HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/2011 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
. Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m. ,
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planni.ng Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners John Thiesse,Hue�1lexander,Denise Leskinen,Kevin
Landgraver,and Lizz 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 Aaron Pri.ntup was present.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANING COMMISSION MEETING NIINUTES OF JULY 18,2011
Leslanen moved,seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of
July 18,2011,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #11-3517 PATTI M.HYLEN, 1299 WII�DHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.-6:39
P.M.
Patti Hylen,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a side street setback variance in order to construct a 28' x 11.5'
addition with a partial second story on to the rear of the home. The subject property is 0.17 acre in size,
which is substandard in area for the LR-1B zoning district. It is also substandard when compared to the
neighborhood properties which range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.5 acres. The property contains a small
869 square foot home. The applicant would like to remove an existing porch and construct a new 28' x
11' addition with partial second story on to the rear of the home with an 11.7 foot setback. The existing
home is set back 9.4 feet from the side street lot line along Tonkaview Lane where a 35-foot setback is
normally required. In order to construct an addition, a side street setback variance is required.
Staff finds the applicant's request for a side street setback variance may be reasonable considering there is
an additiona122.5 feet between the lot line and Tonkaview Lane totaling 35 feet. The applicant's
proposed second story will be approximately nine more feet from the lot line to reduce any additional
massing impacts. �
Issues for consideration include the following: �
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 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
� 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested variances?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variance as proposed. Fabric or plastic underlayment �
should be removed from all landscape azeas on the property in order to reduce hardcover.
Thiesse asked whether any of the roads are private.
Curtis indicated they are all private. .
Thiesse asked whether the City has any intention of increasing the size of Wildhurst.
Gaffron stated it is fully developed at this time and that he does not anticipate any further development.
Levang noted the house is located very close to the road and that there does not appear to be a ditch in
that area.
Curtis indicated there is a shallow ditch depicted on the survey.
Thiesse stated the more important issue is the drainage between this property and the boulder wall on the
. adjoining property. "
Patti Hylen,Applicant,had no comment.
Kent Welkin,4615 Tonkaview, stated everything drains down to the road and swales to the 1296
Wildhurst Trail.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Alexander moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.#11-3517, 1299
Wildhurst Trail,granting of a side street setback variance,subject to Staff recommendations.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #11-3518 WILLIAM H.KOCH,3251 CASCO�CIRCLE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE, 6:39 P.M.-7:07 P.M.
William Koch,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting hardcover variances withi.n the 0-75 foot zone and 75-250 foot
zone in order to remove and replace the existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new patio and
_ reconstruct the lake yard stair system. A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance in the
0-75 foot zone.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property. Variances for lot area,lot width and hardcover
were granted allowing 3,363 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone in conjunction with the
approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not
constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. The applicants would like to reconstruct
and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is
not functional. They would also like to construct a lake-side patio.
In addition,the lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly
deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs,install a subterranean support
system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A conditional use permit is required due to
the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is allowed hardcover within the 0-75
foot zone. �
The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. In 2006,the City did not have an
as-built survey requirement and there appears to have been minor changes during the construction which
resulted in additional hardcover. Those modifications appear to be largely additional retaining walls
resulting.in an additiona187 squaze feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The proposed patio
was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and reconfigured to avoid an existing tree which has
since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio.
The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75-250 foot zone result in 634 square feet of
additional hardcover over the existing level and results in 38.9 percent hardcover where 32.8 percent
exists.
The 400 square foot patio design includes 16 square feet of retai.ning wall,permeable pavers, a catch
basin to collect storm water and a pipe to direct storm water to the existing rain garden which may need to
be enlarged or modified to account for the additional volumes. The addition 10 square feet within the 0- �
75 foot zone is considered allowed hardcover as it is to be part of the new stair system.
� Earth movement which exceeds 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the lake requires a conditional use
permit. The applicant is currently working towards development of a stabilization plan which meets City
Engineer approval. This plan should be certified by the applicant's engineer and finalized prior to the
issuance of the administrative grading pemut to begin the work.
The public hearing should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion
prevention or stabilization of slope,natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover,
and impacts to adjacent properties. The City Engineer will review the plans from a stability and safety
perspective.
Staff finds the applicant has a practical difficulty in the orientation and condition of the existing driveway.
The driveway was not constructed in conformance with the approved plan and therefore has a shallow
back-up area which does not meet the current minimum driveway standard. The applicant's proposal now
slightly exceeds the required minimum and appears to be more functional. Staff supports granting the
hardcover variance to reconstruct the driveway,granting a conditional use permit,and a 0-75 foot
hardcover variance to allow slope stabilization and construction of a new stair. While the applicant's
proposal includes permeable pavers and a sub-grade system to treat the excess storm water from the patio,
current City code does not discount pervious pavers.
Page 3
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Issues for discussion include the following:
, 1. Does the Commission identify a practical di�culty which supports granting the hardcover
variances?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
. reasonable manner which is not pemutted 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 variances?
5. Does the Commission find there aze additional conditions which should be placed upon the
conditional use permit approval?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the grading work within the 0-75 �
foot zone as well as a hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the driveway.
The applicant should submit a revised survey reflecting the proposed grading plan prior to placement on a
City Council agenda. Further,the applicant should be required to submit plans and necessary information
to satisfy the City Engineer regarding the slope stabilization at the time of the administrative land
alteration permit following Council approval.
Thiesse stated asked where the City is with their review of the hardcover ordi.nances and whether
permeable payers would be included in that.
Curtis indicated that review is still ongoing and there has not been a final determination. The Planning
Commission will need to act under the existing code.
Landgraver noted there are four sets of hardcover numbers listed in Staff s report and asked how those
numbers progressed. �
Curtis stated in the 75-250 foot zone,the 2,627 is 25 percent,which is allowed by code. The 3,366 square
feet was approved by variance in 2006. The 3,450 square feet is what currently exists on the property.
There were some minor changes to the grading and retaining walls during the construction of the home,
and without the as-built survey requirement,it was not noticed during inspection of the home. Curtis
noted the applicant is over his hardcover limit by 634 square feet over what is existing with what he is
proposing, for a total of 4,087 square feet.
Landgraver asked whether that consists primarily of the patio.
Curtis indicated it includes the patio and the adjustment to the driveway. At the time of original
construction,they were attempting to avoid a tree,which has since died. In addition, construction of the
driveway involved some removal of trees but not tree trunks,which has caused some settling.
Bill Koch stated the house was built at the time they purchased the property in November of 2008. When
they purchased the house,the survey showed there was a 142 square foot patio that appeazed to be
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
approved from the documents that they received. Koch indicated he then met with Planner Evelyn Turner
approximately one year ago and were told that he could put in the patio without any permits. At that
same time the driveway was failing and the decision was made to reconfigure it.
Koch noted he does have a civil and environmental engineering background and that he is aware of the
hardcover regulations in Orono. In designing the larger patio,it was treated as being 100 impervious,
which it likely will not be. Currently there is a small paver landing that they would like to replace and
install a retain.i.ng around the whole thing to keep it secure. It is a 142 squaze foot patio. Koch stated they
would like to keep one section open to act as a planter area.
As it relates to the larger patio space,there is a catch basin to catch the runoff and be diverted into two
rain gardens. Koch commented there should be plenty of capacity to catch that runoff and that he does
not expect any storm water from that area to reach the lake or the neighbors' properties.
Koch indicated he does have some concems with the soil in the area of the retaining.wall. Soil borings
were done at the request of the City and showed.that the soil in the area is apparently clay with thin layers
of sand. They are looking at options to properly stabilize that. The City has requested an engineer sign
off on that part of the project. Koch indicated he has spoken with a couple dozen engineers but that he
has found no one who is willing to sign off on a small residential proj ect.
Koch stated he would like to deal with the wall before there is a failure. Koch pointed out on the
overhead the area of the top wall that is bulging. In addition, some of the logs are deteriorating. Koch
stated he got Concept Landscaping involved because of their experience in dealing with similar lulls.
