The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes NIINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 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,Ralph Kempf, and Dick Kroeger. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planner Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jaclde Young. Council Members Murphy and White were present. Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. CONSENT *1. 06-3244 RE-CREATIONS,INC.,3925 CHERRY AVENUE,VARIANCE,6:10—6:11 P.M. Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3244,Re-Creations, Inc.,3925 Cherry Avenue, granting of a lot area variance subject to the grading and site plans being revised to address the issues outlined in the City Engineer's report, and further subject to the understanding that no other variances will be granted for redevelopment of the property. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. 06-3225 875 WBW LLC,875 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUBDIVISION/RESIDENTIAL PLANNED iTNIT DEVELOPMENT/REZONING,6:11—6:35 P.M. Steve Johnston,WBW,LLC,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting approval for a nine-unit residential development on this former ' New Horizons daycare site. The property is the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow density of approximately 1.4 units per dry buildable acre,where the current density maximum is 0.5 units per acre. . Gaffron noted this application cannot be formally acted upon until the Metropolitan Council takes action ' � on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing development of the site at urban densities. Proposed amendment language was approved by the City Council on August 28 and forwarded to the Metropolitan Council on October 10,2006. The Metropolitan Council has not yet taken action on the amendment, pending receipt of comments from neighboring cities and jurisdictions. � Staff brought the initial application to the Planning Commission in August as a concept plan to allow an opportunity to identify potential concerns,issues, and development parameters that the applicant should address. The City Engineer also submitted comments in August. The applicant has submitted revised plans responding to those comments. Gaffron noted the City of Long Lake has not yet received an agreement with the developer regarding sewer and water. As of tonight, Staff has not had an opportunity to complete more than a brief review of the revised plans submitted on November 13`h. Staff has met with the applicants on November 8�'and discussed the status > PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (06-3225 WBW,LLC, CONTINUED) of the application,including the conservation design requirements. Although the Conservation Design � . information has not been submitted,it should be available for the January meeting. The intent of bringing this application to the Planning Commission November meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commissioners to comment on the latest revisions,with a goal of allowing for a recommendation regarding General Concept Plan Approval. , Johnston noted they have relocated the lot lines three feet off the buildings,with the lot lines extending into the wetlands to enable the lots to be approximately one acre in size,which will make the lots more marketable. Johnston stated the proposed street remains basically the same,with some additional parking being added. Johnston stated one of Staff's recommendations has been to follow the Conservation Design guidelines, and noted they have gone ahead and completed the wetland delineation for this site. Johnston displayed an aerial depiction of the property and stated they are avoiding any construction within a majority of the wetlands and that they will also be providing a significant amount of screening along the backside of the units. The clustering of the units has been kept to the center of the site,with the road being pitched slightly and rain gardens being incorporated into the plan to handle the runof£ Johnston stated they are also committed to cleaning up as many of the invasive species as possible on this site. Bremer commented she likes the increased parking along the round-about and concurred with the Council recommendation for no curb and gutter. Bremer stated she would like this development to have the look and feel of a more rural setting. Bremer expressed a concern regarding the retaining wall on Lot 9, and asked whether the current plans still call for a rather significant retaining wall in that area. Johnston stated there is a slight retaining wall at the rear of Lot 9,with the rest of the walls being eliminated. The slope in the area ranges between 3:1 and 3:2 and natural vegetation would be planted in that area to help stabilize the slope. . Bremer inquired whether the dry pond on Lot 3 would be totally dry or whether it would be utilized for stormwater runof£ � Johnston stated the NURP pond would now be moved to the back of Lot 1 and that the pond on Lot 3 was constructed in conjunction with the nursery project. - � Kempf inquired what type of trees would be planted,particularly along the Luce Line. Kempf commented he would like to see an outlot created to help protect the wetlands. Johnston stated they would be willing to erect wetland buffer signs and include that land in a conservation easement. The trees along the Luce Line are currently proposed to be 2.5-inch, eight-foot spruce trees, as well as some birch and oak trees. There would not be a solid wall of trees but the trees would be scattered somewhat to give it a more natural look. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 dclock p.m. (#06-3225 WBW,LLC,CONTINUED) Kempf concurred that he would not like to see a solid wall of trees along the Luce Line. Kroeger asked whether the power lines run along the Luce Line. Johnston stated they do run along the Luce Line and that the trees would be outside of the easement for the power lines. Rahn inquired whether the Fire Inspector has reviewed the plans. Gaffron stated at this point the�re and building inspectors have not reviewed the plans but they would prior to the Planning Commission meeting in January. Rahn inquired whether the buildings would be sprinkled. Johnston stated they would not be. Johnston stated there might be a concern with the last four units on the roadway and that it may be necessary to put the fire trucks in reverse. Bremer noted she did have a concern at the previous meeting regarding the layout of the driveways and that Lot 5 would have the tightest parking constraints. Johnston stated Lot 5 would have approximately 20 feet from the street to the garage. Johnston indicated the homeowner association documents would.cover some of the parking issues. Kempf and Kroeger commented that this proposal seems to be a good fit for the property. Gaffron noted this application would be back before the Planning Commission in January. Rahn suggested some elevations be submitted prior to the January meeting. Kempf moved,Kroeger seconded,to table Application#06-3225 David Carlson for 875 WBW LLC, 875 West Wayzata Boulevard,to the January Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3. _ 06-3234& 06-3235 DAI�TIEL HESSBURG,4725 &4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE,6:35 P.M.—7:14 P.M. Daniel Hessburg,Applicant,was present. Gaffron noted this application was tabled at the October Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to respond to the Commission's various requests. The applicant has provided revisions to both the site plans and the proposed home plans in response to the Planning Commission's direction. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF TI� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 � 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3234�SSBURG,CONTINUED) • The applicant is requesting a lot line rearrangement and variances. The lot line rearrangement will create two lots from the three existing lots,resulting in one lot being 60 feet wide, 11,552 square feet in area, and another lot 85 feet wide, 13,926 square feet in area where 140 feet in width and 43,560 square feet is required. In addition to lot area and width variances,variances currently being requested for the eastern lot are as follows: One,rear yard setback variance for a 20-foot setback where 30 feet is required; and two, 34.5 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is required. On the westerri lot, the applicant is requesting a bluff setback variance for 24 feet where 30 feet is normally required, a 303 percent hardcover variance where 25 percent is normally required; and a side street setback variance for 13 feet where 35 feet is normally required. The applicant's engineer has attempted to re-evaluate the driveway,but the driveway continues to remain considerably steeper than what the City Engineer is comfortable with. While Staff and the City Erigineer feel that the steepness of the driveway and access onto North Shore Drive is a concern,the Planning Commission should discuss whether or not it is within the scope of this application. The properties currently have a large,flat shared"parking lot"on the edge of North Shore Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct a shared driveway accessing attached garages at the proposed residences. The applicant has evaluated this situation and feels that it is the appropriate option for the site. Staff would recommend that the applicant heat the driveway and possibly offer some sort of wall-like structure at the bottom of the driveway to prevent driving off and into the lake. The applicant has revised the homes to meet the City's height ordinance and has redesigned the home on ' the western lot line to allow for a greater parking apron outside the garage in response to the Planning Commission's concerns. In addition,the applicant has reduced the hardcover on the easterly lot from 41 percent proposed to 34.5 percent by changing the footprint orientation of the home and reducing the driveway hardcover. If the Planning Commission concludes that approval of the application is appropriate, Staff would recommend that it be conditioned on the applicant complying with the City Engineer's requirements,the driveway being revised to meet City Engineer approval, and subject to easements for the shared driveway and shared tramway. Hessburg stated they relocated the driveway on the western lot and reduced the hardcover on Parcel B from 49 to 41 percent. Hessburg indicated he would not be opposed to constructing a barrier at the end of the driveway to prevent cars from sliding