HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2009 Planning Commission Minutes t r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONINIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009 .
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Ralph Kempf, Commissioners Denise Leskinen,Loren Schoenzeit,Kim Kang,Tess Rice, and
Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy
Michael Gaffron,Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis and Recorder Jackie Young. Council
Member James Murphy was present.
Chair Kempf called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos.4, 5, and 6 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Chair Kempf asked whether the Neves are agreeable to painting the shed the same color as the main
structure on the property.
Jim Neve stated they would be painting the shed the same color as the main siructure.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding Items 4, 5, and 6.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Berg moved,Rice seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20,2009
Berg moved,Rice seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meting of
July 20,2009,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #05-3164 CITY OF ORONO,CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE,6:35 P.M.—
6:58 P.M. .
Gaffron stated in 2004,the City Council hired a consulting firm to design values that make up its rural
character,which has become lrnown as the Orono Rural Oasis Study. A principal goal of the study was to
identify methods to preserve and enhance those values while at the same time allowing for continued
residential development. The resulting"Conservation Design"development parameters embraced by the
City have been found to have equal applicability to rural density development. However, implementation
of these parameters has to date been unstructured since an ordinance formalizing them has never been
adopted.
PAGE 1
' r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATIONDESIGN ORDINANCE, 6:35 P.M. — 6:SS
P.M., Continued)
The Planning Commission has previously reviewed a draft of the ordinance back in November of 2005.
The Commission at that time indicated that while the idea of a density bonus was reasonable,the
ordinance should provide the Council with substantial flexibility in whether to grant such a bonus and in
determining the magnitude of the bonus for a given application. However, since the density bonus was
viewed as the primary incentive for developers to follow Conservation Design principles,exclusion of
specific standards was seen by staff as leaving a significant gap in the ordinance.
The ordinance,as drafted, establishes the basic requirements for Conservation Design, defines the basic
application submittal requirements, and provides a list of topics to be addressed by the developer. It does
not,however,include a detailed set of performance standards for each topic Detailed performance
standards that often appear in Conservation Design ordinances in other jurisdictions include:
1. Expanded goals or directives that specify more detail as to what Conservation Design is intended
to accomplish.
2. Detailed methods for calculating the net buildable area or site capacity.
3. Establishment of setbacks and separation distances for cluster development.
4. Numerical formulas for determining density bonuses.
5. Extensive detailed standards for common open space areas such as size, dimensions,location,
natural feature preservation, encroachments,allowed uses,required management practices.
6. Standards for landscaping that include credits for preservation of existing vegetation, guidelines
for the use of street trees, detailed requirements for establishment of buffers between and among
housing clusters and streets,lists of appropriate trees to plant and invasive species to remove.
7. Detail on optional methods of common space ownership an maintenance and requirements to
provide plans and funding for long-term maintenance and stewardship of protected areas.
8. Evaluation criteria to be used by the City in determining whether the goals of Conservation
Design have been met.
Included in the draft ordinance under basic conservation design master plan requirements and evaluation
criteria include requiring the developer to prepare a conservation design master plan for development of
the property which addresses the following topics:
1. Consideration of the existing drainage system;
2. Establishment of a stormwater management system,using multi-cell treatment principles;
3. Removal of invasive species and diseased trees;
4. Protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals,
including mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities;
PAGE 2
� �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATIONDESIGN ORDINANCE, 6:35 P.M. — 6:58
P.M., Continued)
5. Protection of existing wetlands,including augmentation of buffers,mitigation of impacts, and
enhancement of degraded systems;
6. No negative impact to ecological communities of quality levels A and B;
7. Maintenance of ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural
Resource Inventory;
8. Maintenance and protection of existing views;
9. Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landsmarks; and
10. No modification of ecological community, as described by the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification System.
In addition,the draft ordinance contains density bonus standards for residential development in Orono's
defined urban areas. Within the urban density area,developers will have the opportunity to increase the
base density by going above and beyond the Basic Conservation Design Master Plan requirement. By
implementing a combination of development enhancements that not only preserve but improve the natural
characteristics of the property or preserve and enhance existing landmarks,the developer shall become
eligible for a density bonus. The extent of such density bonus shall be determined by the City Council.