They have developed a subterranean wall system for the site. Because of the failure plane, Staff has
expressed some concern with it and so a representative from Concept Landscaping is here tonight to
answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would look at the professional engineer signature to help
ensure that the system designed will work properly and it also affords the homeowner some type of
warranty. �
Koch noted most professional engineers carry one million dollars in liability insurance and that Concept
Landscaping carries two million dollars. Koch reiterated he is not sure if he will be able to find a
professional engineer who would be willing to sign off on this project.
Schoenzeit stated that is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission but that in his view the applicant
more than likely will not want to proceed without that engineer sign-off.
Levang indicated she has some questions regarding the driveway and asked what the reason is for
widening the driveway.
Koch stated at the time the driveway was originally constructed,there were two large trees in the
immediate area. The trees were bare at the time they moved into the house. Given the configuration of
the driveway, it is very difficult to access the garage and that they would like to reconfigure it to allow for
better access.
Levang asked what type of paver would be installed.
. Page 5
MlNUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Koch indicated it would be the same type of paver as proposed in the back.
Schoenzeit asked whether the driveway work would also include removal of the stumps.
Koch indicated the stumps would be removed.
Schoenzeit asked how the proposed patio changes affect the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis indicated the patio is at grade and does not impact the average lakeshore setback.
Koch noted there is a wall of evergreens that screen the patio from the one neighbor. The home on the
other side has no windows on the wall facing their house. The patio would be set back from their deck
area as well and there should be minimal impact to the neighbors.
Levang asked whether they have contemplated planting some additional trees in that azea.
Koch pointed out there is also a fence in the area that obscures approximately half of the patio but that
they would be willing to plant some shrubs if that is a concern of the Planning Commission. Koch
indicated he has spoken with the neighbors and that they are not opposed to the project.
Curtis noted the City has not received any comments from the neighbors.
Levang asked if there are any plans to expand the existing rain garden.
Koch indicated they do not have any plans to expand that at this point.
Levang asked what the retaining wall would be constructed of.
Robert Swanson,Meadowood,indicated the retaining wall would be a modulaz block wall.
Leskinen asked if the patio would require additional or special maintenance over the years to prevent
runoff down the slope.
Swanson stated the bioactivity that is created in the open core aggregate will not allow any more of an
inch to three-quarters of organic matter to build up within the pavi.ng surface,which are designed at three
inches. The pavers should never seal off entirely,but in the event they did,there will be a zone of clear
aggregate that will be installed to help prevent that. If there is not 100 percent percolation through the
pavers,there is a slope to the catch basins,which will catch any water that then would be diverted into the
rain gardens.
Leski.nen asked if the pipes would ever have to be flushed out.
Swanson indicated they do not. Swanson stated the soils will percolate to a certain degree down to 50 ,
degrees. A pipe that comes with an overflow that is located under the paver surface will also divert the
water into the rain garden area.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:59 p.m.
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Jerry Luesse,3249 Casco Circle, stated he is here to support the application of the variance and other
requirements.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Schoenzeit commented the configuration of the driveway appears reasonable. The question is whether
the applicant should be allowed expansion of hardcover for the patio.
Thiesse pointed out the drainage system that was described for the patio may not work on the driveway.
Swanson stated they were not proposing to do the driveway as a permeable surface.
Thiesse noted the rain garden on the 2006 survey is lazger than what is being proposed and that all of the
water on that side of the house does drain to the northerly property currently.
Schoenzeit suggested taking Staffls recommendations and to have the size of the rain garden verified by
the City Engineer.
Thiesse commented rain gardens are a great item but that he wants to ensure it will work properly.
Schoenzeit noted they aze adding additional hardcover which will increase the runoff.
Koch stated they have not had any problems with it in the past but that they would be willing to enlarge it
if the City Engineer felt that was necessary.
Curtis asked if the rain garden on the south lot line is similar in size to the rain garden on the north side.
Koch stated it starts approximately 10 feet out from the back of the home and then goes approximately 20
feet. Koch indicated he has not altered it. It is a very shaded area and it is difficult to get anything to
grow in there.
Landgraver asked how the drainage on the south side of the house flows from the garage.
Koch indicated it goes pretty much in a straight line down to the rain garden.
Landgraver noted that rain garden is not as prominent as the other rain garden and that the concern of the
Planning Commission is to ensure that there is adequate capacity with the additional hardcover.
Schoenzeit encouraged the applicant to verify the capacity of the rain garden.
Koch stated he does not have a problem with that.
Schoenzeit commented that Staff's recommendations and requirements appear to be sufficient to address
that concern.
Levang asked what Staff would do in the event the applicant is not able to find an engineer to sign off on
the project.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated Staff has been working with the applicant to explore other solutions and that they would
continue to work towards a solution. If a solution cannot be reached before the application goes before
the City Council,the Council would need to determine whether that requirement could be waived.
Thiesse asked whether the fact that the applicant is unable to get an engineer to sign off on that portion of
the project would impact the rest of his application.
Curtis indicated if need be they could separate that portion of the application.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3518,3251 Casco
Circle,granting of the conditional use permit in order to remove and replace the existing paver
driveway and to reconstruct the lake yard stair system per Staff s recommendations and
requirements. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3518,3251 Casco
Circle,installation of the patio. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #11-3519 BAUER DESIGN BUII..D,LLC, ON BEHALF OF RYAN COMPANIES US,
INC.,550 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW,7:08 P.M.—7:39
P.M.
John Minge,JEM Technical Marketing, and
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting industrial site plan approval for expansion of the newly vacant
office/warehouse industrial building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road North,which is located on the
southeast corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. The proposed expansion follows the
recently reviewed replat of Lots 1 and 2,Block 2, Crystal Bay Business Center, and is proposing is to
move the boundary between the two lots further south.
Ryan Companies platted Crystal Bay Business Center in 2007 and constructed the existing 40,000 square
foot building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road north ion 2008. The building has remained vacant and the
interior is unfinished. JEM Technical Marketing is a manufacturer of high performance hydraulic,
electro-hydraulic,and pneumatic cartridge valves and is currently based in three buildings in Long Lake.
They would like to consolidate their business and are rapidly outgrowing their existing facilities.
JEM Technical would like to remain in this area and have a purchase agreement with Ryan for the
building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road, subject to the ability to expand that building by constructing a
20,000 square foot two-story addition to its south end. The 140'x140'addition will have a defined height
of 30 feet with a partial parapet at 34 feet near the southwest corner. The existing building has a defined
height of 24 feet with the northwest corner parapet at 27 feet. The proposed use is manufacturing and
marketing a product. This property is located in the Industrial District and is a permitted use.
Access to the site is proposed to be relocated further south along Old Crystal Bay Road and is not
anticipated to require any significant changes to turn lanes or striping.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,August�15,2011 .
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The building design and construction is intended to mimic or continue the existing appearance of the
buildi.ng. The height of the addition will be conforming in height and setbacks. The rooftop equipment
shall be screened from view from the ground at the property line with vertical extensions of the building
walls or with parapets or other architectural design features. The rooftop equipment will be located in the
center of the building,which will prevent it from being seen.
The form and proportion of the buildings shall be consistent or compatible with the scale,form and
proportion of existing development in the immediate area. It will not look like an addition when
completed. In terms of architectural design,there will be a flat roof that meets the City's standards. They
have also provided the required number of parking islands.
The applicant is providing 109 parking stalls,with parking at one end of the building with a drive aisle
next to the building. Code requires that those be screened from view. The applicant is proposing a
landscape plan that would add some additional plantings near the road so the need for screening is
minimal to meet the City's Code. Gaffron indicated in his view it would not be an issue if the plantings
- were not done. The existing building is expected to stay in this area and meets all of the required
standards.
The original plat included circulation that would continue the parking to the next lot to the south. This
plan does not include connections to the next lot but there is potential to connect parking lots if need be in
the future. There is also potential for truck traffic to continue on through the site to the south. The
applicant has been asked to template the truck turning movements. They will be adding a fourth loading
dock and they have demonstrated that there is ample room for trucks.
