HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
, Tuesday,January 17,2012
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 Lizz Levang,Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver, and John
Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike
' Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Ben Gozola,and Recorder Jackie Young.
� Council Member Aaron Printup was present.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Levang moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21,
2011
Levang moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of November 21,2011,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #11-3531 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF WOLVERTON PLACE,LLC,4550
WOLVERTON PLACE,SUBDIVISION,6:34 P.M.-6:46 P.M.
Lori Gherardi,Applicant,was present. �
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create one new residential5-acre lot.
This request was originally presented to the Planning Commission at its November meeting where it was
tabled to allow for a Conservation Design review and analysis as well as to resolve an issue with the dry,
buildable area.
In addition,the applicant was requested to provide the following documents for Staff review:
l. An updated survey which shows the requested utility and drainage easements along all interior lot
� lines and lot lines adjacent to platted property. Ten foot wide easements should be shown along
exterior lot lines adjacent to unplatted properties.
The applicants have revised their plans to show a wetland along the north lot line and Wolverton Place.
The city wetland map shows a Manage 2 wetland along the north lot line and no record of the roadside
wetland. The north wetland needs to be buffered according to city ordinance. The survey has been
revised to reflect the appropriate buffer and setback around the northerly wetland. The southerly wetland
along the road has been determined by the MCWD to be an incidental wetland and therefore not subject
to WCA requirements. The area of the southerly wetland is considered as part of the dry,buildable land
for the purpose of the subdivision.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
In addition,the applicants have submitted a grading plan,which has been deemed acceptable by the City
Engineer.
Curtis noted the applicants have submitted MCWD approved wetland delineations and functional
assessment for all wetlands on the property as well as confirmation that the property contains a total of
10.0 dry,buildable acres. In addition,the applicant's Conservation Design plan has been received.
2. Submittal of a revised subdivision survey indicating standard perimeter drainage and utility
easements as well as conservation, flowage and drainage easements over all wetlands and wetland
buffers on the property. Additionally, a 10-foot trail easement should be shown concurrent with
the requested perimeter D/U easement along McCulley Road.
The properly consists of an open hillside with perimeter trees and three wetland bodies. The Rural Oasis
Study and Conservation Design Master Planning process has been formulated to help determine on a
case-by-case basis what natural values should be preserved. The applicant has submitted their response to
the City's request for a conservation design analysis and plan consisting of the City's review checklist and
� a short letter. The applicant's conservation design submittal appears to indicate there are no natural
resources present on the subject property to be enhanced,preserved or protected. However, it is difficult
to ascertain their conclusions without a detailed analysis. The applicant has not referenced specifically
how the subject property is classified within each of the NRI maps. The submitted conservation design
materials appear to be lacking critical elements such as detailed reporting and analysis of the site's natural
values and visual documentation such as photographs which illustrate existing viewsheds,etc. Further,
while invasive species have been identified, no plans for removal and maintenance have been
contemplated.
The conservation design analysis and conclusions submitted by the applicant appear to suggest the
property is a what you see is what you get site with little to no worthwhile natural value based on the
conservation design standards. The Planning Commission should consider the submitted conservation
design analysis and determine if sufficient information has been provided to satisfy the conservation
design analysis requirements. If so, and the Commission agrees with the conclusions of the applicant's
report,which seem to indicate lack of existing natural value within the site, a motion to approve the
subdivision should be considered.
It is Staff s opinion that the proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements outlined within the
RR-lA zoning district standards as well as the subdivision requirements for the creation of a new,
buildable lot. Separate easement documents are required to be submitted to convey the appropriate
easements.
Schoenzeit asked whether any additional documentation will be provided prior to the City Council
meeting.
Curtis indicated there would not be unless the Planning Commission so requests. �
Levang asked if Staff is requesting the Conservation Design analysis be provided.
Curtis indicated Staff is recommending a more detailed analysis be completed, and that the conclusions
reached by the Applicant's engineer that have been submitted have some value but they are not as in depth
as what Staff would normally prefer.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
' 6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lori Gherardi,Applicant, stated she has nothing to add to Staff's report except to note that the existing
house will be completely remodeled and will be placed on the market in approximately May of this year.
Gherardi indicated she does not have any plans at the present time to place Tract A on the market unless
the future buyer of the property does not wish to purchase it. Gherardi indicated she does not have any
major plans as it relates to the landscaping of the five acre lot.
.Curtis stated specific pieces of the Conservation Design Plan were not provided. Staff was provided with
a checklist of conclusions,which basically says that it is not applicable. Curtis stated there are a number
of pieces of the Conservation Design Plan which need to be commented on and provided to Staff.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant would be willing to re-review those conditions and provide
additional detail on that analysis.
Gherardi indicated she would be willing to provide that. Gherardi asked whether the Planning
Commission could approve the application and then have that information provided later.
Curtis stated it meets the basic code requirements for a subdivision but that the Conservation Design
analysis is incomplete.
Gherardi asked whether Staff would let her know what still needs to be provided.
Curtis noted the code specifies exactly what needs to be completed.
Gherardi stated her engineer informed her that the analysis has been completed and that there appears to
be some sort of disconnect between Staff and her engineer. `
Leskinen commented there is a lack of detail to the analysis,which is what the Conservation Design Plan
is all about.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would request that detailed analysis be provided to Staff.
Curtis stated in her view the checklist was completed correctly but the letter did not provide the additional
details required.
Schoenzeit noted that information is required in order for the Planning Commission to approve the
application.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Leskinen asked whether the 120-day review period will be met if this application is tabled.
Curtis stated the expiration for the 120-day review period is February 25th and that it would be typical for
Staff to ask the applicant to request an extension of that timeline before it expires. If the applicant is
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
� 6:30 o'clock p.m.
unwilling to extend that timeline, Staff would bring it before the City Council with a recommendation to �
deny the application.
Landgraver asked whether there are any examples of the analysis that could be provided to the applicant.
Curtis indicated the applicant can request copies of those from Staff.
Landgraver moved,Levang seconded,to table Application 311-3531,Lori Gherardi on behalf of
Wolverton Place,LLC,4550 Wolverton Place. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
*3. #12-3537 RODNEY BURWELL, 1100 MTLLSTON ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Levang moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3537,Rodney
Burwe11, 1100 Millston Road,granting of a conditional use permit to allow a shower/tub within an
accessory pool house/cabana. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
4. #12-3538 ROBERTS RESIDENTIAL REMODELING ON BEHALF OF COLIN AND
ANNA PETERS,3520 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,6:47 P.M.-7:31 P.M.
John Paggen,Roberts Residential Remodeling,was present.
Ben Gozola stated the applicant is proposing to place a major addition on the existing legal
nonconforming home at 3520 North Shore Drive.
Gozola displayed an overhead aerial of the property illustrating the layout of the site and the setbacks.
All of the homes in the area are at a consistent setback from North Shore Drive. The proposed addition
would expand living area within the dwelling and would include an attached two-car garage. A portion of
the western side of the home is currently within the setback and no changes are being proposed to that
side of the home. The garage is proposed to have an 18-foot garage door on the garage. The
improvements are being proposed to the northern side of the house.
The existing driveway and entry point on to County Road 51 would be eliminated in favor of a new
driveway with an entry point on Baldur Park Road. To accomplish these goals,the applicant will need a
75-250 foot zone hardcover variance to al1ow30.4 percent hardcover where 25.8 percent currently exists
and 25 percent is normally allowed.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this lot for low-medium density residential. Staff finds the proposed
massing and location of the proposed addition is conforming to code requirements and in line with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is within the shoreland district. The requested hardcover variance directly relates to
the hardcover zones within the shoreland district.
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m. ,
The site is located within two hardcover zones. The proposed new driveway will encroach into the 0-
75foot zone by 184 square feet,but such encroachment is allowed by City Code. The applicant has
reconfigured the driveway slightly to minimize intrusion into the 0-75foot zone as much as possible.
Hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone is limited to 25 percent of the zone area. Existing hardcover
within the 75-250 foot zone is calculated to be at 25.8 percent. Existing hardcover is comprised of 929
square feet of house, 1,783 square feet of driveway, 83 square feet of sidewalk, and 285 square feet of
deck. There is currently no garage on the property.
The proposed hardcover is calculated to be 30.4 percent of the zone,which is a 4.6 percent increase from
the existing hardcover percentage. This increase is the result of the added garage and a significantly
different arrangement of the hardcover as the property's driveway would be completely relocated off of
the county road on to Baldur Park Road.The revised driveway location does make sense given the garage
must be oriented towards Baldur Park Road due to the location of the prominent lake shore and the
narrow width of the lot.
The applicants are proposing 1,960 square feet of structural coverage,which is below the 2,079 square
feet allowed on the lot.
Gozola noted the proposed improvements are all outside of the floodplain for Lake Minnetonka. The
structure complies with the City's height restrictions and will be just under 26 feet tall from ground level
to the tip of the roof. There are no lakeshore setback issues with this application.
The property owner is seeking to expand the existing home into a size allowed by code. All expansion is
proposed to be located in conforming locations.Due to the width of the lot and the location of the primary
lake shore across North Shore Drive,the only logical and viable location for a garage is off the rear of the
existing home. In Staffs opinion,the garage being proposed is as small as it can get and still be
considered a two-car garage,which is required by Code, so the applicants are not seeking more hardcover
than is necessary to comply with code with regards to the garage. In looking at the driveway,the closest
access point to the proposed garage location is off of Baldur Park Road, so the proposed new driveway is
a reasonable proposal that will limit overall hardcover while simultaneously eliminating an access point
on to the county road.
The existing home is legal nonconforming to the western side yard setback. In speaking with the
applicant, he indicated the location,size, shape and volume of the existing home within the
nonconforming area on the lot will not be changed.Any changes within the nonconforming area would
require a variance, and such a request has not been reviewed in conjunction with this application. As a
condition of approval,the applicant should be required to maintain all aspects of the legal nonconforming
structure within the setback.
The applicant would like to discuss with the Commission the potential for a 140 square foot patio on the
North Shore Drive side of the lot. The patio was not officially requested at the time of the application.
Hennepin County has indicated support for relocation of the driveway from North Shore Drive to Baldur
Park Road.
The applicant will be required to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Gozola
noted the City has not received any comments from any of the neighbors.
Schoenzeit asked whaYthe structural coverage is on the lot and noted that the site is allowed a little over
2,000 square feet according to his math.
Gozola noted structural coverage is listed on Page 2. The overall lot size is 13,864 square feet,with a
proposed building coverage of 1,960 square feet,which would result in them being under the structural
coverage limit.
Schoenzeit noted the survey states there is over 17,000 square feet of land and that one of the two
numbers is inaccurate.
Gozola indicated he will verify the structural coverage number.
Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission should address the driveway in the 0-75 foot zone.
Gozola indicated that the City's hardcover regulations allow for driveways in the 0-75 foot zone.
Landgraver asked if the pad for the existing garage is included in the hardcover calculations.
Gozola stated on his site visit,there was a slight layer of snow on the ground and that he was not able to
tell whether it was still there. Gozola stated according to the survey's existing conditions, it does not
appear that the pad still exists.
Levang asked whether there is any mitigation proposed for the current driveway in terms of a rain garden
or other items.
Gozola indicated the City Engineer did not recommend any mitigation. The City Engineer recommended
the applicant work with them at the time the building permit is issued.
John Paggen,Roberts Residential Remodeling,noted Anna and Collin Peters currently own the property
and are residing in the home. On the report provided by the engineering company,there is a small typo
that references 3538 North Shore Drive. That document later references the correct address.
The property owners are proposing to remodel the existing home.With respect to the old abandoned path
for the garage,that has been removed. During this process,the homeowner elected to remove that and the
new hardcover calculations do reflect the omission of that area. Due to the fact that the property borders
on two water fronts,there are two 0-75 foot zones,and the hardcover numbers have been recalculated per
Staff s request.
Paggen stated as far as the recommendations from the engineers,the home is existing and the current
elevations will continue. The current home is a small cabin structure and there is no real defined pitch of
the roof. The existing roofline is located in the middle on the drawings and it is located approximately
eight feet into the side yard setback. The drawings should have lines drawn through the existing home
showing where the improvements will be made after that 8-foot mark. They will not be modifying the
existing roofline.
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Paggen indicated the extra hardcover being requested is for the driveway and that they will be eliminating
access off of North Shore Drive. At one time there was a driveway off of Baldur Park Road and they are
proposing that some new plantings be placed in that area.
Leskinen asked if the hardcover will all be removed from the other driveway.
Paggen indicated they would be removing that hardcover and placing grass and plants in that area. With
respect to removal of the curb,that area of road is inconsistent, and at the time of permit application,they
will be following the recommendations of Staff. With regards to proposed materials,they have not made
a decision on what type of materials will be used for the driveway.
Paggen noted the properly does sit a little further ahead than the other homes in the area. They are
proposing to set the addition back further so it will comply. As a result of that setback,there is no area to
sit in the front of the house and they are proposing an enclosed outdoor space. In addition to that,the
property owners are looking for 140 square feet for a patio to connect the front of the house,which will
not exceed the eastern side of the house.
Leskinen asked the applicant to define front.
Paggen indicated it would be the side of the house facing North Shore. Paggen pointed out the existing
front of the house and the proposed patio area.
Paggen reiterated they are proposing a side addition, a back addition, and the structure on top. In
addition,they are asking the Planning Commission to consider a small patio,which would add
approximately 140 feet.
Schoenzeit asked whether there would be a roof over the patio.
Paggen indicated there would not be and that the roof overhang is already included in the structure.
Landgraver asked if the 10 x 10 foot deck is already incorporated in the calculations.
Paggen indicated it is. Paggen pointed out the second floor and the setback line. The original front door
will be vacated and they are requesting a small patio to fill in between that area. The stoop has been
omitted from the calculations.
Thiesse asked whether there is a requirement to have a small sidewalk from the side entrance to the
driveway.
Gozola noted they do not have a traditional front door where there is a walkway from the driveway and
that the home is accessed in the rear.
Curtis indicated they would need to have some sort of access for guests and that it cannot be solely from a
garage.
Levang asked how guests will enter the house.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Paggen noted the building is located right next to the setback line and that a small walkway has not been
considered at this point. Paggen indicated they would meet the minimum requirements but that the
addition of the walkway would raise the hardcover.
Schoenzeit noted the patio would also need to be included in the calculations.
Paggen noted the overall hardcover on the lot has been reduced by approximately 10 percent with this
proposal.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission needs to know the total amount of hardcover being proposed
and that the plan needs to match the requests being made.
Curtis stated the applicant will also need to incorporate the sidewalk.
Leskinen asked where the front door is located.
Thiesse indicated it is located on the side of the house.
Paggen pointed out the location of the door.
Leskinen commented the sidewalk looks like it would need to be alongside the house.
Paggen asked what the minimum width of a sidewalk is.
Curtis indicated it is 24 inches.
Gaffron asked when calculating the building coverage,whether Staff removed the 66-foot right-of-way
before County Road 51.
Gozola indicated he did not. In looking at the numbers provided by the surveyor,they did not include any
numbers for the county road. Gozola indicated he took that to mean that they did not include that.
Gaffron noted it appears that they are at approximately 16.5 percent structural coverage with the proposal.
Schoenzeit stated the amount of structural coverage over 15 percent would be a problem. Schoenzeit
stated due to the inconsistency in the numbers,the Planning Commission may not be able to approve the
application tonight and that it may need to be tabled tonight. Schoenzeit noted the applicant should
attempt to reduce the structural coverage down to 15 percent.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated he would like the hardcover and structural coverage numbers to match what is being
requested. Schoenzeit stated he would also like the survey to show the correct numbers for total
Page 8
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
hardcover on the lot and verification of whether the right-of-way is included in the hardcover numbers.
