HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke, Chad Olson, and Loren
Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners
Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 16,2017
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of October 16,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
2. #17-3979 KIMBERLY AND STEVE SCHOTTLER,2740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCES, 6:35 P.M.—7:05 P.M.
Steve Schottler,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicants purchased the property in August of 2016. In September of 2016,the City
issued a stop work notice for unpermitted construction of a new screen porch on the lake side of the
home. A follow-up inspection in July of 2017 showed that the porch had not been removed and no permit
or variance applications had been submitted.
The applicants have now submitted a variance application in October. The screen porch was constructed
in the place of a smaller 26-foot wide second-story deck which extended 11 feet from the house toward
the lake. An 11.6' x 11.6' deck was built where that portion of the existing deck was located on the
southeast side of the residence. Next to that a new 25.6' x 31.5' roofed screen porch now extends 31.5
feet toward the lake,which is 20 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and approximately
two feet into the 75-foot setback.
Staff finds no practical difficulties supporting hardcover and structural encroachments into the 75-foot
setback. In addition,the screen porch could be redesigned to provide for that same outdoor living space
within the permitted setback areas. Although the project is supported by the neighbors, Staff does not
identify sufficient practical difficulties supporting the substantial average lakeshore setback
encroachment.
If the Planning Commission identifies practical difficulties support the new screen porch encroachment
lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, a motion for approval would be appropriate. If the Planning
Commission recommends approval,the comments from the building official should be taken into
consideration.
Staff recommends denial of the 75-foot setback and hardcover encroachment since neither are supported
by practical difficulties.
Curtis displayed photographs of the screen porch and yard.
Page 1 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked for clarification on the timeline.
Curtis indicated the screen porch was built sometime after the applicants purchased the property in
August of 2016. Some other construction was going on at the property,which consisted of a fence.
Following installation of the fence, a stop work order was issued on the screen porch. Curtis indicated
she is not sure what type of communication went on between the applicant and the inspector. Staff met
this fall with the homeowner and walked through the process and the applicant subsequently applied for a
variance.
Lemke asked whether the design of the screen porch meets all of the City's requirements.
Curtis stated that is unknown at this time and that the comments from the inspector indicate that footing
inspections would need to be conducted as well as a review of the structural components of the porch.
Curtis stated that process would start with the applicant submitting building plans.
Steve Schottler, Applicant, stated they are new citizens to the Orono. Schottler noted he currently is a
stay-at-home dad but that he previously worked for a real estate company and appeared before various
planning commissions. Schottler stated he understands how important the process is and that he is here to
ask for an after-the-fact variance for the porch.
Schottler stated in their view this is a unique property because there is a long channel that connects into a
cove located on one side of the property,which creates a practical difficulty as it relates to the lakeside
setbacks. Schottler stated he was able to meet with four of his neighbors. The neighbor to the right has a
deck that is 65 feet from the cove, another neighbor on the right has a deck that is 95 feet from the main
lake,and then the other two neighbors have decks that are 85 and 75 feet to the lake. Schottler noted his
house to the main portion of the lake is 144 feet.
Schottler stated part of the problem lies with the fact that the City's measurements are based on the high
water level. Schottler stated when he measured it from the water's edge, it was over 75 feet. The area
where the measurement was taken is the former boathouse area of the previous owner. Schottler stated it
is actually a manmade inlet just for the boathouse,and that if you measure it out to where the rest of the
cove is, it is approximately 102 feet. The house sits back 144 feet back from the main lake and a little
over 75 feet from the edge of the water to the boathouse. Schottler stated in their view they are using the
land in a reasonable manner and not asking for anything out of the ordinary.
Schottler stated the reason for the variance is the cove since the cove creates a special condition and is
peculiar to this property and the immediately adjoining property. The condition this cove presents does
not apply to many other structures in the district.
Schottler displayed a photograph depicting the view from the porch to the property located at 2730
Shadywood Road. Schottler noted from their deck and back yard,those neighbors are unable to see into
the back yard. The neighbor on the other side is also unable to see the porch since there is dense foliage
between the two properties.
Schottler displayed some photographs depicting the cove from the edge of the porch. Measuring from the
water's edge of the cove, it is a little over 75 feet and approximately 144 feet to the main body of water.
Page 2 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schottler stated they wanted to work with their neighbors and the City and it is unfortunate that the
variance is being requested after the fact. Schottler indicated they wanted to build something that went
with the rest of the neighborhood and that they want to follow the rules. Schottler stated in their view the
porch not only adds to their property but to the area.
Landgraver asked when they started the project.
Schottler indicated they have worked in the past with contractors where they have gotten the permits and
in this case they worked with somebody who said they would take care of everything. Schottler indicated
they were traveling, and when they came back, there was a stop work order. Schottler indicated he has
not heard from the contractor again and that there currently is no electrical in the porch as well as some
soffits that need to be completed. Schottler stated he was told obtaining the variance is the first step and
that they are willing to redo things to make sure everything is done correctly.
Thiesse asked who the contractor was.
Schottler indicated it was Duane Fredrickson of Master Carpentry and that he will not respond to his
phone calls.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Lemke stated the question is whether the porch would have been approved if the correct process had been
followed.
Thiesse stated in his view the fact that the neighbors are not opposed to the project has some bearing on
the application given the intent of the average lakeshore setback, which is to protect the neighbors' view.
