HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2011 Planning Commission Minutes � MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,June 20,2011 .
� 6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Loren Schoenzeit,Commissioners Denise Leskinen,John Thiesse,Hue Alexander,Linda Feuss,
and Elizabeth Levang. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic
Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Member poug Franchot was present.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 5 was added to the Consent Agenda. �
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for Item No. 5 at 6:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding Item No. 5.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m.
Thiesse moved,Levang seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16,2011
Thiesse moved,Levang seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of May 16,2011,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. 10-3479 PffiLLIP WHIPPLE,3095 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES, 6:35 P.M.-
7:01 P.M.
Phillip Whipple,Applicant;Michael Sharratt,Designer; and Donna Swedin were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot width variance and a 75-250 and 250-500 zone hardcover
variances in order to construct a new residence and new detached garage on their property as follows:
1. A lot width variance for a lot 60 feet in width at the OHWL and 65 feet at the 75 foot setback
where 100 feet is required; .
2. A variance to allow 29.72 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone where 25 percent is
normally allowed and 32 percent currently exists; and
3. A variance to allow 34.6 percent hardcover in the 250-500 foot zone where 30 percent is
normally allowed and 36.7 percent currently exists.
The applicant originally made an application for similar variances in 2010 and was scheduled to appear
Page 1
1VIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
before the Planning Commission in July. However,the 2010 Krummenacher ruling resulted in an
inability of the City to review and grant variances as had been done in the past,so the applicant requested
their application be tabled until July 1,2011,to allow for modi�cations in the statute and/or City codes.
The applicant would like to remove the existing principal structure which was constructed in or before
1967 and construct a new residence within the 75-250 foot zone and a new detached garage in the 250-
500 foot zone. They are proposing to maintain most of the existing blacktop driveway for use with the
new home but will remove the circle drive configuration.
The applicant's lot is substandard in width with 60 feet at the OHWL and 65 feet in width at the 75-foot
setback where 100 feet is required. Granting of a lot width variance for this property would be in
harmony with the immediate neighborhood. Without a variance from the 100-foot lot width requirement,
the applicant would be unable to build a home on a residentially zoned property and therefore the
property could not be put to a reasonable use.
As the necessity for a lot width variance suggests,the property is narrow. Within the 250-500 foot zone,
the property narrows to 15 feet in width at the road. The driveway itself accounts for nearly 29 percent of
the hardcover in this zone. The property is permitted 3,276 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250
foot zone and 4,148 square feet of hardcover within the 250-500 foot zone. A total of 7,428 square feet of
hardcover is allowed on the property. The applicant is proposing a new home with a footprint of 3,300
square feet; a 792 square foot, detached garage; and approximately 4,400 square feet of driveway and
sidewalk. At 8,881 square feet total,the applicant is requesting to exceed the allowed hardcover by 1,453
square feet,which is 284 square feet less than their previous submittal and 583 square feet less than
existing.
As the Planning Commission is aware,there have been multiple changes to law regarding how a
municipality must review an application for a variance. The"undue hardship"analysis has been replaced
with the"practical difficulties"analysis. On the agenda tonight is a proposed zoning code text
amendment intended to update the ordinance to ensure that it conforms to the statutory analysis of
practical difficulties. While the current code directs Staff,Planning Commission and the Council to
perform a"hardship"analysis,this application will actually be viewed consistent with the new practical
difficulties analysis.
Staff finds that with respect to lot width,practical difficulties exist and that application of the 100-foot lot
width requirement of the Zoning Code would prevent the construction of any home on the property. The
applicant's lot width variance request is reasonable. The applicant's request for hardcover variances may
also be reasonable. Their proposal results in an overall reduction of hardcover on the properiy totaling
583 square feet. Staff finds that granting the applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the ordinance and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Issues for consideration:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances,if granted,will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
Page 2
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. Does the Commission feel it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts �
created by the granting of the requested setback variances?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance and hardcover variances.
Feuss asked whether it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to discuss Item No. 7 prior to
acting on this application or whether it would be appropriate to discuss this application under the new
standards prior to them being approved by the City.
