of the neighborhood with the
large amount of mass and glass. The rooftop deck is flat,which is what the applicants have stated they
would like to eliminate.
Erik Vogstrom stated they have replaced the flat roof three times in 20 years and that they are only
constructing a small flat roof portion for the deck. Construction technology has improved greatly in the
45 years since the house was built.
John Vogstrom stated this structure,in comparison to the other homes on the bay,is not any higher than
those homes and would have the appearance of being lower than those homes. Vogstrom noted they do
meet the height requirements of the City.
Susan Dunlcley commented there would be three or four houses that would be higher than this house.
' Berg stated in her opinion there would be a large amount of massing visible from the lake.
Susan Dunkley stated there also is a row of trees that helps to screen the house from the lake.
Berg stated this is the highest house on Walters Port Lane and that the view from her house {2655
Lydiard Avenue} would be all roof.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3238,Vogue ICF
Homes on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane,subject to the hardcover
removals outlined in Staff s report. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 4; Kroeger,Kempf,Berg and Jurgens
Opposed.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
,
(#06-3238 William and Sue Dunkley,Continued)
Kempf concurred with Commission Jurgens that the expanded house would not fit the neighborhood and
would have the appearance of a massive structure on the lake. `
Rahn suggested the applicants consider lowering the middle peak to help reduce the appearance of
massing.
William Dunkley illustrated on the overhead the area where they are adding onto the structure. .
Bremer inquired whether the applicants would like to proceed forward to the City Council with a
recommendation of denial or whether the applicants would like to have their application tabled to allow
them time to redesign their plans. '
Erik Vogstrom stated they do meet the height requirements of the City. �
Jurgens stated the addition increases the nonconformity in the 0-75 foot zone.
Bremer pointed out the house is located entirely in the 0-75 foot zone.
Susan Dunkley stated she understands what the Planning Commission is saying but pointed out that they
are only adding a small amount of floor space to the house and that their residence is not massive in
comparison to the other homes in their area. Dunkley illustrated on the overhead the section where they
would be adding floor. • �
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like to redesign their plans or proceed forward to the council.
John Vogstrom asked whether the Planning Commission is more concerned with the glass or with the
height of the middle of the structure. � .
Berg stated it is the height of the structure. �
Gaffron stated the retaining wall gives the appearance of another story and that there are a number of
peaks that contribute to the appearance of massing. �
Kempf stated if the height of the structure were reduced to the curved windows on the three peaks,he
would be more likely to approve the application because it would help to reduce the massing. s
John Vogstrom stated they could eliminate the upper windows in the middle section but that he is unsure
what could be done to reduce the massing because the house that currently exists is very long.
Berg stated she does not have a problem with the windows and that she has a concern with the height of
the structure. � '
Bremer suggested the middle peak be lowered to the height of the peak over the garage.
� PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION �
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3238 William and Sue Dunkley,Continued)
Kroegers stated that would also help mitigate his concern.
Jurgens stated one of the issues he has with this proposal is the massing and the close proximity of this
structure to the lake. `
Kempf stated it still is a large house and close to the water,but if the center roofline were reduced,he
would not be opposed to the proposaL
Kroeger stated he also would vote in favor of the proposal if the roofline were lowered.
Bremer stated the applicants would need to submit a revised drawing depicting the lower roofline prior to
the Council meeting.
John Vogstrom stated the drawing does give the appearance of more massing than what is really the case.
Vogstrom stated the middle section is the focal point of the house and that he is willing to lower that
section but that he would like to keep it slightly higher than the other peaks.
Bremer requested the applicant work with Staff on the lowered roofline.
Berg moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3238,Vogue,I.C.F.
Homes on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane,subject to the roofline of
the middle peak being lowered to the height of the peak over the garage,with that peak being
lowered slightly,and subject to the applicant providing the survey as recommended by Staff.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed.
Jurgens stated he did not vote in favor of the motion because the Planning Commission does not have
final plans before them and that he does not feel a hardship has been demonstrated.
7. 06-3240 CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1—DEFINITIONS OF
"BASEMENT"AND"STORY"ZOIVING CODE AMENDMENT,7:50 P.M.—8:13 P.M.