Thiesse stated the cove effectively makes the area a peninsula and that the City has typically granted
variances to properties located on peninsulas in the past.
Landgraver stated he is not so sure the screen porch would have been approved originally.
Thiesse noted they are also dealing with something that is manmade.
Landgraver stated in his view there are some extenuating circumstances for the 75-foot setback variance,
which leaves the average lakeshore setback. Landgraver pointed out there is starting to be some creep
closer to the lake.
Thiesse stated he would not argue with that but in his view the 75-foot mark is the actual setback they
should be looking at and that the average lakeshore setback is based on the neighbors and the views.
Thiesse stated while everybody wants their views protected,this project does not impact anyone's views.
Olson noted if the cove was not there, this would not be as much of an issue.
Page 3 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated it is not bothering anybody's average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit noted the footings
have not been inspected, and if they knew the footings have to be replaced, it should not be allowed to go
back in. If the footings are not in concrete or rebar and they have to replace them,then it becomes a
problem. Schoenzeit noted they have not heard from the building inspector on whether the members are
the right size, and that if it needs disassembly to meet code,he is not comfortable with the location.
Thiesse stated if it meets all the requirements of the building official, it could be approved if the Planning
Commission finds the location acceptable.
Curtis stated structurally the building can be shored up to make it work and that the Planning Commission
should not base their approval on whether it is structurally sound. Curtis stated if it is approved in this
location,the building inspector has indicated they can make it work structurally.
Schoenzeit stated if it has to be torn down to meet code, it should be considered a clean sheet,and that a
practical difficulty could be the fact that it already exists.
Curtis stated they need to look at it as though it is not there and that the practical difficulty cannot be that
it is already built.
Schoenzeit stated if it is not there,it would not be allowed to cross the yellow line.
Barnhart pointed out the property owners cannot create the practical difficulty.
Curtis stated according to the building inspector,the structure can be shortened to meet the 75-foot
setback.
Thiesse stated he cannot vote for a motion requiring someone to cut four feet off of their porch and that
they can make the porch structurally sound if it is lacking something. Thiesse commented it is the cove
that is manmade that has created a practical difficulty.
Landgraver stated he is disappointed that something was built and that they are now dealing with it after
the fact. Landgraver indicated he would be willing to grant a variance to the 75-foot variance since it is
already built but that he has an issue with the average lakeshore setback. Landgraver stated he is not sure
the Planning Commission would have approved it that far past the average lakeshore setback line.
Thiesse stated he tends to lean toward approval since the neighbors are in favor of it and that in his view
the average lakeshore setback is something that can be manipulated depending on the circumstances.
Thiesse noted the neighbor to the north is already 65 feet from the cove and that he cannot go any closer.
Lemke commented he sees it both ways and that the Planning Commission likely would have approved
the average lakeshore setback because it seems to be a reasonable addition to the house.
Thiesse asked if the practical difficulty could be that this was created by his contractor.
Curtis indicated the applicant is the person responsible for his property.
Landgraver asked if there are any configurations that would have stayed within the average lakeshore
setback.
Page 4 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted the red line is the average lakeshore setback line and that there is room to construct a porch
and outdoor patio area or they could have made it smaller.
Olson commented he is not happy the application is in front of them but that he cannot see making them
remove it.
Schoenzeit stated since there are no neighbors' complaints and the setback is not in play from the
neighbors' standpoint,that would be allowed by the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit stated if someone
put a dotted line on the true shoreline and not the manmade cove,the structure would not be in the
setback. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a unique situation and that he could possibly buy the
argument that the true shoreline is beyond the cove.
Thiesse asked if he would consider the shoreline to be where the boathouse used to be.
Schottler stated from the boathouse it would be measured at 102 feet.
Schoenzeit commented he finds it hard to believe that a contractor did not know the footings had to be
inspected and that the City should consider keeping a list of contractors who violate the City's
regulations.
Landgraver stated he believes the applicant took the word of the contractor,but if the Planning
Commission goes ahead and approves this by saying no neighbors complained,they are kind of sending
out the message that after-the-fact variances could be approved.
Thiesse stated he is not so sure the Planning Commission would not have allowed this given the location
of the cove. Thiesse stated if the cove was not there,the house to the north would be way up by the cove
and the average lakeshore setback would have gone through the boathouse. Thiesse stated the cove was
created at some point and is not part of the lake.
Lemke moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3979,Kimberly and
Scott Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road, granting of after-the-fact variances for the average
lakeshore setback, 75-foot lake setback, and hardcover within the 75-foot setback, subject to
complying with the requirements of the building official.
Landgraver noted he is opposed to the average lakeshore setback variance but that he is okay with the
75-foot setback variance.
VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Landgraver Opposed.
3. #17-3980 SHAWN WISCHMEIER,540 BIG ISLAND,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE,
7:05 P.M. —7:25 P.M.
Shawn Wischmeier, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the permit for the new home under construction was issued in May of 2017. Due to the
remoteness of the Big Island property and winter weather approaching, the applicant made site
preparations,brought materials to the property, and began construction of a 300 square foot shed prior to
the issuance of a building permit this fall. The shed is located 6.7 feet from the principal structure where
Page 5 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
a 10-foot setback is required. Construction on the shed has been stopped and the applicant has requested
a setback variance.