Curtis indicated the Planning Commission should discuss this item under the new standards.
Thiesse asked if the engineering issues have been resolved.
Curtis indicated they have not to date.
Whipple stated when he originally purchased the home approximately nine years ago,he lrnew he would
be making some improvements to the structure. The goal with this project has been to design a new home
that respects the style,size, and scale of the neighborhood. Whipple indicated he has spent the last 12
months with a realtor and architect and have come to the conclusion that they would like to stay on Casco
Point Road.
Mike Sharratt,Designer, stated they had designed a home for this property and the plans were submitted
last summer. Following the Supreme Court ruling,they withdrew the application and decided to revisit
their plans to see whether any additional hardcover could be removed to meet the strict letter of the law.
The conclusion was that they were unable to do that.
The house basically consists of a 32'x 32'square foot building pad. The applicants currently have a one-
stall garage. Sharratt stated from past experience he understands that structural coverage is an issue.
Structural coverage is currently proposed at 11 percent. The applicants realize the limitations of the site
and have attempted to comply with the City's requirements. The amount of total hardcover on the site
has been reduced from their previous plans.
The elevation of the garage is between three to four feet higher than the existing grade.There is a full
basement under the garage,which means the foundation will be significantly below the existing elevation
and contours of the site. The garage will be sided and there will be no exposed concrete foundation wall.
There will be approximately four feet of fill required in that area. There will also be a retaining wall and
stairway off of the sideway. The lot towards the lake is very steep and has approximately a 22-foot
decline in over 200 feet. In order to mitigate some of the steepness,they have taken the garage and lifted
it up from the existing garage. They have also eliminated as a part of the hardcover reduction the
turnaround area,which is a revision from the earlier submittal.
Schoenzeit asked how the building pad for the house was decided.
Sharratt stated the dotted line is the existing house and that they elected to construct the proposed home
almost directly on top of the building pad for the existing home. �
Schoenzeit asked if they are keeping the existing foundation.
Page 3
MINUTES OF TI�E
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Sharratt stated they are not. There is approximately eight feet of fall,which is good for a walkout. The
house could be pushed back but then the house would be considerably behind the adj oining residences.
Schoenzeit noted the amount of hardcover could be reduced if the house were pushed further back.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. '
, There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Feuss asked if Staff has any thoughts on the practical difficulty standard as it relates to the hardcover.
Feuss concurred with Chair Schoenzeit that some of the hardcover could be reduced by relocating the
. house further back. �
Curtis indicated that in the past in similar situations the intent was not to push the proposed home back
which would create a tunnel view of the lake. Curtis stated there are different ways to achieve a reduction
in hardcover, such as a smaller driveway or a smaller home. In one instance the applicant chose to build
their house further back,which then creates a new average setback for the adjoining landowners as well.
Feuss commented she is inclined to go with Staffls recommendation since the hardcover is being reduced
with the new residence but that she is not sure if that should be the standard the Planning Commission
should be looldng at.
Schoenzeit commented it is a reasonable proposal, especially since the amount of hardcover on the lot is
being reduced. Schoenzeit noted the applicant is not prohibited from constructing his house back from the
averagelakeshore setback.
Curtis stated typically the property owner builds as close as possible to the lake.
Schoenzeit noted the structural coverage and hardcover on this lot is less than the adjoining properties and
that the proposed house appears to fit within the character of the neighborhood.
Thiesse indicated he is in agreement that the home does fit the character of the neighborhood. There are
several properties in the neighborhood that have multiple sfixctures on their property.
Schoenzeit asked whether the fill would need a conditional use pernut.
Curtis indicated the exact amount of fill has not been provided to Staff. Curtis noted the City's building
official can approve any amount of fill as long as it is appropriate for the project. If the amount of fill
appears to be unusual,the building official would require that the applicants obtain a conditional use
permit.
Schoenzeit asked 'whether the fill would be saved or hauled out.
Sharratt indicated the majority of the fill will be used elsewhere on the property.
Levang asked how close the neighboring driveway is.
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Sharratt stated the driveway is very narrow at some points and that the two driveways are close to each
other.
