Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-1996 Planning Commission MinutesI ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 16. 1996 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, and Elizabeth Hawn. Steve Peterson, Janice Berg and Candace Rowlette, who recently submitted her resignation, were absent. The following represented the City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member Jabbour was present. Acting Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGSIPUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ( #1) #2094 RODNEY A. CRAWFORD, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD - 7:00 -7:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was represented by Phyllis Atchinson. Mabusth reported that the application was for the vacation of Lake Street to the lakeside of applicant's residential lot. Lake Street as platted in 1 fff is not shown on recent plat maps. Staff displayed a copy of a 1960's plat map where Lake Street was shown. The County confirmed for staff that Lake Street had not been vacated. The road was originally platted at a 20' width to the west of subject property, and the County will correct plat maps to reflect platted right of way. The specific portion being requested for vacation is at the lake side portion of the property, and the vacation is a condition of a sale_ Mabusth noted that the street serves no public purpose. The City will ask for 20' wide easement to be retained over the dead end sewer manhole. 10' to either side, to be extended 20' to west. Mrs. Atchinson was given a copy of a sketch of the easement and a copy of an access and utility easement to be completed prior to filing of vacation resolution at the County. This application will be on the January 22 Council agenda. There were no public comments. Schroeder received confirmation from those in attendance that there was no other public interest in the vacation application. It was also noted that the DNR had no problem with the vacation. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the vacation application subject to a 20' easement over the sewer line and manhole within the unimproved right -of- way. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 • ( #2 ) #2101 JEFF BOW N , CHARL ES HONMEYER, AND KEN ROLLAND, 4119, 4125 AND 4127 OAK STRFFT - PRF1 JMINARY SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRNAGEMENT AND VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROADS - 7 :30 -7 :38 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement of 15 lots to make 3 conforming lots. Lot 2 is slightly under 1 acre but will be brought into conformance. Mabusth commented that the vacation will not involve all of Oak Street as a public access will be maintained to ravine area at lake. The applicants will dedicate 10' of additional right -of -way for Linden Avenue for a total of 40'. A 30' corridor will be platted to the Knight property. The division and vacation application will still provide public access to the Knight property. Mabusth noted that there would be an easement taken over all utility lines located within public right of way to be vacated. A blanket easement would be taken for Oak Street and Park Avenue. There would be a shared access for lots I and 2 at Linden Avenue requiring an address change to Linden Avenue. Lot 3 would still access from Oak Street • maintaining the same address. Mabusth said the applicants had followed the directives given by the Planning Commission during the sketch plan review. The applicants noted that they had met with City Staff and Engineer to ensure that all requirements were met. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the drainage easement and dedication of utility easements were located. Mabusth said they had, and the applicants were familiar with the process. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2102 for the proposed vacation and lot line rearrangement with the following conditions: 1) Applicant to grant a drainage easement over the drainageway that runs from the north to the south over portions of vacated Clyde Place and portions of the proposed residential lots. Drainage easement to extend over vacated portion of Oak Street and culverts that run under gravel drive. 2) Lots 1 and 2 shall access properties via a shared drive at Linden Avenue. Oak Street addresses are to be reassigned to a Linden Avenue address. 3) Applicants to dedicate utility easements over all utilities located either within dedicated right -of -way or outside of vacated right -of -ways. 4) Drainage and utility easements 5' wide adjacent to all internal lot lines and 10' wide along all exterior lot lines to be omitted along shoreline. Lot 2 was noted to now meet the one acre requirement. Vote: Ayes 4, • Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 • ( #3) #2096 DIANE AND KEVIN HOLMES /ORCHARD PARK FARM, INC., 5551585 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 8:30 -8:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement in the 5 acre zoning district, which will bring the Holmes' property into conformity. The two acre homestead will acquire three acres from the larger parcel. There are no easements over the wetlands at this time as well as no designated wetlands within the homestead property. The larger parcel had no principal structure but did contain accessory structures. The accessory structure will now be located within a lot that contains a residence. Mabusth said drainage flows to a culvert to the east under Stubbs Bay Road. The application should be allowed via a simple metes and bounds division, but a 10' drainage and utility easement will be obtained for the 5 acre parcel with a 20' dedication along south lot line for drainageway. There no public comments. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2096 with the • condition that prior to the application being scheduled before the Council for approval, the applicants' surveyor shall provide an amended survey including signature lines for all property owners, mayor, clerk, and date of Council approval. The applicants are also to grant road and utility easements over 33' of right -of -way of Stubbs Bay Road along east side of all three parcels. The applicants noted that they understood the conditions. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #4) #2099 LOREN BRUEGGEMANN, 372 WESTLAKE STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT AND VARIANCES - 8:36 -9:14 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants, Loren Brueggemann and Dean Maeser, along with attorney, Mr. Proveau, were present. Gaffi-on reported that the sketch plan was reviewed this past fall. The application is for a request to rearrange or replat 3 lots of record totaling 1.99 acres into two building sites of approximately one acre each. This property is located at the end of Westlake Street. Gaffron reviewed that property to the south is in the 1 acre zoning, and to the west and north is 2 acre zoning. The neighboring properties consist of lots smaller than the 2 -acre requirement, with several at .7 acres and 1.4 acres. is MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 0 (#4 - #2099 Loren B emann - ruegg Continued) Gaffron continued explaining that the property consists of a single house and two cabins. Westlake Street is sewered, and said property has been provided with one unit and assessed for same. The house overlaps Lots 10 and 11. A storage building is within Lot 11. The two cabins are mainly in Lot 12. A septic system is currently being used on the property serving all 3 dwellings. There are separate tax statements for each lot, but historically, the property has been used as a single lot. There is a single driveway, septic, well, and one owner resulting in the City viewing this as a single site. A 20' corridor is proposed as access for the easterly proposed parcel. The existing house and cabins are to be removed and one home is proposed in that area. The proposed new home would meet the 75' setback. The flag lot proposal creates a front/back lot configuration . Because the code requires a 30' outlot of. 14 acre, the front lot (Lot 1) would be .76 acre, and lot 2 would be 1.09 acres. The outlot acreage is not to be counted in the total acreage. 150% of acreage, or 3 acres, is required for the backlot. This would result in a 65 -701/6 variance. The front lot, where 2 acres is required, would be about 3/4 acre, and would also need a large lot area variance. Both proposed lots meet the required lot width measured at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback line. The platted alley south of the 2 lots has not been vacated, hence, not all of the shoreline is attributable to the lots. The backiot, Lot 2, requires 150% of the 30' side setback or 45'. The required 50' setback • for Lot 1 from the access outlot creates a narrow building envelope requiring side setback variances for a minimal 30 -35' wide house. • Gaffron reported that the hardcover standards are nearly met by the proposal. Lot I hardcover is proposed at 28.8% requiring a variance, but lot 2 hardcover is proposed at 20.5 %, where the requirement is 25 %. The hardcover numbers as listed in the submitted information are different due to lack of an outlot. For the entire site, the overall hardcover with the driveway would be at 35 %. While this "overall hardcover" standard is not in the code, the DNR recommends 25 %. Orono's standard of 25% in the 75 -250' zone is nearly met. Gaffron said there are conceptual problems with the subdivision itself. The memo lists 12 examples of how the existing situation is nonconforming. With the nonconformities and the historical use of the property, Staff noted that none of the 3 existing lots conform in area, width, or setback, and individually could not be built upon. The lot line rearrangement to 2 sites would not meet code. The proposal is defined as a Class 2 Subdivision. Based on the factors listed in the memo where it is shown that an increase in density could not be allowed, Gaffron said Staff could not recommend approval of this proposal. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to look at the neighborhood and the consistency in zoning within that neighborhood. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 #4 - #2099 Loren Brue emann - Continued) ( gg The Attorney representing Mr. Brueggemann reported that Dean Maeser purchased the property 10 years ago and has mainly used the property commercially with the cabin rental. Proveau said the memo relating the history and problems associated with the property are correctly laid out, but it is his opinion that history needs to come into play, particularly with the 3 lot plat, which is now non - conforming, and how the lots were used. Proveau asked the Commission to deal with the justification for the need for variances. He believes the facts show a reasonable use of the land, and the plan alleviates problems with the current use. Proveau noted that sewering would eliminate the non- conforming septic system. The change in use would bring the property to more conformity as residential. Proveau said the majority of the lot line setbacks would be met as well as most of the code requirements. Proveau said the proposal would allow the owner to make reasonable use of the property. Proveau commented that the proposal would be in character with the neighborhood. He noted the average lot size in the area to be about 3/4 acre. Proveau said there are two sewer stubs installed at the end of the street to which the two new residences could be connected. He took issue with the undue hardship if the City considers the variances. Proveau noted that the statutes allow for variances for reasonable use of a property, and questioned who had the burden of showing reasonable use. He noted the problems were • not created by the applicant, but existed before his purchase of the home, noting the use as a commercial marina years ago. There were no public comments. Hawn said the Council