Schoenzeit recommended the application be tabled.
Paggen commented it has been surveyed four times by a land engineer and that he is not sure why they
would need to have it resurveyed.
Gaffron stated the interpretation of what should or should not be included does not appear to be correct on
the survey. Gaffron stated according to his rough calculation, it appears the survey may not be
completely accurate.
Schoenzeit stated the applicant will need to verify the square footage of the lot and the hardcover on the
lot. Schoenzeit recommended the applicant include the patio in the hardcover calculations. Schoenzeit
noted the main issue with the proposal is the structural coverage and whether the right-of-way was
included in the calculations.
Gaffron stated the portion that should be excluded is the 66 feet of the driveway that is located within the
right-of-way.
Paggen stated the right-of-way and the curb should not be included. Paggen asked why that was not
brought up during the review by the engineer of the application.
Schoenzeit stated there are a number of reviews that the application goes through prior to approval and
that the Planning Commission wants to ensure that due diligence has been exercised. Schoenzeit
recommended the applicant provide the information as soon as possible if he would like his application to
be on the February Planning Commission agenda.
Paggen commented he would like to avoid having the application tabled if at all possible given the limited
amount of work that still remains to be completed.
Gozola stated the calculations that were provided by Mr.Brandt show the lot size to be 13,864 square feet
and that the survey shows 17,259 square feet. Gozola indicated he did not count on the 17,000 figure in
his calculations and instead relied on the numbers that were provided in the application.
Gozola noted the structural coverage figure that was provided by the applicant show that they are under
the 15 percent and asked whether the overage is a result of the patio.
Gaffron stated according to his calculations,the actual square footage of the lot is closer to 11,900 square
feet,which excludes the 66-foot right-of-way. Gaffron stated there are two surveys that are not to scale
and that there are some question marks on the actual size of the lot. Gaffron stated the issue likely is how
much of the county road was included,which will need to be verified.
Paggen commented he has a problem with tabling the application because there are a couple of surveys
that are not to scale. Paggen indicated it is frustrating to have it tabled after he has spent a lot of time,
energy and money on the application.
Schoenzeit pointed out Staff needs reliable numbers to correctly reflect what is on the lot and what is
being proposed. Schoenzeit noted the survey says there is 17,000 square feet and the application says
13,000 square feet.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Paggen stated they submitted 17,000.
Schoenzeit stated the numbers need to be reconciled and that the Planning Commission would also like
the two options raised tonight to be included in the hardcover numbers.
Thiesse suggested the Planning Commission discuss whether the patio will be allowed. "
Levang stated she is in favor of the small patio given the discussions had with the Hardcover Task Force.
Schoenzeit stated he would be in favor of the patio if the plan is under 26 percent hardcover before those
two items are included, but that he would not be in favor of the patio if those two items are added and the
hardcover percentage is higher than 30 percent.
Thiesse asked whether there are any restrictions for abandoning driveways.
Paggen indicated they would be following the recommendations of Staff for removal of the driveway
through the permitting process.
Landgraver moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#12-3538,Roberts Residential
Remodeling on behalf of Colin and Anna Peters,3520 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
5. #12-3539 ANTHONY& SURYA ROCHEL, 125 TUItN�IAM ROAD,VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:31 P.M.-8:15 P.M.
Anthony Rochel,Applicant,was present.
Gozola stated the applicant is seeking to introduce fill onto their property at 125 Turnham Road in
preparation for construction of a replacement home on the site. The requested variance will authorize the
new larger lot for continued use by a single-family dwelling, and the requested land alteration CUP will
authorize preparation of a building pad for a future home.
Gozola displayed an aerial photograph of the property. The existing home sits on a small one acre lot
adjacent to a second one acre lot also owned by the applicants.Both lots will be combined following this
process resulting in a single two-acre lot with an existing home. The ultimate intent of the applicant is to
eliminate the existing home and construct a new residence. Gozola pointed out the setbacks on the
property and the proposed building pad.
Gozola noted the subject property is not within the shoreland district and is not located within a
floodplain. The zoning code does not regulate hardcover on the property.
The variance being reviewed is a lot area variance to authorize construction of a replacement home on a
substandard lot in the RR-lA zoning district. The applicants are also requesting a conditional use permit.
Staff finds the following:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner and wishes to continue
using the lot for the use which exists today.
4. The existing properiy owner was not responsible for the size of the existing lot. By combining
this lot and an adjacent lot,the applicant is actually bringing the lot into greater conformity.
5. The lot is currently being granted as a single-family home site and would continue to be used as
such.
6. The replacement of the existing home is being done to increase livability on the property and
is not being sought solely for economic benefit.
7. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property. The small size of the subject property and the fact that it
contains an existing single-family dwelling is unique to lands within the RR-lA zoning district.
8. The facts on this lot do not apply generally to other land or structures within the RR-lA zoning
district.
9. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The existing home on the property has established a single-family
residential use on this legal nonconforming property. State statutes protect this property owner's
rights to maintain an existing legal nonconforming use, so granting of this variance is necessary
to preserve a substandard property right of the applicant.
10. Staff does not identify anything in the request to suggest a replacement home would impair the
health, safety, comfort or morals of the community.
11. The requested variance is necessary to permit the applicant to pursue a permit to authorize
replacement of the existing home which is a common property right shared by all other
landowners in the community.
Gozola stated occasionally an application will come forward that involves seldom used portions of the
code,which in turn generates questions on the wording of the ordinance versus the assumed historical
intent of the ordinance. At question currently are the Land Alteration regulations outlined in
Sections 78-966 through78-969.
The historic interpretation of these four provisions,when applied to the subject application, suggests the
City must judge the proposed fill on whether it is truly necessary.The Commission should determine
whether the fill is being proposed simply to accommodate a specific architectural design for the home
rather than to overcome issues making the area unbuildable. If analysis finds that options for construction
currently exist without the fill,the request should generally be denied.
A review of the wording within the ordinance,however, suggests this historic interpretation may be
incorrect or should perhaps be updated for clarity. The alternative reading of these four sections simply
finds that the City has established "fill...to...elevate the existing natural grade" as a conditionally
Page
11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
permitted use. When applied to the subject application,this interpretation suggests that CiTy's
responsibility is to judge the potential impacts of the proposed fill but not give consideration to why the
fill is being introduced. In other words,whether the fill is necessary or not should be of no concern to the
City as the landowner should be free to determine the need. The City's only responsibility is to fully
review the potential impacts of the desired fill and only approve the changes if no impacts are identified.
Staff also finds that the proposed grading change will not have any impact on surrounding lands.
Resulting drainage will remain on this property and flow into the large wetland to the north. The
resulting grade will allow for maximum structure heights on the property that are substantially similar to
existing conditions, so Staff does not anticipate any impacts to light or air on adjacent lands that couldn't
already be anticipated given the existing grades. Furthermore,with regards to the subject property, Staff
finds the proposed new grade provides for an adequate building pad elevated above the wetland to protect
it from potential flooding.
The proposed grade changes will tie into existing grades on adjacent property, and the on-site grade
changes,while raising elevations, are not substantial enough to result in a building pad which is out-of-
pace amongst its surroundings. The most identifiable change to the area's character will be the removal of
trees to accommodate the significant grading being proposed,but such tree removal is not prohibited and
could be done absent this permit application.Finally,the proposed grading is being done to create a site
better able to accommodate home,which is the guided land use for this and the surrounding properties, so
the future use will be in line with the character of the area.
The building pad being created by the proposed grading project will accommodate a home at an elevation
that is compatible with adjacent lands. As any future home built on this lot would need to be conforming
to size and height requirements, Staff finds no reason to believe that the proposed grading will result in
structures incompatible with the character of nearby lands. On the contrary,the proposed grading will
accommodate a home substantially similar to those in the surrounding vicinity.