�
Levang commented it appears to be somewhat dangerous in the area where the two driveways are close to
one another.
Sharratt indicated this property is located on one of the highest points on Casco Point Road.
Schoenzeit asked if Staff has any recommendations on the hardcover amounts.
Curtis indicated they do not.
Schoenzeit asked if the homeowner is proposing any passive or active water mitigation.
Sharratt indicated a landscape architect has not been retained at this point but that in the area of the
turnaround there will be green space that can absorb the runoff. Sharratt stated there are some ideas that
can be explored to help prevent runoff down the driveway.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant would be agreeable to work with Staff on water mitigation.
Whipple stated they would be willing to do that.
Feuss moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3479,Phillip
Whipple,3095 Casco Point Road,granting of a lot width variance and hardcover variances subject
to the engineer's recommendations,and to direct the applicant work with Staff to construct
appropriate rain gardens or to do other hardcover mitigation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. 11-3507 BILL AND CYNTHIA BOWMAN,450 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,VARIANCE,
7:02 P.M.-7:17 P.M.
Bill and Cynthia Bowman,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance. The applicant's property is a small,
half-acre lot within the RR-1B, 2-acre zoning district and is bordered by larger lots and open space. A
900 square foot rambler and garage connected by a breezeway currently exist on the property. The garage
is currently set back 27.8 feet from the south side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required.The
applicants are proposing to remove the garage and construct a larger home and garage addition to the
south side of the home.They are requesting a side setback variance to allow the home to be located 25
feet from the south side lot line where 30 feet is required.
The applicants'property is nonconforming with respect to area and width. With the exception of the front
yard,the existing home on the properly does not meet the required setbacks. The applicants are
proposing to remodel and construct additions on the existing home. The applicants are also proposing to
remove a portion of the home which encroaches into the rear yard as part of this request. The existing
side yard setback on the south side is 27.8 feet. The applicants are requesting an additional new
encroachment of 2.7 feet for a setback of 25.1 feet where 30 feet is required for a length of 52 feet. The
addition does not appear to limit the light, air,and open space enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The applicants'request for a side setback variance may be reasonable considering the size of the property.
The applicants'request results in minimal negative impact of adjacent properties. Staff finds the location
of the existing home and the size of the property creates a unique circumstance not created by the
applicants and that granting the applicants'request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Issues for consideration:
1. The Planning Commission should consider whether it is reasonable to further encroach into the
side yard with the proposed additions; should the current nonconforming setback of 27.8 feet be
used as a guide; or should all new additions meet the required 30-foot setback?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances,if granted,will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested setback variances?
Planning Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance to allow additions to the existing house at
27.8 feet.
Schoenzeit asked what the neighbors' setbacks are.
Thiesse noted there are not any houses on the south side of the property.
Curtis noted this is a two acre zoning district. This lot does not abut Willow and has an access easement
through a different property.
Bill Bowman,Applicant,stated he would like to make a couple of points as it relates to his application.
To the north of their property,the Perrys' garage falls within the 30-foot setback,the deck is 15 feet into
the setback, and the garage is approximately six feet into the setback. When the remodel of the house is
done,the back of the existing garage will be removed and the back of the house will be in compliance
with the RR1B zoning. The lot is more compliant with R1B zoning,which is half an acre and has a 10-
foot setback. Bowman stated they are requesting a 25-foot setback,which is not compliant with RR1B,
but it is two and a half times the required setbacks for the R1B district. Bo�vrnan stated it would have a
significant impact if the house has to be moved over.
Bowman reiterated they are attempting to mitigate the encroachment by maldng the back of the residence
compliant. They also are not making any changes to the north. Bowman commented in his view it is a
good design. There is a nice tree line which helps to obscure it from the neighboring property. They will
be leaving the existing 24'x 36'foot residence and constructing an addition on the south side. The
breezeway will also be removed.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. '
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Randy Hogan,2260 Fox Street, stated the two lots that he owns on Willow are not developed. Hogan
stated he is seeing this design for the first time tonight but that he has walked the property. The house
does need to be fixed up and the plan appears to be a nice improvement over what currently exists.