A detailed analysis of the practical difficulties was provided in the Staff report. However,while the
applicant has provided a compelling argument supporting the placement of the shed, Staff finds few
practical difficulties exist which support the requested variance beyond that of convenience.
To date no public comments have been received.
Planning Staff recommends denial of the variance. As the shed is only partially constructed,the applicant
should be required to apply for a building permit for the shed and move it to a conforming location.
Thiesse asked if there was a foundation previously there.
Curtis indicated the foundation on the survey depicts the existing foundation.
Thiesse asked if the shed is on frost footings.
Curtis indicated it is.
Shawn Wischmeier,Applicant, stated the floor of the shed or garage structure was part of the cabin
building permit,which is why it is there. Wischmeier stated the reasons he is here is because he is asking
for a variance for the base of the garage and that the concrete and the floor was approved as part of the
building permit.
Curtis noted it was approved as a patio.
Wischmeier stated the patio as constructed is 3.3 feet too close to the cabin.
Thiesse stated the patio could have been up next to the house but it is the building that cannot be that
close.
Wischmeier stated the patio was being built for the express purpose of putting a garage on it but the
garage was not part of the building permit. Wischmeier stated he thought this was all part of the original
package and that he makes no excuses for it. The intent was that it was supposed to be conforming in
order to erect the garage onto the base and that his contractor clearly understood that was to be done.
Wischmeier pointed out the 6.7 foot setback. Wischmeier explained the drop in elevation is
approximately 12 feet,and that when they bought the lot,they thought it had a nice elevated area.
Unfortunately that area has very poor soils and a bunch of fill was brought in to raise it up. Wischmeier
stated the practical difficulties relate to the foundation and the extreme drop-off. Wischmeier indicated
they are attempting to make the structure compact to hide it the best they can from the lake and to get it
where there is good soil to pour the foundation.
Wischmeier stated the practical difficulty is the grade,and that getting to buildable soil for the garage
foundation was challenging,which is why the contractor moved towards the cabin. The challenge with
extending it four feet means that they will have to dig down a good way to get to flat soil, which results in
the whole foundation having to be shifted down three to four feet. Wischmeier stated the problem with
Page 6 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the backside of the garage is the way it is cut into the hill. Wischmeier noted the structure is not viewable
from the lake or from the neighbors' properties and that the issue with all of this was getting it to fit
proportionally with the house. Wischmeier indicated they tried to get it visually correct with the house
but that there is no practical way to build a structure like this that is correct and looks right from the front.
Wischmeier stated his contractor admitted the mistake but that he could not be here tonight. Wischmeier
stated at first he tried to work with the builder to try to get it moved over,but as they analyzed it,they
realized there is not a logical way to make it fit. Wischmeier stated bulking or massing should not be an
issue because of the 3.2 acres and none of the neighbors can see the project.
Wischmeier displayed pictures of the property from the lake and the partially completed structure.
Wischmeier noted when there are no leaves on the trees,you can see the front of the garage from the lake,
but that keeping the structure compact helps avoid challenges with massing.
Olson asked if the two structures could be joined with a walkway.
Curtis indicated he would need to make it a weather-tight connection.
Wischmeier indicated he would be open to whatever suggestions. Wischmeier stated the garage was
meant to have a little bit of storage on the top and room for an ATV on the bottom. Wischmeier stated he
would prefer not to connect it since it might look worse in that case but that he will not completely rule it
out.
Wischmeier noted there is only about three or five feet from that corner, and in order to adjoin it,they
would need to build some type of structure. Wischmeier stated if the hill was not so steep,they could
have pushed it down,but they thought they could put fire rock and insulation and whatever else is needed
to make it work.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated this is a safety issue in regards to the closeness of the structures,and just like when
someone puts their monument or gate and there is not enough stopping room,they have to move the gate.
Schoenzeit commented this is not really a variance eligible mistake.
Curtis noted the building code allows buildings to be this close and that the City's zoning code requires
ten feet,which is an open space requirement. Curtis indicated the building can be three feet away if the
proper materials are used.
Thiesse stated it is a massing issue and not a fire safety variance and that the applicant is well under
hardcover and structural coverage limits. Thiesse pointed out it is located on a 3.2 acre property.
Lemke stated the massing does not bother him as much as the fact that it is an after-the-fact variance,and
that in his view if it had been connected,the Planning Commission would have allowed it from a massing
standpoint. As a result,Lemke indicated he is okay with it.
Page 7 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented it is a very big foundation for a patio.
Thiesse stated he has difficulty requiring an additional building to make it compliant.
Lemke commented that would not really solve anything either.
Schoenzeit stated the applicant should be required to comply with the fire code, and if the applicant does
not want to connect it,that is his prerogative.
Landgraver stated the massing issue is important in Orono and that he views a component of massing
being open areas between structures. Landgraver stated it does stretch the imagination that that used to be
a patio and that was what it is proposed as but that it is now a 25-foot tall structure. Landgraver stated in
his view there was an egregious error done in disclosure of the plans that could have been avoided by
discussing the project thoroughly with Staff.
Lemke asked if the foundation is sufficient to support the structure.
Curtis stated she believes so.