As it relates to utilities,they will be relocating a water line and vacating the existing waterline easement, ,
which is a nonissue but does technically require vacation of the easement and dedication of a new
easement.
In terms of landscaping,the applicant is continuing essentially the same pattern of landscaping to the
south and along the front of the building.
The lighting plan shows that they will be using similar lighting that is currently on the site. Signage is a
basic monument sign and meets City Code.
The Industrial District zoning code standards do not have specific requirements for trash handling. The
applicant is proposing trash containers at the place where the addition meets the old building. The intent
of the Code is to have dumpsters located where they can serve the building and does not require
screening. Staff is questioning whether there is any need to screen the trash containers. There is a view
of the trash containers from the corridor off of Highway 12. One of the options would be to require a
wing wall to fully enclose the dumpsters,but that would be an item for Pla.nning Commission to
. determine if it is necessary.
Issues for consideration:
1. Is there any mechanical equipment proposed on the roof? If so,how will it be screened?
2. Does the landscape plan provide adequate screening for the parking area at the south end of the
building?
' Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. Is there any need to screen the dumpsters at their proposed location?
The City Engineer did have a number of concerns that the applicant is addressing. The applicant is also
working with the Minnehaha Watershed District. All of the drainage is directed towards the pond that is
located behind the golf dome,which is located in the City of Long Lake. Based on an agreement,the
City of Orono maintai.ns that pond. There are no additional impervious areas and it is not expected there
will be any additional runoff to the pond that has not already been planned for.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the utility easement vacation subj ect to dedication of a
replacement easement as well as approval of the site plan subject to compliance with all pertinent Code
requirements and subject to satisfactorily addressing the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to City
Council review.
Schoenzeit asked if there are any requirements for snow removal.
Gaffron stated they have excess parking stalls as well as the loading dock area and that there appears to be
adequate storage for snow. Gaffron noted they are providing 25 parki.ng stalls in excess of City Code that
could be utilized for snow storage.
Landgraver asked if the current drainage feeds into that pond.
Gaffron indicated it does.
Levang asked why the current access needs to be relocated.
Gaffron stated to his understandi.ng it is to accommodate truck movements.
Levang asked whether the new driveway would impact the stoplight at Old Crystal Bay Road and
Highway 12. '
Gaffron stated the City Engineer did not have any specific concern regarding stacking at that stoplight.
Landgraver asked if the trash containers have been taken into account with the truck tra�c.
Gaffron stated in his view they probably can but that would be a question for the applicant.
John Minge,JEM Technical, stated he started the business in 1984 and that he and his family have been
residents of Maple Plain in the past and have also lived in Orono for 20 years. They currently reside in
Long Lake. Minge indicated his daughter is the general manager of the company and resides in Orono.
Minge stated both of his children have attended the Orono Schools.
Minge indicated he would like to have the operations of JEM Technical all contained in one building.
The manufacturing section of the business comprises approximately 80 percent and there are currently 80
people employed. There are basically three shifts,with one shift being on the weekend. Minge stated he
would like all of his operations consolidated under one roof rather than three buildings. The existing
building is one story and they would like to expand that to accommodate office space and future growth.
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if the utilities as far as high speed internet are sufficient for his business.
John Minge stated they have developed their own resources in that regard and that they feel there aze
enough internet capabilities in the azea to meet their needs. �
Brad Isles,JEM Technical, stated they are using exterior wireless and that they have sufficient intemet
speed. They are also using hard T-1 lines for voice only.
Schoenzeit asked who services the lines.
Isles indicated it is Qwest. The closest cell tower is on the Maple Plain water tower.
Schoenzeit asked if the City were to go forward with the fiber optic project if that would be beneficial to
their business.
Isles indicated it would be. ..
Landgraver asked if they meet their growth targets whether they would be at 100 percent at capacity in
five years.
Minge stated their business typically has doubled every six to seven years with the exception of 2009.
Minge stated he is looking at this project as the last project he will need to get involved in as it relates to
expansion of the business. Minge stated in his view there is adequate space in the new building upstairs
to add the additional personnel that would be required. Their business model will likely not expand at
this location but in another state. JEM Technical does have the lion's share of the type of business that
they deal with, so any expansion of the business would probably come from other parts of the country.
Landgraver asked whether the parking as proposed would be su�cient for the 80 some odd employees.
Minge indicated it would be plenty and that they are providing 100 plus parking stalls. Minge stated the
majority of their work requires the use of machi.nes so the amount of labor required is minimal. The
building has plenty of room to expand the business.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Thiesse commented this is a wonderful project and would be a great asset to Orono.
Leskinen asked whether or not the trucks could maneuver adequately with the dumpster in the proposed
location.
Minge asked whether she is speaking of through the parking lots. Minge noted there is an easement in the
contract to allow them to come in off of Highway 12,which is better than what they currently have.
Page
11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Paul Meyer,Architect,thanked Staff for their thorough review of their application. As it concerns the
truck traffic and the trash location,the truck traffic would be out 15 feet away from the trash bins,which
would give them plenty of space.
Gaffron displayed a layout of the site.
Meyer illustrated the location of the dumpsters. Meyer stated as it relates to the maneuverability of the
trucks,there should be plenty of room.
Leskinen asked whether Staff has any other concems with screeni.ng of the trash containers. Leskinen
stated from her review of the site,it appears that the dock area blocks the trash containers.
Gaffron stated he thought the issue needed some discussion by the Planning Commission since it was not
addressed in the code for industrial lots.
Leskinen stated her view of the wing wall is that it will only hinder maneuverability and that she does not
see a need for it.
Schoenzeit asked whether StafPs wording in their recommendations is sufficient as it relates to the
vacation of the easement.
Gaffron recommended the vacation be vacated subject to dedication of a replacement easement and
approval of the site plan subject to compliance with all code requirements and subject to satisfactorily
addressing the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to going to the City Council.
Thiesse asked if the utility easement is shared currently.
Gaffron indicated there is a lot line that was at one time part of the plat but that the new easement will be
located entirely on the property. �
Levang moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application 11-3519,Bauer Design
Build,LLC,on behalf of Ryan Companies and JEM Technical Marketing Company,Inc.,550 Old
Crystal Bay Road North,site plan review, subject to the conditions of Staff. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
5. #11-3520 HAROLD& SANDRA WINGERD, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD,
VARIANCE7:40 P.M.—8:42 P.M.
Harold and Sandra Wingerd,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting hardcover variances in order to rearrange the existing driveway.
At the present time a portion of the applicants' current access to the property is over the neighboring
property. The neighbor to the northwest,Frederick Puzak,has two access easements over the Wingerds'
property. The Wingerds previously utilized a portion of Puzalc's property to enter their driveway. The
Wingerds can no longer use their current access. To solve their access issues,the Wingerds are proposing
to reorient their garage doors from a side load to an end load and construct a new driveway entirely on
Page
12
MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
their property. The lot has lake on both sides and has a very sma1175-250 foot zone. Hardcover �
variances are necessary in order to do as they propose.
The applicants have proposed to remove the side-load garage doors and move the doors to the south side
for an end-load garage. This will allow them to change the driveway so that they do not need to utilize
the neighboring property for access. They are requesting to increase hardcover by 127 square feet in the
southwest 0-75 foot zone,reduce hardcover by 38 square feet in the northeast 0-75 foot zone,and
increase hardcover by 281 square feet in the 75-250 foot zone for a total increase of 307 square feet.
Baldur Park Road as it approaches the applicants'property is approximately 12 feet wide. The applicant
is proposing to remove a large blacktop area in front of the garage as it is currently oriented. Some of the
blacktop removal is proposed within Puzak's easement,resulting in a 12 foot wide driveway before it
widens out on Puzak's own property in this area. Puzak reviewed the proposed plans and expressed
concern regarding the proposed hardcover removals within the area of his easement and emergency
vehicle access to his property. Mr.Puzak has sent a letter to the City outlixring his concerns and that letter
is included in the Planning Commission packet. Staff discussed the issue with Orono's Police Chief and
he has determined that any width in driveway in excess of 12 feet has no additional emergency access
benefit.