Development enhancements include but are not limited to the following:
1. Reforestation beyond existing woodland limits;
2. Water quality improvements;
3. Improvements in ecological grade of existing communities;
4. Upgrading of edge buffering to maximum,or tunneled, character;
5. Major preservation or enhancement of existing landmarks.
The developer shall establish and implement measures that will ensure the preservation and maintenance
of those elements of the development that are determined to require long-term or permanent protection
from development or misuse. Such measures may include but are not limited to: conservation easements;
deed restrictions;private covenants,transfer of ownership to agencies such as the Minnesota Land Trust
or the Nature Conservancy, or to the City via dedication.
Staff recommends approval of the Conservation Design Ordinance.
Kang asked if this ordinance would apply to any purchasers of the property beyond the initial buyer.
Gaffron stated typically covenants are filed with the chain of title, so any future buyer would have the
ability to lrnow what the requirements and covenants on the property are.
PAGE 3
. ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATIONDESIGN ORDINANCE, 6:35 P.M. — 6:SS
P.M., Continued)
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Jennifer Haskamp,453 Bremhall Street, St.Paul,stated she was asked to review the ordinance by the
owner of Stonegate Farms. In her view,the ordinance is very positive in terms of looking at conservation
principles and ideas to protect our natural resources. In addition,using density incentives in an effort to
encourage developers to develop in a more ecological sensitive way is a fantastic approach.
Haskamp noted the ordinance uses a number of standardized tools, such as the MLCCS,which is
extremely helpful. One of her concerns relates to the definitions in Section 78-1633 regarding ecological
quality levels. Haskamp noted the City's ordinance only includes definitions A through C and are slightly
different from the MLCCS. Haskamp questioned why there is a departure from the MLCCS definitions.
In addition, Section 78-1635,which is the section regarding basic conservation master plan requirements
and evaluation criteria,Items 6 and 10 both allude to statements such as no negative impact or no
modifications to the ecological communities. Haskamp asked what the definition is for negative impact
and modification of ecological communities would be. Haskamp questioned how stringent those
definitions would be. Haskamp asked if 50 percent of the property consists of wetland and 50 percent is
in high quality woodland area,how the City would anticipate a developer working through that process if
all of it is in the highest quality and whether that land would be required to be kept in that state forever or
whether the City would allow some future development of that land.
Haskamp stated her last concern relates to the density bonus system itsel£ The ordinance is very specific
in the way it is written in that it states density bonuses will be considered for urban designations.
Haskamp noted if your property is located in the one unit per two acres zone,under the ordinance as
presently written,there would be no incentive for the developer to actually utilize the conservation
principles but yet they would be required to do so. Haskamp pointed out that in order for someone to
develop a two acre lot under those requirements,it would be very cost prohibitive, and asked whether
there would be a way in which those properties could be incentivized as well, such as allowing an
alternative wastewater treatment systems or perhaps a one unit bonus. If the City is going to allow an
incentive,it should cross over to all properties in the community if the ultimate goal is conservation.
Gaffron stated the fact that there are no incentives for the rural area was a conscious decision on the City
Council a few years ago. The rationale for no incentives is that the rural area typically is not sewered but
is not prohibited from becoming sewered in certain areas. Gaffron noted there are other incentives that
make development less costly, such as clustering, and that perhaps an alternative wastewater treatment
system could be another option. Those areas have not been defined specifically,but the City Council
concluded that only in the urban areas would they allow those incentives. In the rural area the City
Council did not want numerical incentives established but would prefer that each property would be
treated separately.
As it relates to the master plan requirements for ecological communities A and B, Gaffron indicated he is
willing to review that section to whether there should be additional requirements. Gaffron stated those
requirements were proposed by DSU a number of years ago. Gaffron stated he has not reviewed the
standards in the MLCCS lately and that he would be willing to review those to see whether they should be
included.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
' 6:30 dclock p.m.
(2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSER VATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, 6:35 P.M.— 6:58
P.M., Continued)
Gaffron indicated he would also be willing to review the MLCCS definitions to see whether the City's
standards should be updated.
Haskamp stated she has brought a copy of the MLCCS definitions and would be willing to provide those
to Planner Gaffron.
Gaffron stated he would welcome the input provided by Ms.Haskamp.
Kempf closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Gaffron indicated he will follow up on the public comments and bring the draft ordinance back to the
Planning Commission for their review.