The use on the subject property will not be changing as a result of the proposed fill, so there should be no
change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. As tree removal is permitted should the land
owner wish to do so,their removal as a component of the fill project is a generally permitted impact and
not something unique to the proposed project. The applicant is not proposing to conduct any activities
atop the fill except for the use of the re-graded area as a potential home site. Residential structures are not
required to be screened by code.
Staff has not identified any nuisances that will be created by the proposed fill. Engineering has reviewed
the plans to ensure conformity with City standards and has worked with the applicant to establish a
wetland buffer to address disturbed areas near the wetland and to provide the wetland with better long-
term protection from stormwater runoff.
With any fill project, concern must be given to the timing of material transport and movement of dirt.
Road restrictions must be adhered to,and the City may wish to give consideration to requiring an escrow
to guard against damage to Turnham Road resulting from the truck traffic necessary to transport the
proposed fill. As a condition of approval,the applicant should be required to work with the City Engineer
to establish acceptable hours of operation and to document the route being used by trucks to bring fill to
the site. The City Engineer should perform an inspection of the roadways prior to and following
completion of the work to determine whether unnecessary impacts have occurred.
Page
12
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
_ Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Grading on the lot will have an environmental impact since many trees will be removed and grading near
a large wetland will be occurring. However,the grading proposed is deemed by the applicant to be the
minimum necessary to provide an ideal building pad for a future home. All trees being lost can legally be
removed without the requested permit, so Staff cannot treat their loss as an.impact unique to the requested
permit. Engineering has reviewed all of the information provided and did not find reason to believe the
proposed grading changes would negatively impact the wetland. The proposed buffer should provide far
better protection to the wetland than do existing conditions.
Gozola noted a neighboring resident has alerted Staff to the presence of a culvert which runs underneath
the driveway in the vicinity of the large wetland to the north of the property. Their concern was that the
existing culvert does not function properly and should be fixed as a component of this project.
As a condition of approval,Staff would recommend that the City Engineer inspect the culvert in question
and determine what improvement can/should be made in relation to the proposed project given that proper
functioning of the culvert is necessary to maintain access to the proposed fill site.
Staff would recommend approval of the variance request and the conditional use permit subject to the
conditions outlined in Staff's report.
Schoenzeit stated based on his understanding of the code,the City would not allow them to change the
zero point of their property for building height,but if they go through the additional steps for a CUP,they
could change it to zero if they met the other conditions.
Gozola indicated he does agree with that interpretation. Gozola stated that interpretation is very easy to
make based on the code and that he would recommend the City look at revising that language.
Levang asked what Staff recommends regarding the buckthorn.
Gozola stated he would support the recommendations of John Smythe.
Leskinen asked whether the City has had any other similar applications where the grade has been raised to
construct a new home.
Gaffron indicated the City has not had one in the case where someone wanted to raise the grade to
construct a house to avoid the issue of a third story. There was a properly on Bohns Point that had to do
with excess fill after the fact for a building permit but did not relate to the height. Gaffron commented
this is a unique situation and that Staff has used this code on a fairly regular basis to tell people that they
are not allowed to place fill against the house to artificially raise the grade. The code basically has the
caveat that additional fill may not be brought on site in excess of 500 yards except for fill required to raise
the grade to adequately protect the frost footings. The intent of the code was that structures shall not be
raised artificially 6eyond the original topography. The code was intended as written to express to the
Council and Planning Commission that there is an intent to not artificially raise the grade and that the
Planning Commission should decide whether they are artificially raising the grade in this situation.
Thiesse asked whether the existing house is on an artificially raised pad. Thiesse commented it appears
that the flat spot the current house sits on is artificial.
Gaffron indicated he does not have that information.
Page
13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the key is whether it impacts the neighbors.
Anthony Rochel,Applicant, stated he would answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Levang asked what the intent is with the existing home.
Rochel indicated his intent is to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence.
Levang asked what would be done with the existing building site.
Rochel indicated it would be graded and that they would like to place native plantings in that area.
Levang asked what he feels about the neighbor's concerns.
Rochel stated this issue was only recently brought to his attention and that he does not have a problem
with replacing the culvert and grading the area to prevent flooding on the neighbor's property. Rochel
stated he would like to have the heavy equipment brought to the site while there is still frost in the ground
to prevent ruts to the roadway.
Levang asked if the existing driveway would be abandoned.
Rochel indicated the existing driveway would be removed and the area replanted.
Schoenzeit asked whether he would be willing to cover 100 percent of the costs of the culvert
replacement.
Rochel indicated he is willing to cover the costs associated with that work.
Levang asked whether he would need to abandon the old well.
Curtis indicated he would.
Schoenzeit asked whether any significant trees will be removed.
Rochel stated there are a couple of large trees and that they are depicted on the survey. Rochel indicated
they will attempt to save as many of the trees as possible. They will be removing the dead trees on the
property. Rochel noted there is a conservation easement on two sides of the property.
Schoenzeit asked approximately how many yards of fill will be moved.
Rochel indicated it will be approximately 2,500 yards of fill.
Schoenzeit asked how many feet of fill will be added to the back to construct a walkout.
Gozola stated approximately five feet of fill will be added.
Schoenzeit noted at the peak there would be 12 feet of fill added.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked as it relates to the engineering of the slope,whether that would accelerate runoff into the
wetland.
Thiesse stated it should not affect it but that his main concern is structural fill.
Rochel stated the footings will be below actual grade and that they will not be installing the fillings on
any fill. Rochel stated they are planning on removing the invasive species, such as the buckthorn, and
then planting native grasses near the wetland and the buffer area.
Levang asked what the plan is for removal of the buckthorn.
Rochel stated there is a fair amount of buckthorn and that the best time to remove buckthorn is in the late
fall. The larger size buckthorn will have to be sawn and herbicide put on it and the smaller buckthorn can
be pulled.
Levang stated she would like to see where the future building pad will be located.
Rochel pointed out the location of the new residence. Rochel noted it is currently two lots and that they
are combining them into one.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
D. Peterson,4385 Chippewa Lane, stated she likes the proposal that the applicant will be responsible for
. maintaining the private driveway back to the house. Peterson indicated this is a complicated access to this
piece of property and that it involves easements over the west and south side of their property and the
south side of their neighbor's property. The easement is only 16.5 feet wide on the west and south side of
their property. There are not very many trees in that area, but on the south adjacent to the Luce Line it is
very heavily treed.
Peterson indicated she is concerned about possible damage to the surface of the private road and also
whether there will be any trees damaged from the equipment coming on to the site. Peterson stated they
would like the proposed condition to be expanded to say that the City Engineer can require an escrow in
an amount he deems appropriate to cover potential damage to the full private access, including damage to
the road surface and tree damage. Peterson indicated they have no concerns about the actual construction
and welcome the applicants to the neighborhood, but due to the two very sharp 90-degree angles, it may
be difficult to get big equipment back there.
Lynn Young,4355 Chippewa Lane, stated they also have a concern about the driveway because of the
overhang of the trees and the possibility that the trees may be damaged by the equipment. Young
indicated they would like the road at the end of the construction to be as good or better than what it
started out as and that she would request the conditions be put in writing. Young indicated they are
looking forward to having new neighbors.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked whether an escrow could be required.
Gozola stated he does not have an issue with that and that it is a reasonable condition.
Page
15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Rochel indicated he is fine with that condition.
Schoenzeit stated when he originally saw the application,he did not feel that the CUP would be allowed,
but that after reviewing the application further, it does not appear that the request will make the property
out of character with the neighborhood or create any drainage problems.
Thiesse asked how long the CUP would remain in effect.
Gozola indicated it would remain in effect until the work is completed.
Leskinen asked if the altered grade would then become existing grade once the work is completed.
Gozola indicated it would be.
Schoenzeit stated if someone else came in and attempted to turn a three story into a two and a half,they
would require a CUP. Schoenzeit stated the applicant has identified a new path to turn three stories into
two and a half,but that it has to pass in order to be approved.
