HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes + i •
�
I
NiINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
..�.%
� •
The Orono Planning Commission me on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
. Chair Loren Schoenzeit,Commissior�rs Lizz Levang,Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver,and Jon
Swingler. Representing Staff were� �sistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike
Gaffron and Recorder Jackie Youn;„ City Attorney Soren Mattick,Mayor McMillan, and Council
Member poug Franchot were prese;it.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16,2012
Leskinen moved,Levang seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
Apri116,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #11-3503 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—LAKESHORE
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: DOCK RENTAL,6:40 P.M.—7:35 P.M.
Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting and again at the April
meeting in order to allow for additional public input. The City Attorney is present tonight to discuss
some potential language and the pros and cons of the language.
Mattick stated the proposed language is a result of some direction from the City Council and Planning
Commission. The text amendment is an attempt to simplify and consolidate the language that already
exists in City Code. The City Council and the Planning Commission has recommended that the language
should be a little more flexible in the following three scenarios: One, allowing relatives of the
homeowner to dock a boat on their private dock; property owners located within 1,000 feet of the private
dock may dock a boat on the private dock; and three,any boat may be docked on a private dock for a
period not to exceed 72 consecutive hours.
Mattick indicated this language is a starting point and that Staff is looking for input from the Planning
Commission. In the past couple of years Staff has routinely looked at situations where potential
residential dock rental is occurring and have sent out letters to the property owner reminding them of the
regulations and advising them to cease that activity. Staff has not been able to catch all of the situations
but that system seems to work fairly well.
Mattick stated he would like the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed language. Mattick noted
that when you are writing a text amendment,you are regulating a land use or activity that occurs on the
land. In the first draft provision the City is starting to tie the use to the property owner and drawing a
distinction between relatives and friends. The definition of relative has not been defined at this point
since there is a fair amount of case law that already exists on that subject and the complexity of different
family scenarios.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mattick stated one situation is the rental of the property by the owner, and asked if the language should
read homeowner/occupant to cover that type of situation. If the City does elect to adopt this language and
it is challenged,the City will need to prove that the person using the dock is indeed a relative,which can
be difficult from a regulatory standpoint.The Planning Commission should also consider whether the
City has sufficient resources to conduct the necessary investigations. Mattick indicated should Staff feel
that someone is in violation of the text amendment,they would prepare a report asking the City Attorney
to bring criminal charges,which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt,and which can be difficult to
prove in this type of situation.
Mattick noted in the past some of the primary concerns that have been raised as it relates to docks are
increased tra�c,parking,and people who are not living at the residence being in the area at different �
times of the day. Mattick stated in his opinion item number two would be easier to enforce. The
Planning Commission will need to decide whether the language in item two should also include renters of
the property.
Mattick stated he is unsure whether there were other items the Planning Commission was considering,but
that he would propose coming back to the Planning Commission with more refined language following
tonight's discussion and then bring it before the City Council for their input. Mattick stated the easiest
way to enforce dock rentals is to limit the number of boats allowed on a dock.
Schoenzeit asked if there is any way to separate the ordinance from the City's enforcement policy and
compliance issues. Schoenzeit stated it was clear from the City Council that there are law-abiding
residents that allow relatives and others to use their dock and that the City should not try to make good
people code violators.
Mattick stated if this is adopted,the City should be prepared to enforce it. At the present time Staff
enforces its current language based on complaints and that for the most part Staff does not have the time
to police this type of violation on a regular basis.
Schoenzeit stated he is talking about not putting this language into the City Code but perhaps adopting an
enforcement policy.
Mattick commented he is unsure how the City could accomplish that and that it needs to be spelled out in
the language. If you want to enforce it criminally,the language needs to be black or white. Mattick
stated as it relates to item one,the definition of a relative does not seem like it would be difficult to
define,but it can become complex given different situations.
Levang asked if renting or otherwise providing space could involve bartering. Levang asked what would
constitute renting and whether it has to be an exchange of money.
Mattick stated the language, "or providing space" does not require the City to demonstrate there is a rental
agreement in place.
Landgraver asked what the City Attorney would recommend be deleted based on previous discussions.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mattick stated he would recommend that Item No. 1 be eliminated but that in his view Item No.3 is
acceptable. Mattick stated the Planning Commission should discuss the length of time that a boat may be
docked on a private dock and whether that time period should be shorter or longer. Mattick stated there
could also be a number of situations where people may have riparian rights that he is unaware of. Mattick
stated in his opinion Item No. 2 is also achievable.
Landgraver stated there could be a situation where the property owner rents out the property but still
maintains control of the dock,which further complicates things.
Levang stated as it relates to property owners in Item No.2,whether that would include renters.