Berg moved,Kang seconded,to table Application#05-3164,City of Orono,Conservation Design
Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #09-3411 DAVID FOX ON BEHALF OF BILL FOX TRUSTEE, 1095 FERNDALE
ROAD,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:58 P.M.—7:42 P.M.
Darren Schmidt,Builder, and David Fox,Applicant,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a replacement residence and is requesting a
conditional use permit in order to rearrange the floodplain on the property and the following variances:
1. Lot area. Excluding the area below the OHW of Lake Minnetonka,the lot is 1.27 acres when the
zoning district requires two acres.
2. Lot width. The property has a defined lot width of 176 feet at the OHWL and 174 feet at the 75
foot setback. The zoning district requires 200 feet of width.
� 3. Lakeshore setback. The applicant is proposing to set the house back 12 to 50 feet from the lake
when the shoreland regulations require a 75-foot setback from the lake.
4. Average lakeshore setback. The proposed home is shown in location which improves the average
lakeshore setback encroachment by 32 feet for the property to the west and slightly improves the
encroachment for the property to the east. However,the home still encroaches up to 44 feet into
the average lakeshore setback and will be taller than the current home.
5. Floodplain setback. The house would be set back 2 to 64 feet from the mitigated floodplain.The
floodplain regulations require a 15-foot setback.
6. Hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. Hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone is proposed to be 24.4
percent,reduced from 27.6 percent. In addition to the proposed home and a 653 square foot
patio,there is a stone border and a wooden wall along the lake which are currently proposed to
remain. This would net a 490 square foot reduction in hardcover.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF T1�E
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(3. #09-3411 DA VID FOX ON BEHALF OF BILL FOX TR IISTEE, 1095 FERNDALE ROAD,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:58 P.M. — 7:42 P.M, Continued)
Since the area to be filled is within the floodplain,MCWD regulations require the floodplain be expanded
elsewhere so there is no decrease in total flood capacity. Since the earthwork will take place within the 0-
75 foot zone and exceeds 10 cubic yards a conditional use pernut is required. The Planning Commission
should discuss the peripheral impacts and potential opportunities as a result of the floodplain mitigation
on the property.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the MCWD's requirements
for the floodplain mitigation and the City Engineer's recommendations.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances subject to:
1. To reduce the visible impact of the house,especially as viewed from the lake,the house siding,
trim and shingles being dark colors.
2. Reduction of the proposed lakeside patio as the Planning Commission deems appropriate.
3. Provision of mitigation measures including: a.native buffer areas to be incorporated where
appropriate;b.patio to be constructed using pervious pavers.
Schmidt noted this is a difficult site to work with given the wetlands and finding an appropriate location
for the house given the other requirements of the City. They have attempted to locate the house in an
effort to meet as many of the requirements of the City as possible and limit the amount of wetland
mitigation that would be necessary. The reason for the hardcover variance is that they have included
some hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. The property overall meets the 25 percent hardcover limitation.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
Kempf stated he did visit the property and commended the property owner on their driveway,which
consists of approximately two strips of gravel 16 inches wide with grass in between. Kempf noted he
does have a concern regarding the views for the property to the west. Given the location of the residences
on Lake Minnetonka,this property has grand views to the east of the lake but the property to the west has
its views largely out across a small bay and because of that,he has more of a sensitivity regarding the
views of that property.
Curtis illustrated the proposed views of the two properties on the overhead.
Kempf stated he would like to see, as it relates to the average lakeshore setback,if the protruding corner
of the house could be pushed back somehow. Kempf stated he would like to see if that corner of the
house to the north pushed back if it could without encroaching into the floodplain.
Curtis noted that is the mitigated floodplain.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(3. #09-3411 DA VID FOX ON BEHALF OF BILL FOX TR IISTEE, 1095 FERNDALE ROAD,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:58 P.M.— 7:42 P.M, Continued)
Schmidt stated if that corner of the house is pushed north, additional floodplain mitigation would be
required. Schmidt displayed the layout of the lot with the various buildings and illustrated the area of the
property that is located above the floodplain.
Kempf asked if the house could be pushed back any further.
Schmidt stated they would have to review that.
Curtis commented it would likely require additional floodplain and mitigation.
Kempf stated as it relates to the height of the structure,there does not appear to be an issue as it relates to
the neighbor.
Berg asked what the square footage of the house is.