Hogan stated he is not opposed to it as long as the trees remain.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated he would not be opposed to the side setback variance since the proposal seems
reasonable and the neighbor is in support of the project.
Thiesse agreed with the comments of Chair Schoenzeit. Thiesse noted the garage cannot be relocated
further to the north.
,
Feuss stated she was inclined to go along with Staff's recommendation but since the neighbor has voiced
no objection to the project,she would not be opposed to it. Feuss asked whether the screening should be
made a condition of approval.
Bowman indicated the neighbor actually owns the majority of the screening but that they are not opposed
to adding additional screening.
Feuss stated she perhaps misunderstood Mr.Hogan and asked if he wanted the trees to remain.
Hogan stated some trees will need to be cut down to construct the driveway.
Bowman indicated the spruce tree,white pine, and apple tree will not need to come out and that he is fine
with putting in some additional screening. The driveway will be moved over slightly or stay where the
existing driveway is.
�
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3507,Bill and
Cynthia Bowman,450 Willow Drive South,granting of a 25-foot side yard setback variance with
the condition that the existing vegetative screening be maintained. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. 11-3508 LINDA WOTIPKA, 1205 DICKENSON STREET,VARIANCES,7:17 P.M.—
7:55 P.M.
Linda Wotipka,Applicant; and Gene and Barbara Hite were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to construct
additions to the existing home and garage.
The subject property is approximately %2 acre in area and is located within the RR-1B,rural residential
district which requires a minimum of two acres. The property currently has a 1-1/2 story home and a 2-
car detached garage on the property. The existing home is located 7.6 feet from the front property line
where a 50-foot setback is normally required. The home currently meets the required side yard setback of
30 feet. The detached garage,however, is situated 2.3 feet from the side lot line where a 10-foot setback
is required and 15.6 feet from the front lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. The applicant is
proposing to construct additions to the home within the front yard setback and to connect the home and
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
detached garage. A small garden shed/addition to the garage is also proposed. This addition to the garage
is proposed to be within the 50-foot front setback and 7.2 feet from the side lot line.
Nearly the entire home is situated within the 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant is proposing
improvements which consist of a covered front porch which will serve as a covered walkway to the front
entrance;relocation of the existing front stoop to the side of the home; an addition connecting the home to
the detached garage; and second-story additions over both the existing home and the new connection
addition. All of the additions would be within the front yard setback area. The connecting addition is
proposed to provide a connection between the home and detached garage as well as allow for a place to
construct a legal stair to access the basement and a second story. Additionally,the garden shed/addition
to the rear of the garage technically requires a front yard setback variance as it is proposed to be located
within the required 50-foot front yard setback as well. Due to the location of the home on the property,
any improvement to the existing structure which consists of an expansion of the building envelope
requires variances from the zoning code setback requirements.
The applicant's property is nonconforming with respecf to area and width. The existing home is located
entirely within the required 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant is proposing additions to the
existing home which they believe will make the property safer and more functional. The applicant's
property is a 0.5 plus acre lot within a small-lot neighborhood which exists in a two acre zoning district.
Larger acreage lots exist to the north, directly across Dickenson Street. The homes on the properties to
the north are set back at least 50 feet from Dickenson. It does not appear these homes would be
negatively impacted by the applicants'proposal. There would appear to be no additional impact from this
proposal on the adjacent property to the west. The proposed additions do not appear to limit the light, air,
and open space currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.
The applicant's variance requests may be reasonable considering the front property line is 23 feet from the
edge of the blacktop on Dickenson Street for a total setback from the street of approximately 31 feet. The
proposed additions will not increase beyond the existing encroachment into the front yard. The
applicant's request results in minimal negative impact of adjacent properties.
Staff finds the location of the existing home and the size of the property creates a unique circumstance not
created by the applicants. Granting the applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the ordinance and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. If a new home were to be
constructed on the property, it would appear that all of the required setbacks could be met.