Staff finds due to the current access arrangement and the property's proximity to the lake,practical
difficulties exist. The applicants' plan should be reviewed against what is the minimal increase in
hardcover necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed configuration of the new driveway
as it meets the existing driveway in this location should be reviewed such that maneuverability is not
' compromised. Staff feels that perhaps the applicants should flare both ends outward to facilitate pulling
� into and backing out of the new driveway. Additionally,it should be noted that by removing all of the
blacktop hardcover as proposed, a sidewalk to the front door from the driveway would be eliminated.
Code requires a minimum two foot wide sidewalk. The applicants should revise their plan to address
both of these issues. As part of this application,the applicants should be required to remove any existing
sidewalk or hardcover encroachment which extends into the property to the northwest.
Planning Staff recommends approval of hardcover variances in order to reorient the existing driveway.
The applicants should address the need for a sidewalk to the front door,remove encroachments,revise the
curb cut of the driveway, and be required to submit an updated survey reflecting the changes prior to City
Council review.
Thiesse asked if there will be adequate room to turn around in the applicants'driveway.
Curtis stated that should be looked at more closely. The requirement for a side load garage is 15 feet
from a garage door and it may need to be lengthened somewhat to allow for better maneuverability.
Leskinen stated it appears that the end-load garage is cut into the grade and quite a bit of dirt will need to
be removed. Leskinen asked where the dirt will be placed and how that will affect the drainage in the
area.
Curtis indicated there is a retaining wall in the area but that she is not sure where they will be exporting
• the material.
Page
13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked whether the material would need to be exported off the site or whether it can remain on
site.
Curtis stated it can be taken off the site.
Harold Wingerd stated Planner Curtis has described pretty well what they are proposing. The neighbor,
Fred Puzak,who has objected to the plan,purchased the property sometime in 2007 or 2008. Since that
time eight enormous boulders have been placed near the property line.
Curtis displayed an aerial picture and indicated it was taken in either 2009 or 2010.
Wingerd stated he also has some pictures depicting the boulders. Currently there are eight boulders in
that area. Mr.Puzak has also placed parki.ng dividers all the way around. Wingerd indicated they did
access the house previously through a different area and through the arbor. Mr.Puzak has defoliated
everything and has placed some boulders in the area. He has also blocked the arbor. The size of the
boulders are extremely large and aze approximately seven to nine feet in diameter.
Mr.Puzak lives down on the point of the peninsula and is at least a football field away from our
residence. According to Mr.Puzak's papers,it is approximately 121ots away from our residence. There
is a significant amount of distance between the two homes.
Wingerd indicated he drives a Suburban and his wife now drives a Dodge van. They just cannot make the
turn into the existing garage doors. In fact,they have had to park on the side of the road. Otherwise their
cars would stick out into his easement. Wingerd stated he suggested from day one in the spirit of
cooperation that Mr.Puzak drive into his place and they will drive into our place. Unfortunately that has
not worked out. Mr.Wingerd noted they have gone through three years of litigation.
Wingerd stated he can only tell the Planning Commission that when they come around that comer,they
get a knot in their stomachs as a result of what Mr.Puzak has done. They have contacted a realtor,Jeff
Martineau, and would like to sell the property. The realtor suggested that they try this procedure with the
Planning Commission to switch the garage doors. Wingerd indicated he was not aware of Staff's
recoxnmendations regarding the sidewalks until today but that he does not feel that will be a problem.
The sidewalk can be located w here the old garage doors are. As it relates to the turnaround,if it requires
a jog,they would be happy to comply.
Mr.Puzak has submitted a letter to the City,which Mr.Wingerd indicated he did not receive until this
afternoon. They are currently in the midst of litigation. Wingerd indicated he has spoken with his
attorneys about the court orders and they believe we have a meritorious claim. It would have to go to the
court of appeals to be resolved since the lawsuit was based on a new statute. Wingerd indicated he would
prefer not to do that since they have already spent into six figures on attorney fees. What they are
proposing is substantially easier for us and better for the City.
Mr.Puzak states in his letter that the Long lake Fire Department is on record voicing concern regarding
the passage of emergency vehicles. They have been on record because of the rocks and a post near the
boulders. The post is eight by eight. Wingerd stated in his view it is somewhat disingenuous to blame
them for that situation. The width of the current asphalt is roughly 12 to 13 feet. They do have to
occasionally park up in this area but they try to park off the asphalt to allow other cars to come in and out.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mr.Puzak also indicates that we have failed to observe the full width of the easement. In discovery
during litigation,Mr.Puzak only indicates there were two times when he could not get through. Mr.
Puzak only lives there two and a half months out of the year. One of the times when he could not get
through was when he showed up unexpectedly on New Year's Eve. Mr.Wingerd indicated they were out
of the country and their children were at the residence. Mr.Wingerd stated in his view it is disingenuous
� for him to make that claim.
Mr.Puzak also indicates that they could basically purchase that lot or lots from him. Mr.Puzak has cut
down two enormous cottonwood trees,one was 48 inches across and another one that was 36 inches
across. He has completely defoliated the adjoining lot and it looks like somewhat has poured gas on the
site. The rocks that are along the lake have also been marked. Wingerd indicated he will not let his
two-year old grandson in that area because of fear of contaminants.
Wingerd indicated he has no objection to doing the minor things, such as the sidewalk and the turnaround
jog or whatever Staff recommends.
Schoenzeit stated those items would need to be formally recorded in a survey prior to going to City
Council.
Winder indicated that in addition,Mr.Puzak has indicated in his letter that Mr. Gronberg did not put the
easement in the survey,which to his knowledge is depicted on the survey.
Curtis stated to her understanding Mr.Puzak was referencing the blue triangular easement that was
depicted in an earlier survey. Curtis noted she drew that easement on the overhead for illustrative
purposes. .
Schoenzeit commented there might be multiple easements.
Winger indicated they are willing to respect his easement and leave him alone.
Levang asked the applicant to explain where his land is and where the easement is. Levang noted she did
visit the property today and that Mrs.Wingerd had explained that Mr.Puzak has to travel approximately
60 feet across their driveway to get to his easement and that the Wingerds have never denied him that 60
feet even though he does not have an official easement over that 60 feet.
Winger indicated she is referring to this area here. ,
Levang asked Mr.Wingerd to point out the location of the official easement.
Curtis indicated it is the pink and blue lines.
Schoenzeit asked if there are any requirements that that area has to be paved.
Curtis indicated she does not have any details on that easement since it was recorded in 1948.
Wingerd stated the easement has been used by everyone for as long as he can remember.
Schoenzeit asked how the Planning Commission can require the removal of pavement pending litigation.
Page
� 15
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated this application was discussed with the City Attorney prior to drafting the report and that the
width of the driveway access and the applicant's proposal should not restrict further than the existing
roadway. The paved area does not impede the access for Mr.Puzak and it becomes a private matter and
not a land use issue at that point.
Gaffron noted Puzak does not need any easement over that lot since he is the owner of it. The piece that
is being asked to be removed is all within the Wingerds' property. The City Attomey stated he has the
right to travel across this particular piece of property and the fire and police department do not feel it is
necessary to widen it any wider than the existing road. Gaffron stated Staff is comfortable requiring
removal of the portion that is within the easement.
Schoenzeit asked whether there are any issues with snow removal.
Gaffron stated Public Works has dealt with plowing this for a number of years.
Wingerd stated when they plow,they push the snow towards the lake. All of this area was class five rock
until approximately three years ago when it was paved.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Frederick Puzak, 1340 Baldur Park Road, stated to clarify the matter of the easement,lus easement was
adjudicated as the area depicted in blue on the drawing,which was previously shown on the survey that
was submitted for the construction of their garage. The Benson survey shows the proposed garage and it
also indicates easement per document 2513998,which is shaded in blue. Puzak indicated everyone has
been aware of the easement for quite some time.