Mattick indicated the City currently does not distinguish that type of situation. Mattick indicated the
language could be changed to read occupant rather than property owner. Mattick indicated the Planning
Commission will need to decide whether they want the owner/occupant to determine who utilizes the
dock. .
Gaffron stated one of the issues with using the term occupant is that it is also di�cult to define. If the
house is not being lived in but they have access to the dock, does that constitute occupancy.
Mattick commented that has also been an issue under the current code.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Rich Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated he is the owner of three marinas in Orono and that he has
been in business in Orono since 1976. Anderson stated he is attempting to protect what he is regulated to
do as the owner of a marina. Anderson noted marinas are highly regulated and that it seems like the City
is opening up a can of worms with this ordinance. Anderson indicated the reason people do not put boats
in their name is due to liability issues and that if you have a relative dock his boat at your dock,that boat
could be put in the property owner's name. .
Anderson stated he currently knows of two or three situations that are likely illegal on the road near Smith
Bay and another two situations where there are boats sitting on the side of County Road 51. The onus
should not be on the neighboring property owner to turn in his neighbor. Anderson noted marinas are in
the business of renting out dock slips and that a conditional use permit would be a viable option for
people who want to rent residential docks. Anderson commented that residential dock rentals impact his
livelihood.
Schoenzeit asked which item in the text amendment Mr.Anderson would be opposed to.
Anderson stated he is fine with relatives but that the boat should be in the property owner's name.
Anderson commented he does not know who his neighbors are 1,000 feet away. Anderson questioned
what the City's options would be if number two is allowed for getting someone out of there if it becomes
a problem.
Schoenzeit stated the City has options already in the Code to deal with parking and noise issues.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Anderson stated Planner Gaffron has seen a number of marina operations that have gone by the wayside
and the issues that are created as part of a marina operation. Anderson indicated he does not have a
problem with Item No. 3.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. �
Levang asked what area the 1,000 feet would encompass.
Mattick indicated it would be a circle around the property.
Schoenzeit commented it appears that Item No. 3 is the most acceptable and that the 72 hours will
encompass the weekend.
Leskinen noted the 72 hours is also consistent with the code language regulating RVs. Leskinen stated
that provision would prohibit the docking of non-owner boats for the entire summer.
Levang stated some of the issues raised previously during the public comment were on street parking and
noise,which should be addressed. Levang questioned how this text amendment would solve the problem
with on-street parking.
Landgraver stated if it is a neighbor that lives within 1,000 feet,they likely will not be driving to the
location,and that the people who stay for 72 hours would likely be coming by boat and would not cause
an issue with parking.
Levang commented there could also be situations where the person drives to the property. Levang stated
there should be language in the text amendment that requires the property owner to provide off street
parking.
Mattick asked if the streets are already marked no parking.
Levang indicated some of the streets are marked no parking on one side of the street.
Gaffron stated parking may be an issue in one neighborhood and not an issue in another neighborhood.
Gaffron stated in his view 1,000 feet is too far and may prompt people to drive there since it is too long of
a distance for people to carry things.
Levang commented they could go to an allowed place to park or the properly owner would have to
provide parking on their property.
Gaffron commented that allowed parking could be in front of someone else's property.
Mattick stated it would be necessary to post the areas where parking will not be allowed.
Schoenzeit stated parking restrictions would control use of the property.
Levang indicated her point is since parking has been an issue in the past,that the text amendment should
have language that prohibits the use of parking on the street. Levang stated if the dock is being used by
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNiISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
someone other than the property owner,that owner should have to provide for parking on his property.
Leskinen stated parking of trailers could be restricted rather than vehicle parking.
Mattick stated Staff can look at the parking component and determine whether trailer parking should be
banned,but then it becomes a policing issue and determining whether they have a boat at a neighbor's
house.
Landgraver stated his recollection is that some neighbors expressed concern about the parking and people
coming and going that do not live in the neighborhood.Landgraver stated in his view the 72 hours would
help solve the issues associated with someone other than the property owner utilizing the dock.
Mattick stated the language could also be tried on a trial basis and revised in the future if problems arise.
Schoenzeit commented it appears the Planning Commission is comfortable with Item No. 3 and that the
Planning Commission would like the current code cleaned up.
Levang asked whether Items 1 and 2 would be eliminated.
Schoenzeit stated in his view Items 1 and 2 are not practical but that he would welcome input by the City
Council. Schoenzeit stated in his view Item No. 3 is an achievable improvement.
Leskinen commented that the language in Item No. 2 is also ambiguous.
Landgraver stated he is not sure how to deal with the owner/occupant language and that in his view Item
Nos.2 and 3 should be passed on to the City Council.
Schwingler noted Item No.2 deals with people who live in the neighborhood.