There are portions of the applicant's request that may serve solely as an aesthetic function or convenience
such as the length of the porch,the relocation of the wooden stoop,and the garden shed. The proposed
connecting addition will also serve as a new vestibule or front entrance. While the removal of the front
door and wooden stoop from the front reduces the encroachment into the front yard,the new
encroachment created by moving the door and stoop to the east side appears to serve merely as a
convenience. The proposed shed/addition to the rear of the garage could be located to a conforming
location elsewhere on the property as it is intended for storage of gardening and lawn mowing equipment
and is not integral to the functionality of the garage. Lastly,the applicant's project will result in the
removal of the roof of the existing home and possibly the garage may result in the removal of one or more
exterior walls and/or existing main floor.
Issues for consideration:
Page 8
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. Can the existing foundation support the additions? Should an engineer's opinion on the
foundation be required?
2. If the foundation cannot support the additions and the project becomes a total rebuild,does the
scope of the project change? Should the Planning Commission review the application again?
Should the home be moved to the confornung location on the property?
3. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
4. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances,if g ranted,will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
5. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested setback variances?
6. The survey illustrates an existing encroachment into the property to the west with a paver patio
area. Should the encroachment be removed in conjunction with the request?
Planning Staff recommends the following: �
1. Approval of the front yard setback variance to construct the connecting addition between the
garage and the home;
2. Approval of the principal siructure side setback variance resulting from the connection of the
garage and home;
3. Approval of the front yard setback variance for the covered porch as proposed;
4. Approval of the second story additions over the existing home and the new connecting addition;
5. Denial of the front yard setback variance in order to re-locate the eastern,front door and stoop
and further recommends that the door and stoop be removed from the plan altogether;
6. Denial of the front and side yard setback variances to construct the shedlgarage addition;
7. Removal of the patio encroachment into the property to the west; and
8. Require an engineer's opinion to determine whether the existing foundation is able to support the
additions as proposed prior to City Council review of the request.
Thiesse asked why Staff is recommending against the location of the shed.
Curtis stated the property allows for a number of conforming locations for the shed and it is not integral to
the garage. Curtis noted the garage is existing.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
� 6:30 o'clock p.m. \
Linda Wotipka stated the colored depiction is approximately what the home will look like once the
changes are made. Staff is recommending some changes be made to the house as well as the shed.
Wotipka indicated she does not have a problem with relocating the shed but that she has some issues with
not having an east door. Wotipka stated she can address Staff's concerns by removing the vestibule.
Wotipka indicated the house was originally constructed in 1954 and that the house is not completely safe
� due to the detached garage. The garage is on the west side of the house and the door is on the east side of
the house. There currently is a walkway from the driveway, some steps,and then the walkway over to the
east side of the house. Wotipka noted she has actually fallen and hurt herself as well as having another
person fall on the front steps.
Wotipka stated inside the house there is nonconforming staircase and someone has fallen down that as
well. They are proposing to be able to connect the house and garage and construct a conforming stairway
into the basement and up to the second floor. They would also like to add living space where the existing
staircase is located. The goal of the entire project is to make the home safer and to make the house more
in character with the neighborhood. Other houses in the neighborhood have porches all the way across
the front of the house and provides for safe access to the east side of the house.
Schoenzeit asked whether a structural engineer has looked at the foundation.
Wotipka stated her contractor is in the process of speaking with a structural engineer and that they
decided to stop work on the plans to see whether they would be able to obtain a variance.
Schoenzeit asked if there is a full basement under the house.
Wotipka indicated there is a full basement. The footings for the basement are substantially constructed
and appear to be in good condition. The garage was constructed in 1968. The entire addition is being
constructed with the idea of making the property safer. Without a door on the east side of the house,in
order to access the mailboxes directly across the street,they would need to walk a considerable further
distance.
Levang asked if there is a door at the end of the walkway.
Wotipka pointed out the location of the doors. They are proposing to remove the front stoop and to also
remove the vestibule. The porch would extend further down so they would be able to walk out onto that
area.
Schoenzeit asked if she is okay with removing the vestibule.
Wotipka indicated she is.
Curtis asked if the applicant is proposing to remove the exterior wall.
Wotipka indicated the vestibule has its own roof and that they would the exterior wall and make it a
porch.
Gene Hite noted the vestibule was added on to the house at some point.