Curtis stated the structural coverage is 4796 square feet,which is the footprint of the house and the
garage.
Berg commented it is possible to reduce the size of the house and garage,which has four stalls.
David Fox pointed out the garage is actually three stalls and not four.
Curtis noted what appears to be a fourth stall is actually a walkway.
Schmidt pointed out there is no basement to this house and that all the mechanicals are required to be
located on the first floor of house.
Kempf asked whether the Commissioners feel this is a substantial amount of house given the close
proximity to the lake.
Kang stated she has a concern regarding the size of the house and the massing affect it would have from
the lake,especially given the close proximiiy to the water.
Kempf noted there is also a patio consisting of approximately 600 square feet and that under normal
circumstances there would be no structures allowed in the 0-75 foot zone.
Curtis noted the patio consists of 653 square feet.
Kang commented the patio is acceptable to her, especially given Staff's recommendation that the patio be
constructed with pervious pavers. .
Kempf stated pervious pavers are recommended due to the close proximity of the structure to the water
but that pervious pavers in his opinion do not count to mitigate the hardcover or to allow more hardcover
than what would normally be allowed. Kempf stated in his view it is a larger patio than what is
necessary.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(3. #09-3411 DA VID FOX ON BEHALF OF BILL FOX TR IISTEE, 1095 FERNDALE ROAD,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL iISE PERMIT, 6:58 P.M.— 7:42 P.M, Continued)
Rice indicated she is in agreement with Chair Kempf and that the patio is rather large, especially given its
location in the 0-75 foot zone.
Leskinen stated she does have a concern with the size of the house more so than the size of the patio.
Leskinen indicated she did visit the site and appreciates how the proposed house is moved further away
from the lake than the existing house but that the proposed house is substantially larger than the existing
house.
David Fox pointed out the proposed footprint is less than the current house and two existing garages.
Berg concurred that this is a challenging lot but that the house is too large for the property. Berg
indicated she also has an issue with the patio.
Curtis stated given the square footage of the structures, Staff does feel there is a massing issue.
Kempf commented the massing also relates to the height of the structure as well.
David Fox noted they have been attempting to sell the property for a number of years but have been
unsuccessful. Fox stated they are going through this application process today in order to better market
the property and to let potential buyers lrnow that they would be allowed to construct a residence on the
property. Fox stated in his view what is being proposed fits in with the rest of the neighborhood and is
reasonable given the location of the property.
Kempf stated this is a little island of land with a substantial house on it and that a smaller lot begets a
smaller house. Kempf recommended the applicants consider reducing the size of the house.
Berg noted this is a unique piece of land with a smaller buildable area and that the lot simply does not
support the amount of structure that is being proposed. Berg stated the City has an obligation to protect
the lake and that the additional hardcover being proposed leads to more runoff into the lake.
Kempf stated he would like to see the application tabled to allow the applicant time to give some
consideration to reducing the size of the house and patio. Kempf stated it appears the consensus of the
Planning Commission is that the house should be reduced.
Schmidt stated instead of constructing on the existing foundation,they would like to construct a new
residence and that it is likely the new buyer will construct a different house than what is being proposed.
Schmidt requested the Planning Commission provide a square footage number that would be allowed on
this property.
Berg stated she would like to see exactly what will be built rather than a hypothetical. Berg stated the
buyer of the property should bring their plans forward to the Planning Commission.
Kempf stated the options of the Planning Commission is to either table the application,approve it, or
deny it,and asked what would happen if the buyer does not want to construct the house that is being
proposed.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF TFIE
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(3. #09-3411 DA VID FOX ON BEHALF OF BILL FOX TR IISTEE, 1095 FERNDALE ROAD,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:58 P.M. — 7:42 P.M, Continued)
Curtis stated it would depend on what the changes are on whether it would need to come back before the
Planning Commission.
David Fox indicated he understands that it may be necessary for the buyer to come back before the
Planning Commission if he does not want to construct what is being proposed.
Berg stated she would like to see the size of the house reduced.
Fox indicated they are in agreement with reviewing their plans to see where changes can be made but that
there are a number of issues with the lot. Fox noted the existing house on the property has been there
since 1939 and that they are unable to have a basement. Fox stated given the limitations of the property,
they do not have a number of options.
Berg recommended the applicant work with Staff.