Mattick stated the 1,000 feet may be excessive and that perhaps the number could be reduced.
Leskinen asked whether one foot of the property would be counted in the 1,000 feet or whether it should
be the entire house. Leskinen questioned from where the 1,000 feet would be measured.
Mattick indicated the easiest way to measure would be from property line to property line. Mattick stated
he is not sure whether the City has the technology to measure from house to house.
Gaffron stated the City's GPS system would allow them to be within 10 feet of the house or property line.
Leskinen commented in her opinion that will need to be addressed.
Landgraver commented 1,000 feet may be generous and that it perhaps should be limited further.
Levang asked whether someone that lives in the neighborhood but does not own lakeshore would be
allowed to dock their boat there all summer.
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mattick indicated under current code that would not be allowed.
Leskinen noted in that situation they would likely have to use the public landing to launch their boat.
Schoenzeit stated perhaps the recommendation should be that the Planning Commission feels that Items 2
and 3 should be reviewed by the City Council.
Landgraver stated in his view Item No. 1 should be eliminated,but that he does not have an opinion on
the 1,000 feet. Landgraver stated in his view Item No. 3 is reasonable.
Schoenzeit stated it appears that Item No. 3 is acceptable and that perhaps the language in Item No.2
could be tweaked as it relates to the 1,000 feet.
Mattick noted that Item No. 2 is not specific to relatives or friends and that it does not distinguish
between property owner and renter.
Landgraver commented he is fine with Items 2 and 3.
Leskinen indicated she is fine with Item No. 3 but that she is not comfortable with Items 1 or 2.
Schwingler stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen and that Item No. 2 will be difficult to
enforce.
Schoenzeit noted Item No. 2 is also dependent upon complaints being received.
Leskinen moved,Schwingler seconded,Application#11-3503,City of Orono,Zoning Code Text
Amendment-Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts: Dock Rental,to accept the code as written
in Section 1(6),with Item No.3 being allowed as an exception. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STAVIG,790 BROWN ROAD NORTFI,VARIANCES,
7:35 P.M.—8:16 P.M.
John and Phoebe Stavig,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant
time to provide additional information. The applicant is requesting bluff setback,average lakeshore
setback, and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A
variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested.
The applicant has provided an engineering report from Carl Anderson Engineering that suggests the slope
stability is adequate for construction of a residence at the applicant's proposed location and that the
potential for erosion is mitigated by existing vegetation. In reviewing that report, Staff would note that
the comment on Page 4 of the report that"the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line
near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30 percent slope threshold
marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff'does not appear to be
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
consistent with the contours shown on the survey. Based on the survey,the slopes within the first 20-25
feet down slope from the driveway bed range from 28-32 percent for the length of the proposed house.
Gaffron noted the issues in this application relate not only to slope stability but also aesthetics.
Gaffron pointed out there may be a way to construct a house if they are granted a 25-foot setback to the
west and south where normally 30 feet is required and a 25-foot setback to the street where a 50-foot
setback is required. By building in that area, it would allow them to construct a house consisting of 1,440
square feet and a garage of 710 square feet,which is approximately a 2,150 square feet. Gaffron
indicated they could do some regarding within the bluff impact zone to perhaps create a walkout in the
setback area. Gaffron indicated the neighbor's tennis court would be in close proximity to the house but
that it likely will not be a huge impact since it would be used sporadically.
Based on that option, Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance;
2. Denial of the bluff setback variance;
3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure;
4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door.
5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear(street)
property line;
6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of
approximately 2150 square feet.
Gaffron noted Staff has outlined some issues in the report that the Planning Commission should discuss.
Levang asked if the house has been moved forward essentially compared to the proposal from the
applicant.
Gaffron stated the house has been moved forward five feet to the street and slightly narrowed.
Landgraver asked whether this option has been discussed with the applicant and his engineers.
Gaffron indicated it has not been discussed with the applicant, and that the intent of it was to show that
some kind of house could be constructed if some variances are allowed. Gaffron noted this would avoid
the need to grant some type of variance to the bluff.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has any liability if the homeowner does not follow some of the City's
recommendations and the house experiences problems.
Gaffron stated in his opinion the City would not be at fault if the Planning Commission approves
something as long as they do not make any statements about guaranteeing slope stability.
Page 7
1VIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the applicant needs to understand the risks associated with constructing a house in this
location.
John Stavig,Applicant,stated two months ago a lot of the discussion from the Planning Commission
centered around the stability of the road and the unique nature of the driveway bed. Following
discussions with Staff, Stavig indicated he has gained an understanding of the intent of the regulations
and that they have attempted to address the intent of the regulations.