Page
10
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis asked if the applicant is proposing to remove the roof from the east side of the house.
Wotipka pointed out the location of the rood on the overhead.
Thiesse asked whether the vestibule would need to be put on a new foundation if it were to remain.
Wotipka stated it would need to be.
Thiesse stated in his opinion a door on the north side of a house located in Minnesota requires a vestibule
and it is a practical difficulty if there is not one.
Curtis stated Staff's proposal was to remove the east facing door and stair.
Thiesse encouraged the applicant not to remove the vestibule in exchange for a set of stairs.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Gene Hite,2475 Countryside Drive, stated the house needs some fixing and they have been worlcing on
the plans with Linda Wotipka for approximately a half year. They did not receive the full
recommendations of Staff until two days ago. Of the things that Staff is recommending denial,they will
accept those with the exception of one item.
Hite stated they are fine with the requirement of obtaining an engineer's opinion on the foundation. They
have a very competent builder who has examined the interior and it is very probable the engineer will say
the foundation will not need to be replaced. Hite stated they will agree to have the tests done prior to
council review of this application.
Hite indicated they are also fine with relocating the shed to the back of the property. In the wintertime
they will not need to access it very much. Hite noted there is a little encroachment of some pavers that
. was unlrnown previously,which will be removed in the very near future.
The issue comes down to the vestibule. The plan would be to change the design so that the vestibule is
eliminated and the porch would be extended. There will be a door that opens on to the porch. It is
possible to then construct two to three stairs at that point,which would give access to the east yard and
would also completely eliminate the need for the vestibule. The roof would cover that area,which the
applicant feels is adequate for the north side. Those revisions would bring the plan into conformance
with Staff's recommendations.
Feuss asked what Staf�s position is on that proposal.
Curtis stated she believes she could agree with what the applicant is proposing but that she would like the
Planning Commission to discuss the new encroachment of the stairway into the east yard.
Gene Hite stated there is no need for a landing since there is no structure there and that basically the
decking underneath the covered porch would stop at the three stairs.
Schoenzeit noted there is a lot of property to the east.
Feuss asked if the required setback is 30 feet. _
Page
11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted it is within the 50-foot front yard setback.
Hite stated it goes no closer to the street than the current structure. The main entry would be a new door
which is located on the west side of the north wall of the house. That will become the guest entry and
abuts the stairway that is currently there. The door on the east side of the house is basically a back door.
As you go to the south,the lot drops off slightly.
Wotipka stated where the door currently is,there will be a closet constructed in that area. Wotipka stated
they would still have the covered walkway.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Schoenzeit noted the applicant is fine with Staff's recommendations for the most part and that he is
com€ortable with the change raised by the applicant. Schoenzeit stated if there is an unfavorable report
from the structural engineer on the foundation,he would want the application to come back before the
Planning Commission. If it only requires minor repairs,the application does not need to come back.
Leskinen asked if the report from the structural engineer will be received prior to Council review.
Schoenzeit recommended that be made a condition of approval.
Leskinen noted if the engineering does not support the new additions and it becomes a total rebuild,the
proposal will need to be in total compliance with the City's regulations.
Levang asked how Staff feels about point five.
Curtis stated the reduced stoop and other proposed changes are a nice compromise. The Planning
Commission should discuss whether the smaller stoop is okay in exchange for the landing.
Schoenzeit stated he would recommend the steps go to the east and nothing encroach further towards the
street.
Feuss noted a portion of the encroachment would be removed by turning it to the side.
Leskinen noted the applicant has already stated she would be willing to relocate the shed.
Schoenzeit moved,Feuss seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3508, 1205
Dickenson Street,granting of front yard and side yard setback variances,subject to the removal of
the encroaching pavers,relocation of the shed,and with the understanding that the existing
vestibule will be removed,the porch will be extended no further than the current encroachment,
and the new stairs will exit the porch from the east of the property,and with the further condition �
that the certified structural engineer's report be submitted to Staff prior to City Council review of
this application. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*5. 11-3509 TOM AND MARGARET RADKE,3424 EAST LAKE STREET,VARIANCE
Page
12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse moved,Levang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3509,Tom and
Margaret Radke,3424 East Lake Street,granting of a side yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0. ,
6. 11-3510 CASEY HANKINSON ON BEIiALF OF RYAN COMPAIVIES U.S.,INC.,2725
Wayzata Boulevard West,Conditional Use Permit,7:56 P.M.-
Casey Hankinson,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to utilize 40,000 square feet of
the property for outdoor storage on the property at 2725 Wayzata Boulevard West. Over the winter of
2010, a portion of the room on the existing building collapsed due to stress from a heavy snow load.