Puzak asked why the Wingerds were allowed to build within 9.3 feet of the lot line.
Schoenzeit noted it is an existing structure.
Puzak noted it was built in 2005.
Curtis stated it was supposed to be 10 feet but there was no as-build survey required at that time.
Puzak displayed the City's m;nimum driveway standards. For a side loading garage,it requires a
minimum 20 feet. Puzak indicated it is his understanding there is an additional five foot setback required
for hardcover,which would have required a 25-foot setback,which for some reason did not occur.
Schoenzeit stated the purpose of tonight's hearing is for the Planning Commission to look at options to
help the Wingerds gain access to their garage
Puzak stated there were a number of factual inaccuracies in Mr. Wingerd's statements that he could rebut,
but that he would propose that Baldur Park Road be extended over Lot 21. The new owners have
indicated they would like to sell their property. The new owners could pick up the balance of Lot 21 and
Lot 22,thus creating a legally conforming half acre lot in the LR-1C zoning district. By extending the
road in such a manner,the City would also have a place to push the snow on the west side of the road.
The new owner of Lot 20 could own everything to the east. This would be a win/win situation. Mr.
Page
16
1��IINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Puzak indicated he would get free access to his house,the Wingerds would get a legally conforming half
acre lot with an extra 100 feet of lakeshore, and the city would get a place to put their snow.
Schoenzeit asked if he brought that proposal to build the road to the City.
Curtis indicated the road as proposed would be located in a wet land.
Gaffron stated the green area depicted on the picture defines a delineated native wetland boundary. In the
upper left of the drawing, 50 feet inland from that is a boundary for a 50-foot required buffer and another
20-foot setback for buildings. Mr.Puzak and the City had discussed this option at least once in the past
and also perhaps with the previous owner. If the City is looking at continuing the road and angling it up
towards the existing driveway,there would be impacts on the wetland and new hardcover within 75 feet
of the lake. There is also an existing sewer manhole that is currently outside the travel area that would be
impacted and the need to remove a number of trees greater than six inches in diameter. Gaffron indicated
they looked at all these items two or three years ago.
Gaffron stated the City does need a paved azea for storage of snow. Storm water management would also
need to be addressed. At one point the City considered doing a cul-de-sac in the area,which would
require land from Mr.Puzak and would also require some storm water items be addressed as well as
dedication of a formal easement. Gaffron commented there are many pieces that would have to fall
together to make what Mr.Puzak is proposing come together. The City has looked at all these issues in
the past and has determined not to go forward with it given the costs and the impact to the wetlands. .
Fred Puzak stated the proposed road is totally outside the wetland area itself and there would be an actual
net reduction in hardcover. The area in pink is either gravel or blacktop, and it is his understanding that
traveled gravel is also considered hardcover. By relocating the road,there would be a net reduction in
hardcover.
Levang asked if the conclusion of Staff was that the City is not interested in relocating the road.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. In addition,the neighbori.ng property owners would have to purchase
additional land. The City was not interested in having to deal with storm water and wetland issues at that
point. This is not an existing problem for Public Works but something that would be nice to have some
day in the future. If the Puzak property ever develops,that would be the ti.me when the City requests
some of those changes. �
Puzak stated it is unfair to remove any of his paved driveway.
Levang asked whether he paid for the paved driveway.
Puzak indicated he did not pay for it but that it is cunently paved and that a portion of it was paved by the
City. The City extended their blacktop into the Wingerd property or into his easement. Driving over the
gravel would make it be considered hazdcover,which should be taken seriously by the Planning
Commission.
Levang asked if this is Mr.Puzak's driveway.
Puzak stated he has a valid driveway easement over it.
Page
17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated there is nothi.ng in the proposal that would prevent Mr.Puzak from gaining access to his
properly. The role of the Planning Commission tonight is to help the applicants gain access to their
garage.
Puzak stated the area in blue has been adjudicated to be the valid easement.
Schoenzeit stated they are not discussing the easements tonight but they are focused on getting the
applicants access to their garage.
Puzak stated he does not like the fact that the City allowed the Wingerds to construct a side loading
garage in the first place,which is against the City's own standards, and that he does not want any
pavement removed from his area.
Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is looking at the recommendations of the City Engineer and
the City Attomey.
Thiesse asked whether anyone from Staff has looked at the easement for the blue area and whether that is
part of the driveway.
Gaffron indicated he does not have those documents in front of him and that they have asked the City
Attomey to review those documents. Gaffron stated the City only has a copy of the 1948 easement.
Curtis indicated the one she received was the adjudicated acceptance of it and not the actual language of
the easement.
Gaffron indicated Staff will need to take a look at it.
Puzak stated it was included in the e-mail.
Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the City has details on what is required to be maintained in that
area.
Gaffron stated he does not recall seeing anything other than the boundaries of the easement and that the
information he has just defines the easement for driveway purposes.
Schoenzeit asked whether it is a mixture of blacktop and gravel.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Puzak stated it is a mixture and that to his understanding Orono considers gravel to be hardcover.
Schoenzeit asked if it would be a mixture in the future.
Puzak stated that some day he would like to pave his driveway rather than have it torn up today and then
have to repave it later. The survey shows the portion that has been landscaped within his easement.
Puzak requested that the Planning Commission leave what pavement is akeady in his easement, and that
if the Planning Commission does not want to address the extension of the road,it can be kicked down the
Page
18
1VIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
road. Puzak stated if they can get on the right track now and head for a long-term solution,that should be
what is considered.
Schoenzeit indicated that would be outside the scope of what the Planning Commission is considering
tonight,but that if he understands Mx.Puzak's comments tonight,he would like to see the pavement
remain.
Puzak requested the original Gronberg survey be displayed. There are a number of discrepancies in the
survey and it does not show the full extent of the easement. It references a secondary easement,which is
incorrect. The secondary easement is valid only over Lots 21 and 22. Puzak stated the Planning
Commission is talking about blacktop to be removed inside a landscaped area,which would make the
hardcover calculation inconect.
Curtis pointed out the area of the landscaping. Curtis stated the arrow is pointing to the extent of the
removal,which is on the edge of the proposed new driveway.
Puzak indicated that is not correct. The Wingerds are also showing removal of blacktop into his
driveway. Puzak stated he is not sure how the Planning Commission can vote on this without a correct
survey.
Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and that the applicant
must submit a complete and conect survey prior to movi.ng to the City Council.
Puzak commented he would hope they would do so. Puzak asked whether everyone is supposed to
receive a mailer regarding this application. �
Curtis stated a postcard is mailed out to the adjoining property owners.
Schoenzeit stated the City receives a list from Hennepin County based on tax records. The City then
takes that list and mails the notice to the appropriate properly owners.
Puzak stated he is the landowner of record and he did not receive notice of tonight's hearing.
Curtis indicated the notice would have been sent to 440 West Arm Road East, Spring Park,Minnesota,
under the name of 1350 Baldur,LLC.
Puzak stated according to the list he should have been mailed four of them.
Curtis indicated the City would have only mailed one since the duplicates are removed.
Puzak stated he would like to see an affidavit of mailing since he did not receive any.
Curtis noted they do have an affidavit of mailing.
Puzak stated he would like to receive future notices.
Schoenzeit stated Staff strives to ensure accuracy of the notices and Staff can provide that affidavit to Mr.
Puzak.
Page
19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit encouraged Mr.Puzak to work with Staff on that item.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.
Wingerd noted this is a flower garden area and has always been a flower garden. Wingerd indicated he
did not know anything of Mr.Puzak's plans that he raised here tonight. Wingerd stated he would presume
that Mr. Gronberg is well lrnown to this Commission and that he feels his reputation speaks for itself.
Schoenzeit stated accurate surveys take a number of revisions and that the burden is on the applicant to do
the due diligence necessary to make it complete.