Schoenzeit moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3980, Shawn
Wischmeier,540 Big Island, granting of an after-the-fact variance to permit construction of a
detached accessory building less than ten feet from the principal structure subject to meeting
building code and fire code requirements.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
4. #17-3981 TODD AND ANGIE OLSON,3325 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES,7:25
P.M.—7:36 P.M.
Todd Olson, Applicant, was present.
Oakden stated the applicant is requesting variances for lake yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard
setback, hardcover, and an average lakeshore setback and driveway to exceed eight feet in the Shoreland
Overlay District. The applicants are proposing to add an upper story to their existing home and will keep
the perimeter walls. In addition, they plan to remodel the interior of the home with the addition of an
upper story, new front porch, a wider deck, and removing and replacing the driveway to better serve the
property. A majority of the home is currently within the 75-foot lake yard setback as well as the side yard
and rear yard setbacks. The upper story is also an increase in the massing of the home in these
encroachments.
The applicants are proposing to widen the existing deck from 11 feet to 21 feet,which increases the
massing in the average lakeshore setback. The deck will not encroach any closer to the lake than the
existing deck. The one-stall tuck-under garage will be moved to the east side of the home to allow for a
two-stall tuck-under garage. The driveway will be moved to service the garage and is 16 feet wide where
eight feet is the maximum width in the Shoreland setback zone. Hardcover will also be impacted with
relocation of the driveway.
The home currently sits six feet from the rear property where a 30-foot setback is required. The home is
proposed to remain at the 6-foot setback with the addition of the upper story, creating the need for a rear
Page 8 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
yard variance. The home also currently sits 1.4 feet from the east side property line where a 7.5-foot side
yard setback is required. The second story addition to the home will increase the massing of the structure
within the setback and requires a side yard variance.
There is also a 75-foot lake yard setback on this lot,with the home currently sitting 50.9 feet from the
lake. The setback will remain at 50.9 feet with the addition of the second story,thus creating the need for
a lake yard variance.
The applicants are proposing to remove existing hardcover within the 75-foot lake yard but will be adding
a new 16-foot wide driveway for access to the home. A new proposed walkway will also be within the
lake yard setback. There is currently 48.4 percent hardcover on the property,but with the elimination of
the existing driveway and parking pad and the addition of the new driveway,the hardcover will be
reduced to 47.3 percent.
Finally,the applicant is also proposing a new front porch forward of the existing home footprint at 54 feet
from the lake,but it will be set back behind the deck, which is 50.9 feet from the lake,and does not
encroach into the average lakeshore setback. An existing deck will be widened as part of the project
which will increase the massing in the lake yard.
Staff finds that the setback limitations on the property create practical difficulties in identifying viable
expansion opportunities. The applicant has provided a relatively low impact solution to the stated living
space challenges,which does not result in an expansion of structural coverage of hardcover. The affected
neighbor's views of the lake are not currently impacted by the applicant's property because it is set back
behind the neighbors' homes. The applicant also has very few options for expansion or addition to the
home. Staff,however, does not feel there are practical difficulties for the expanded deck and the average
lakeshore setback variance.
No public comments have been received on this application.
Landgraver asked if other homes in the area have been built up similar to what is being proposed.
Oakden indicated the addition would match the characteristics of the neighborhood.
Thiesse asked if this neighborhood is expanding.
Oakden stated it is and that this neighborhood consists of fairly small lots.
Todd Olson,Applicant, stated the setbacks are a practical difficulty for adding anything onto the home
and that the only reason why they want to widen the deck is to have a two-car garage and not a single-car
garage. Olson stated one of the main reasons for the remodel and addition is to have a two-car garage and
that most of the neighbors have a similar design to what they are proposing.
Lemke asked if the heights of the buildings on either side are the same.
Olson indicated one neighbor is slightly higher than what they are proposing but the other neighbor's
house is the same height.
Olson displayed a picture of the neighbor's house.
Page 9 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Thiesse stated the need for a two-car garage in Minnesota is a practical difficulty,which requires the
wider deck.
Lemke commented the proposal seems reasonable.
Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3981,Todd and
Angie Olson,3325 Crystal Bay Road, granting of variances to the lake yard setback,side yard
setback, rear yard setback, hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and driveway to exceed eight feet
in the Shoreland Overlay District. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
5. #17-3986 TRAVIS DeJONG, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
7:36 P.M.—7:41 P.M.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a permanent dock.
Because of the permanent nature of the dock structure within the floodway, a conditional use permit is
required. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)regulates docks on the lake and has not
yet issued the permit. The proposed dock will extend approximately 100 feet from the shore and appears
that it will meet all LMCD required setbacks.
Orono's concurrent jurisdiction over permanent docks is primarily via floodplain regulations, which
provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. Both permanent and
seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessory structures, so with the exception of the RS
District, someone cannot have a permanent or seasonal dock without a principal structure. This property
is zoned LR-1B.
The City will require that a zoning permit be issued to document the existence and construction of the
permanent dock.
To date,no public comments have been received. Curtis noted last month the neighboring property to the
south was approved for a permanent dock.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for construction of the proposed permanent dock
subject to the following conditions:
1. The dock may be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in
conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies; and
2. The dock is not to be used for commercial purposes or rented.
Thiesse asked if the dock would go along with the rental of the house.
Curtis indicated it would and that the dock cannot be rented separately.
Page 10 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked whether the City has any specifications for permanent docks.