They are proposing to remove the portions of the rear of the building where the collapse occurred and are
requesting a CUP to utilize the existing concrete slap for outdoor storage.
Open and outdoor storage is a permitted conditional use within the industrial district provided that:
1. Open and outdoor storage is a permitted conditional uses within the industrial district provided
that the storage is screened and landscaped from adjacent residential uses and public right-of
-way. The applicant is proposing to surround the outdoor storage area with a fence and will
install a green mesh within the fence on the west side to screen the area from Old Crystal Bay
Road South.
2. The open outdoor storage area is surfaced with concrete or bituminous. The existing concrete
surface is proposed to remain. '
3. The open outdoor storage area shall not be within any front yard or side yard abutting a public
right-of-way. The open outdoor storage shall be set back five feet from all side and rear lot lines
and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. The storage area is proposed to be
. set back at least ten feet from all property lines.
4. The open outdoor storage area shall not utilize any required off-street parking,loading areas, or
access space. The proposed outdoor storage area will not utilize any off-street parldng,loading
areas, or access space
5. The open outdoor storage,area shall not be used for storage of hazardous liquids, solids, gases,or
wastes. The proposed use complies with this requirement.
6. The property owner shall keep all outdoor storage areas free of refuse,trash,debris,weeds, and
waste fill. As part of the CUP approval,the property owner will be required to adhere to this
standard.
The properties to the east and west of Ryan's property are zoned for industrial use. There are residential
properties to the south of this properly. However,the new Highway 12 separates the industrial property
from the residential; therefore Ryan's property is not directly abutting the residential properties. No
specific screening is required by code.
Issues for consideration:
Page
13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m. �
l. Does the Planning Commission find that the proposed outdoor storage area complies with the
CUP criteria outlined above and in City Code Section 78-823(b).
2. Does the Planning Commission find that a"front yard"may not be an appropriate location for an
open storage area? •
2. Has the Planning Commission identified any potential negative impacts resulting from the
proposed use which should be mitigated?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for 49,000 square feet of outdoor
storage. Additionally,the Crystal Bay business center development contract should be revised to reflect
removal of the open storage area.
Casey Hankinson,Ryan Companies, stated the Crystal Bay Business Center was purchased by Ryan in
2006. A 96,000 square foot building exists today as well as a home on the northwest corner of the
property. Ryan Companies has spent approximately$800,000 to rehab the old building that was built in
the 1960s. The improvements include an entirely new front paved area. Building B was constructed in
2008. The cost of the building was approximately three million and remains empty due to the economy.
As of today,Aero Upholstery is a tenant in Building A and occupies 9800 square feet. ABC Supply used
to occupy 40,000 square feet but they have since moved to Maple Plain. Ryan Companies has a new
tenant that is now occupying some space in Building One. Prior to the time they moved in,the first roof
collapse occurred in the middle of February. The building was constructed in the 1960s in stages,had a
flat roof,and collapsed as a result of a tremendous amount of snow this past winter. No one was hurt as a
result of the collapse. A structural engineer deemed the rest of the building safe for the occupants.
After doing some pricing on repairing the roof,it was found that there would be a substantial cost to make
the repairs. Ryan's proposal is to demolish the back 40,000 square feet of the building and leave the slab
in place. The new tenant would be interested in renting the slab for outdoor storage of pipe.
Schoenzeit asked whether this area will have fencing.
Curtis noted there is a screening requirement but that the fencing would be more of a security requirement
for the user. '
Hankinson indicated there is a nice berm located on Old Crystal Bay Road that makes it difficult to see
that area. The existing building also blocks a portion of the view. The stored materials would be no
higher than four to five feet and the fence would be six feet high.