Berg moved,Leskinen seconded,to table Application#09-3411,David Fox on behalf of Bill Fox
Trustee, 1095 Ferndale Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*4. #09-3415 CITY OF ORONO,DUPLEX CODE AMENDMENT
Berg moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application#09-3415,City of Orono,
Duplex Code Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*5. #09-3420 CITY OF ORONO,WETLAND CREDIT CODE AMENDMENT
Berg moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application#09-3420,City of Orono,
Wetland Credit Code Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*6. #09-3421 JAMES AND JACQUELINE NEVE,4060 DAI3L ROAD,VARIANCE
Berg moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application 309-3421 James and Jacqueline
Neve,4060 Dahl Road,granting of a variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
7. #09-3422 RICHARD &LEESA ANDERSON,3205 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES,
7:42 P.M.—8:29 P.M.
Leesa Anderson,Applicant, and Jim Morris,Builder,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting hardcover variances and a side yard setback variance in order to
construct a 20' x 26' two-story living space addition to the existing home with a 0 foot setback from the
side lot line where a 10 foot setback is required as well as construct a roof over a deck which would be
6.4 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot setback is required.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(7. #09-3422 RICHARD&LEESA ANDERSON,3205 CRYSTAL BAYROAD, VARIANCES,
7:42 P.M. —8:29 P.M., Continued)
The applicants'property is two separate lots historically acting as one, split by the municipal boundary
between Orono and Minnetonka Beach. There is a shed and 1-1/2 homes located within the Orono
portion of the property. The applicants need more living space to accommodate their growing family and
have considered connecting the two homes. A two-story addition is proposed on the back of the home
and a roof is proposed over an existing deck on the lake side and west side of the home,effectively
creating a porch. The porch addition is proposed to be set back 6.4 feet from the side lot line where a 10
foot setback is required and the two-story addition is proposed at a 0 foot setback from the side lot line
where a 10 foot setback is also required.
The property contains a great deal of landscaping consisting of patios,parking areas,pathways,walls and
structures The applicants have proposed to remove minimal amounts of what exists in conjunction with
their proposal. They have proposed a 64 square foot reduction within the 0-75 foot zone and 97 square
feet within the 75-250 foot zone.
Furthermore,the deck where the proposed porch addition is to be was constructed illegally in 1988. The
City notified the applicants that permits and hardcover variance approvals were required. A citation was
issued but the issue of the lack of approval has not been resolved.
Staff feels there is simply too much hardcover on the property. Although the property has not exceeded
Orono's structural coverage limitation there are too many structures,too many patios,walkways, etc., on
such a small property located so close to the lake. The proposed additions aggravate the nonconformities
on the property rather than offer a solution to the hardcover overages.
Furthermore, Staff cannot find any permits or variances which allow the numerous hardcover landscape
areas and structures on the hardcover variance approval is required to exceed the allowed levels. The
illegal deck constructed in 1988 continues to be an illegal nonconforming structure. This deck should be
addressed prior to issuing any permits to this property.
Jim Morris,Builder, stated what they are attempting to accomplish with�the addition is to create a small
family room off of the back of the house because the current house has no basement and consists of
approximately 700 to 800 square feet. The majority of the hardcover is in walkways,patios,pathways,
and random rocks. The waterways collect runoff from the alley on the southern side of the property.
There is a large amount of runoff due to the fact that the rear of the property is approximately ten feet
higher than the front of the property. There are also some catch basins located in the front of the house to
collect runof£ Morris noted a portion of the hardcover includes areas that are necessary to help with the
runoff and they would like to maintain that rather than have to create swales.
Curtis noted the landscape rock and membrane would count as hardcover regardless of what it is used for.
Berg requested the applicant illustrate the hardcover area that will be removed.
Morris illustrated how the water runs off of the road down into the property. A portion of the existing
shed and a portion of the patio is being reduced,with the walkway being simplified. Morris stated a
portion of the brick patio is also being eliminated,which will bring the hardcover down to 35 percent.
Morris illustrated the area of the rock with rubber membrane underneath it.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�IING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(7. #09-3422 RICHARD&LEESA ANDERSON,3205 CRYSTAL BAYROAD, VARIANCES,
7:42 P.M.—8:29 P.M., Continued)
Berg asked whether that rock and membrane would be removed.