Leskinen asked if they are creating a precedent.
Schoenzeit commented the applicant has combined different sections of the City's codes to get what he
wanted and that the next applicant would need to pass a very high test to obtain a CUP that was not
impacting the neighboring properties, among other conditions.
Landgraver commented in his view this is a unique piece of property.
Schoenzeit stated someone with a 75-foot lakeshore lot would probably not be able to do this and that
there are high standards to obtain a CUP,which smaller properties cannot meet.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could look at adding language to that section, such as, unless the
Planning Commission and Council find a variety of conditions are met.
Levang stated she is not convinced on Point 12 of the report that it will not cause excessive non-
residential traffic. Levang stated while there is only one other home on that roadway,the people on
Chippewa have concerns about the roadway.
Levang commented it is a fairly complicated road,and if you look over your shoulder,you are right on
the Luce Line. Levang stated she is worried about people using the Luce Line during construction and
that the Planning Commission may want to look at putting some conditions in place to protect the
residents as well as the users of the Luce Line.
Levang stated in her view she does not feel No. 12 is totally met. Levang stated she is not sure how long
it will take to construct this new home and that there are people who use the trail year-round. Levang
noted you have to cross the Luce Line in order to access this property.
Gozola stated that is a valid concern and suggested the applicant work with the City Engineer to identify
appropriate safeguards for the Luce Line.
. Page
16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse pointed out it is the driveway that has the right-of-way and that the people on the Luce Line have
a stop sign.
Landgraver commented that unfortunately people tend to ignore stop signs on the Luce Line and that
perhaps the equipment operators should take the time to check for people on the Luce Line before
� crossing it.
Thiesse commented that a lot of times the truckers are alone in the truck and that it would be difficult to
get out of the truck to see if there is anybody on the Luce Line.
Schoenzeit stated he would require the applicant to maintain a safe construction site.
Landgraver noted both adjoining properties have propane tanks and that a large vehicle navigates and
crosses the Luce Line to fill those tanks.
Thiesse commented there will be all kinds of trucks being used during construction and that it will be
difficult to place standards on that type of activity.
Levang suggested some type of signage be placed on the Luce Line alerting them to the construction.
Rochel concurred that signage would be appropriate.
Leskinen indicated she would agree with the verbiage that the City strongly encourages the applicant to
alert users of the Luce Line to the construction rather than placing the burden on the City to monitor that.
Thiesse stated he is not sure whether the applicant would have the right to place signage on the Luce Line.
Schoenzeit moved,Levang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3539,Anthony&
Surya Rochel, 125 Turnham Road,granting of a lot area variance and conditional use permit,
subject to staff recommendations,with the acknowledgement that the owner is accepting 100
percent responsibility for replacement of the culvert; to require an escrow in an amount deemed
appropriate by the City Engineer for both the roadway and the trees; and to encourage the
applicant to go beyond the minimum for maintaining a safe construction site both on their property
and the adjacent properties. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. #12-3540 CHARLES TRUWIT AND PAULA PICARD, 1105 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:16 P.M.—9:15 P.M.
Charles Truwit,Paula Picard,Applicants; and Tom Owens,Attorney-at-Law,were present.
Curtis stated back in 2009,CUP and variance approvals were granted in order to redevelop the property
for sale. The 2009 approvals have been subsequently extended and remain in effect until June 28,2012.
However,the property owners did not proceed with the permitting process with the MCWD for the
floodplain mitigation at that time.
The applicants are now requesting the following approvals in order to construct a new residence on the
property:
Page
17 -
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
l. Lot area and lot width variances;
2. A side yard setback variance to allow maintenance of the existing 5-foot setback from the
southeast side property line;
3. A 75-foot lakeshore setback variance to allow a 10-foot setback on the west corner of the home
and a 13-foot setback on the southwest to allow a anew deck;
4. A hardcover variance in the 0-75 foot zone to allow 10,490 square feet(38.1 percent)where 32.2
percent was approved in 2009 and 33.7 percent currently exists.
5. A conditional use permit to rearrange the floodplain on the property.
The applicants, Chip and Paula Truwit,have an interest in purchasing the property and,with the
exception of a few cosmetic changes to the home, grading changes and hardcover additions/adjustments
to the property,they wish to build what has been previously approved. They propose to slightly increase
the size of the proposed footprint by 19 square feet over the previous approval. The proposed home
consists of 3,409 square feet or 12.3 percent structural coverage. A second floor continues to be proposed
over a portion of the house;although the applicants are proposing to move the second story to the west for
a more central location. Although there is more massing closer to the lake,the change results in less
massing against the adjacent neighbor. Also requested is an increase from 323 percent approved
hardcover to 38.1 percent hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone.
The applicant has provided a revised hardcover survey to more correctly reflect the property to the east
and their use of the existing driveway. The area for the driveway easement has been removed from the
calculations. Curtis indicated she has not adjusted her hardcover numbers within her report since the
revised survey was just received today.
The proposed house will be located as close as five feet from the side lot line. This is consistent with the
existing home. The LR-lA zoning district requires a 30-foot side yard setback. The setback between the
proposed home and the adjacent,neighboring home will be 20 feet,consistent with the way it exists
currently.
The house is proposed to be set back 10 feet from the lake at its closest point. The shoreland regulations
require a 75-foot setback from the OHWL of the lake. The applicants are also proposing to construct a
deck. A 686 square foot patio currently exists on the lake side of the home approximately eight feet from
the lake at the closest point. The applicants' proposed 687 square foot deck has been located slightly to
the east, away from the lake, and will be 13 feet from the lake at its closest point.
Due to the flood plain mitigation proposed on site,the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulations
require the new house to be elevated to the District's regulatory flood plain elevation of 933.5 feet. The
city's RFPE is consistent with the DNR's rule of only one foot of freeboard,which is one foot above the
100-year flood plain. The driveway is within the 100-year flood plain elevation and must be elevated
also. Since the driveway area to be filled is within the floodplain,MCWD regulations require the
floodplain be expanded elsewhere so there is no decrease in flood capacity. Since the earthwork will take
place within the 0-75 foot zone and exceeds 10 cubic yards, a conditional use permit is required.
Page
18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012 �
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The previous application contemplated elevating the new home on fill and an analysis was conducted
which resulted in a flood plain setback variance. It has been determined that the proposed home is not
located within the 100-year flood plain and therefore the fill used for the home's foundation is not
considered"fill to elevate the hoe out of the floodplain"and therefore not subject to the 15-foot setback
from the 100-year floodplain elevation. The MCWD's requirements still apply.
The proposed mitigation grading appears to result in tree loss. Combined with the additional circle
driveway proposed and the very substandard lake setbacks on all sides, it makes screening the proposed
structure from the lake quite challenging. Additionally,the proposed hardcover on the property and its
proximity to the lake offer little to no infiltration opportunities on the subject property. The Planning
Commission should discuss with the applicants where appropriate screening opportunities exist and
possibly require a vegetative screening and buffering plan.
Staff finds the footprint of the proposed home is generally consistent with the existing home. The
proposed home will be taller and have greater mass than the existing home. It will become more visible
when viewed both from the lake and Ferndale Road West.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicants receiving the
appropriate permits from the MCWD. Copies of these permits must be provided to the city prior to city
council review of the application.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot width and area variances; approval of the side
setback variance allowing a 5-foot setback as proposed; and approval of lake setback variances and some
level of hardcover variances. However, staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance level
consistent with the previously approved level at 8,899 square feet.
The applicants should provide revised plans for the Planning Commission's review which reflect a
reduction in hardcover and a landscape plan which better addresses infiltration as opposed to primarily
sod on the main lake-facing lakeshore portion of the property. The applicants should also be requested to
consider trees or shrubs in the southwest lakeshore area as a screening element.
Landgraver noted there was a recent change in the amount of hardcover and asked whether that is new
hardcover over what was previously approved.