The 20-year plan talks about land forms being highly varied in Orono,different compositions of soil,the
ability of each soil type to adequately accommodate development varies considerably in Orono, and how
there should be careful examination of the property to determine the most appropriate land use. The
minutes from the last meeting focused on that the Planning Commission looks at these cases on a case by
case basis and that they would hate to send the applicant on an expensive goose case.
Stavig indicated he tried to focus on what was discussed at the last meeting and had an engineer look at
the stability of the roadbed. Stavig stated his engineer feels that positioning the structure immediately
above the existing driveway provides the most stable location.
At the last meeting there was a discussion about potential placement of the structure on the property.
Stavig stated in his view this property is unique and there are some unusual circumstances relating to the
driveway bed. The engineer's comments regarding how the road bed has been stable for 100 years
confirms that this is a good location for the house. The extensive vegetation immediately below the
driveway bed would not be impacted and will help screen the house. Stavig noted if you look at the back
of the proposed house,you can barely see it from the lake and you cannot see the shed or the other
buildings.
Stavig stated he appreciates Staff's willingness to try to come up with a solution but that Planner
Gaffron's option creates a significantly smaller house in comparison to the other homes in the
neighborhood. Stavig noted the tennis court is shared by four homes and being less than 30 feet from the
tennis court would be an issue. Pushing it toward the south is also an issue. Stavig stated having the
house forward would make the house out of character with the other e�cisting homes in terms of size and
would necessitate constructing a 2-1/2 story house,which would be more visible. The proposed home
will be located more than 300 feet from the shoreline and they are offering this as the best location.
Stavig noted they would be meeting the 30-foot setback with their proposal and that in his view they have
addressed the erosion issues and complies with the spirit of the regulation.
Schoenzeit asked whether there have ever been any other improvements to this property aside from the
gravel driveway bed. Schoenzeit asked whether there has ever been a house on this property.
Gaffron indicated it has not except for the little shed.
Stavig stated the original house to the south has always had common ownership with this property and
has been taxed separately since 1969. Hennepin County refuses to lower the taxes on the property even
with the restrictions that are imposed on the property. Stavig noted he has paid over$200,000 in taxes on
this parcel and that it is taxed at almost the same rate as his other lot with lakeshore.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if the applicant is at all interested in the 25-foot setback since it appears the house would
still be fairly a good sized house.
Stavig stated the square footage they are proposing is 1,600 square feet and that Gaffron's proposal would
result in a smaller house.
Schoenzeit noted Mike Gaffron's drawing is approximately 2,150 square feet.
Gaffron indicated it would be closer to 2,300 square feet,which would include the garage.
Stavig stated he does not want to build closer to the tennis court or the road. Stavig commented he has a
concern with constructing the house 30 feet from the road. The house would also have a smaller footprint
under Planner Gaffron's proposal,which would not be consistent with the other homes in the
neighborhood.
Leskinen commented that unfortunately there are some constraints on the lot that may limit the size of the
house.
Stavig stated his proposed house is already smaller than the other homes on the street and that he would
have a concern with downsizing it even further and possibly having to move additional dirt. Stavig noted
the City Engineer and his engineer both say that the best location for a house is immediately above the
road bed.
Levang asked whether the applicant is amenable at all to the plan proposed by Mike Gaffron.
Stavig indicated he is not. Stavig indicated he would be willing to construct a rain garden. The
underlying issue is minimizing the erosion and making an investment in the property. Stavig stated it
would be his issue if the property experiences erosion.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant has seen the comments from the DNR.
Stavig asked if those are the comments from approximately two to three months ago.
Gaffron indicated they are and that the DNR is recommending variances not be granted to the bluff
setback.
Schoenzeit stated it appears that some variances may be granted, but that the stability of the slope,
aesthetics,and erosion present a pretty high standard that is typically not crossed.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
There were no comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked whether there have been any follow-up discussions with Bolton&Menk following
receipt of their letter.
Gaffron noted the letter was received by him sometime last week or a little earlier. Gaffron indicated he
had a discussion beforehand about the City's philosophy and how that should be balanced against this
request. Gaffron stated there are a number of reasons why the Planning Commission has to differentiate
this case from another case that might come along in the future. Gaffron indicated there is always a risk
when working in a bluff area that more trees are removed than what would be desired and that it has been
the City's position that they avoid construction in the bluff area.
Landgraver stated he has a concern when the DNR says do not build within the bluff area and then there
are two engineers that are saying it is okay to go up to the roadway.
Schoenzeit asked how the applicant will provide the City comfort that he will have a competent contractor
do this project.
Stavig indicated he is willing to abide by the City's restrictions and inspection requirements.
Schoenzeit commented this is a risky project and that it is a difficult lot to construct on given the
substantial engineering that will be required. Schoenzeit noted if a bulldozer is parked in the wrong spot
and there is a 10-inch rain,the bulldozer will end up in the lake.