Schoenzeit asked whether there would be some new interior walls constructed or an exterior partition.
Hankinson stated there would be some shoring installed in that area. Hankinson pointed out the area of
the collapse. There will be shoring at the back south wall.
Thiesse asked if there is any sanitary pipe that would need to be abandoned.
Hanldnson indicated he is not aware if there is.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked if there will be any drainage issues that need to be addressed. ,
Hankinson stated to his belief there will not be.
Curtis noted those items would be reviewed at the building permit stage of the application.
Levang asked whether there is already some fencing along the perimeter.
Hankinson stated there is. Hankinson pointed out the areas of the fencing on the property.
Schoenzeit commented that this seems like a reasonable use of the property and will also help the
applicant get some economic return on the property.
Hankinson asked when the sunset period would be.
Curtis stated the trigger of the sunset requirement would be the further development of this property or
the construction of Industrial Boulevard. Consfruction of additional buildings on the property would
trigger construction of the road. Curtis stated absent development of the property,the City would be
flexible on the sunset provision.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Feuss moved,Levang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3510,Ryan Companies
US,Inc.,2725 Wayzata Boulevard West,granting of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage, �
subject to the development agreement being revised regarding the sunset provision. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0. ,
7. 111-3512 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-100; 78-121; 78-122;
78-123; 78-1111; and 78-1134 REGARDING VARIANCES,8:12 P.M.—8:17 P.M.
Curtis stated the City is proposing text amendments to City Code Sections 78-100; 78-121 through 78-
123; 78-1111; and 78-1134 regarding hardship analysis for variances from the Zoning code requirements.
Currently Orono City Code requires demonstration of a particular or undue hardship when making a
request for a variance from City zoning code requirements. The statutory language was recently revised
to reflect demonstration of a practical difficulty when granting a zoning code variance. The revision of
the statute results in inconsistencies between the City's Code and the requirements in MN State Chapter
462. .
The City Attorney has proposed revised language which is consistent with State Statute. The revised
language proposes to change undue hardship references to practical difficulty in order to maintain
consistency between State Statute and Orono's zoning codes.
Page
15
, , , '
MINUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -
Monday,June 20,2011 .
6:30 o'clock p.m. �
Planning Staff recommends approval of the language as proposed.
Thiesse noted on Page 2, (4),the word undue hardship should be changed to practical.difficulty and Item
No. 12 should be revised to eliminate the words demonstrable hardship. In addition,Page 4,Item 2,the
language,would result in an exceptional hardship to the applicant should be changed.
Thiesse asked who would define nuisance as it is used in Item 2 on Page 4.
Curtis noted the City does have a definition of nuisance. Curtis stated she will forward the recommended
changes to the City Attorney.
Thiesse moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3512,City of
Orono,Amend City Code Sections 78-100; 78-121; 78-122; 78-123; 78-1111; and 78-1134 regarding
variances as amended. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. �
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION COMMENTS
8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 23,2011,AND JUNE 13,2011
Leskinen stated at the June 13�'meeting the majority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda.
Thiesse indicated he attended the May 23'�City Council meeting and that the Crystal Bay Road project
was not approved.
Schoenzeit commented in his view the traffic issues with that road still need to be addressed.
Franchot stated there is some interest in rebidding the project to see whether additional bids can be �
obtained. Franchot noted it was planned that the bonds would be repaid from the state aid funds. The
City can use some of the funds if the project is started before 2012. Franchot noted the City is paying
interest on money they are not currently using.
9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis noted the second hardcover task force meeting will be tomorrow. The next work session is
scheduled for July 6`". At the present time there are no items on the agenda.
. Schoenzeit suggested that if no issues arise by the end of next week,the work session can be cancelled.
Page
16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20, 2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JUNE 27, 2011,AND JULY 11, 2011
June 27, 2011 -Feuss
July 11, 2011 -Levang
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the Orono Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
8:26 p.m.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council at 8:26 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0. � �
��'�,.,✓ � � � '� I � J��-( �� �l
�
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page
_. _..... _ - _ _
17