out onto the lake and also heat the driveway. Hessburg stated a backup generator would also be installed for each property. Kempf inquired what the applicant had in mind for a barrier. Hessburg indicated they would incorporate some steel retention in the concrete driveway and the curb. Rahn inquired whether each residence would have an individual stairway to the lake. � Hessburg stated both properties would share a three-foot welded staircase on one side and the tram on the other,which would be less invasive to the bank than an in-ground staircase would be. PAGE 4 � MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION , Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3234 HESSBURG,CONTINUED) Bremer stated the westerly lot has gotten closer to the suggestions made by the Planning Commission and that it would be difficult to configure the house to meet all the requirements without a variance. Bremer inquired whether the hardcover on this lot is 30.3 percent. Gaffron stated that is correct. Gaffron inquired whether there is a staircase on the front on the house. Hessburg stated that is part of the existing house and that there would be a natural walkout in that area. Hessburg explained the layout of the house on the overhead,noting that the rooms are not overly large. Rahn stated in his opinion the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Kroeger stated he does not see a way to avoid a small setback into the bluff. Bremer inquired how the Commissioners feel about the easterly lot. Bremer stated the only issue that she sees would be the three-car garage,noting that Mr.Hessburg had indicated that the three-car garage is necessary for marketability. Hessburg stated it would not be easy to sell a house in this price bracket with only a two-car garage and � that he has attempted to minimize the size of the house as much as possible. , Bremer commented one negative alternative would be that someone would develop each individual lot and that the lot line rearrangement helps to clean up the area. Hessburg stated due to the cost of the land and the limitations of the property, it would not be feasible to combine the three lots into one lot. Bremer commented she likes the two larger lots. Kempf stated the option of making one lot and having a more massive house is not as appealing either. Bremer commented while the three stalls might make the house more saleable,the Planning Commission should probably not be so concerned about the marketability of the house as the hardcover. Hessburg reiterated the need for a three-car garage in that price bracket. Bremer opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Dennis Meyer,4680 North Shore Drive, stated he is in favor of the lots being combined and new residences being constructed rather than him attempting to find renters for the existing structure. Bremer closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. ' �� PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 . 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3234 HESSBURG, CONTINUED) Rahn commented in his opinion the proposal seems reasonable given the size of the lots. Bremer inquired what the structural coverage is. Gaffron stated it is less than 15 percent. Hessburg stated he did reduce the hardcover from 49 to 41.5 percent. Kempf commented he does not want to require a developer to construct a house that does not meet the needs of the occupants of the structure and that the size of the house does not seem excessive. Bremer noted the structural coverage is 13 percent. Hessburg stated the topography of the lot also made it difficult to design a house. Bremer commented this is a hardship lot and that there is very little room on the lot to allow for outside storage,which provides some basis for a three-car garage. . Kroeger indicated he would be in support of the application. Gaffron pointed out the street would be vacated from the extended lot line on the west to the extended lot line on the east but that the portion of the access ways and drainage ways would not be vacated. Gaffron pointed out there is some grading proposed within the bluff impact zone but not within the bluff itself, and inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to require some additional trees or other vegetation that would help soften the impact of the grading and the new houses. Bremer stated she would recommend the applicant submit a landscape plan to Staff prior to the City Council meeting. Gaffron stated he would like to see a few trees planted in that area. Bremer stated the City does not want to see the bluff area become barren as a result of the project. Hessburg stated he does not believe there would be any trees removed during the grading. Rahn stated he would rather the City not require the applicant to heat the driveway and that the property owner may elect to shut the electric heat to the driveway off. Rahn concurred there should be a curb stop but that the electric heat to the driveway should be the choice of the contractor. Kroeger stated since the City does not have a standard for driveway slope,it might not be necessary for the driveway to be heated. PAGE 6 � NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3234 HESSBURG, CONTINUED) Kempf stated the slope of the driveway has always been a concern of his and that the steep driveway creates a safety issue in his mind. Kempf stated he would like to require the heated driveway and that the City Council could decide whether it is necessary. Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3234,Dan Hessburg, 4725 North Shore Drive,vacating the street parallel to lakeshore only,granting a lot line rearrangement,variances to lot area and lot width,a variance to hardcover for a maximum of 34 percent in the 75-250-foot zone, and a variance to allow a 20-foot setback,subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and Staff. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Rahn moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3235,Dan Hessburg, 4731 North Shore Drive,vacating the street parallel to lakeshore only,granting a lot line rearrangement,variances to lot area and lot width,a variance to hardcover to allow 30.3 percent hardcover in the 75-250-foot zone, and a variance to allow a 13 foot setback,subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and Staff. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 4. 06-3239 VOGUE ICF HOMES ON BEHALF OF JOHN HENRY,2216 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,7:14—8:05 P.M. John Vogstrom,Applicant,was present. Turner stated the applicant is requesting variances to lot width,lot area, and hardcover in the 75-250' zone in order to remove the existing house and construct a new residence. The existing lot is 51 feet wide when a width of 100 feet is required. The lot area consists of.39 acre when .5 acre is required. The applicant is proposing 27.7 percent hardcover in the 75-250-foot zone. The proposed house would sit further away from the lake than the existing house and would be back from the average lakeshore setback. The proposed house would be two stories with an attached three-car garage and living space above it. There would be a basement under the entire structure with a walkout on the lakeside. The structure would be located about nine feet behind the average lakeshore setback and 160 feet from the lake. Staff finds that the 27.71 percent hardcover proposed for the 75-250-foot zone is about the average hardcover allowed by variance for properties with 7,500 to 15,000 square feet in this zone. The total � proposed hardcover is 133 feet more than the total allowed hardcover. The driveway turnaround is 120 square feet. Staff also finds that on the elevation facing the lake, all three levels will be visible. Eave height will be 30 feet and peak height about 40 feet,which is measured from the walkout level. The Commission may wish to consider if changes to the lake fapade to visually reduce its height should be requested. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF T� ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION . Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3239 VOGLTE ICF HOMES,CONTINUED) Staff finds that grounds exist to grant the lot width and area variances based on the following findings: 1. The lot was created before there were subdivision regulations. 2. A house has existed on the property since 1920. 3. There is no adjacent property the applicant could acquire to enlarge the lot. 4. There are numerous lots with houses in the immediate vicinity of this property that are of similar size and width so the proposed house would not be out of character with the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the lot width and area variances and approval of a hardcover variance to allow 27.7 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone subject to: 1. The grading and site plans being revised to address the issues outlined in the City Engineer's report. 2. The house plans being revised to lower the floor of the basement under the garage and center . portions of the house so the basement is not considered a story and if necessary the house being moved toward the street. Vogstrom stated he would be willing to revise the plans slightly if the Planning Commission recommends lowering the floor of the basement under the garage and center portions of the house. Vogstrom noted the hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone is at 27.2 percent and at 28.2 percent in the 250-500-foot zone. , Kempf stated he does not have a problem with the hardcover and that he is in agreement with Staffls concerns regarding the appearance of massing of the house along the lake. Kempf commented in his view this proposal is not sensitive to the view from the lake. Rahn stated he also is in agreement with the recommendations of Staff and that the appearance from the lake should be softened. Rahn stated the applicant could consider planting some shrubs or bushes along the foundation. • Bremer inquired whether the applicant has considered any particular type of plantings. Vogstrom indicated he is in agreement with the plantings and that one additional thing that could be done would be to incorporate a hip roof and to redesign the windows. Vogstrom stated he also would be willing to incorporate some darker natural colors on the exterior of the house and he would also prepare a colar drawing to better illustrate the house. Kempf suggested some consideration be given to breaking up the different elements of the house to help lessen the massing. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF T1�E ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3239 VOGUE ICF HOMES,CONTINUED) Vogstrom stated they would look at that as well. Kempf stated some different color banding on a tall structure also helps to change the appearance of a structure. Bremer opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Barry Bennett,2208 Shadywood Road, stated he has always welcomed new development in his neighborhood,but that he has a concern with the increase in hardcover on the lot. Bennett stated since the house across the street was constructed,he has experienced a considerable amount of runoff into his yard and that he has a concern regarding the runoff he would experience in his shoreline yard and into the lake as a result of this project. � Bennett stated the current house is not a walkout and that the rooflines would also change under this design,which would bring a significant amount of water runoff toward his property. Bennett pointed out there would be a raised walkway in the area between the house and his property,which will also increase the runoff towards his lot. The new residence would be located closer to his house. � Bennett noted the comments from the City Engineer state that the engineered retaining wall design should be submitted for approval if it exceeds four feet in height and that this retaining wall appears to be over four feet. Bennett expressed a concern regarding the height of this structure and that if this proposal is approved,he would have two high structures on either side of his residence. Bennett reiterated his concerns regarding the amount of hardcover being proposed for this lot and the potential runoff to his property and the lake. Bremer requested clarification from Staff concerning the drainage proposed for this site. Turner stated the applicant did respond to some preliminary comments of the City Engineer by creating a swale and that the erosion and sediment details are usually done during construction. Turner stated the regulation of hardcover is for protection of the lake and suggested the City review the drainage problems that the neighbor is currently experiencing. Turner stated the swales should divert the water away from the Bennett property. Rahn noted the City Engineer typically approves the final grading plan and that the City could make a requirement that the lot be surveyed following completion of the project. , • Gaffron pointed out the neighbor's concerns were regarding increased runoff into his lakeshore yard but that typically drainage and grading plans do not deal with what happens to the runoff in the 0-75 foot � zone. Gaffron stated he does not lrnow how the City would resolve the fact that more water is being diverted into the 0-75 foot area. Gaffron stated the grading for this specific proposal probably cannot be changed to resolve the neighbor's water problems. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 � . 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3239 VOGUE ICF HOMES, CONTINUED) Bremer stated the house is being pulled back and will actually be adjacent to the Bennett residence and that the swales are intended to divert the water away from the side yards of the property. Bennett stated the elevated sidewalk as shown is within 10 feet of the property line,and combined with the proposed gabled roof,there would be increased runoff toward his property. � Bremer stated the Planning Commission and City Council would not approve a plan that does not meet the approval of the City Engineer. William Titler,2184 Shadywood Road, stated he has witnessed the water problems in this neighborhood and that he personally experiences water problems in his yard basically because the lots are flat. Titler stated if the Council required approximately 18 inches of fill being placed along the property line,they could stop the water problem to a substantial degree on the lakeside. Titler expressed concerns that the plan does not depict any new contours of the property and that the drainage will not be adequately addressed. Suzanne Griffin,2224 Shadywood Road, stated she is in agreement with the concerns expressed by Mr.Bennett specifically as they relate to drainage and water runoff. Griffin stated she also is in agreement with the comments by Commissioner Kempf regarding the view from the lake. Christine Freeman,2240 Shadywood Road, stated she resides three properties down to the southwest and that she also has major concerns regarding drainage and runoff. Freeman stated they typically have standing water for longer than 48 hours following a rainstorm. Freeman stated prior to purchasing the property,Mr.Henry lrnew what the hardships of the lot were and that he should be required to comply with the City's hardcover requirements. Freeman stated this is an enormous house being proposed for this lot and that she has concerns with the hardcover and drainage. Bremer closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Vogstrom stated he understands the concerns of the neighbors and that he believes no water from this lot should drain over to the neighbors'properties. Vogstrom stated they basically could dig a trench along the property line and install drain tile to help address the concerns raised by the neighbors. Vogstrom �suggested the neighbors consider undertaking some grading on their properties to help conect the water problems. Vogstrom stated they will be doing some changes to the design of the house and that they have attempted to bring the sides of the house in somewhat to help lessen the impact to the neighbors. l Kempf stated he is sensitive to the issues brought up by the neighbors,but that unfortunately due to the configuration of the lots and the gable ends,there will be some water going toward the property line. Kempf stated to his understanding the City Engineer would review the drainage and that applicants are not allowed to create swales along the property line. Kempf encouraged the adjoining property owners PAGE 10 '� � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3239 VOGUE ICF HOMES,CONTINUED) . relate their concerns to the City Council but that the amount of hardcover proposed for this lot seems reasonable. . Bremer stated the Planning Commission has heard the concerns about the drainage loud and clear from the neighbors and that the City does require applicants to control all the water drainage on their property. Bremer commented it may be necessary for the other neighbors to do something on their properties to also address the water problems. Bremer recommended the neighbors approach City Staff with their concerns if they feel other plans have not been complied with. Bremer stated she did not realize the drainage was that big of an issue on this application and that she appreciates the comments of the neighbors. Bremer stated she is in favor of the application, subject to a strong review by the City Engineer and creation of the lower areas on the sides. , Rahn stated there are methods of.conirolling water on a property without berming, such as drain tile,but that the Planning Commission is not going to design the grading for this property tonight. Bremer stated she would like to see the roofline changed to a hip roof and the development of a landscape plan. Bremer requested the City Engineer be apprised of the raised walkway. Bremer noted the City Engineer has raised a number of issues with the drainage that would need to be complied with prior to this application being approved by the City Council. Kroeger stated he would not be in favor of a hardcover variance given the concerns raised by the neighbors. , Kempf stated in his mind the 27 percent hardcover is reasonable and is typical for the way the neighborhood is developing and the character of Shadywood Road. Bennett commented the majority of the homes have detached garages and a small walkway between the garage and the home. • Rahn noted the structural coverage on this lot is 12 percent. Kempf moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3239,Vogue I.C.F. Homes on behalf of John Henry,2216 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot width,lot area, . and a 27.7 percent hardcover variance in the 75-250 foot zone,subject to�the applicant complying with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Planning Staff,subject to the inclusion of screening along all sides of the property,and further subject to a hip roof being incorporated. . Bremer inquired whether the applicant would like to table the application to redesign the plans. Vogstrom stated he would not like the application tabled. PAGE 11 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3239 VOGUE ICF HOMES, CONTINUED) VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Kroeger Opposed. Kroeger stated he was opposed to the hardcover variance due to the concerns expressed by the neighbors. 5. 06-3243 NORTH SHORE GARDENS ON BEHALF OF RICHARD MARZAN,2795 PHEASANT ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:05—8:57 P.M. Richard Marzan,Applicant,was present. Turner stated the applicant has submitted an as yet incomplete application for a conditional use permit for land alteration and retaining walls on a steep slope within the 75-foot lakeshore setback. The walls are proposed to address erosion and maintenance problems on a steep lakeshore. Turner illustrated the steep slope on the overhead,noting in all likelihood the slope was created at some point by a previous owner.The slope is too steep to plant trees and consists mainly of box elders. The existing house on the property was constructed in 2002 to replace an older house. The house did not require variances. Near the shoreline the property drops 24 feet in as little as 25 feet. The slope ranges from 1:1 under the large tree on the edge of the slope to about 2:1 at the steps. Much of the slope is about 1.5 to 1. In response to a recent complaint that the lakeshore had been clear-cut, Staff investigated this property and it was apparent that vegetation had been cut on a substantial portion of the slope. Photographs from the file show that trees had been cut,apparently recently, in the area above the retaining wall east to the large tree at the top of the slope. Except for some spruce and pine trees adjacent to the stairs,the trees on the slope are box elders. These trees are common on created or disturbed slopes where little else grows. The owner indicated he had the seller clean up the slope before he bought the property. It appears that they cut the box elders and the box elders have resprouted. The owner then had them trimmed again this year. This made the slope appear to