Stavig stated if you view the property, it is a relatively flat area and that the engineering report goes
through how to remove the trees and addresses the other issues that were raised.
Schoenzeit commented the reports are compelling and that in some ways the applicant is asking the City
to allow him to take the risk.
Stavig stated he does not see it as being that treacherous of a project and that he would be happy to supply
photos of the site. Stavig indicated he is willing to comply with the City's stipulations and that he has
attempted to address the City's concerns regarding stability.
Landgraver sta.ted the main concern is that if the slope or bluff goes, it is gone forever.
Levang asked if Bolton and Menk visited the site.
Gaffron indicated he is not sure whether they have personally visited the site.
Levang stated the way she reads their report is that they typically do not take into consideration other
outside engineering reports and that they are not willing to guarantee the stability of the slope.
Schoenzeit stated the homeowner is the one who would be accepting the risk. From a precedent
standpoint,the engineering reports that have been submitted are what separate this application from other
applications.
Leskinen commented she is concerned about the precedent as well since this is new construction on the
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE '
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
lot and construction within a bluff setback area has not been done before. The intent of the regulation is
to protect the bluff. Leskinen stated it would be a different situation if there had already been a home on
the parcel.
Leskinen stated the point has been made that the additional engineering work is very compelling and that
she is struggling with some of the same issues that have already been expressed. On one hand the DNR is
saying do not construct in this area and on the other the applicant's engineer is saying the slope is stable
enough to construct on. Leskinen asked whether there is any way a compromise can be reached to limit
the impact on the bluff impact zone.
Stavig indicated they have attempted to put forth the best plan for the property in accordance with the
engineer's recommendations. Having a roadway bed there for 100 years speaks to the stability of the area
to sustain construction.
Gaffron asked whether the applicant would be constructing the house or whether the property would be
sold to someone else.
Stavig indicated his initial inclination was to sell the property but that he is not sure at this point.
Schwingler commented he is also struggling with the same issues and that it is a difficult property to work
with.
Landgraver stated he is in line with Staff's recommendations.
Leskinen stated if the possibility exists that the homeowner will not construct the proposed house,it is
likely that will create some new issues if the future owner wants to make some changes to the plan.
Levang moved,Landgraver seconded,Application#12-3547,790 Brown Road North,to
recommend approval of an average lakeshore setback variance,denial of the bluff setback
variance,denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure,allowance for
limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door,approval of a setback
variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear(street) property line,and approval
of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2,150
square feet,per Staff s recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
4. #12-3551 CARL TSENG AND KIM YUEH CHAUN,11505 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD,
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT,8:18 P.M.—8:55 P.M.
Carl Tseng,Applicant;Tom Budzynski,Builder;and Don Pertinen,Designer,were present.
Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the April Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time
to make revisions and provide additional information. The applicant is requesting the following
approvals for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property:
1. Lot area variance to allow construction on a lot of 11,951 square feet where 87,120 square feet is
Page
11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
required;
2. Lot width variance to allow construction on a lot of 99' defined width and 60' functional width
where 200 feet is required;
3. Side setback variance to allow west side setback of 10 feet where 30 feet is required;
4. Side setback variance to allow an east side setback of 10.4 feet where 30 feet is required;
5. Street setback variance to allow street setback of 23.5 feet where 50 feet is required;
6. Lakeshore setback variance to allow lakeshore setback of 493 feet where 100 feet is required;
7. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow average setback encroachment of 30 feet where no
encroachment is allowed;
8. 0-75 foot hardcover variance to allow 14.2 percent hardcover where no hardcover is normally
allowed;
9. 75-250 foot hardcover variance to allow 34.2 percent hardcover where only 25 percent is
normally allowed;
10. Variance to allow structure within Bluff Impact Zone where no structure is normally allowed;
11. CUP and variance required for 0-75 foot grading/filling/excavating in excess of 10 cubic yards.
Gaffron noted the grading plan incorporates two revisions. The first is that the plan no longer attempts to
create a swale along the west lot line but allows drainage to flow directly to the neighboring property.
The proposal also includes a system of gutters so that all roof runoff will be directed to a series of rain
gardens tucked into the hill southeast of the house. Additionally,a swale for infiltration near the
shoreline has been added,which likely will help to manage runoff from the City's storm sewer that
discharges along the east property boundary.
The applicants are proposing to remove two of the three large oak trees in the 0-75 foot zone. The 22" �
oak alongside the existing house but on the neighbor's property apparently has already extended roots in
the foundation wall of the existing house. The continued viability of this tree with the proposed house 10
feet away is questionable. Removal of this tree is anticipated because its branches extend significantly
into the applicanYs property. There has been no discussion with Staff as to replacement of this tree with
one or more trees on either property.