Morris stated they are not proposing that be removed. The house was constructed in the early 1900s, and
the three feet of landscaping consisting of rock and rubber membrane help divert the water between the
structures out into a planting area. The property experiences a significant amount of runoff from Crystal
Bay Road.
Morris stated the setback variance request deals with the front porch and deck. The home has a single
door on the lakeside, and their design is to create a covered walkway to allow a side entrance. The corner
of the covered deck would protrude into the side yard setback. Morris stated the existing deck is a lot
larger than what would remain and would be reduced by approximately four feet.
Curtis noted the distance between the proposed covered porch at the closest point to the other existing
home is less than 10 feet and the City has a required setback of 10 feet,which would require another side
setback variance.
Morris stated the main addition of the house would contain a stairway and would eliminate the spiral
staircase in the middle of the home. The addition of the family room would project out to the dividing
line between Minnetonka Beach and Orono,which would require a setback variance. The corner of the
building would be 25 feet from the actual Minnetonka Beach property line. The underlying plat shows
this as a single lot with a description dividing the Minnetonka Beach portion and the Orono portion.
Curtis stated to her understanding the Orono portion is a lot and the Minnetonka Beach is a vacated right-
of-way.
Kempf asked if this lot can be legally dividable into two sellable lots.
Curtis indicated that is not her understanding.
Gaffron noted they would need to be two separate tax parcels since one lot is located in Orono and one lot
is located in Minnetonka Beach.
Curtis stated it is not likely that these two parcels could be sold separately.
Morris stated the lot located in Minnetonka Beach is only 25 feet wide,which would not allow a very
large buildable area even with variances.
Berg asked what the size of the addition is.
Curtis indicated it is approximately 26' x 20'.
Berg asked whether there is also a screen porch being proposed in addition to the family room.
Morris stated there is. The front portion of the covered deck would be a screen porch.
Kang asked what the square footage would be of the covered entrance.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(7. #09-3422 RICHARD 8c LEESA ANDERSON,3205 CRYSTAL BAYROAD, VARIANCES,
7:42 P.M. —8:29 P.M., Continued)
Morris indicated it would be 280 to 290 square feet. As it relates to the illegal deck,they are proposing to
do whatever the City requires to resolve the issue.Morris stated at one time there was a shed with a
concrete floor,which was then removed and converted to a deck.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
Kempf stated a 744 square foot house with no basement is very small and that he can understand the need
for an addition. Kempf stated as long as the two lots cannot be divided,he would be in favor of a
variance to allow the encroachment into the setback.
Kempf noted the adjoining property also has an issue with hardcover,which consists primarily of a large
gravel parking area,which was not addressed at the time they brought an application forward to the City.
Curtis indicated she is not familiar with that property.
Leesa Anderson stated the deck is approximately 20 years old and that they did replace a deteriorated
concrete deck that was on the property with a wood deck. The pavers were taken out and wood was put
in its place. The building inspector then said a permit was required. The issue was discussed back and
forth with the City and they eventually paid a citation for the deck. The building inspector also required
them to lower a portion of the deck,which was done, and they were told the deck was fine after that.
They were not told that they needed to obtain a permit after that and they were not aware it was still an
issue.
Anderson stated a number of neighbors in the neighborhood have parking in the front,and their parking in
the front has existed since 1947. Anderson noted Crystal Bay Road is narrow and that people do park on
the street. One car is parked in the back but they are unable to park more cars in that area since it would
protrude out into the road.
Leslcinen asked what would be necessary to correct the situation with the deck.
Curtis stated it should be addressed within this application as far as location and size,and then a building
permit obtained once the deck is approved. Curtis noted the applicants are proposing to reduce the size of
the deck but that the Planning Commission should review the property as if the deck were not there and
decide whether it would be allowed.
Kang commented she appreciates the applicants reducing the hardcover to 35 percent, and that given the
reduction in hardcover, she would view the application somewhat favorably.
Rice noted the hardcover calculations do not include the rock and rubber membrane area.
Curtis stated she would like to see the hardcover areas depicted on the survey and included in the
calculations.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(7. #09-3422 RICHARD 8c LEESA ANDERSON,3205 CRYSTAL BAYROAD, VARIANCES,
7:42 P.M.-8:29 P.M., Cot:tinued) �
Rice asked whether the application should come back before the Planning Commission since all of the
hardcover reductions are not depicted on their plan.