Curtis indicated that would be new hardcover. Curtis noted she was provided a comparison between the
existing conditions and what is proposed,which has been provided to the Planning Commission.
Levang asked if the dock area on the lagoon side is located in the water.
Curtis stated it consists of 193 square feet and it is located on land.
Levang asked if Staff is in favor of the increased hardcover for the driveway.
Curtis stated Staff supports either reducing what is proposed or going back to the previous plan.
Tom Owens,Attorney—at-Law, stated the variances granted in 2009 had two defects. The first defect was
a failure to include a doorway on the lakeshore or south side of the home. The second defect was the
design of the driveway,which lacks two features to make it safe and practically useable.
Page
19
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The plans were modified through the course of several hearings in 2009 for a hypothetical buyer. Owens
stated the findings made by the City Council in June 2009 all apply to the current application with one
exception,which is that instead of a slight decrease in hardcover,they are requesting an increase in
hardcover of 4.3 percentincrease.
Owens stated four of the five variances that were granted in 2009 have not been changed or impacted by
this request and the new applicants are not requesting that they be changed or modified in any way. The
only real issue for consideration is the hardcover change and whether the requested change in hardcover is
reasonable and whether it will alter the locale. Owens encouraged the Planning Commission to find that
the increase is reasonable in part because of the nature of the locality. Owens stated when you have a
piece of land that is surrounded by water on three sides and it is as substandard and nonconforming as this
property is,as well as a new residence constructed on the adjoining property with an approved hardcover
of 52.6 percent,the modest increase in hardcover being requested in this case is very reasonable.
Owens noted no objections or concerns have been raised by neighbors or other Orono citizens. In
addition,the dwelling and lot nonconformities and parcel configuration are so unique that approval of this
request would not set any type of precedent. Owens noted that since the variances were approved in
2009,the standard for review and approval has been significantly lowered by the Minnesota Legislature
with the passage of the practical difficulty standard.
Dr. Truwit,Applicant, stated he has resided in Minnesota for 18 years and currently resides in Wayzata.
Truwit indicated he is interested in relocating to Orono and that the previous applicant went to great
lengths to design a plan for this property. Truwit commented that it is implausible for someone to have
lakeshore property without egress to the lake. As a result,he went back to the minutes of the various
meetings and the variances that were approved. At the time of the original approval,Mayor McMillan
was the only council member who voted against it due to the massing close to the adjoining property,
which is one of the reasons why they are proposing the massing of the house be relocated to the center of
the property.
In addition,there was a request that the patio at some point be replaced with a pervious element. Truwit
stated it seemed logical to construct access to the lake and to construct a deck if the patio were replaced
with a pervious patio. Truwit noted that according to the previous City Council,they felt the house
should be elevated two and a half feet from the existing elevation,the garage elevated a foot and a half,
and the driveway elevated a foot and a half as well. After carefully reviewing the plans and approved
variances, it seems logical that you need egress to the back. Under the proposed improvements,the deck
would be moved further away from the lake and would be constructed out of pervious materials. Truwit
stated in his view these changes are in everyone's best interests.
Truwit stated during his review of the variances,he noticed that while the driveway is partially under the
appropriate level and it is recommended that it be elevated and corrected,the neighbor's driveway goes
under water every spring when the lake melts. It is in the neighbor's best interests to have the driveway
fixed, in the property owner's best interests, and in the City's best interests to have the driveway fixed.
The previous plan called out for the driveway to be fixed. Truwit stated he has a concern with the
previous plan that someone is going to back out of the garage, slid on the ice, and go over the retaining
wall that was requested to be constructed.
As a result of that safety concern,they are proposing two components to the driveway be changed to
allow for a little bit of safety. If you slip on the ice,your back tires will go over the edge. Truwit stated
Page
20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
in his view it seems like a relatively trivial thing given the safety issue. Truwit indicated he has a concern
that his 16-year-old daughter or someone else will slid off the driveway and over the retaining wall,which
_ is the purpose of the green triangle depicted in the picture. Truwit stated he understands they are
requesting a bit of hardcover but that it makes the driveway much safer. In addition,they are proposing a
rain garden to deal with the runoff. Truwit noted the MCWD has preapproved the rain garden.
Truwit stated he has used the same engineer as on the last application and that the neighbors are
supportive of the project. In addition,the massing of the house has been moved further west,which
addresses Mayor McMillan's concerns. The corrected hardcover numbers,without the easement, are 36.1
� percent as revised.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. ,
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
Thiesse commented since this has been approved once in the past and a rain garden has been added to
treat the additional runoff,he would be in support of the application.
Schoenzeit asked whether it has been determined that the rain garden is adequately sized.
Curtis indicated she is not sure whether that calculation has been done.
Schoenzeit stated in his view any additional hardcover should be offset.
Truwit stated an engineer has been employed to look at this application and that he is not sure what else
he needs to do.
Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the rain garden is technically sufficient to mitigate the extra
hardcover that has been added.
Curtis stated the question is whether the rain garden as proposed can treat the additional stormwater that
comes off of the driveway.
Truwit stated he can ask his engineer to provide a letter that states that.
Curtis noted they would require the calculations that show the rain garden can handle the additional
runoff.
Schoenzeit stated he would like the rain garden to be designed to handle the additional runoff.
Owens stated his concern is if the rain garden needs to take up the entire rest of the yard,that would seem
to be unreasonable.
Schoenzeit stated being responsible for the runoff is one of the conditions the Planning Commission
typically requires and that it is a very fair tradeoff for the extra hardcover being requested.
Page
21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
� 6:30 o'clock p.m.
Levang asked to see the differences between what was originally approved and the new proposal. Levang
noted on the proposed plan,the entrance is from the garage, and asked whether they need a sidewalk.
Owens indicated that is included.
Levang stated she would like to remind the Planning Commission of the property on North Shore Drive
where the back out was so narrow that it did not work,and asked whether the omission of the blue area
will present the same type of issue where it is too narrow.
Thiesse noted they gain the green area in the back and that he does not see it as a problem.
Leskinen stated the applicant made a point with regard to the triangle portion,and asked if they need a
turnaround in this situation. Leskinen indicated she was on the Commission when this application was
looked at the first time and that it is a difficult lot to work with. The Planning Commission and the
previous applicant worked very hard to come to a good resolution of the issues. It becomes problematic
when a variance is put forth for an imaginary house. The Planning Commission anticipated that the new
owner would be back requesting additional hardcover. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with the
green backup area but that she does not see a real need for the turnaround.
Landgraver indicated he has the same concerns.
Thiesse stated the hardcover ordinances are to protect the lake and that the applicant is adding a rain
garden to treat the additional runoff. The other reason for limiting the hardcover relates to massing and
visual appearance,which is not the case here.
Leskinen stated her concern would be that a subsequent owner will not maintain the rain garden and that
the City does not have anything in place to deal with that kind of a situation.
Owens stated that could be dealt with in some sort of restrictive covenant such as they do with
, maintaining a NURP pond or vegetative screening.
Curtis stated the City would need some sort of covenant or easement and that typically they do not use
those on residential properties.
Thiesse commented it would also become a burden to the City to enforce.
Levang noted the City's hardcover task force is currently looking at this type of issue.
Gaffron concurred that the City has potential monitoring issues far into the future whenever they approve
a mitigation measure that requires maintenance.
Schoenzeit stated he would like to see some form of mitigation required at this time.
Levang asked how Staff feels about the deck.
Curtis recommended the Commission discuss the new deck. Curtis noted the proposed deck will be
higher than the patio. While the deck is moved back from the lake, it will still be within 13 to 17 feet of
the lake. Staff has a concern with screening the deck and that side of the home.
Page
22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Truwit asked whether the screening issue is more relevant to the home than the deck.
Curtis indicated it is both.
Truwit commented they are proposing to move it further away from the lake.
. Curtis noted the City's code does not consider a deck pervious and that it is Staffs opinion the deck can
be reduced in size or relocated.