Gaffron stated the City has had nuxnerous discussions in the past regarding the definitions of basement
and story. The City's current standard is that the basement is measured up from the floor level and that
50 percent of the basement should be covered up to six feet to be considered a basement. That method of
measuring what is a basement and what is a story is not defined in the code and Staff recommends that
basement and story definitions should be included within the City's Zoning Code. The zoning code
establishes that residential structures cannot exceed 30 feet in height and cannot exceed two and a half
stories.
Gaffron stated the current definition of basement contained in the zoning code is that portion of a building
located partly underground but having half of the floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the
PAGE 11
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNiNG COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3240 City of Orono,Definitions of Basement and Story, Continued)
adjoining ground. Ground level is defined to mean the average elevation of the finished ground surface
measured within five feet of the foundation of a building, except ground level related to height of building
shall be measured at center of building facing the front of the lot and the definition of a walkout basement
is a basement having an entrance at grade level. Building height is defined in the zoning code as the
vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest
ground level,whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard
roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or the average height of the highest gable
of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes that elevate the adjoining ground level above the
existing terrain shall not be considered in deternuning building height. �
The proposed amendment will revise the definition of basement, eliminate the definition of ground level
in favor of a new definition of existing ground level, and adds a definition of story. The combined effect
is to establish a standard method for determining whether the first floor of a building is a basement or a
story.
Gaffron stated one of the problems with the City's functional definition,measuring up from the floor
below,is that it does not take into account variations in basement ceiling heights. The solution that was
reluctantly accepted in the past was to allow the grade at a portion of the low side to be artificially raised
to meet the six-foot coverage requirement by bringing in fill and constructing a retaining wall to hold it in
place, at some undefined distance from the foundation wall. Staff recognized this was not a good
solution,but at the time it was concluded that it should be accepted. Gaffron stated it was not an ideal
solution because of the following:
1. It caused difficulty in establishing proper drainage around the house due to the wall's proximity
to the side lot line.
2. It visually still had the potential to make the house seem exceedingly tall because the retaining
wall from a distance could appear as a foundation wall and not a natural part of the grade around
the house.
3. Neither the buyer nor the neighboring property owner wanted the fill and wall to happen once the
house was completed.
As a result of those issues,the City changed its functional definition to require the six-foot foundation
coverage to be met based on pre-existing grades. This has impacted how architects and others are
designing and situating homes on the lot but has resulted in a number of homes having lower profiles in
the topography than they might have had.
Staff is recommending that the existing code definitions of basement and ground level be deleted and the
following code revisions be adopted as follows:
1. Adopt the following definition of"story:" Story. That portion of a building included between the
upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. It is measured as
the vertical distance from top to top of two successive tiers of beams or finished floor surfaces
PAGE 12
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION .
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3240 City of Orono,Definitions of Basement and Story,Continued)
and, for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or,where
there is not a ceiling,to the top of the roof rafters. A story that meets the definition of a
"basement"shall be considered as a basement and not as a story for purposes of determining the
number of stories in a building.
2. Adopt the following definition of"basement:" Basement. That portion of a building that is
partly or completely below the existing ground level. A basement shall be considered as a story
for purposes of determining the number of stories in a building,when the finished surface of the
floor above the basement is more than six feet above the existing ground level for more than 50
percent of the basement's perimeter. The perimeter of the basement does not include portions of .
the house or garage that do not have a lower level but are merely"unexcavated." Artificially
raising the grade adjacent to the foundation of a structure(by filling or by a combination of filling
and retaining walls) above the surrounding natural terrain shall not be allowed as a method for
converting a defined story to a defined basement,regardless of any other benefits to the property
of such action. Finished grade that increases more than one foot from existing ground level shall
be considered as artificially raising the grade.
3. Adopt the following definition of"Existing Ground Level:" Existing ground level. The
elevation of the grade at the base of an existing structure,measured at points abutting the
foundation wall, or the existing grade of a vacant lot.
Bremer inquired whether artificially raising the grade would be allowed as a method for converting a �
defined story to a defined basement if there were engineering reasons for the increase in grade. Bremer
noted the City has had situations in the past where someone has artificially raised the grade and then the
new property owner has restored the grade.