Kempf asked whether the Planning Commission should just set a number for the hardcover subject to the
drainage issues being resolved with the City Engineer.
Curtis indicated she would like the plan to come back before the Planning Commission.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the setback variance is okay.
Kempf stated as it relates to the corner requiring a setback,that does not appear to be an issue. Kempf
asked how the Planning Commission feels about the covered porch.
Rice commented the Planning Commission has typically approved smaller covered entryways.
Curtis noted the covered entryway extends out six feet. '
Kempf stated he can see a need for the covered entryway. Kempf asked whether there is a rear door into
the addition.
Morris stated there will be a sliding glass door off of the addition but that the main entry will be through
the covered porch.
Leskinen stated if a portion of the deck is removed,it would help that area to appear less crowded.
Leskinen indicated that she would not be opposed to that narrow covered entry along the side of the
house.
Rice asked if the six feet is the maximum.
Morris stated the six feet would allow for the walkway to be covered,which is four feet wide, and also
relates to the two roof lines and balancing everything out. �
Kempf stated the final issue is the amount of hardcover on the property and that in his view he would like
the application to be tabled to allow the applicant time to compile the hardcover numbers and depict the
hardcover that would be removed.
Kang moved,Berg seconded,to table Application 09-3422,Richard and Leesa Anderson,3205
Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
8. REPORT OF PLANIVING COMIVIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS JULY 27,2009,AND AUGUST 10,2009
PAGE 13
. , .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(8. REPORT OFPLANNING COMMISSIONREPRESENTATIVESATTENDING COUNCIL
MEETINGS JULY27,2009,AND AUGUST 10,2009, Continued)
Leskinen reported that at the July 27th City Council meeting a majority of the items was placed on the
Consent Agenda. Jeff Johnson,Hennepin County Commissioner, appeared at the meeting to introduce
himself. A representative from the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission was present and
discussed the fiber-to-home-network. The City Council tabled that item to allow for the City Attorney to
review whether it is necessary for the City to grant permission to do work in the right-of-way at this stage
of the proj ect.
Lesldnen stated the City Council felt the property on Wakefield did not have enough dry buildable land
for the second lot. No action was taken by the Council since it was a sketch plan.
There continues to remain issues with pedestrians and motorists at the trail crossings.
Rice reported on the August 10 City Council meeting. The Bohns Point application was approved. The
Batty application was also discussed,with the City Council eventually tabling the application to allow the
applicant time to revise his plans. Rice stated that Mr.Batty had indicated he did not feel he had received
sufficient direction from the Planning Commission.
Curtis stated it is likely the Batty application will appear before the Planning Commission again.
Murphy stated in his view the recommendations of Staff and the Planning Commission laid out the issues
with the application very clearly and that the amount of structure will need to be reduced.
Murphy commented he does have some concerns with the fiber-to-home-network project given the
substantial amount of infrastructure that would be required as well as the potential costs of the project.
9. OT�R ISSITES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron noted Orono's City Administrator has resigned.
Berg asked whether there are any future trail meetings scheduled and noted that she has not been notified
of any meetings for the past four months.
Gaffron stated there was a meeting at Tonka Bay approximately two months ago and that they hope to
have another meeting in September but that nothing definite has been scheduled at the present time.
Gaffron stated he has received the initial letter from the Metropolitan Council regarding the City's
comprehensive plan and that they outlined the items that are still required to be submitted. Gaffron
indicated the City will continue to work with the Metropolitan Council on issues relating to density.
Curtis stated on the last application the applicants may have left with the impression that they would be
allowed 35 percent hardcover and that she will encourage the applicants to reduce the hardcover as much
as possible.
PAGE 14
. , . .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2009
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, Continued)
Berg noted that Staff's recommendation was denial based on the hardcover being excessive.
Curtis stated she would like to see the actual plan depicting hardcover reductions that are proposed to be
made prior to approval being given on any application. Curtis encouraged the Planning Commission to
make it very clear to the applicants that the hardcover needs to be reduced as much as possible prior to
approval.
10. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 24,2009,AND SEPTEMBER 14,2009
August 24,2009—Kang
September 14,2009—Kempf
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved,Leskinen seconded adjourn the Orono Planning Commission at 9:08 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
1
alp empf, Chair
PAGE 15