Curtis stated Orono does not and that the LMCD has good oversight of permanent docks.
The applicant was not present.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3986,Travis
DeJong, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, granting of a conditional use permit for a permanent dock.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. #17-3988 Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient,PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,
20-117-23-42-0002,and 20-117-23-42-0003, "3508 Ivy Place",Variances, 7:38 P.M.—8:35 P.M.
7. #17-3988 Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient,PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,
20-117-23-42-0002,and 20-117-23-42-0003,"3508 Ivy Place",Vacation,7:38 P.M.—8:35 P.M.
8. #17-3988 Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient,PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,
20-117-23-42-0002,and 20-117-23-42-0003, "3508 Ivy Place",Conditional Use Permits, 7:38 P.M.—
8:35 P.M.
Curtis Fretham,Applicant,was present.
Oakden noted there are multiple applications with this project and each application will require its own
motion and public hearing.
The applicant is requesting the following as part of the three applications:
1. A wetland setback variance for the driveway;
2. Consideration of a variance to allow beach improvements within the wetland;
3. Approval of easement vacations for an unimproved driveway;
4. Approval of a utility easement that needs to be relocated to correspond to the actual location of
the utility; and
5. A conditional use permit to move over 500 cubic yards of earth in the floodplain, excavation in
the floodplain, and over 50 cubic yards of fill in the lake yard.
In regards to the 17-3988 application,the wetland has been delineated along the entire lake perimeter of
the property. The applicant is proposing to place the driveway 1.8 feet from the wetland boundary at the
southeast corner of the property. Per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a wetland buffer of 25
Page 11 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
feet will be required. The City requires a setback of 10 feet from the buffer for structures and hardcover.
This will require a variance to allow hardcover to be placed within the City's wetland setback and relief
from the Watershed's rules regarding buffers.
The applicant is proposing to meet all other setback requirements for the two newly created lots as part of
the plat.
The applicant is also requesting driveway width variance for the 12-foot width proposed driveway to be
placed within the 75-foot lake yard setback where an 8-foot maximum driveway is allowed. The 12 feet
represents a reduction in the normally required shared driveway width of 20 feet. The Fire Department
supports the narrow driveway with the condition that the homes be fitted with a sprinkler system.
As it regards the 17-3989 application,the applicant is requesting vacation of two existing easements that
are not currently in use. There is a driveway easement that will no longer be aligned with the proposed
development and it would be beneficial to formally vacate the easement for clean title.
The applicant is also requesting the vacation of an underground utility easement used for sanitary sewer
by the City of Orono. The existing easement does not line up with the placement of the existing sewer
pipe. The City is requesting the applicant vacate the unused utility easement and create a new utility
easement over the existing sewer pipe. Per the City Engineer,the newly created easement must be a
minimum of ten feet wide on either side of the pipe, creating a total of a 20-foot wide underground utility
easement for the sewer line. This new easement will be created as part of the final plat.
As it relates to the 17-3990 application,the applicant is proposing to alter the existing floodplain by
adding fill to create a building envelope above the flood elevation for the proposed homes and to create
proper drainage for the site. The applicant is proposing to add fill in the center of the project and then
gradually grade away from the homes towards the lake. This grading will impact a small wetland in the
center of proposed Lot 2. Based on preliminary discussions with the Watershed, it appears the impact to
the wetland will fall under their de minimis criteria and will not need to be mitigated.
The proposal to create a beach would bring the wetland impact beyond the de minimis threshold,
requiring mitigation of all wetlands. Staff does not support the alteration of the wetlands for a beach.
In order to achieve appropriate grading and drainage for the site,the applicant proposes removing 1,231
cubic yards of pool soil and bring in 2,817 cubic yards of fill. Overall there will be 1,583 cubic yards of
fill being added to the existing site. A conditional use permit is required if there is 500 or more cubic
yards of earth being moved on a site. A portion of this cutting and filling will occur in the 0-75 foot lake
yard. The applicant is anticipating the total number of trucks could range between 130-230 depending on
the soil conditions.
Included in Staff report is a lot analysis. Staff finds the purpose of the variances for the wetland setbacks
and exceeding the 8-foot driveway width are reasonable. The placement of the driveway is limited and
the grading on the site is reasonable and consistent with the preliminary plat. The development of the
proposed lots is consistent with the neighborhood to create two new single-family homes. The proximity
to the wetland for the shared driveway is reasonable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will
not alter the character of the area.
Page 12 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
In addition to the City's CUP requirements for filling/grading within the floodplain district activity is
subject to a floodplain alteration permit governed by the MCWD. The applicant has submitted an
• application to the MCWD along with the required plans and engineering. Staff finds the proposed
vacation and conditional use permits for the project reasonable.
Staff does not support filling in the wetland for the beach improvements.
The Planning Commission should discuss the impact of trucking and hauling earth to and from this site
and whether conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the
variances.
Suggested motions have been included in Staff report,including recommended conditions. Staff
recommends denial of the wetland filling for the beach improvements.
Thiesse asked if anything has changed dramatically from the preliminary plat. Thiesse stated it is his
recollection the Planning Commission had placed a limit on the amount of fill that could be brought in.
Oakden stated she is not sure how that corresponded with the City Council's final approval but that she
will look into that.
Thiesse stated it was direction to the applicant to provide an idea of the amount of fill that would be
brought in.