Gaffron stated that is a situation that Staff feels would not be considered arti�cially raising the grade
adjacent to the foundation if it is restoring the grade to its natural state.
Bremer inquired whether that language should be included in the zoning code amendment.
Kroeger suggested adding language relating to previously excavated sites.
Gaffron concurred language to that effect should be added.
Jurgens inquired how a subdivision would be handled since there are a number of artificial grades that are
usually created during the construction process.
Gaffron stated the newly established pads would be considered the newly created existing grade. �
Staff recommends that the local builders and architects be notified of this proposed revision. Planning
Commission has the option to table this application or forward it on to Council with a recommendation.
Curhis concurred that all the local builders and architects be notified of the amendment.
PAGE 13 '
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
. Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3240 City of Orono,De�nitions of Basement�and Story,Continued)
Bremer opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. '
There were no public comments regarding this application.
�
Bremer closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
Bremer moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3240,City of Orono
Zoning Code Section 78-1,Definitions of"Basement" and"Story"Zoning Code Amendment,
subject to the addition of language allowing the artificial raising of grade on previously excavated
sites to be used as a method for converting a defined story to a defined basement if the grade is
being restored to its original natural state. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. 06-3241 CITY OF ORONO ZONII�TG CODE SECTION 78-1466—ELECTION SIGNS
ZOI�TING CODE AMENDMENT,8:13 P.M.—8:18 P.M.
Gaffron stated cunently there is a conflict between the Orono Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes
regarding the length of time that election signs are allowed to be posted. Currently City Code allows the
signs to be erected two months before the election unti130 days following the election., State Statutes
allow election signs to be erected from August ls`until 10 days following the election. This amendment
will revise the Orono City Code and bring it into conformity with the provisions of the State Statutes.
The amendment also provides for removal of illegally erected temporary signs. This reinforces the City's
authority for its long-time practice of removing signs in the right-of-way and those that impede safety by '
obstructing vision.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment.
Kroeger inquired why not wait until August ls`
Gaffron stated there could be special elections and other events that could impact it.
Kempf commented ten days seems excessive to allow the removal of the signs and that he would prefer
five days.
Bremer stated it is her understanding the City should conform with the ten days contained in the State
Statutes.
Jurgens moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application 306-3241 City of
Orono,Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,Section 78-1466,signs as accessory use. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION COMMENTS�
9. REPORT OF PLANNING COMNIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 25 AND OCTOBER 9,2006
Kroeger reported on the September 25"'Council meeting,noting that a majority of the items were placed
on the Consent Agenda but that there was a lengthy discussion regarding the Hempel application and the
uses that should be allowed on that site.
Gaffron stated the Hempel application has been withdrawn and that the City Council is going to be
requesting that the site be returned back to its original zoning. Gaffron stated it is likely the site would be
limited to a certain percent of retail.
Kroeger stated it was commented at the City Council meeting that the majority of the retail should be
located in Long Lake. �
Sansevere commented he would like to see a small grocery store on that site.
Kroeger stated the other item on the agenda that was discussed at length was the police contract.
Sansevere indicated he was not in favor of the Orono Police Department providing free police protection
to Long Lake for six months.
Kempf reported on the October 9`�'Council meeting,noting that a representative from the Orono School
Board was present at the meeting and gave an update on the upcoming referendum. Kempf noted the
majority of the items were placed on Consent Agenda but the Dampier application was discussed at
length and was finally tabled to allow the building inspector the opportunity to review the audiotape from
the council meeting to see whether he recalls giving verbal approval to the applicant to exceed 15 percent
structural coverage.
Jurgens stated perhaps some of the comments from the building inspector to property owners should be .
documented in some fashion.
Gaffron stated unfortunately Staff does not have the time to document every discussion they have with an
applicant. '
• 10. OTFIER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION �
None
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Monday,October 16,2006
� 6:00 o'clock p.m.
11. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18,2006
Kroeger moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
September 18,2006,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
12. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 23 AND NOVEMBER 13,2006
October 23—Jurgens
November 13—Kempf
ADJOURNMENT .
Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:35
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
��
Cynthia Bremer, Chair
. , PAGE 16