Wingerd stated they thought they had completed an accurate survey. Wingerd noted they had also erected
a sign in their yard next to the roadway the first few days regarding their application and every morning it
was knocked over. It has since been relocated to the middle of their yard. Mr.Puzak did have notice of
the application.
Schoenzeit encouraged Mr.Puzak to work with Staff to see the City's elaborate, detailed accurate
notification process.
Schoenzeit stated the focus of the Planning Commission is to help the applicant with their practical
difficulty in how to access their garage. The applicant will need to submit an accurate survey. If the blue
survey lines have information that prevents this from going forward,the City needs that information.
Mrs.Wingerd stated they have had a complete survey done withi.n the past few years.
Schoenzeit stated the survey would need to reflect all easements,including utility easements and sewer
easements. The surveyor will need to dig through all the public records to include the layers of missing
information. With respect to Mr.Puzak,it is important that the applicant's survey contains that
information. Based on what has been presented to the City,the survey appears to be incomplete and
insufficient to go to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the applicants will need to make sure that all the
information is available so everyone has all the facts.
Levang asked whether Staff is asking for the applicants to submit an updated survey reflecting the
changes. Levang stated she would like it to be very clear on what the applicants need to do.
Curtis indicated the recommendation from Staff would be that the easements that encumber the property
regarding access for Mr.Puzak be shown on the survey,the proposed changes to the driveway be
depicted,the removal of the hardcover proposed, and modification to the curb cut as well as the sidewalk.
Wingerd indicated they will do that.
Thiesse stated in his opinion the side loadi.ng garage does not a11ow for adequate space to back the
vehicles out of the garage. The easement is for Lot 20 and not Lot 21, so there is not adequate space. Mr.
Puzak has indicated he has no interest in the Wingers being on his property,which is his right,but that the
applicants need access to their garage.
Schoenzeit stated they have a proposal before them that looks promising.
� • Page
20 �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
� 6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse encouraged the applicants review the proposed driveway to ensure there is adequate room for
them to turn around.
Wingerd indicated they will do that and that they have had to make numerous maneuvers in their
driveway already due to the rocks. Wingerd indicated he did not know exactly what Mr. Gronberg meant
and that Mr.Thiesse's point is well taken regarding the turnaround.
Schoenzeit stated the proposal should meet adequate engineering standards to accomplish what they are
requesting.
Wingerd indicated he will communicate that to Mr. Gronberg.
Thiesse stated regarding the hardcover removal,if the original easement is part of a driveway easement,
he is not sure how the Planning Commission can request that pavement be removed. If the 12-foot
easement is the only portion allowed for the driveway,then Mr.Puzak needs to understand that if it is not
an easement and it is located on the Wingerd property,they have the right to remove it.
Curtis stated it is her understanding that what is being proposed to be removed is on the applicants'
property.
Gaffron stated Staff will need to ask the City Attorney to define whether or not the existing easement
prescribes exactly how much hard surface or driving surface within that easement is allowed Mr.Puzak.
If there is no definition, somebody will need to decide whether or not the hardcover that is excess in the
minds of various entities can be removed or not.
Landgraver requested that the hardcover that is proposed to be removed be highlighted on the overhead.
Curtis stated there is currently hardcover in front of the garage. Curtis illustrated on the overhead the
areas of existing hardcover and the areas the applicant is proposing to remove.
Schoenzeit commented other than the fact that the Planning Commission does not like hardcover,removal
of the excess hardcover seems like it would be a source of ignition and would escalate the issue between
the parties. Schoenzeit stated he is less inclined to require removal of the hardcover until some higher
authority determines exactly what should be removed.
Curtis suggested the applicant only remove the hardcover up to the pink line. �
Thiesse stated that seems reasonable but that the hazdcover should not be removed from the easement.
Schoenzeit stated in order to move this application forward and not escalate the situation,the Plannuig
Commission should allow the new side loading garage and allow the additional hardcover to access the
garage,but that their recommendation should not include the removal of any hardcover located within the
easement area.
Curtis asked if that would be within the entire blue azea.
Schoenzeit stated that would apply to either the blue and pink area,but that the applicant can add
sufficient hazdcover in order to access his new garage.
� Page
21
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the hardcover in that area may never be removed then.
Schoenzeit stated in his view there is not enough square feet of hardcover that would be removed that
• would help the lake and which would warrant causing additional fighting between the parties. Schoenzeit
stated his recommendation would include no removal of hazdcover and adding sufficient hardcover to
access the garage.
Levang commented she does not agree with the recommendation of Chair Schoenzeit since it is a fair
amount of hardcover. The hardcover detracts from the home. The applicants will have a different side
loading garage and then a big area of blacktop that serves no purpose. Levang stated the applicants will
also need a sidewalk so something will need to be removed. Levang stated in her view it is detrimental to
the homeowner and that she would not agree with that. •
Levang stated she is fine with the hardcover removal up to the pink line and that the City should get the
county attorney to weigh in on this prior to it going before the City Council. Levang indicated she is
happy to make a motion saying pending recommendation or approval by the county attorney. If the
Planning Commission does not say anything now,the hardcover removal will likely not occur. .
Thiesse stated he would agree with removal of hardcover withi.n the purple line.
Gaf&on illustrated the area that would be removed.
Schoenzeit asked whether the City Attorney has already confirmed the removal.
Gaffron indicated Staff can verify that with the City Attorney again. Gaffron stated one question that has
not been asked is who put the hardcover there in the first place, and that in his opinion it was probably the
Wingerds or their predecessors. Gaffron concurred the City Attorneys should make a recommendation on
this application.
Levang asked how Council Member Printup feels about this application.
Printup stated he is in agreement with what Commissioner Levang has stated but that he has a concern
with satisfying the applicant and thereby cause further acceleration of the problem. Printup stated it
sounds like the applicant is dealing with the area between the pink line and the blue line and that he is
going to pursue that since it is his easement.
Schoenzeit stated as it relates to hardcover,the Planning Commission should follow the recommendation
of the City Attorney.
Levang asked how Staff feels about that approach.
Curtis stated she is wondering how to direct the applicant as it relates to his survey revision. The City
Attorney has reviewed the application. Curtis stated in her view a compromise would be to leave some of
the hardcover within the pink area that is currently shown to be removed and allowing the applicant to
' remove the remainder of that area. Curtis noted the easement is a private issue between the two property
owners and that the land use issue in front of the Commission tonight is to make sure that Mr.Puzak's
Page
22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
access is not inhibited. The amount to be removed is an area approximately 17 feet wide and exceeds the
current width of the road.
Landgraver stated it sounds like the request is to incorporate that sliver into the hardcover calculation,and
then subject to a review of the easements,whether certain hardcover should be maintained.
Schoenzeit stated they are going to direct the applicant to create a new survey showing that additional
sliver in their hardcover calculations and they are also going to direct the City Attorney to provide an
opinion that the correct amount is being removed.
Landgraver stated what is unclear is what the language in the blue easement is and what are the
requirements.
Curtis displayed the blue easement document on the overhead.
Schoenzeit stated as long as you have a 12-foot wide path,that would constitute good access and any
excess hardcover should be removed.
Puzak noted the fire department is already on record requesting 20 feet.
Curtis stated she did speak to the police chief and fire chief and that their comments were regarding the
restricted access that resulted from the placement of the pole and the boulders.
Puzak stated there is more than 12 feet on the existing street and even more if you consider existing
gravel. The Uniform Building Code-requires 20 feet. Puzak stated he would object to the hearsay that the
12 feet is allowable when it is not.
Schoenzeit stated the City attorney has stated that 12 feet is fine.
Wingerd stated if it is 20 feet,then everyone further down on Baldur Road is in violation.
Schoenzeit moved to recommend approval of Application#11-3520,Harold and Sandra Wingerd,
1376 Baldur Park Road,granting of hardcover variances per staff recommendations,subject to the
applicants submitting,prior to the application going to the City Council,a completely updated
survey showing sidewalks,adequate and accurate turnarounds,the proposed hardcover for the
driveway,including the sliver that is being re-added and what is to be removed,and also subject to
the City Attorney confirming from the language contained within the blue easement that the
Planning Commission is not requesting more hardcover to be removed than what is allowed.