Curt Fretham,Lake West Development, noted the Planning Commission has previously reviewed this and
that he is here to answer any questions.
Thiesse asked if the plan is pretty similar to what was reviewed before.
Fretham stated the 8-foot driveway was felt not to be practical and that a 12-foot width is now being
proposed. Fretham noted the Planning Commission also discussed the 2-foot elevation of the existing
home and that it was recommended they consider going a little higher, which is why it was raised it
another foot. Fretham noted that increased the amount of fill a little.
Thiesse asked where the beach is located and whether they can live without it.
Fretham pointed out the location of the proposed beach. Fretham indicated those two spots would be 12
feet wide on each lot and that they are asking for access to the lake for each home. Fretham noted this
site has over 600 feet of shoreline but yet there is not a place to access the lake. Fretham stated the lot
next door has 60 feet of beach and so do the other neighbors.
Landgraver asked what his defmition is of a beach.
Fretham stated that area is currently defined as a wetland and that he does not know the technical
terminology of what defines a wetland. Fretham stated a beach to him means that it would have an
opening that would be free to the water.
Landgraver asked whether it would be rocks or lawn.
Page 13 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham indicated it would likely be lawn or sand to blend in with the existing sand.
Thiesse asked if they could mitigate those two spots.
Fretham stated they could mitigate on site.
Barnhart noted according to the comments of the Watershed District, when the beaches are added in,then
the site goes over the de minimis criteria and it starts to become difficult to justify the impact to the
wetland. Barnhart stated the Watershed District sees the creation of the beaches as an alteration.
Thiesse asked if the beaches fall under the purview of the Planning Commission.
Barnhart stated it would need to go through a public hearing process.
Lemke asked why the beaches are on that side.
Fretham indicated the other side is lagoon and not as clean of water.
Schoenzeit asked if they will just be adding sand versus digging out muck.
Fretham stated they would be removing earth about a foot along the whole shoreline in the event of high
waters but that they would not be removing anything for the beaches. Fretham commented he is not sure
whether it is really a beach but that it is more of an access point to the water.
Lemke asked whether rain gardens were proposed at one time.
Fretham noted they went to a 100-year stormwater system,which is shown on Lots 1 and 2.
Landgraver asked if the neighbor's concerns about drainage have been addressed.
Fretham indicated they will be capturing the hard surface runoff on the site and that the other dotted area
on the plan shows the detail of the grading that will take place along the common property line.
Landgraver stated the other concern was where the driveway would connect to the street. Landgraver
asked what the Council's thoughts were about that.
Fretham indicated the proposed driveway is as shown and that they have not made a lot of changes there.
Fretham noted they do not have a lot of control over it because the road pretty much dead ends.
Barnhart stated he does not recall any changes to the configuration to the driveway but that the resolution
included language that the condition of Ivy Place and the private driveway be noted prior to construction
and after construction.
Lemke asked if the building outline is exact.
Fretham indicated those are approximate.
Lemke asked if they will get smaller.
Page 14 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham stated they likely will not get larger.
Lemke asked if there is a consideration for the height.
Fretham noted there is a view easement on Lot 2, which is why the building footprint on that lot is more
stretched out. Fretham indicated they have been in discussions about purchasing the easement so the
height of the building can be increased but that he is not sure where that is at this point.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Jay White, 3560 Ivy Place, stated the yellow line on the map is the wetland border. White pointed out
their property and the easement, which has been surveyed on their property. White commented he is not
sure how they can fit a 12-foot driveway into a 10-foot easement and that he is not sure why the
calculations are not four feet off. White indicated he has spoken with the Watershed District about it and
they have verified that is the correct wetland border. White stated an 8-foot driveway would fit there but
that a 12-foot driveway would be into the setback.
Schoenzeit noted the applicant is requesting a 1.8 foot setback into that area.
White stated he has been out there countless times,measured it a few times,and that he does not see how
a 12-foot driveway will fit in there. In addition,the Watershed District has verified where the boundary
is. White stated he would like to hear from the developer about what proof he has that he is not going
into the wetland rather than coming back at a later time for an after-the-fact variance.
White stated in addition,the practical difficulty statement made about the access easement for the
property predates any knowledge of the presence of wetlands and therefore should be allowed. White
stated the basis of the developer's argument for the driveway is that statement but he does not know what
type of proof the developer has that that is true. White noted the photographic evidence at the sketch plan
review showed that it was a wetland and that something changed in 1968 when the access was granted. In
1975, Orono had the whole point still as wetland. White stated he is wondering whether there is any
proof that at the time the access easement was given that they had no knowledge of wetland. White stated
it appears the City had knowledge of the wetland and that he is not sure what the basis is for the variance.
White stated with regard to the fill, it was stated to be 1,300 cubic yards but that there has been no
mention of the dirt being moved. At the Planning Commission meeting it was stated that if it is more than
that, it would be a different project. White noted they are pulling 1,200 cubic yards out and bringing
1,600 cubic yards back in. White stated that was not addressed and it was proposed at a lot less. White
noted the developer is talking about 270 truckloads and that the safety concerns are three times what was
discussed and is radically different than what was discussed.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that amount was changed at the
Council level because they requested the home elevations be raised. Thiesse indicated the number
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting was just to give the Council an idea of where the Planning
Commission's thinking was at.