be clear-cut. Prior to Staff contacting the properly owner,the property owner contacted the City requesting information about constructing retaining walls. The applicant proposes to construct two retaining walls,each ten feet high, across the lakeshore slope. In addition, a lower terrace eight feet wide and an intermediate tenace 17 feet wide would be created. The walls would be constructed of large blocks of stone. There would be two separate sets of stairs, one to the intermediate terrace and the second to the lower terrace. Retaining walls would be placed near the side lot lines so the existing grade on the adjacent properties could be maintained undisturbed. Ten feet behind the wall would be excavated to provide for placement of required fabric and soils. The application is incomplete because no grading plan was provided despite a specific request for one. The applicant has asserted that the retaining walls are the only way to address the slope. Cutting the bank down to create a 3:1 slope would move the top of the slope back to the 75-foot lakeshore setback and PAGE 12 � � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3243 NORTH SHORE GARDENS,CONTINUED) require work on adjacent properties. Initially Bonestroo and Associates thought there was no way to create a stable slope of more than 3:1. After Bonestroo conducted further investigation,they found MnDOT specifications for constructing steeper slopes. The applicant prefers to construct the retaining walls. In Staff's opinion the slope is preferable to walls. While it would be possible to place landscaping in front of the walls to screen them,the landscaping�would appear unnatural since it would be in steps rather than a curved line following the slope. Because of soil requirements,planting trees on the terraces would be impossible. It would be difficult to effectively screen the ten-foot walls. Staff considered a"do nothing"alternative but it was Staff's opinion the slope would continue to erode. The applicant could continue to"trim"the box elders periodically but eventually parts of the slope would begin to fail. Staff asked the Watershed District Staff for comments on this option, since they are lrnowledgeable about water quality. While very careful to say they have no authority in this situation, they indicated their opinion would be that in the long run it would be better to have some erosion into the lake during construction of the walls than to have continued erosion and a possible landslide into the lake. Marzan stated the bank has been a concern of his since he purchased the property and that they had an issue with the steps being too difficult to traverse up and down. Marzan stated his concern was the steepness of the hillside and the debris that was thrown down the slope by the previous owner. Marzan stated he had the previous owner clean the slope up prior to his purchase. Marzan stated he received a complaint from the City regarding the buckthorn on his property encroaching into the neighbor's property and that they have observed this year that the water is going to the right and to the left and washing out a portion of the adjoining properties. Marzan stated he would like to�x the problems that are occurring in that area and that he is open to any suggestions that would stabilize this slope and allow him to replace the steps. Marzan stated he is as concerned as the Planning Commission that the right engineering plan is in place prior to commencing the project. Marzan stated he personally does not like boulder walls and that it has been suggested that flagstone by utilized,which would allow vegetation to grow over the top of it. Marzan stated he is looking to stabilize the slope with the retaining walls but that he only wants to do the project once. Marzan pointed out there used to be a walkway between the two properties that has since washed away. Marzan stated the water off of the roof goes more into the front of the property,but that once the water hits the ground,it goes down to the lake. Marzan stated he has had two engineers review his plans and he has been told that the plans are right to conect the problem. Marzan stated he is willing to follow the requirements of the City but that he only wants to undertake this project once. Marzan distributed photographs depicting the property to the Planning Commissioners. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. . (#06-3243 NORTH SHORE GARDENS, CONTINUED) Bremer read a letter from Lee Sundet dated November 16,2006. Bremer opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Bremer closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. William Chadwell,North Shore Gardens, stated he did speak with Dr.Martinson and that the doctor had expressed a concern regarding the slope. Chadwell stated the retaining wall stops prior to reaching Dr.Martinson's property. Chadwell stated he also spoke with Lee Sundet and that Mr. Sundet indicated he would like to wait to see what the City had to say regarding this property. Chadwell stated he was later informed that the neighbors would be notified regarding this application and so he then did not contact any other neighbors. Chadwell stated he did take some photographs of the property. The retaining wall should not be visible from the Sundet properly and he therefore did not feel it necessary to continue to address Mr. Sundet's concerns since his concerns related mainly to his view of the retaining wall. Chadwell stated he did speak with the City Engineer on Friday and that he was advised not to proceed any further until after he appeared before the Planning Commission. Chadwell stated this property was basically left in limbo while the other two adjoining properties were corrected and that in his opinion the only way to permanently correct this problem is to construct retaining walls. Chadwell stated he understands there are some issues with the view of the retaining wall from the lake and that he has been in contact with a representative from the DNR about planting appropriate vegetation that is suitable for this area. Rahn stated city code allows for one three to four foot width stairway to the lake and that there are a number of staircases proposed going down to the lake. Rahn stated this plan does not appear to meet what the City typically allows for access to the lake,which is a three to four foot wide stairway. Rahn inquired what type of stone would be utilized. Chadwell stated the stones would be a natural stone similar to a marble and is not sandstone. Rahn expressed a concern regarding the amount of hardcover being proposed with this plan. Marzan stated he purchased this property because it was wooded and that he would like to plant trees by the walls but that he has a concern that the roots would push the walls out. Marzan stated he has had difficulty getting any vegetation to grow in this area. Marzan stated his first preference is to construct a retaining wall. � PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3243 NORTH SHORE GARDENS, CONTINUED) Rahn stated there is no doubt that the applicant needs some type of system to stabilize the slope and that the issue is the design. Marzan stated the rocks being proposed weigh approximately 1800 pounds apiece and that the decking . will be removed. Marzan stated whatever is constructed in this area,he would require some type of access to maintain it. Rahn stated it is a matter of design and that the Planning Commission is not going to get into designing a plan for the applicant tonight. Rahn noted the applicant is allowed one stairway three to four feet in width to allow access to the lake. Marzan stated the plan that would call for the least amount of hardcover is a stairway that goes straight down to the lake. • Kempf stated essentially the view from the lake there would be approximately a 20-foot high wall and . that it would not be very aesthetically pleasing. Kempf noted there would be two ten-foot drops and that the terracing�does not allow the property to be very useable. Kempf stated if a 2:1 slope were properly planted,it would not fall into the lake. Marzan inquired whether Commissioner Kempf is talking about cutting back into the yard. Kempf stated he is talking about going back 17 feet. Marzan indicated that would be difficult to do given the location of a large tree in that area. Kempf stated this lot is lower than the lot to the east and that the cut would help this property fit more into the existing contour of that lot. Kempf stated in order to save the tree, a wall could be constructed around the tree in a semi-circle. Kempf stated the City does not like to see a lot of lawn down by the lakeshore to avoid the use of fertilizers and other chemicals down by the lakeshore. Marzan stated on the left side of that area there are a number of trees and that he looked at this more from an economical standpoint. Marzan�stated he looked at a number of options to correct this situation and - that he has been told he would lose all the trees if the yard is cut into. Marzan stated the water on the lot has a tendency to go around the tree. Marzan stated they are looking to tenace the walls properly and plant some landscaping to help stabilize the slope and screen the walls. - Kempf stated he would like to see a brealdng up of the series of long straight walls that go from one edge of the property to the other. Marzan stated a wall wrapped around the tree would look nice aesthetically and that he understands the City's concerns about a straight wall across the property. � PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION � . Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3243 NORTH SHORE GARDENS,CONTINUED) Rahn stated in his opinion the applicant would be better off to have multiple tiers and that there are methods for creating more slope. Rahn suggested the applicant work with Staff and consider constructing . a multi-tier wall. . Marzan stated he appreciates the comments of the Planning Commission. Bremer stated there are plenty of good examples of similar type retaining walls with screening that work well in this area and that the applicant should perhaps consider doing something similar.Bremer stated she does not feel that two of these large sized walls are in the applicant's best interests, especially given the fact that the applicant has small children. Bremer stated she would like to see at least three tiers. Marzan stated this has been a learning experience for him. Marzan stated the existing stairway has to be removed and asked whether he would be allowed to construct a wall in the area of the stairs. Marzan staetd the area to the right should also be addressed. Rahn stated the City Engineer basically would review the plans that are submitted by the applicant and determine whether they will work properly. Marzan stated they would be back with an alternative plan. Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#06-3243,North Shore Gardens on behalf of Richard Marzan,2795 Pheasant Road,to allow the applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (Recess taken at 8:57 p.m.—9:04 p.m.) 6. 06-3245 SHARRATT/MANEY FOR LAURENCE AND ARDELL JONES,3605 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,9:04—9:23 P.M. Mike Maney,Applicant,was present. Turner stated the applicant is requesting the following variances to construct a second story and attached garage to the existing residence: 1. A lakeshore setback of 52.8 feet when 75 feet is required; 2. A street setback of 19.97 feet when 30 feet is required; 3. A structural lot coverage of 18.77 percent when 15 percent is allowed; 4. A 16 percent hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone when none is allowed; 5. A 53.8 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when 25 percent is allowed. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF T� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. � . (#06-3245 SHARRATT/MANEY, CONTINUED) � Turner illustrated the location of the addition and the extension of the wall on the existing house. The majority of the increase in structural coverage comes from the garage addition,which measures 24 feet by 26 feet. The existing garage and shed tota1414 square feet,which is enough to construct a 20 by 20.7 foot garage. The applicant has indicated the additional garage space would be in lieu of a basement. It would also provide storage space for gasoline-powered equipment that should not be stored in within the living area. The larger garage would also allow space for landscaping between the driveway and the house. The new lakeside overhang is mostly over the patio so it does not increase hardcover. If a new house were being constructed with the same size garage as proposed,the maximum living space would be about 3,600 square feet. The remodeled house would have about 2,700 square feet of living space. Staff suggests the Commission take into consideration the design of the second story to resemble a half-story and the conversion of the enclosed living space closest to the lake into an open porch, Turner stated the only new encroachment into the average lakeshore setback would be a small portion of the roof over the porch that will be created from what is now enclosed living space. The Commission should consider if it is appropriate to prohibit the enclosure of the porch or the area under the new overhang. The allowed hardcover would probably only allow the portion of the shared roadway that is outside the easement. . Staff is recommending approval of the setback variance from North Shore Drive subject to review of the width of the shared roadway by the Fire Marshal and approval of the structural lot coverage, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback variances to the open porch and lakeside overhang not being converted to enclosed space. Maney stated he is considering purchase of the property and that their desire is to live on Lake Minnetonka while at the same time being sensitive to the hardcover and water runoff issues relating to the lake. Mike Sharratt addressed the Planning Commission briefly regarding the design of the structure,noting that they are substantially remodeling the structure but utilizing the first floor foundation. Sharratt stated � the entrance has been carved in to give relief to the long wall Sharratt stated they have attempted to � make as many things as conforming as possible and that the addition to the second floor is close to a story and a half configuration. Sharratt stated the rooflines are sloping from the driveway area back to the lake,with some dormers in ' between. An attempt has been made to reduce the massing of the structure and a two-car garage is being proposed. Sharratt noted there is no basement to this structure. The design calls for a slightly higher height than what currently exists. Bremer noted the hardcover removals are in excess of what is being added but that the structural coverage � is increasing. Sharratt stated the increase in structural coverage is due to the addition of the second car garage. � PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. . (#06-3245 SHARRATT/MANEY,CONTINUED) Bremer opened the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Bremer closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. � Bremer stated the improvements are spectacular but that she has a concern with the amount of structural coverage being proposed. Bremer stated the City typically does not allow for structural coverage in excess of 15 percent and that the Planning Commission will need to decide whether the addition of the second car garage is reasonable. Bremer indicated she personally feels it is reasonable to have a second garage stall in Minnesota and that she does not see anywhere that the structure could be reduced. Rahn stated the garage is somewhat oversized but that it is better than having outdoor storage. Rahn stated he likes the story and a half design. Kroeger stated he feels it is a great design and that he would support it. Kempf stated he appreciates the fact that the rooflines have decreased the living space somewhat and that he would be in favor of the application. Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3245,Sharatt Design on behalf of Michael and Karen Maney and Laurence&Ardell Jones,3605 North Shore Drive, granting variances to lakeshore setback,street setback,structural lot coverage,and hardcover, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff s November 20,2006 report. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 7. 06-3246 HIGHMARK BUILDERS,INC.,ON BEHALF OF MARY JO PETERSON,4205 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,9:23—9:55 P.M. Jay Morris,Highmark Builders,was present. Turner stated the applicant is requesting the following variances to allow construction of a replacement residence: Lot area of 0.62 acres when 1.0 acre is required; lot width of 60 feet when 140 feet is required; and 32.3 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when 25 percent is allowed. Turner stated the application was made on the basis of the City Council adopting the proposed definitions of story and basement on November 13, 2006. However, Council tabled the code amendment for further study. Under the current definition,the basement is counted as story. Since the third level is not a half-story,the house exceeds the two and a half story limit. Turner stated there are a number of unresolved issues with this application and recommended the Planning Commission hold the public hearing,table the item,and provide the applicant direction. Turner PAGE 18 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3246 HIGHMARK BUILDERS,INC., CONTINUED) stated she did speak with the applicant this afternoon and he has indicated he has started to address some of the issues raised by Staff. Bremer stated it is difficult for the Planning Commission to hear an application when it is not complete and that in her view it really is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear incomplete applications. Bremer noted a resident did hand the Planning Commissioners some information prior to the application being heard. Morris stated the neighbor's concern regarding the height is the reason for the application not being complete. Turner stated what made the application incomplete was that it was submitted as a complete application and technically the plans do not comply with the City's regulations since the code change was not approved. Morris stated they did not have time to submit a revised plan. Morris stated they are requesting the variance because of the existing sewer line that intersects approximately 210 feet from the setback to the lakeshore,which is causing the proposed home to be located closer to the lake. Morris stated they are attempting to design a home with a number of amenities but they are restricted in the size of the structure due to the easements. Morris provided Staff with some revised hardcover numbers. Morris noted the structural coverage is well below the allowable limit. Rahn stated it does not appear that the proposed home is going to fit on this lot and that he is not in favor of a variance to the average lakeshore setback even though this is a hardship lot. Rahn stated in his opinion the house can be redesigned to fit better on the lot. Morris stated the garage has been reduced by a foot and a half to allow the house to slide further back on the lot. Morris indicated they are not locating the house any closer to the lake and that they are using the deck as the farthest part of the new home. Morris stated the adjacent lot to the west is 958 feet and this lot is 951 feet. Turner stated the existing house on the west end is one story and the deck is actually below the level of the neighbor's house. Turner stated the existing house does already encroach into the average lakeshore setback but that the neighbor's view is not impacted because the neighbor's house is approximately one story higher than this house. Bremer stated she understands the hardship created by the easement. Bremer inquired how big the buildable area is. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3246 HIGALAND BUILDERS,CONTINUED) Gaffron stated the mid point of the lot would be 80 feet from the south line of the easement and there would be approximately 60 feet of width between the two ten-foot setbacks. Morris stated the width of the house is 44 feet and there is a ten-foot setback on each side. Morris pointed out the existing house has a two-foot setback. Bremer stated the Planning Commission has to understand the amount of buildable area available in order to determine whether there is a hardship. Bremer opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. William Titler,2184 Shadywood Road, stated he owns the property at 4209 Shadywood and that he is in the process of constructing a home on that lot. Titler stated they were aware that the sewer line was in that location prior to purchasing the property. ` Titler stated there is more buildable area behind the easement than there is in front of the easement and that the buildable area is between 1900 and 2000 square feet. Titler pointed out there is more buildable area behind the easement than there is in front of the easement. Titler stated the hardcover numbers are based on the idea that there is an easement that exists and that the applicant is asking for approximately 864 square feet of extra hardcover. Titler stated if the easement did not exist and the house was constructed at the average lakeshore setback line,they would need to construct 27 feet of additional driveway. Title stated 784 square feet is enough to construct 90 to 100 lineal feet of eight-foot wide driveway and that in reality the easement is being used as a convenience to locate the house in front of the average lakeshore setback line and that they could not construct the house all the way down to the easement within the hardcover limits. Titler stated it is unreasonable to think that you can push a house all the way down to the average lakeshore setback and meet the hardcover numbers on this lot unless they constructed a very small house. Titler stated there is no hardship for the hardcover. Titler stated the house could be fit into the buildable area with a detached garage. Titler pointed out that the design of their house would allow them to see out over the existing residence but that if the proposed residence is constructed in the proposed location,it would obsiruct their view of the lake. Titler expressed concerns regarding the runoff off of the driveway. There were no further public comments. Bremer closed the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Bremer stated in her opinion the applicant has ample room to construct a house behind the average lakeshore setback and that the applicant could also look at constructing a detached garage. Bremer stated in her view the neighbor's view of the lake would be severely impacted by the new residence. PAGE 20 � MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3246 HIGHLAND BUILDERS,CONTINU�D) Kempf stated he is in agreement that the house should not protrude past the average lakeshore setback and that in his opinion some of the nicest views of the lake could be obtained by constructing a corner of the house at a 45-degree angle. . � Morris stated the proposed design of the house and the reason for the setback variance is that they are trying to be conscious of the configuration and the size of the lot. Morris stated in this price range a detached garage is not a very good option and that they would prefer to have an attached garage without impacting the neighbors. Morris stated this is the last lot in a siretch of five lots to be developed and that the two new homes are not in their original position. Titler commented the structure he tore down was further back of the average lakeshore line. Morris stated they are trying to do the best they can to design a house that will fit within the buildable area,which is approximately 1800 square feet. Rahn inquired whether the applicant was aware of the average lakeshore setback prior to designing the house. Morris stated it is more of an issue with the grading because everything drains from right to left down to the lake. Morris stated they are attempting to reduce the need to do a lot of grading on the lot. Kempf stated there are options for reasonable use of the property without the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Morris stated given the location of the easement and the size of the home,the hardcover is at 31 percent and inquired what amount of hardcover the Planning Commission would like to see for this lot. Bremer stated the Planning Commission is not going to give the applicant a definite hardcover number to meet. Bremer stated she prefers to see 25 percent hardcover on new construction but that there might be some characteristics unique to this lot that can be demonstrated which would justify a higher hardcover number. Kroeger moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#06-3246,Mary Jo Peterson,4205 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. (Recess taken at 9:55 p.m.—10:03 p.m.) PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 8. 06-3248 JOHN HOLLANDER,200 HOLLANDER ROAD,VARIANCE, 10:03—10:58 P.M. John Hollander,Applicant,was present. Turner stated the applicant is requesting a fence height variance to allow him to increase the height of the existing fence back to 56 inches. The maximum allowed by the zoning code is 42 inches. The fence is . located within the 50-foot setback,which is why the maximum allowed is 42 inches. The existing fence was constructed on the property approximately three years ago and was originally 56 inches high. In response to a notice from the Building Official,the applicant in 2006 removed the top of it to reduce the height of the fence to less than 42 inches. The variance would allow the fence to be restored to its original height. The applicant has stated he has a right to privacy. Staff feels that while a person does have a right to privacy,that right is not absolute. � Hollander stated that is not correct. Bremer requested the applicant allow Staff to finish their report. Hollander indicated he is aware of the law and that the statement that the right of privacy is not absolute is misleading. Hollander stated what is meant by not absolute is in regards to an emergency. Bremer requested the applicant stop and to let Staff finish their report. Hollander indicated he is hard of hearing and is not able to hear. Bremer repeated that Staff has an opportunity to speak and that the applicant will then have a chance to speak regarding his application. � Hollander commented he is familiar with the law and that he has been a real estate broker since 1989. Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance as detrimental to public safety and as not within the parameters found in City Ordinance Section 78-123. � Hollander stated he also is a minister and has resided in the City of Orono since 1956. Hollander stated he has run for city office every two years and is very familiar with the boundaries of the City. Hollander indicated he constructed the fence in the summer of 2003 and that after it was built,it was approved by the City of Orono Planning Department. Bremer inquired whether that was the sewer inspector that approved the fence. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006� , ` 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3248 I30LLANDER, CONTINUED) Hollander stated he would get to that. Hollander stated prior to the fence going up in 2003, for two years in a row friends of his helped him clean up his yard and each year they found numerous golf balls in his yard. Hollander stated he does not reside close to the golf course but that he has experienced two or three broken windows on the south side of his home due to golf balls and that a golf ball came close to hitting an acquaintance of his. Hollander stated prior to the fence being constructed,he has witnessed people walking through his yard and that he found remnants of a fire by his back door. Hollander stated after the fence was put up, a no trespassing sign was erected in an effort to keep people and golf balls out of his yard. Hollander stated he has been a real estate broker since 1989 and that reduction of the height of the fence has decreased the value of his property. Hollander stated the fence was built along the contour of the land and the fence helped increase the value of the property to over one million dollars and that in the past year he has invested a considerable amount of money into the property. Hollander indicated the fence was built during the summer of 2003,inspected by the City of Orono,and approved in the summer of 2003. Hollander stated there is a two-year statute of limitations on the fence . and that the City is not in a position to require removal of the fence. Hollander stated he is not currently residing in the house. Hollander requested the Planning Commission read the affidavit that he has submitted. Hollander noted he has provided some photographs to the Planning Commission depicting fences throughout the City that are too high or violate the City's fence standards in some manner. Hollander pointed out there is a mistake in the photographs he has submitted and that there are three fences located in Wayzata that should not have been included. � Hollander displayed a photograph of a split rail fence and stated that the City allows a split rail fence if it encloses animals. Hollander stated the split rail fence that is depicted in one of his photographs does not enclose any horses. Bremer noted the Planning Commissioners do have the photographs in front of them. Hollander stated he informed the building inspector and the city administrator approximately three months about the fence off of Spring Hill Road on North Spring Road and that he was told the fence is under investigation. Hollander questioned the need to investigate the fence and that all that is required is a measurement of the fence. To date the City of Orono has not cited any of the other property owners whose fences are in violation and instead have only cited him,which is discrimination. Bremer stated she has reviewed all the photographs submitted by the applicant. Hollander stated the fence on Turham Road as well as some other fences within the City also do not house any animals. � � PAGE 23 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3248 HOLLANDER, CONTINUED) Bremer inquired whether the applicant submitted the affidavit of Kevin Rodewald. Hollander stated Kevin Rodewald supervised the building of the fence in 2003 and that he did submit that document. Hollander displayed another photograph of a fence that does not house animals. Kempf stated he understands the point of the applicant. � Bremer stated the Planning Commission will be looking at the pictures and encouraged the applicant to proceed to the next issue. Hollander recited the legal definition of the word discrimination according to Barrons Law Dictionary and stated that if the City is going to cite him for having a fence that is in violation of City rules,the City should also be citing the other property owners whose fences are in violation. Hollander recited the legal definition for privacy,noting that he already explained what the absolute right to privacy means. Hollander stated the right to privacy entitles him to the condition or state of being free from public attention to intrusion into or interference with ones acts or decisions. Hollander noted it was mentioned in Staff's report that his front door was left open. Hollander explained his front door was probably left open because work was being done on the house at the time and that Staff should have come up to the house and asked him why the door was open. . Hollander stated he has over 400 hours in real estate continuing education and that in his view he should not be treated in this manner and that he has a right to be treated fairly and equally according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States. Hollander stated he is subj ected to scrutiny by the building inspector every two years when he runs for public office. Hollander noted the City of Orono declared his house a hazardous building siructure and that he reached an agreement with the City. Hollander suggested this application be tabled to allow the City to visit his property. Hollander illustrated on the overhead a drainage ditch and noted that he is required by law to extend the drainage. In the past he has experienced four feet of water in his basement,which is also part of the reason for the fence. Bremer stated the Planning Commission has a good understanding of the application and that she would like to open the public hearing at this time. Bremer indicated after the public hearing she would again ask the applicant if he had any comments. Bremer opened the public hearing at 10:29 p.m. Cassidy Burns,205 Hollander Road, stated she would speak on behalf of the neighborhood. Burns stated the neighbors are opposed to the variance and questioned whether the fence was truly constructed in 2003. David Burns stated it definitely was not constructed in 2003 but rather in 2006. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAIVNING COMNIISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. � (#06-3248 HOLLANDER, CONTINUED) Mrs.Burns distributed photographs of the fence. Burns stated the fence is an eyesore and that there is considerable garbage,vehicles, and other discarded items on the property and that the garage is.not completely finished. Burns reiterated the neighbors are opposed to the variance. Blare McKeever,215 Hollander Road, stated he has lived on Hollander Road for 15 years and has witnessed hundreds of violations of city ordinances by the applicant and that he sirongly objects to the fence in its entirety. McKeever noted someone removed the top of the fence and left it lay on the ground, which is depicted in the pictures. McKeever stated the fence was not constructed in 2003. James Patton,260 Hollander Road, stated they are not talking about a split rail fence but rather a barricade constructed out of other discarded pieces of fence and is basically an eyesore. Patton expressed a concern regarding the amount of garbage and abandoned vehicles located on the property. David Burns,205 Hollander Road, stated the fact of the matter is that the applicant should be held to the same standards that the rest of the residents are held to. Burns stated the applicant is probably hiding some things with the fence and that he has concerns regarding the safety of his young children given the condition of this property. Molly McKeever,215 Hollander Road, stated the state of the applicant's property has continually progressed over the past 17 years they have resided on their property and that in her opinion he has maliciously done this over the years in retaliation for their complaints. McKeever stated there are abandoned cars, abandoned boats,trash, animal cages,as well as numerous other items,which attracts a number of vagrant animals. McKeever stated the condition of this property is a cause of concern for the safety of their children and that the applicant should be held to the same standards that the rest of the citizens are. Bremer stated the application before the Planning Commission deals strictly with the fence. Kevin Rodewald, stated he was there in 2002 when the fence posts were put in and that he helped finished the fence in 2003,with a portion of the fence being finished in 2004. Bremer closed the public hearing at 10:37 p.m. Bremer requested the applicant limit his comments to one minute. Hollander stated the fence was reduced when he received a threatening letter from Building Inspector Lyle Oman. Hollander stated he was told if the fence was not removed,he would be taken to court and that he requested an extension of time. Hollander indicated he never received a response from the city on the request. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF TI� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION � � Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3248 HOLLANDER, CONTINUED) Hollander stated the vehicles are perfectly legal and that every single vehicle is currently licensed and driveable. Hollander stated if the neighbors were speaking of trash on his property,they should not be on his property since it is private property. Hollander indicated he does have a bunch of lumber in his back yard and that the front yard is not cluttered and has no trash. Hollander stated it costs him$700 a month to reside in a motel and that he would like to finish work on his house. , Hollander stated as far as he knew when the City inspected the fence in 2003 and approved it,he thought it was okay and that they proceeded to make repairs to the house. Hollander stated they have made a number of improvements to the house and pointed out that there is no garbage located in the front of his house. Hollander stated the fence boards were left there because he did not know what the outcome of this proceeding would be. Bremer inquired what person at the City told the applicant that his fence would be okay. Hollander stated it was someone who worked under Lyle Oman and that he is not sure whether Evelyn works under Lyle. Bremer stated Evelyn was not here in 2003. Hollander stated the city had hired a young man who inspected the sewers but also had lrnowledge of fences and so on. Lyle Oman had requested this person to inspect the fence,which he did. Hollander stated Lyle Oman has driven by the fence numerous times and should have said something before three years went by. - Bremer inquired whether Mr.Hollander received any written documentation from the City approving the fence. Hollander stated it does not matter whether the fence was approved or not and that if the City waits three years after the fence is constructed to request that it be lowered,that the statute of limitations has expired. Bremer stated she is not agreeing with the applicant and that the law is what it is but that is not for the Planning Commission or applicant to decide at this point.. Hollander stated the City of Orono has violated the statute of limitations because it has two years from the time the fence was erected. Hollander repeated the fence was put up in 2003. Bremer stated if the fence were located 50 feet from the lot line,the applicant could have a fence six feet ta1L Hollander stated 50 feet comes from the drainage easement along Hollander Road. Hollander demonstrated the drainage easement on the overhead. Hollander stated if he constructed a fence 50 feet PAGE 26 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. • (#06-3248 CONTINUED) from his property line,it would not stop people from coming onto his property. Hollander stated he has a right to privacy and that he has resided in this community since 1956 and in that house since 1972. Hollander stated he constructed the fence because of his neighbors coming onto his property and the number of golf balls that he finds on this property every year. Hollander stated a fence at 50 feet would not protect his house and would be too close to the house. , Hollander stated if the City changed the ordinance to 50 feet from the center of the roadway,that would be a different situation. Hollander pointed out the center of the roadway is not always the center of the easement and that most roads in Minnesota are easement because the land was not purchased by the city. Kroeger stated issues of privacy and safety are important but that those things can be accomplished with a fence that is constructed in accordance with City ordinances. Hollander stated he does not want people walking through his back yard snooping and that he has a right to his privacy. Hollander stated if the neighbors are agreeable to providing an affidavit that they would not come onto his property, and if they do;they will be put in jail for three years,he would be fine with that. Kroeger stated in his opinion a 42-inch fence should provide the applicant the protection he feels he needs. . Hollander inquired whether any golf balls were found on his property after the fence was put up. Rodewald stated they found five golf balls. Rahn stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Kroeger and that he does not understand how a 14-nch taller fence would help the applicant's cause. Kempf stated he also agrees with the other commissioners and that the City's fence ordinance is very . understandable and easy to comply with. Kempf commented he is surprised that the neighbors would object to a higher fence given the condition of the applicant's property. Kempf stated it appears there is some conflict going on in this neighborhood and that it is unfortunate that the rieighbors do not see the applicant as the local color in the neighborhood and allow him his space. Kempf stated the fence has to meet the City's ordinances,and that if the applicant prefers privacy,he should consider planting a row of arborvitaes or something green. Hollander stated he cannot afford that because he is on social security. Hollander stated he expects to see the other property owners whose fences are in violation will be cited within the next week. Hollander stated the fences depicted in his photographs are not 42 inches tall and have not been cited by the City. Hollander stated his affidavit is part of the legal record of tonight's hearing and that he has enough information to win a lawsuit against the City. Hollander indicated he is tired and has to leave. PAGE 27 : MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION . Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3248 HOLLANDER, CONTINUED) Bremer indicated the Planning Commission would be making a formal motion on the application. Hollander stated the City is discriminating against him. Bremer inquired why the applicant stated the City could table his application earlier in the evening. Hollander stated he wanted the Planning Commissioners to have enough time to read his information thoroughly and that he would also like the City's attorney to review his affidavit. Hollander stated this situation is also causing him emotional distress and that the Planning Commission should thoroughly • review the situation. Bremer stated the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and that the applicant can plead his case to the City Council. ' . Hollander indicated he is aware of that. Bremer stated the City Council would have the benefit of all the notes and documents that the applicant • has referred to and that the applicant will then have another opportunity to present his case to the Council. Hollander stated he understands that and that typically the Orono City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Hollander recommended the Planning Commission table his application to allow everyone time to review all the documentation prior to making a decision. Bremer stated the Planning Commission typically would table an application if it is incomplete. Bremer asked whether there is any additional information that the applicant would like to submit as part of his application. Hollander stated he feels his application is complete but that the Planning Commission may not have had sufficient time to review the information. Kroeger and Bremer indicated they have read the information. Bremer requested both affidavits be included as part of the record. Kempf moved,Kroeger seconded,#06-3248,200 Hollander Road,to recommend denial of the fence height variance. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ` PAGE 28 MINUTES OF TAE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. . 9. 06-3249 CITY OF ORONO,OUTLOT A,STONEBAY,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, 10:58—11:30 P.M. Steve Johnston, Stonebay,was present. Gaffron stated the City of Orono is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment that was brought on behalf of the City and is specifically an amendment to reguide Outlot A of Stonebay back to essentially what it was guided in the'2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has reviewed a number of applications for this site, and in 2004, did some guide plan revisions that would have allowed,in addition to the primary office use on Outlot A,would have allowed certain uses to be allowed,including a pharmacy. Additional parameters have been included on how retail could be expanded on that site. In conjunction with the Hempel application,the City Council spent considerable time discussing whether they felt the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment was still appropriate and came to the conclusion that it may not be. Council has directed Staff to proceed forward with the process of returning this area back to the original zoning for this property. � Gaffron stated there are some factors which may have some bearing on how the reguiding back to primarily office is structured, including: 1. The original guiding for office with"minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use"might need additional detail added to describe exactly what accessory uses are; � 2. Some of the parameters established for retail in 2004 might be applicable to an office development on the site and should be retained; such as the requirement for orientation to the stormwater pond as an amenity,the limits on building sizes or architectural styles, etc. Procedurally,this CMP Amendment requires approval of the Metropolitan Council. However,this is expected to be viewed as a minor amendment,will have no new or unplanned-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by the Metropolitan Council. Gaffron stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include: 1. Does the Planning Commission agree with the Council's intent to return to the former provisions of the CMP with regards to Outlot A? 2. Are there any specific elements of the original CMP language(first part of Exhibit A of • Resolution No., 5190)that should be revised or clarified with this amendment? 3. Planning Commission should consider whether there are any negative impacts to proceeding with a rezoning of the site to match the CMP. Staff and the City Attorney recommend that Outlot A be rezoned to B-6 PUD with reference to a basic � undeveloped survey of the property as the approved development plan. The rezoning would be structured so that an amendment of the B-6 PUD zoning would be required for any development plan proposed for � . PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3249 CITY OF ORONO—STONEBAY,CONTINUED) the site. In this way,the B-6 PUD zoning becomes the holding zone and this would allow for the zoning and comp plan to be consistent as required by State Statute. Gaffron noted he received two of the public notices back today from Dahlstrom Development,LLC, and . John Terrance Homes,LLC. Although the City's notices were sent correctly,the forwarding of their mail by the United States Postal Service had expired. Gaffron stated Staff did receive an e-mail today from the group that owns the property asking for, one,notice of the next public hearing and,two,tabling the application for 180 days. Staff feels the 180 days is totally unreasonable and that notice being given of the application being heard at the January meeting of the Planning Commission is reasonable. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has the option to discuss this application. Bremer opened the public hearing at 11:08 p.m. Steve Johnston, 3230 Shadowood Drive, stated he would like to see this application tabled at least until the January meeting. Johnston indicated he is a fairly close resident to this site and that he does not have use for office on this property and that he would prefer the convenience of retail. Johnston stated he would like to see the application tabled to allow the residents to come forward and speak on what they would like to see happen on this site. Steve Johnston,John Terrance Homes, stated the address used was the old field office,which was the reason why the mail was not received. Johnston stated Planner Gaffron informed him approximately ten days ago about the hearing. John Terrance Homes would also request the application be tabled to the January Planning Commission meeting. Bremer closed the public hearing at 11:11 p.m. Bremer stated she can understand why people need legitimate public notice and that tabling this application to the January meeting would allow for that. Bremer stated she personally does not feel retail is that bad for this site but that she would prefer not to see a Walgreen's at this location. Bremer commented rezoning to B-6 PUD would give the City some flexibility on what could be developed on this site. Bremer inquired to whom the public notice was sent to. Gaffron stated notice went out to all residential and business property owners within 350 feet of the boundary. Gaffron stated it would not have included notice to the people residing in the condominiums and is also posted in certain spots throughout the City. Gaffron stated they take the addresses off the Hennepin County tax records. Johnston stated he would have to get the addresses changed at Hennepin County. PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3249 CITY OF ORONO—STONEBAY, CONTINUED) Bremer stated in her opinion there was good public notice given but that she would be willing to table the application based on the comments of Steve Johnston. Gaffron inquired whether the distance of the people being notified should be increased. Gaffron stated the City requires a 350-foot notification. Bremer stated she does not lmow if that was not sufficient in this case,but would not be opposed to sending out public notice to a wider area given the density. Gaffron stated all the legal notices are handed to the police department and they are supposed to be posted at the same time that the notices are sent out. Gaffron stated legal notice is posted at the Long Lake Post Office. Gaffron indicated he would ask the police department whether the notices are getting posted. Bremer inquired whether there is also notice given in the newspaper. Gaffron stated there is also notice given in the newspaper. Kempf stated he is not opposed to tabling the application and that he is not opposed to some type of retail on this site. Kroeger stated this is a city-wide issue and suggested the local papers write an article concerning the subject. Kroeger stated this application involves a major decision of the City concerning that area and that it would be beneficial to have as many people provide input as possible. Kempf asked whether a PUD would require further restrictions of the B-6 District. Gaffron stated with a planned unit development process the City has some flexibility in working with the developer on the various issues as well as density. Gaffron stated the Stonebay development was a planned unit development. State statutes require that there be some consistency between the City's zoning and the Comprehensive Plan and that the City Attorney has recommended the area be zoned as close as possible to the type of district that it is guided for in the Comprehensive Plan. Johnston noted a PUD requires a four-fifths vote,which gives the City even more control over the development. Gaffron stated a list of uses or other parameters could be included in the Commissioners' packets if they would find that helpful. � Bremer requested as much guidance be provided as possible. Rahn moved,Kroeger seconded,to table Application#06-3249, City of Orono, Outlot A, Stonebay,Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the January Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PAGE 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CODZNIISSION Monday,November 20,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMIV�NTS 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 23 AND NOVEMBER 13,2006 Kempf reported on the November 13"'Council meeting,noting that the Lake Minnetonka Communications Corrunission made a presentation to the Council on whether it is feasible to have a wireless network in the City. Kempf reported that in addition the application on Manor Circle was approved with a waiver of the fees and the St.Edwards Church application was also approved with a waiver of the fees. The Council followed the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Dunkley application. Kempf reported the ordinance regarding the definition of basements was tabled. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 12. PLAN1vING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 16,2006 Rahn moved,Kroeger seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 16,2006. VOTE: Ayes 4,nays 0. 13. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 27 AND DECEMBER 11,2006 November 27—Kroeger December 11 —Kempf ADJOURNMENT Rahn moved,Kroeger seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. � � d�. Chair �o.v�ct R�ti n PAGE 32 '