In addition, Staff has a concern that the 34"oak just south of the house is also recommended by the
applicant's consultant to be removed as a preemptive measure based on its proximity to the proposed
house and all the activity associated with the new construction. The Planning Commission had asked the
applicant to obtain professional advice as to how to save tliis tree, and the recommendation is to remove
the tree.
Page
12
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
' Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted the revised grading plan makes only minor changes to the proposed fill elevations around
the house.
Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the lot area and width variances.
2. Approval of 0-75 and 75-250 foot hardcover variances at a level that the Planning Commission
finds acceptable. If reductions from the current proposed levels are recommended,then a revised
site plan and house plan should be requested. The mitigation measures proposed for the
excessive hardcover would appear to address this issue adequately.
3. Approval of the requested side setback variances, subject implementation of a final grading and
drainage plan acceptable to the City Engineer and subject to no encroachments of the east side 10
feet drainage and utility easement by overhangs, cantilevers, or other structure.
4 Approval of lake setback and street setback variances as proposed,subject to any revisions
needed if Planning Commission concludes hardcover must be reduced.
5. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as proposed.
6. Approval of a variance to allow structure within the defined bluff impact zone subject to
implementation of final grading and drainage plans for the site. Any retaining walls four feet in
height or greater will require submittal of plans designed by a structural engineer.
7. Approval of a CUP and variance for grading/excavation/fill within the 0-75 foot zone, subject to a
final grading and d drainage plan that addresses any City engineer concerns regarding slope
stability; subject to adherence to the City's erosion control regulations as well as the permitting
requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the
permitting process.
8. If the variances are recommended for approval,the applicant shall provide for city council
approval a proposed tree replacement plan at a two for one mitigation level for the two oaks being
lost,and shall take all necessary measures to ensure the survivability of all other mature trees
within the 0-75 foot protected area.
9. The applicant is advised of street parking limitations during the construction process.
10. Approval is subject to all recommendations of the City Consulting Engineer in his letter dated
May 17,2012.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the issues outlined in Staff s report.
Landgraver stated it is likely the City Council will wrestle with the same issues the Planning Commission
is on these two applications. Landgraver noted there is an existing house on the property,which
distinguishes it from the first application. Landgraver stated if this application is approved,the Planning
Page
13
MINUTES OF TIiE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Commission would essentially be allowing a driveway within the bluff setback area.
Gaffron stated the applicant will need to supply appropriate engineering reports. Gaffron noted the
applicant would be allowed to rebuild in kind.
Schoenzeit noted the bluff on this property does not extend along the entire property.
Gaffron illustrated the bluff areas and non-bluff areas of the property.
Levang asked whether the garage could be side loading.
Gaffron stated it is likely there would be additional hardcover if a side-loading garage is constructed.
Levang asked whether that would provide safer access.
Gaffron stated it would not necessarily be safer and it could also make the drainage a little more di�cult
to control.
Landgraver asked how the gutters would drain from the west side of the house.
Gaffron stated the gutter would need to be diverted into one of the outlets.
Tom Budzynski stated one of the main issues is the large,mature tree,and that if the tree is to be saved,
you would need to be at least 15 to 20 feet from the trunk of the tree. Budzynski indicated he would have
to oversize the hole by at least one foot to accommodate the foundation. To cut the tree down later would
be a substantially higher cost to the property owner. In addition,a substantial amount of the canopy is
into the footprint of the house and would need to be cut back. Budzynski indicated he does like trees and
attempts to retain them whenever possible but that in this situation the tree would not survive the
construction. Budzynski noted they have gotten permission from the neighbor to take care of the tree on
the side.
Pertinen noted the stairway down to the lake would be reduced to four feet wide and constructed of
timbers.
Budzynski stated as it relates to the swales,they will be constructing a series of swales that will handle
the runoff. In addition,vegetation will be planted to help prevent erosion. Budzynski noted they will be
bringing their plans to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District after they receive approval from the City.
Levang asked whether the swales will be cut into the slope.
Budzynski indicated they would be. Budzynski stated there are certain plants that are designed to help
clean the water which will be planted. Budzynski stated they will make sure the runoff does not
negatively impact the water in the lake. Budzynski stated some new trees can be planted to replace the
trees that are removed.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
John Stavig, 780 Brown Road North,encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this application.
Stavig requested the Planning Commission reconcile the decision they make on this application with the
decision they made on his application and that he understands the difference between a property that has
an existing house versus a property that is undeveloped.
Schoenzeit stated state statute somewhat ties the City's hands,which is why the Planning Commission
encourages the applicant to present as many City-acceptable mitigating features as possible. Schoenzeit
noted applicants are entitled to rebuild in kind without ever approaching the Planning Commission and
that the Planning Commission looks at each application to see if there is some opportunity to improve the
outcome.