Schoenzeit noted the City Council can approve a higher number.
Page 15 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
White stated he does not recall the Council talking about bringing in more fill. White stated his house is
at 932' and this house is 934', which is where all the drainage concerns come in since the house will only
be 15 feet away. White stated in his view there was not an adjustment made by the Council for the
additional fill and that the developer was very vague about the number earlier,which is why the Planning
Commission requested a number. White stated this plan is different than what was reviewed in October.
Thiesse stated the plan is not significantly different but that the fill numbers have changed.
Jonathan Paul, 3532 Ivy Place, stated during the time period he has resided on Casco Point,he has seen a
number of homes rebuilt, some of them more than once. During those time periods the construction
affects the neighborhood since there are significant problems with traffic,trash, issues with the
subcontractors using the park as a urinal, and a lot of safety factors.
Paul stated he would ask the Planning Commission to come out to Ivy Place in two separate vehicles,
with one vehicle starting at each end and then drive towards each other. Paul stated the Commissioners
will then see how narrow the road is. Paul stated there is no reasonable place to park pickup trucks and
other construction vehicles and that this will be a huge encumbrance on the neighborhood. Paul requested
the Planning Commission think long and hard about the impact to the neighborhood.
In addition,Paul stated he has a lot of reservations about how the project will get done. Paul stated in his
view the details need to be looked at closer before approving it. Paul requested the Planning
Commissioners come out to Ivy Place and view the area that is proposed to be developed.
Fretham stated as it relates to the wetland delineation,Page C2.0 depicts the edge of the wetland buffer
and it shows a 1.8-foot distance between it with a 12-foot driveway.
Barnhart stated the comment was related to the easement and it appears that the 1.8 feet is from the edge
of the wetland and that the 12-foot driveway goes over the edge of the easement. Barnhart suggested the
applicant confirm those measurements prior to appearing before the City Council.
Fretham stated they can also move the driveway further over.
Barnhart stated that may be necessary.
White indicated he measured from the furthest the road can go to his property and that they are taking it
as close as they can get to the proposed house. White stated the only direction they can go is closer to his
house.
Thiesse requested the developer confirm the measurements.
Fretham indicated he is in agreement with that.
Thiesse stated there was also a comment that the access easement predates the wetland delineation.
Barnhart stated there seems to be some evidence that much of this lot was wetland back in the 1930s but
that there is not enough evidence for the DNR to say that it is a wetland and therefore unbuildable. The
recent wetland delineation definitively identified the boundary of the existing wetland. Barnhart noted
wetland delineations do expire.
Page 16 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver noted the most recent wetland delineation is the one that is relevant.
Thiesse asked if the building elevations have changed.
Fretham stated he cannot state they have been raised on the plan for certain but that he asked his builder
to raise the floor one foot based on the direction of the City Council. Fretham stated the old set of plans
from the Planning Commission meeting will have the lower elevation.
Thiesse asked if construction vehicles will be confined on the site.
Fretham indicated they will be and that the site is over two acres. Fretham stated the onsite parking area
has been identified on the plans.
Thiesse asked if the importing and exporting of material will be utilizing the same trucks.
Fretham indicated it will be and that has not been taken into account in their numbers. Fretham stated the
number of truckloads is a worst-case scenario and that making combined trips was not taken into account.
Fretham commented while it seems like a lot of material,if they take a 2,500 square foot foundation and
dig a 10-foot basement,that amounts to 1,800 cubic yards for both homes. Fretham stated they are not
really doing anything out of the ordinary, and while there will be a lot of truck traffic, it is not
extraordinary for a home construction.
Schoenzeit recommended the developer keep the truck trips down since that will also help preserve the
road. Schoenzeit commented the developer has a vested interest in keeping the number of truckloads
down.
Landgraver stated the reason for the refined numbers on the truck traffic is so the people in the
neighborhood and the City Council are making an informed decision.
Schoenzeit commented he would not want to say they can do it in 95 truckloads and then have it doubled.
Schoenzeit stated it is unfortunate the developer is asking for so many but that the higher number helps
set the expectations out there so everyone is aware of the number.
Lemke asked if any time restrictions should be placed on the trucks.
Thiesse asked if the grading will take place at a singular time.
Fretham indicated they have found poor soils on the site and the soils are not supportive of a foundation
without either soil corrections or pilings. Fretham stated it is potentially feasible to correct the soils but
that there likely will be the need to draw the water table down while the correction takes place. Fretham
indicated he is not sure if they will be able to get those permits and that the numbers assume they will be
doing soil correction.
Paul stated a comment was made at the City Council meeting about potentially limiting truck traffic
times. Paul indicated the bus picks up at 6:50 in the morning and drops off 3:20 in the afternoon. Paul
noted there are no sidewalks on Ivy Place and that the children walk down the street to get to their homes.
Page 17 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Landgraver asked what the existing constraints are on construction times.
Barnhart indicated City Code includes hour restrictions for truck traffic, and if the Planning Commission
feels it appropriate,restrictions can be placed on the hours.
Curtis stated house construction is allowed from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and from 8 a.m. to
8 p.m. on the weekends and holidays.
Olson noted the Planning Commission can require a later starting time.
Thiesse asked whether the applicant would be okay with trucking activity between 7:30 to 3:00 p.m.