Thiesse asked if the City Attomey should also review whether the hardcover in the purple area is
required.
Schoenzeit stated the City Attomey should review the hardcover in total for the application versus what
should remain.
Thiesse seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Page
23 � �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
� (Recess taken from 8:44 p.m.to 8:50 p.m.)
6. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES,8:43 P.M.—9:30 P.M.
Tami Helmer,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in
order to remove and replace portions of the lakeside deck,add dormers to the lakeside of the home,and
construct a garage addition. No increase in hardcover is proposed.
In 1995 a previous property owner was granted hardcover variances in order to rearrange hardcover on
the property. Hardcover calculations for that application were based on a 1991 survey. The property was
granted at that time a variance allowing 42.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The
hardcover calculations for that variance application appear to have been calculated by the applicant.
Following a review by Staff,it was determined they were inaccurate. Staff conducted a comparison of
the 1991 survey and an as-built survey submitted by the applicant in order to resolve the inconsistency.
The current survey and hardcover numbers,minus the landscape areas lined with plastic and/or fabric,
reflect the actual 1995 approved hardcover level. Staff believes 5,095 squaze feet or 30.5 percent is the
actual level of hardcover approved with the 1995 resolution. This number was the basis for Staffls
hardcover analysis. �
The existing home is situated partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The shoreline curves
in this area of Casco Point, and while the applicant's property is nearly in line with the home to the east,it
sits ahead of the home to the west.
The applicant is proposing to construct roof dormers on the lake side of the home in the place of the
existing skylights in order to improve the appearance. No additional living space is proposed in this area.
The dormers would not extend closer to the lalce than the existing roof. However,the dormers would be
considered an upward expansion of the existing nonconforming roof and a variance is required.
The applicant would also like to remove portions of the deck from within the average lakeshore setback
on the east side of the property and relocate it partially in the notch at the rear of the garage. The new
portions of the deck would continue to be ahead of the average lakeshore setback but would not encroach
further than the existing deck. There is a considerable amount of vegetation along the west side of the
applicant's property line which helps to screen the applicant's property from the neighbor to the west and
construct a 555 square foot addition on the side of the home.
Staff finds practical difficulty exists with respect to the curving shoreline resulting in the average
lakeshore setback line cutting through the applicant's home. The applicant is not proposing to increase
hardcover above the existing, approved level,and is not proposing to encroach further into the average
lakeshore setback with the ixnprovements. Staff does not find that the dormers or the deck will adversely
impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties.
Staff recently met with the son of the property owner to the west,Charlie Jones,who resides at the
property. Mr.Jones made statements regarding his concem about the type of impacts the applicant's
proposal will have on the value of his mother's property and the impact on his view of the lake. He also
expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal to move the outdoor living space from the east side
Page
24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011 .
6:30 o'clock p.m.
of the lot to the west side of the lot closer to his property,resulting in a negative impact to his sense of
privacy. Mr.Jones was advised to provide Staff with written statements to be included within the packet
and/or to appear at the public hearing.
Issues for consideration include the following:
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?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created
by the granting of the requested average setback variance such as vegetative screening or impose
conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested hardcover variance?
As the applicant is not proposing an increase in the hardcover level,Planning Staff recommends approval
of the hazdcover variance as requested. Staff also recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback
variance for the deck rearrangement and roof dormers. The existing vegetative screening should be
maintained and/or enhanced. Plastic or fabric liners should be required to be removed from all landscape
areas, including the area within the 75-foot setback from the lake as part of any approval. The plans
should be revised to reflect the City Engineer's recommendation prior to placement on the City Council
agenda.
Tami Helmer,3131 Casco Circle,indicated she is here with A1 Amin and that they are planning to be
long-term residents at the home. The property was purchased a little over a year ago. Helmer indicated
when she first looked at the property, she felt it was a fabulous site and a wonderful neighborhood.
Helmer stated she did not want to purchase the property unless she could remodel it. Helmer stated she
had a survey completed and met with City Staff on more than one occasion before she decided to go
ahead and purchase the property.
Helmer stated during the process of living there,the process of redesigning and improving the home were
started and that she has been working with Mike Sharratt. The plan would enhance my property as well
as the neighborhood.
Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated Staff has done a good job summarizing what they have done in
order to make responsible changes to the property. They have eliminated almost 400 square feet of
nonconforming structure and relocated a portion of it 16 feet further back,which makes the deck on the
rear seem smaller in scale. From what was approved in 1995 for hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone,they
at 5,095 square feet,with a voluntary agreement to remove the plastic, fabric and rock. The end result is a
project that is sigrnificantly better than what exists today just from an environmental prospective and there
have been significant aesthetic improvements from both sides of the house.
Sharratt stated they have also provided adequate garage space. The property owner originally was going
to propose a screen porch,which would have been located on top of the existing deck. The applicant
would have been permitted to do because of the existing structure in that location but they then started
looki.ng at a screen porch located undemeath the deck. Since they did not want to increase the building
Page
25
MINiTTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
mass appearance,they are proposing to push the screen porch back from the lake and into the structure.
Sharratt stated in his view everything that is being proposed is a positive step forward. �
Landgraver asked Mr. Sharratt to elaborate on the screen porch.
Sharratt stated the deck exists all across the house and that they originally talked about putting a screen
porch on top of the deck and then under the deck. They decided to put the screen porch further back and
making the screen porch part of the garage space. The door side of the garage would be pushed out to
allow for 24 feet of garage.
Landgraver asked if there is space above the porch.
Sharratt indicated that would be the master bedroom. The dotted line depicts where the screen porch will
be located on the back side of the garage.
Landgraver asked if there would be any changes to the left side of the garage. ,
Sharratt stated the only change on the left side would be the addition of a one-story garage that would
meet the existing two-story wall. Sharratt indicated the deck exists to approximately this area and will be
adding the little triangular area,which is less than what is being removed.
Levang asked if underneath the screen porch would be the garage doors.
Sharratt stated there would be a single garage door.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
Charlie Jones, 3129 Casco Circle, stated he has a dining room and porch and another porch that look
southeast.The proposed deck, even though it is less than what is existing,obstructs the lake view of the
current house. Jones noted the adjoi.ning lot will probably be developed some day and that he would like
to preserve the view of the lake.
Jones displayed a picture showing no hardcover in that area. Jones indicated he has been looking at the
documents and that the hardcover currently is 30 percent,which is over what is allowed in that area. City
Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the
property is brought into conformance. The property does not meet the exemptions. Jones stated the
applicant is requesting the changes for reasons of privacy but that she is getting her privacy at his
expense.
Jones indicated he is in agreement that the proposed structure is attractive but that this lot consists of.57
acre and is already overbuilt by 20 percent. Jones stated he does not see a hardship. The applicant bought
this property one year ago. If she needed a larger home,there were other homes that would have met her
criteria. Jones requested the Planning Commission deny or table the application.
Schoenzeit asked if Mr.Jones'concern is the fact that the main use of the deck is going from the rear of
the deck to the triangular area.
Page
, 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Jones indicated that is not all of his concern. Jones pointed out there is also a window that looks west
which is in full view of his dining room and deck. Jones indicated those two items are essentially the
crux of his concern.
Schoenzeit asked whether all of the setbacks are met.
Curtis indicated they are.
Greg Becker, 3133 Casco Circle,indicated he resides in a house that was built in 1901 and that it has the
same footpri.nt today. Becker stated he has a couple of issues with the application. To his knowledge the
rear deck was never approved by the City.
As it relates to Drawing A6,it basically looks like there is 14 feet coming out from the garage for the
screen porch. Becker indicated he liked Mr. Sharratt's original concept of building the screen porch over
the deck,which would not protrude so much out the front.