Stavig stated he was informed the Planning Commission had some leeway to subjectively look at the
applications and that he would appreciate some reflection on the differences found by the Planning
Commission on the two applications. Stavig commented in his view there are some tremendous
inconsistencies between the findings on the two applications.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission examines each application on its own merits and follows the
regulations of the City.
Curt Greenley, 1485 Long Lake Boulevard,indicated he is in support of the project 100 percent.
Greenley asked as it relates to the swale, if that would divert runoff eastward across his property.
Budzynski stated they will be constructing a little lip on the swale to keep the runoff on the property.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
Schoenzeit encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the unique merits of this project and accept
that the two large trees will need to be removed. Schoenzeit stated the bluff encroachment and the height
of the walls would likely require engineering for everything in that zone regardless of height or code
requirements.
Pertinen indicated that is not a problem and that they had planned on doing that.
Levang noted the applicant is entitled to rebuild in kind and that this is a good alternative since it allows
for better placement on the lot and reduces the overall square footage of the house. Levang commented
she is very comfortable with the plan that is being proposed and that it is unfortunate the two large trees
need to be removed.
Leskinen asked whether a landscape plan has been submitted or whether Staff has any idea what will be
done as it relates to the landscaping.
An unidentified gentleman indicated a letter has been submitted.
Gaffron noted it is Exhibit A4.
Page
15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated in his view the applicant has been very responsive to the Planning Commission's
concerns expressed at the last meeting and that those efforts are appreciated. Landgraver stated one issue
is the massing issue since the size of the house will be much larger than what currently exists,but noted
that none of the neighbors have raised a concern regarding that.
Leskinen asked if this is a three level house.
Gaf&on indicated by definition it is not a three level house and that the calculation to determine if it is a
basement or not is made on the percent of the perimeter of the foundation that is exposed. In this case,
given the elevations that have been provided on the survey,they meet the definition for that level being a
basement since more than 50 percent of the foundation is below existing grade.
Schwingler indicated he does not have any issues with the application.
Schoenzeit asked whether Staff has any recommendations for tree replacement.
Gaffron stated Staff would likely ask for four to five trees given the limited space.
Schoenzeit moved to recommend approval of Application#12-3551,Carl Tseng and Kim Yueh
Chaun, 1505 Long Lake Boulevard,subject to Staff s recommendations; subject to the applicant
replacing the two mature trees with a minimum of four trees; and subject to engineering of all
items within the bluff impact zone.
Gaffron asked whether any of the trees should be planted on the neighboring property.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission cannot require the neighbor to accept the tree but that the
Planning Commission would strongly encourage it.
Levang seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
5. #12-3554 DOUGLAS AND ANN ENGLiJND,3884 CHERRY AVENUE,VARIANCES,
8:56 P.M.—9:46 P.M.
Steve Englund was present on behalf of Douglas Englund.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting the following approvals for construction of a new residence to
replace the existing residence on the property:
1. Lot area variance to allow construction on a lot of 14,799 square feet area where 21,780 square
feet is required.
2. Lot width variance to allow construction on a lot of 52 feet defined width where 100 feet is
required.
Page
16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. 0-75 foot hardcover variance to allow 2.62 percent existing hardcover to remain in place where
no hardcover is normally allowed.
4. 75-250 foot hardcover variance to allow 35.0 percent hardcover where 39.65 percent hardcover
exists and only 25 percent is normally allowed.
Gaffron noted hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone is currently at 110 square feet,which includes wood steps,
a concrete wall and pad, and a small pump house. The applicants are proposing no change in the 0-75
foot zone. .
Hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone is currently 4,240 square feet and consists of a 1,369 square foot
house,a 471 square foot detached garage,a 1,077 square foot driveway, and decks, sidewalks and
retaining walls totaling 1,287 square feet. The proposed house at 1,690 square feet is somewhat larger
than the existing house and includes an attached garage and covered front stoop. The existing retaining
walls north of the detached garage are proposed to be removed. The deck on the lake side of the house
will be much smaller than the existing deck.
In reviewing whether additional removals are possible, it should be noted that the existing and proposed
houses are set back substantially from the street lot line. The addition of an attached garage requires a
longer driveway for this house location. Most of the ancillary hardcover items are proposed to be
removed except for the detached garage.
Gaffron indicated the grading plan retains the existing grades in the 0-75 foot zone. Along the west
property boundary the slope drops off steeply to the neighboring property. A swale is proposed to direct
drainage to the north within the applicant's property to alleviate runoff concerns and then will be directed
to the applicants' lakeshore yard rather than the neighbor's yard. Along the east side of the property,the
existing retaining walls north of the detached garage aze proposed to be removed and replaced with a
slope ranging from 3:1 to much steeper slopes. Gaffron stated it might be best that portions of those walls
remain. The proposal would slightly increase hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone.
Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances as well as approval of 0-75 foot and 75-
250 foot hardcover variances at a level the Planning Commission finds acceptable. If reductions from the
current proposed levels are recommended,then a revised site plan should be requested. Measures to
mitigate the hardcover excesses should be proposed if the detached garage is allowed to remain in place.
The applicant is advised that there is likely going to be street parking difficulties during the construction
process. This neighborhood has narrow roads and a number of new home construction projects are
anticipated within a block or two of the site for the next two years.
Gaffron noted that approval is subject to all recommendations of the City Consulting Engineer in his
letter dated May 17,2012.
Schoenzeit asked whether the existing garage meets the setback.
Gaffron indicated it does not. Gaffron displayed pictures of the property. Gaffron pointed out the
location of the swale on the property and the retaining walls.
Page
17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Englund noted the retaining walls will not be removed.
Gaffron noted that will change the hardcover numbers slightly but that in his view the retaining walls
should remain. The proposed deck will be smaller than what currently exists.
Leskinen asked whether the decking would be removed.
Gaffron indicated it is proposed to be removed. Gaffron stated if the existing garage remains,the existing
stairway will likely remain.
Levang asked if gutters would assist with the water runoff issues.
Gaffron stated if the swale is constructed according to the grading plans, gutters probably will not add
much to the mitigation of the water issues. Gaffron commented there might be room for a rain garden as
well.
Leskinen asked whether the home will have a basement.
Gaffron indicated it would. Gaffron displayed a sketch of the proposed home and views from the lake
and street. Gaffron noted the new residence would be two stories.
Steve Englund stated he is appearing tonight on behalf of his brother. Englund stated the retaining walls
will remain and the concrete pad down by the lake will be removed. Englund indicated they would like to
save the existing garage since it will be difficult to live with a two-car garage and his brother has already
invested a fair amount of money into the garage. As it relates to parking,there are some empty lots in the
neighborhood that would be able to handle the parking during construction.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application. ,
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Landgraver asked what the existing garage would be used for.
Englund indicated it would be for storage and a third vehicle.
Gaffron suggested the existing garage match the architecture of the new house. Gaffron noted City Code
does require accessory structures to have similar architecture as the residence.
Schoenzeit stated in his view it is very reasonable for the City to request that the existing garage and new
home have similar architecture.
Schoenzeit asked what the hardcover on the lot will be.
Gaffron indicated hardcover would amount to 3,750 square feet. The proposed hardcover would be at
Page
18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
38.1 percent.
Levang noted some of the calculations will need to be adjusted due to some of the hardcover removals.
Levang noted there is an entrance on the front and back but no entrance on the side.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission could ask for some additional runoff mitigation.
Englund indicated his brother is amenable to rain gardens and a lakeshore buffer.
Landgraver asked whether Staff has any recommendations for mitigation.
Gaffron stated there are some calculations that can be made by the engineers to determine whether a rain
garden would be necessary.
Schoenzeit suggested the applicant work with Staff on that item.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3554,Douglas
and Ann Englund,3884 Cherry Avenue,granting of variances to lot width,lot area,and hardcover
in the 0-75 foot zone and the 75-250 foot zone,subject to Staff and City Engineer recommendations;
subject to the applicant,prior to the City Council meeting,submitting revised plans not exceeding
15 percent structural coverage; subject to the existing garage being updated to match the
architecture of the new house; subject to the old garage turnaround hardcover being removed; and
working with Staff to determine an appropriate size for a rain garden. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
6. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 23,2012,AND MAY 14,2012
Landgraver stated he attended the City Council meeting on April 23,2012,and that the main topic of
discussion was the Maple Place application.
Gaffron noted no building applications for that development have been approved at this point. Gaffron
stated essentially the City Council approved the conditional use permit and required that the applicant use
the existing grade in determining the height of the structure.
Levang commented there are a number of 50-foot lots in that neighborhood,which may become an issue
in the future.
Franchot stated in addition to the 50-foot lots,the trees have been removed from the site,which is an
issue for the neighbors.
Levang noted if the hardcover limit is complied with,the footprint of the homes will not be very large.
Levang stated at the May 14�'meeting the Maple Place application was also discussed,with the neighbors
voicing opposition to the project. The City Council eventually approved the request for a conditional use
Page
19
MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 21,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
permit.
Levang noted that the City Council and a number of city representatives were served with a subpoena
during the meeting regarding some litigation between Jay Nygard and Dennis Walsh.
7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved,seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes
5,Nays 0.
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page
20