Fretham asked whether it would be satisfactory if they just take a break for an hour between 3:00 and
4:00.
Thiesse indicated he would let the City Council decide that.
Barnhart noted the City Council applied a similar condition to a project a couple of years ago while
school was in session but not during the summer.
Landgraver stated he would like to see that on this project.
Fretham asked whether the Planning Commission's intention with the restrictions on the trucking was
limited to the hauling of the fill and not delivery of materials.
Thiesse indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit asked if everyone will be able to turn around on the site.
Fretham indicated that is correct once the driveway is constructed.
White noted the easement is for access in and egress out,with no stopping,no parking,and no meetings
taking place in that area on his private property.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts about vacation of the easements.
The Planning Commission raised no issues with the easement vacations.
Lemke asked if the condition of the road will be able to handle all of the traffic in and out.
Thiesse stated they do not know that at this time but that the road will be put back like and kind.
Landgraver stated as it relates to the beaches, anyone who owns a property in this area will want to enjoy
that view. Landgraver stated practically speaking there will be foot traffic and the owner is going to go
down to the lake. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission wants to have a discussion on whether
endorsing the beach is worthwhile.
Page 18 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented he is all for it but that he does not know all the ramifications of it.
Oakden stated it will trigger additional wetland alteration. Currently the applicant is below that threshold
so no alteration needs to be done.
Thiesse stated it would be a wonderful amenity and likely will happen whether it is allowed or not.
Fertham stated the Lupients were being very friendly when they granted the Watershed District the right
to put wetland all along the shoreline and place a wetland easement over it,which is rather encumbering
on this site, and then not getting any wetland mitigation in exchange. Fretham stated he will probably
bring that point up to the Watershed District.
Schoenzeit stated regardless if the City approves it or not,the Watershed District will have the final say
on it.
Thiesse stated he would prefer the Watershed District weigh in on it.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3988,
Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient,PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,20-117-23-42-0002,
and 20-117-23-42-0003, granting of a wetland setback variance for a driveway exceeding the 8-foot
maximum width for driveways in the Shoreland setback contingent on final plat approval and
MCWD approval of the wetland buffer impact,subject to verification of the wetland boundary.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3988,
Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient,PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,20-117-23-42-0002,
and 20-117-23-42-0003,granting of vacation to the driveway and utility easements subject to final
plat approval,the comments of the City Engineer, and replacement with a new utility easement on
final plat approval VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3988,
Lake West Development on behalf of Rick Lupient, PIDS 20-117-23-42-0001,20-117-23-42-0002,
and 20-117-23-42-0003,granting of a conditional use permit subject to final plat approval; approval
of all MCWD permits; approval from the DNR prior to obtaining the land alteration permit;
approval from WCA; no hauling of fill before 7 a.m. or between 3:00 and 4:00 while school is in
session; confining construction vehicle parking to the site; following construction of the driveway,
trucks must go nose in and nose out; and subject to a review of the conditions of the roadway prior
to and after construction. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
9. 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON SCHEDULE
Barnhart noted a Planning Commission representative is only required to attend the first City Council
meeting of the month. The terms of Schoenzeit, Leskinen, and Landgraver will expire at the end of
March, 2018, which accounts for the openings on the proposed schedule.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
Page 19 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 23,2017,AND
NOVEMBER 13,2017
Barnhart reported on the following City Council actions:
• Approved a modification to the Orono Woods Planning Agreement.
• Adopted an approval resolution for 1565 Orchard Beach Place granting a variance to the average
lakeshore setback but not allowing any variances for any other setbacks.
• Created a priority list of ordinance amendments. Barnhart noted the short-term rentals will fall
under the licensing ordinances and not zoning. The Council is looking to make some changes to
the wetland setback, changes to the definitions in the code, and modifications to the accessory
structure setbacks.
• Approved the variance for LDK Builders, 15265 Long Lake Boulevard.
• Approved the bank sign with upward lighting.
• Approved a conditional use permit for Wildhurst Trail.
• Approved a variance on Shadywood Road for the Hansberger's.
• Approved an after-the-fact grading permit on Kelly Avenue.
• Approved an ordinance amendment for personal watercraft regulations on Long Lake.
• Reviewed the proposed sketch plan for 1400 Bracketts Point Road. The application will probably
be before the Planning Commission in January.
Barnhart stated the applicant at 795 Ferndale withdrew his application and is redesigning.
Barnhart noted they had talked previously about holding a joint work session with the City Council in
December and that will likely be postponed until June or July of next year.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Landgraver stated he participated in an 8-week Hennepin County Citizens Academy course. Landgraver
stated the group went on tours of different public facilities in addition to the classroom work and that the
course provided some really good information. Landgraver noted there is no cost to attend and that he
would highly recommend it.
Lenmke requested the liaison to the council meeting be included on the Planning Commission agenda.
Lemke asked if the commissioners whose terms are expiring next March will be able to continue to serve
on the Planning Commission.
Barnhart stated they are at the end of their third term and that they will not be able to continue. The City
Clerk,at the request of the Mayor, has put out an advertisement.
Thiesse noted following the close of tonight's meeting some Planning Commissioners and City Council
Members will be getting together at the Red Rooster for a social hour but that no official city business
will be discussed or acted upon.
Page 20 of 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Thiesse moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:50
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
John Thiesse, Chair
Page 21 of 21