Becker asked what the need is for the third garage stall. Becker stated in his view it is because of the
design element of the screen porch. Becker stated he does not know exactly what it will be used for since
the distance between his deck and the existing home is about 10 feet. Becker stated he does not laiow
how the site will be accessed to construct the screen porch since there is not enough room.
Becker commented he would like to say that no one should question Mike Sharratt's ability to design a
beautiful home but that you can question the amount of hardcover that it takes to build that beautiful
home. Becker stated in his opinion Mr. Sharratt can design a beautiful home without the additional
hardcover.
Suzanna Pastock indicated she is Charlie Jones'fmance', and that usually a variance is granted due to a
hardship for the current homeowner. Pastock stated the Planning Commission needs to be careful about
granting variances when there is not a hardship.
Schoenzeit stated the new term that the Planning Commission is operating under is practical difficulty
given the recent Supreme Court case.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked whether the proposal meets the 10-foot setback.
Curtis indicated it does.
Schoenzeit stated part of Staffs presentation was that the reconfiguration reflects a zero net increase in
hardcover.
Curtis indicated that is cozrect provided the landscape plastic/fabric is removed.
Schoenzeit asked Mr. Sharratt to speak to how this plan was decided
Thiesse noted they are not here to redesign the plan. �
Page
27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is looking to see whether this is an optimal design.
Landgraver stated to his understanding the garage needs to be extended because of the screen porch.
Sharratt stated a number of factors go into designing a house, such as clienYs needs,finances, City codes,
and coming up with an optimal plan. The primary reason that the garage was pushed forward was not
because of the screen porch. The applicant looked at other locations for the screen porch on the lake side,
" which would have created a roof and created more of an obstruction to view. Pushing it into the garage
was an attempt to meet the requirements of the City. Sharratt indicated they have tried to do everything
' they could to get out of the nonconforming area.
Sharratt stated as to whether the deck is legal nonconforming,to his understandi.ng it is depicted on the
1995 survey. Sharratt reiterated they looked at a number of different solutions and not just one in coming
up with the current proposal. During that process we felt that we would have an advantage by pushing it
back into the structure and making it less of an imposition on the lake side. It is 149 feet from the deck to
the lake,which is twice the 75-foot setback,but it is not adequate for the line of sight because the lot is
located on a point. Sharratt indicated the real reason the garage was pushed out is because there was a
desire for two and a half stalls,with the added space being used for storage.
Sharratt noted they are below structural coverage requirements at 14.6 percent.
Curtis indicated the deck is shown on the 1995 survey and there is no indication in the file that the deck is
not legal.
Schoenzeit noted in 1995 the variances were added.
Levang commented she is impressed by the efforts of the applicants to remove hardcover. Levang asked
if the applicant would be conducive to adding more trees if they would help mitigate the Jones'view.
Helmer indicated she would be willing to put in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees.
Schoenzeit pointed out the increase in the hardcover is on the street side. Schoenzeit stated in his view it
looks like a worthwhile project and that the negatives to the neighbors are quite minimal.for the benefits
that they are getting. '
Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with Chair Schoenzeit. �
Leskinen stated to her recollection there was quite a bit of screening already on the property
Jones noted the screening does not exist in the winter.
Helmer pointed out that in the winter no one would be out there.
Thiesse noted the deck depicted in the picture is existing and that the new deck would be virlually the
same. The rim board will be noticeable in the same location.
� Page
� � 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Sharratt pointed out the location of the rim board and stated the deck would be angled back. Sharratt
indicated they located the deck at an angle because they were trying to respect the fiu-thest most
projection to the lake.
Landgraver noted the window is enlarged.
Levang requested Mr. Sharratt point out the new window.
Sharratt pointed out the location of the window.
Helmer noted there is a second existing window in the garage which will be eliminated.
Schoenzeit stated the lakeside rail will be at a diagonal.
Sharratt stated the garage is being added over existing driveway and is conforming to all the setbacks.
Levang moved,Leslanen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3521,3131 Casco
Circle,granting of hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances,subject to the condition that
the screening and vegetation be preserved or enhanced,and subject to the recommendations of
Staff.
Sharratt asked whether the landscaping should be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Schoenzeit recommended the applicant bring vegetation and elevation views to the City Council.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. �
7. #11-3522 STEINER&KOPPELMAN ON BEHALF OF NANCY BIGOS,3350 FOX
STREET,VARIANCE,9:31 P.M.—9:40 P.M.
David Steingas,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to
the existing home. The average lakeshore setback cuts through the middle of the existing home. Any
improvement on the lakeward portion of the home would require a variance. The subject property is large
and there is ample vegetative screening between the home and the property to the east. Because the
addition will be on the east side of the home, it will not be visible from the property to the west.
Staff finds practical diff`iculty exists which supports the granting of an average lakeshore setback
variance. The applicant's request is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and does not
result in excessive massing on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing pool which
is situated approximately 164 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line and approxixnately 135 feet
from the lake. Further,it does not appear the proposed addition will negatively impact views of the lake
enjoyed by the adjacent properties.
Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance.
Page
29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,Auwst 15,2011
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked why the Planning Commission would approve something in front of a lakeshore
setback.
Curtis stated they are not encroaching furkher into the average lakeshore setback but are expanding within
the average lakeshore setback. Curtis displayed the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis stated the
proposal will have no impact on the view of the lake for the property to the west or to the east.
Staff does not have the ability to grant the building permit because of the average lakeshore setback line.
There is a provision in the Code to allow Staff to administratively approve the variance only in cases
where the average lakeshore setback cannot be met. Planning Staff does not have the authority to make
that administrative decision when the average lakeshore can be met.
Schoenzeit asked whether this property could be subdivided further.
Curtis indicated it can be. ,
Thiesse noted the average setback was established by the house on the point.
Landgraver asked if the pool is going to be eliminated and will no longer be hardcover.
David Steingas noted it is not in his application to remove the pool.
Curtis asked if the pool is included in the hardcover calculations. Curtis noted the hardcover calculation
does say to remove pool and apron,which would subtract 2100 square feet.
Steingas indicated he does not want removal of the pool as a requirement because it will not be removed
at this stage of the game.
Leskinen asked whether that has any bearing on this application.
Curtis indicated it does not and that she has no concerns about this proposal whatsoever.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:38 p.m.
Thiesse moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3522, Steiner&
Koppleman,LLC,on behalf of Nancy Bigos,3350 Fox Street,granting of an average lakeshore
setback variance subject to the recommendations of Staff. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Curtis requested the hardcover numbers be updated prior to the City Council meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 25,2011,AND AUGUST 8,2011 �
Page
30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 15,2011
6:30 dclock p.m.
Levang reported that at the July 25th Council meeting the Whipple application was placed on consent.
The Ryan application was also discussed and approved.
Leskinen reported at the August 8t�'meeting the Ryan application and other planning items were all placed
on the Consent Agenda. Some discussion was had with regard to the variance at Shadywood with a
concern being expressed for the larger size garage and the creeping up of larger structures. The
application ultimately was approved unanimously.
Landgraver asked whether the City Council provided any guidance on that issue. Landgraver noted the
Planning Commission discussed another application this evening that increased the size of the garage.
Schoenzeit noted no hardcover was being added.
Leskinen stated it was not the same type of issue since they were adding hardcover that was allowable.
The Shadywood application was a small lot.
Curtis indicated it was also a structural coverage.
Gaffron stated City Code does not require interior parking in a garage but it does require the property
owner provide parking on their property.
Levang asked how the Planning Commission can stop that from happening.
Gaffron stated some of the regulations would need to be changed on how Staff deals with an interior
addition. Gaffron noted the City did not have a hardcover ordinance until 1975.
9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
10. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 22,2011, AND SEPTEMBER 12,2011
August 22, 2011 —Levang
September 12, 2011 —Schoenzeit
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:50
p.m. VOTE: A,yes 6,Na,ys 0. �
� � I�'� S e� "Z�; � �
�--�.,,� �..
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page _
_ _ _ __ . _.
_ ... 31