Schoenzeit noted it is hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone,and that any time hardcover is proposed in that
zone,more stringent standards are required to be met.
Truwit noted on the lakeside of the home they are not asking for additional hardcover.
Schoenzeit stated it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to protect the lake and that all of the
hardcover is within the 0-75 foot zone.
Truwit stated he is unsure what screening he can do to screen the house and that there already is a fair
amount of screening currently. Truwit indicated he is open to suggestions but that they are already
proposing a fair amount of plantings.Truwit noted the deck would not be visible to the neighbors.
Schoenzeit pointed out that the deck would be visible from the lake and that they want to improve the
situation as much as possible.
Curtis stated she wanted the Commission to discuss the fact that the applicant is proposing sod on that
side of the home and that if the deck is at an elevated grade,the entire deck will be visible from the lake.
Truwit indicated he would be agreeable to placing shrubs in front of the deck.
Schoenzeit recommended screening for the deck be included as a condition of approval for the variance.
Thiesse commented one of the reasons for a deck is to sit on it and observe the lake.
Truwit stated the shrubs would be lower than the deck and the previous variances mandated that they
elevate the house. They will also be putting shrubs in front of the foundation to screen the concrete block.
Leskinen stated she is happy that a rain garden is being considered but that she is unsure whether the
additional turnaround should be allowed. The Planning Commission has already approved quite a bit of
hardcover with the first application and that she does not see the practical difficulty for the turnaround.
Levang commented she has the same concerns and that the Planning Commission is required to protect
the lake.
Landgraver stated he also has a concern as it relates to the practical difficulty with the turnaround and the
additional hardcover. Landgraver commented the applicant is clearly taking extraordinary efforts to
comply but that he is struggling with the additional hardcover for the driveway.
Page
23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated she does not have an issue with the door or the deck and that it is reasonable to have
access to the lake.
Levang stated another issue is that when this originally came before the Planning Commission and the
City Council, due diligence was done at that time and that it is hard to go beyond what was originally
approved. Levang stated she would be hard pressed to approve something beyond what was originally
approved.
Truwit stated there are two fundamental components to the driveway and they consist of practical
difficulty and safety. The issue of the turnaround is one of practicality and making the driveway safe for
someone to back out of the driveway. You currently have to back out into the adjoining property
driveway,which is not a safety issue,but it is a practical issue. Truwit stated it is not unreasonable to be
able to turn around in your driveway. The driveway is long and narrow and will be elevated with a
retaining wall on both sides. If someone attempts to back out of the driveway, it is very likely they will
go over the edge. In order to go out of the driveway facing forward,they will need to back into the
adjoining property's driveway. If the neighbor has visitors or everyone is home,that then becomes more
complicated.
Thiesse asked whether the easement for the neighbor's driveway is on this property.
Truwit indicated it is.
Thiesse stated he is concerned with the practical issues that have been raised.
Truwit stated he understands that it is an extraordinary request,but that they have attempted to limit the
hardcover to what is important to make this property function properly.
Landgraver commented it seems logical to have driveway space that makes the front door accessible.
Landgraver stated the red loop depicted on the drawing makes sense, and asked whether it could be a
different shape.
Truwit commented in his view it would still be di�cult to back up and pointed out that there is a tree in
the center.
Gaffron stated he is in agreement with Staffls recommendations and that the amount of hardcover being
requested is excessive. The City has required turnarounds in other situations but that this is a situation
where there is a much larger backup apron proposed without the loop. Gaffron stated he understands this
is a unique property but that he feels this amount of hardcover is excessive. Gaffron indicated he would
prefer a backup apron situation. Gaffron noted the rest of the 0-75 hardcover is not being mitigated
anywhere and that he would be inclined to not approve the loop.
Levang,Leskinen and Landgraver indicated they are against the loop portion of the driveway.
Owens suggested the Planning Commission break the motion down into pieces and be specific about each
portion of the application.
Schoenzeit moved to recommend approval of Application 312-3540,Charles Truwit and Paula
Picard, 1105 Ferndale Road West,granting of lot area and lot width variances; granting of a side
Page
24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
yard setback variance to allow maintenance of the existing 5-foot setback from the southeast side
property line; granting of a 75 foot lakeshore setback variance; granting of a hardcover variance in
the 0-75 to allow 10,490 square feet of hardcover; granting of a conditional use permit to rearrange
the floodplain; and approving the driveway configuration as shown in the diagram with the
elimination of the loop.
� Truwit stated if the red portion is removed,then access to the front door is an issue.
Schoenzeit amended his motion to allow for construction of a minimum sidewalk to the front door
and to allow the blue and green areas shown on the drawing for the driveway
Curtis stated the motion approves the previously approved driveway configuration with the addition of
the 264 square feet shown in green and a sidewalk to access the front door.
Levang noted there has been no agreement regarding the deck.
Curtis stated a condition of the previous approval was that a portion of the driveway and patio should be
pervious and that Staff is recommending that hardcover be called hardcover. The only consideration with
the deck is that Staff is recommending a low level screening element be added.
Schoenzeit amended his motion to include screening of the deck if it is constructed. Leskinen
seconded. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:15 p.m.to 9:20 p.m.)
6. 12-3541 KC CHERMAK OF PILLAR HOMES ON BEHALF OF ROBB &TINA
RICHTER,3508 IVY PLACE,VARIANCES,9:21 P.M.—9:54 P.M.
Curtis state the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to build a new residence on the
. subject property:
1. A 75-250 zone hardcover variance to allow 46 percent hardcover where 61 percent currently
exists and 25 percent is normally allowed;
2. An average lakeshore setback variance to permit portions o the proposed covered deck to
encroach closer to the lake than the adjacent residential home and;
3. A side,street setback variance to allow a 10-foot setback where 15 feet is normally required.
The property consists of two separate lots. They function as one property even though they are two tax
parcels. 3508 contains the primary dwelling. It is located on both tax parcels. 3510 ivy Place is a small
secondary dwelling located near the roadway on the northerly tax parcel. The existing residence has an
attached side load garage which was constructed before 1956. Because of the topography and the shape
of the lot, most of the driveway for this garage is within the unimproved right-of-way. Additionally,there
is a trash can enclosure, retaining walls, sidewalk, lakeside shed,and patio within the unimproved right-
of-way.
Page
25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m. �
The structural coverage as proposed is slightly over 15 percent. Staff has discussed this issue with the
applicant prior to finalizing its report. The applicant was amenable to changes which brought the
proposed home within the 15 percent limitation.
The subject property currently contains 60.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone and 5.8
percent hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. In addition,there is a considerable amount of hardcover
encroachments which extend into the adjacent City right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to remove
all of the hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone and the right-of-way encroachments in order to construct a
new home on the subject property. The right-of-way is proposed to be regarded and restored. The new
home and improvements will result in 46 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. As part of the
request,the driveway will be relocated to access more directly off of Ivy Place, eliminating use of Ivy
Lane.
The subject property abuts the adjacent, undeveloped 60-foot street right-of-way. Because ivy Lane is
considered a street, a side street setback of 15 feet is required. The applicant is requesting a variance to
allow a 10-foot setback from Ivy Lane.
The subject property does not directly abut a residential lakeshore lot on the south side. A 60-foot wide
right-of-way separates the subject property from the next residence to the south. Because average setback
for this lot adjacency configuration is not addressed in the zoning code but is common throughout the
city, in such situations Staff has consistently defined the required average lakeshore setback as being
equivalent to the existing lake setback of the single adjacent residence.
Staff finds that the applicant proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner. The
redevelopment of the subject property necessitates the removal of the encroachments within the City-
right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to remove the hardcover encroachments and re-grade the
right-of-way,which offers screening and delineates the right-of-way from the subject property.
Curtis requested the Planning Commission discuss the issues outlined in Staffls report.
Landgraver requested clarification of the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis stated typically Staff would look at the average lakeshore as a straight line. The property to the
north does not directly abut this property so in that situation Staff would instead look at the measurement
from the house to the north to the home that is being proposed.
Casey Chermak,Pillar Homes, stated the majority of what they are requesting is affected by the 60-foot
right-of-way. Chermak stated typically an average fire lane is significantly less than this and that the area
has been abandoned and also has a number of trees. The fire lane makes this a unique lot and that they
are attempting to establish a side setback of 10 feet along the fire lane. Since the road is curved, it is
difficult to achieve that 10-foot setback for the entire distance.
Chermak indicated they are proposing to remove the two structures in the back of the lot. The existing
house is also not in compliance with the 10-foot setback. The hardcover is being significantly reduced
with this proposal. The straight driveway helps to address some issues. The access to this house looks
like you are on the property but actually 90 percent of the driveway is located within the right-of-way.
Chermak stated their proposal cleans up some of the nonconformities and improves the appearance of the
lot.
Page
26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Levang asked whether there will be a bump out for the driveway.
Chermak indicated the driveway would be wider at the top and that the length of the driveway is not real
significant,which does not require a turnaround. The street is basically a long driveway and does not
have a lot of traffic. Backing out onto the street should not pose a risk to the drivers.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m.
James White, 3516 Ivy Place,noted his house determines the setback to the lake. White commented the
� developer has come up with a solution to all of the encroachments. White indicated the little cabin in the
back was constructed in 1950. At the time it was constructed, it was supposed to be torn down when the
main residence was constructed. That did not happen and the cabin has been rented out over the years.
White indicated he is happy to see that will be gone.
White displayed some photographs of his house. White stated last summer he took the entire 1,800 feet
along the lakeshore and put it in a conservation easement. The fence is to prevent the geese from coming
up and destroying the plants. The fence must remain for three years,which is a Watershed District
requirement. White stated the idea behind the conservation easement was to encourage people who live
on the lake to do something other than turf. It also helps filter the runoff before it goes into the lake.
White stated next to his property is a number of trees,which were not there when he first purchased the
property. White commented he likes having privacy. White displayed another photograph depicting two
large trees over 150 years old in front of 3508 Ivy Place. There are also two other trees that are bigger
than those two trees on the lot. White recommended the developer be careful to avoid damaging the
mature trees when the swale is constructed and noted that it should not be necessary to destroy those trees
when doing the work. White suggested a vegetative buffer be planted along the City's right-of-way.
White noted he has applied today for a permit to construct a deck on his property. White requested the
City not establish the lakeshore distance based on his house since the deck will be five feet further from
the house. White indicated he would like to have a little deck off the front of the house and that he
currently has 11.5 percent structural coverage and approximately 29 percent hardcover.
White indicated he will also be taking out a portion of the driveway and putting in a rain garden. White
stated his concern is if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application today,then the
setback would be from the furthest point of his house and he will not be allowed the deck. White stated
he has taken all of the area in the back next to the lake and turned it into a conservation area and that he
would really like a deck on his house.
Curtis asked if the deck permit is based on today's existing conditions and whether it extends the house
out to 78 feet.
White indicated it does.
Curtis stated that would allow the applicant to have what they have asked for. Curtis stated because the
deck permit is administrative at this point,the average lakeshore setback would be based on what exists
today.
Page
27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
David Owen, 3486 Ivy Place, stated in general he can support what is being proposed,but that he would
request screening along the right-of-way. The fire lane is used on a fairly regular basis. Owens concurred
that this is a difficult site to work with and that the proposal is reasonable.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:44 p.m. .
Schoenzeit stated he has a question between vegetative delineation and vegetative screening in the right-
of-way and how the code supports that.
Curtis stated it is part of Staff's recommendation that the vegetation be used to distinguish the applicant's
property from the City's property regardless of what the Planning Commission calls it. Curtis indicates
she agrees that calling it a buffer makes it more substantial,and that if the applicant is amenable to
working with the neighborhood and what they propose does not prohibit the neighbors from accessing
that area,that would be a good solution.
Schoenzeit stated in his view vegetative delineation is important is in this case.
Thiesse asked what property the screening should be located on.
Curtis stated part of the intent from the City's perspective during restoration of the right-of-way is that
some or the majority of the screening will happen in the right-of-way,which is how you can delineate
where the right-of-way is. Curtis noted the applicants will need to submit a vegetative plan.
Landgraver asked whether there is a concern with light pollution.
White commented there was a person on Kelley Avenue that had a house too close to the lake. The City
Council requested he use a natural pallet of colors and he wanted white. White stated the properly is so lit
up at night that it looks like a gambling casino. White indicated he does not want that type of situation
next door to him.
Gaffron stated the lighting has to be shielded so you do not see the source of the light from off site. If the
Planning Commission feels there is a connection or a nexus between the variances they are granting and
the lighting,they can place conditions on the lighting. Gaffron stated in his view the Planning
Commission can encourage the applicant to use limited lighting but cannot make it a condition in this
situation.
White commented people also construct three-story homes and then put soffit lights along the top,which
generates a great deal of light.
Levang asked what the status is of the proposed patio.
Curtis indicated it is included in the hardcover numbers.
Thiesse stated unfortunately the City is limited on what they can do as far as the lighting.
White stated Staff should encourage the applicants to have limited outdoor lighting.
Page
28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chermak stated limited lighting is acceptable but that there will be some lighting installed outdoors for
safety purposes.
Landgraver asked whether the grove of mature trees will be preserved.
Chermak stated the patio and deck is located on that side so no grading will be required. Some pruning is
required but not a significant amount. Chermak indicated those trees should remain basically untouched.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would strongly suggest that the mature grove of trees be
preserved and require a vegetation plan to delineate the right-of-way.
Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3541,KC
Chermak of Pillar Homes on behalf of Robb and Tina Richter,3508 Ivy Place,granting of a
hardcover variance,an average lakeshore setback variance,and a side,street setback variance,
subject to recommendations of Staff,with the condition that hardcover be limited at 46 percent in
the 75-250 foot zone; subject to the condition that a vegetation plan be submitted for Staff s review
and approval; with the recommendation that the applicant make every effort to preserve the old
grove trees and to use good judgment with the outdoor lighting plan to be compatible with the
neighborhood. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 28,2011,DECEMBER 12,2011,AND JANUARY 9,
2012
Thiesse stated at the November 28th meeting Gabriel Jabbour talked about Big Island Park and there was
some discussion regarding County Road 112 and Navarre. In addition,the City received eight
applications for the position of public works director/city engineer.
Curtis indicated the City received 12 applications in total.
Gaffron noted the Council interviewed four candidates on Friday and two will be brought back for
another interview.
Landgraver stated there was nothing real noteworthy discussed at the December 12`�'meeting and that the
annual truth-in-taxation meeting was held prior to the Council meeting.
Levang reported at the January 9'�'meeting the Council discussed the improvements to the bridge over the
channel and had some discussion regarding the hardcover task force.
Curtis noted Staff will be meeting on Monday with Ben Gozola to discuss the direction given at the joint
work session.
Levang commented she appreciated the opportunity to review the materials of the hardcover taskforce and
that she concurs the City has a strong responsibility to protect the lake. Levang stated in her view the
Page
29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 17,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
changes to the hardcover regulations will provide the Planning Commission with new language to back
up their findings and recommendations.
9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Levang stated she would prefer a chart that shows the surrounding properties with addresses included in
Ben Gozola's report that is similar to the charts in Melanie's reports.
Levang stated she would also like some type of identifying marker or directions, if possible, so the
Commissioners are able to locate the properties easier.
Curtis commented she attempts to include an aerial photo in the packet to help orientate the Commission.
Schoenzeit stated he would also like to see hardcover tables included in Ben Gozola's reports.
Curtis stated Staff will continue working on the hardcover ordinance and that they hope to bring it before
the Planning Commission in February.
Levang and Landgraver commended Loren Schoenzeit for his fine work on chairing tonight's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:12 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. �
w
V`�v
Loren Schoenzeit,Chair
Page
30