was asked to look at rezoning similar areas and had declined, and chose to deal with particular proposals individually. Hawn also noted that, although there are two sewer stubs, only one is authorized. The Council had looked at the potential of three lots and the non - conforming use over the 10 years and declined the additional sewer units, advising the Planning Commission that there would be a need to find competing reasons to make any changes. Smith asked for clarification on nearby properties where two lots were combined. Gaffron noted in the Bichanich site, a few lots to the north, there were two existing lots with buildings, one without septic. When the two were combined, a side setback variance was required even after creation of a 1.4 acre parcel. That particular proposal was not a rebuild but an addition to existing residence. It was noted that all the .7 acre parcels in the area existed before the code was established. Gaffron said to tear down and rebuild on any of them, it would require variances to lot area, lot width, setbacks, and possibly hardcover for each of those 0.7 acre lots. Smith indicated that with the added impact of back lot requirements, it is difficult to approve a second lot from applicant's site. 0 Lindquist concurred, opining that the direction was clear. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) Schroeder agreed with Smith and Lindquist. GatTron commented that the cabins were currently rented. He added that the Council had given direction some time ago allowing a fair period of time, two years, to continue the cabin rental with no need to temporarily connect to sewer, but with the main house sewer connection required, which has not been done. Schroeder said the hardships do not merit the number of variances requested. Proveau said that Maeser expressed concern with the sewer hookup issue. He noted that the financial benefits of cabin rental were significant to Maeser's ability to owning the property. Proveau said if the sale of the property were to fall through, Maeser would request the cabin be hooked up to sewer. Proveau asked that options be considered to enable Maeser to homestead the property noting that the code was the cause in the decline of the market value of the property. Lindquist responded that he had a problem with splitting up a 2 -acre parcel in the 2 acre zoning district. • Smith suggested the possibility of purchasing additional property from the owner to the north. Gaffron said there was probably not enough land to do that; but with one lot only, a portion right be sold to that neighbor to increase his lot size. Brueggemann said the feasibility of a sale of any land to or from the neighbor to the north was slim. Gaffron said the neighborhood redevelopment process, by which two lots would be purchased together to create a more conforming single building site, is a slow process. Mabusth noted that even if the area was re -zoned to 1 acre, variances would still be required. There would still be the need for a total of 2 -1/2 acres including the outlot, resulting in a half acre shortage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they would prefer the application be voted on or tabled. Brueggemann inquired about a joint session between the Council and Planning Commission to discuss the sketch plan. Gaffron said the application had not been discussed in the joint session though it was previously suggested that a discussion ensue regarding the sketch plan. Gaffron informed the applicant of the 60 day time frame for review of any application, and noted that the applicant needed to agree to tabling the application or the Planning Commission would have to vote on it now. Brueggemann asked that the application be voted on and carried forward to the Council. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to deny approval of Application #2099 as the hardships do not justify the variances required for the subdivision as outlined in the memo. 40 Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6 C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 #5 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 3 (A, C, E, AND F) - 9:14 -9:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the compatibility and suitability of specific conditional uses as to their impact on the adjacent residential zones. The Planning Commission also would need to decide if there is a need to provide additional performance standards or to eliminate specific uses to protect and ensure the integrity of Orono's residential districts. Gaffron noted that the Rl A zoning allows a number of uses via conditional use permits in residential uses. Gaffron said the amendment proposal for Section 10.20, Subd. 3(A), regarding school use, is whether to amend it to include a number of possible accessory uses associated with school use. Setback requirements may need to be set for various non - residential uses occurring in the residential zone. He noted that all residential zones refer to the R1A standards. Schroeder noted that amendments are normally looked at in work sessions and asked what public interest there was in the amendment. A member of the public reported concern with the enclosed hockey arena discussed elsewhere on the agenda, noting the difference from a tennis court or open playing field, and the need for at least 10 acres for such a large building, where the plot is only 4 acres. The desire was for the land to remain "green." Schroeder asked if the speaker had been present during that discussion. The speaker said he had not been informed of it. Gaffron commented that the sketch plan review of the ice arena required no notification as no action is taken on a sketch plan application. It is the time for the applicant to gain feedback from the Commission on the proposal as to its viability. The plan is not discussed in detail during a sketch plan review. Gaffron noted the public meeting scheduled for January 24, Wednesday, regarding the ice arena. Schroeder informed the audience that he was delighted that they were here in regards to the arena as the Planning Commissioners were very interested in what they had to say. He noted that the neighbors were to be notified of the upcoming meeting by the Boosters. A person asked if the developers of the arena were a private party desiring to use public land. Schroeder informed the person that it was a charitable, non -profit organization, who would have a lease with the Orono School District to lease the land in order to build the arena. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 • (#5 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) The question of sewering arose. It was reported that a sewer connection would be needed for practicality, which would require an amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan. An amendment is being proposed, including the school property as well as other areas. A question as to the funding was asked. The audience was informed that 2 -1/2 million dollars would be needed to build the arena and would come from donations. A person asked if the road improvements could be paid for by the public. Schroeder informed the person that the Orono Boosters would be responsible for any road improvements necessary. A question arose as to the suitability of the arena for the property in regards to setbacks. Schroeder said the setbacks are not being discussed at this time, but there would be specific standard performances to be met. Gaff-on added that ultimately, there would be the need to discuss the standards, and the Commission needs to define when that discussion will occur, especially in view of the interest by the public. Schroeder moved to table the amendment discussion to a work session. • A neighbor of the property under discussion commented that the issue goes way beyond the idea of green grass but also to lights and noise associated with such a project. Engebretson, president of the Orono Boosters, commented that the plan was in a sketch plan review at this point, but he welcomed knowing now if there were any major implications to hinder the project. Engebretson noted the neighborhood meeting was scheduled to enable the Boosters to determine if the project was realistic. The outcome of the neighborhood meeting would then be relayed to the City. Schroeder asked if there was any concern with the greenhouse portion of the amendment. Gaffron read the section of the ordinance regarding greenhouses, informed the Commissioners of the greenhouse operations in the City and their historic "good neighbor" characteristic, and noted Staffs concern regarding the lack of large buildings being accountable in the table set forth to determine sizes of accessory structures in relation to the size of lots. The table is being considered for amendment on tonight's agenda. Gaffron said this item may need to be discussed regarding reasonable performance standards for such uses. Steve Kelley of Kelley Nursery said he was in attendance because of his concern over changes to the amendment regarding greenhouses. Gaffron noted Kelley's "good neighbor" status and the lack of complaints regarding his business. The audience was asked to leave their names and addresses if they were interested in being notified of an upcoming work session on the amendment. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 •( #5 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) Engebretson reminded the public of the upcoming meeting regarding the arena. Smith asked what prompted the agenda item regarding the amendment. Gaffi-on said the issue, perhaps, goes back to the Orono Baseball Association proposal for ball fields and the need to determine if they are not strictly associated with the school, how they fit in with the residential zoning. Then, with the additional proposal for an ice arena, these two issues prompted the need to look at a possible amendment. Mabusth advised that if the school was to come in and apply for a conditional use permit for an ice arena, it could be done under the school umbrella. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table the proposed zoning code amendment to allow for a work session to discuss all the items prior to approval of any arena construction. He noted the need for approval of a conditional use permit for an arena. Schroeder said interested parties would be notified of the work session. It was further noted that a public hearing would be scheduled prior to any vote on an ice arena. Smith commented that the neighboring area would be given notice of the public hearing. Schroeder also noted that the non -profit organization is holding the neighborhood meeting and that is separate from a public hearing, which would be held in the future. Vote: Ayes • 4, Nays 0. ( #b) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 9 (C) - 9:36 -9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Schroeder commented that this proposed zoning amendment is in regards to oversized accessory structures. He asked if the ice arena would be affected. Gaffron said no, noting that the arena is not an "accessory" structure unless the school came in with the application. Schroeder explained that the table that refers to the allowable sizes of accessory structures does not relate to properties over 9 acres. Gaffron reported on the code as it presently is written and the table regarding accessory structure sizes. For any accessory structure over 1000 s.f, there used to be a need for a variance until the current code was established. Exhibit C, Gaffron explained, lays out the proposal to expand the table relating structure size limits to lot size for properties over 10 acres. Option #1 is based on lot area percentage, where Option 2 is generated by additional increments of square footage with additional acreage. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to make a comparison of the two and decide on the appropriate measure or suggest other alternatives. The buffer stipulation requires more land • surrounding a larger building. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#6 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) Lindquist asked how many applications have been looked at which would be affected by this amendment. Gaffron said there have been 2 -3 applications which might not have required variances if a complete table had originally been adopted. He noted many permit applications have met the table standards and did not need a variance. Gaffron said the result of an amendment would be a reduction in the number of variance applications. Lindquist said the problem he sees that if a structure was over 3000 s.f., it still could be objectionable and should be reviewed. Hawn said if the chart was followed and a building was over 3000 s.f., it would be hard to envision what people are designing. Hawn said she would like to look at it case by case. Gaffron commented that today at 10 acres, the largest building would be 3000 s.f., and asked if she was suggesting stopping at that point for large building parcels. Hawn asked if it meant more structures or larger buildings. Gaffron said he was referring to individual buildings. Hawn said if the Commission has only looked at 2 -3 applications, they should continue to review others. Lindquist agreed. Schroeder asked if the Staff felt they were overburdened by this limitation. Both Mabusth and Gaffron said that was not the case, that the number of variances is minimal. • Hawn said if it was a matter of more accessory structures, she would see no problem with expanding the tables. Gaffron commented that with the current code people do not know what to expect when there is a desire for larger buildings. Schroeder said he would like to ask these applications to come before the Commission as variances. Lindquist noted that these buildings have been approved in the past, and the Commission would just like to look at what is proposed. Schroeder also noted the need to look at the hardships and recommended that the Council be advised the Planning Commission does not see a need to revise the tables. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to leave the zoning code as it is presently based on the few applications affected and the desire to review larger buildings regardless of acreage. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #7) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO.6 - MUSA BOUNDARY REVISIONS - 9 :50 -10:03 P.M. The MUSA revisions involve expansion of areas within Orono that can be sewered. Gaffron reported that the MUSA boundary lines established by the City are required to be approved by Met Council. The City Council is looking at sewering certain neighborhoods to include Bayridge, Fox Hill, Weber Hills, Bracketts Point, Edgewood Hills, East Long Lake, North Long Lake including Long Lake Boulevard, and Lakeview Terrace, and some additional properties. One individual property abuting the current MUSA line is included in the request located at the north end of Hackberry, as well as all of the currently non- MUSA Orono school property that is not wetland. The MUSA line designated in 1980 currently goes through the school cafeteria, 750' north of the section line. The proposal would allow the entire school facility to be within the MUSA boundary, as well as the hockey arena site and other school lands. In order for changes to be made to the MUSA boundary, a public hearing is required, along with an application to the Met Council. Review by the Planning Commission, along with public comments, will be forwarded with a recommendation to the Council. Gaffron reported that the last change to the MUSA boundary was in 1993. At that time, the Nettles' property and the Orono sewer plant property were added. In 1992, the north • Stubbs Bay area, including Cygnet Place, was added. The current look of the MUSA boundary is a disjointed series of "islands" resulting from past and present plans to sewering existing neighborhoods, but not new developments. There will be no change in the zoning density. The MUSA revisions are intended only to solve existing problems. is Karen Zebek, 2905 CoRd 6, asked where CoRd 6 was in relation to the map showing the MUSA boundary. Gaffron showed her on the map, noting the hockey arena site, which will be included in the school property MUSA amendment. Lindquist asked what the requirements were for each area to be included in the amendment. Gaffron said Staff met with all ten neighborhoods. Many wished to have sewer brought to their properties. Others did not , probably due to the high cost of sewering. A few of these likely will respond, according to Gaffron, but need time to organize. He noted that the City Council felt all ten neighborhoods should be added to the MUSA. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 • - - ( #7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 6 Continued) Schroeder asked why the single property was added to the amendment. Gaffron said it was a specific request by the property owner. The owner wanted to have the option of upgrading if his septic failed. There is a sewer stub directed at the property now, but the property is not within the MUSA. This owner would pay the normal connection charge involved. Gaffron added that the City is also asking for an additional 50 units to meet future requests such as this one. This would allow a comprehensive plan lasting for a couple years rather than the need for a 3 -month review every time an individual request is received. Schroeder asked what the Met Council does. Gaffron said the Met Council looks at regional development issues such as sewer capacity, as well as unrelated items such as housing plans, density, existing and proposed traffic and transportation plans. The Met Council has 60 days in which to take final action on the application. Council Member Jabbour remarked that this amendment was a good idea and was a result of the City's Shoreland Management Program dealing with the issues of non - conformity with 3' separation requirements. He noted there are as many as 600 houses in the City, who may have to upgrade their systems. The amendment should help solve so of their problem in a comprehensive way. • Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the MUSA Boundary Revision, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #6. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Lih McMillan asked if the amendment was approved, if there was a time deadline for sewer installation. She was informed that there currently is no set schedule. The North Long Lake area is the number one priority with Orono Orchard, where McMillan resides, in the number two priority spot. It was noted that no interest from her neighborhood has been shown at this time. When the Long Lake area sewering is complete, the City will inquire as to the interest in the Orono Orchard neighborhood. ACTION ITEMS ( #8) #2088 STEPHEN GARDINER, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:07 -7:16 P.M. Mr. Gardiner was present. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 •( #8 - #2088 Stephen Gardiner - Continued) Mabusth reported that the vacation application was separated from the variance application. Mabusth said she was told by the homeowners' association president, Lee Harrin, that a letter was sent to each Plannning Commissioner advising of their decision to have no claim of interest in the right -of -way to be vacated. Members of the Planning Commission reported that they had not received any such letter. Gardiner showed Mabusth an agreement signed by Harrin as representative for the homeowners giving up all rights of the alley way. Gardiner provided a copy of the agreement. Gardiner noted that the garage would be modified or destroyed to ensure its distance of IS' from the property line. Schroeder asked if it was critical for the applicants to receive approval from the homeowners' association. Mabusth said it was important for Gardiner and Stephens in order to develop realistic improvement plans. Mabusth also commented on the question of any legal claim by the property owner to the north and east on the vacated right of way as that property was not part of the original Ottoville plat. Mabusth also noted that Gopher I has been alerted, and applicant staked out the alleyway for the utility companies to review. Confirmation of the location of any utilities is necessary before the vacation can be approved. Hawn noted that the dispersal is completed by the County, and it is their final responsibility and not the City. Mabusth agreed. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for vacation of 30' alleys as oiginally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka subject to the vacation petition not being scheduled before the Council until the City has received a report from the utility companies confirming whether utilities are located within the unimproved public right -of -way. If utilities exist, applicant is to provide easements over all existing utilities. The applicant's surveyor is to provide a complete legal description for the vacation of the 30' alley for the official resolution of the City. Gardiner noted his understanding of the conditions set forth. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2095 STEPHEN M. ENGLAND, 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 -7:17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. 13 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#9 - #2095 Stephen England - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is a second renewal for a lot area variance. The applicant had planned on building in 1995. In order to build on the property located in the 112 acre zoning district, an area variance in required. Lot width requirement is met. The original application was filed in 1993. There have been no code changes that would impact this application nor has applicant made any changes since that original application. The applicant is aware that he must meet all other standards for development. The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2095 for a second renewal variance. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #14) #2097 PATRICIA A. GUTTORMSON, 3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:17 -7:24 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. • The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is two fold, the first part involves structural improvements made to the foundation of the 2 -story garage located within the 0 -75' setback area. The improvement involves the replacement of the masonry block foundation and repouring the cement floor. The contractor had obtained a building permit but soon found the need for total replacement. The Building Inspector informed the contractor that • a variance would be required. Mabusth reported that the applicant also seeks approval of variances for the replacement of a deck located in the 0 -75' setback area and in front of the average lakeshore setback line. There are hardcover excesses in both the 0 -75' and 75 -250' setback areas. The lot coverage is at 16.1 %. With the new deck, the coverage is proposed at 14.6 %. Hardcover will be reduced in both districts with a reduction of 172 s.f. or 2.19% in the 0 -75' zone and 130 s.f. or 4.6% in the 75 -250' zone. There will no longer be an excess of hardcover in the 75 -250' zone. The applicant had nothing to add to the comments made by Mabusth. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 0 ( #10 - #2097 Patricia Guttormson - Continued) • Smith asked if the contractor completed the work and didn't realize the need for the variance. It was noted that the work was completed by a family member: Mabusth said a permit had been received for the repairs. In order to approve the structural repairs, however, a variance was needed. Smith said if the application had originally come before the Commission, the Commission would more than likely ask for the structure to be moved back away from the shoreline. Schroeder responded that there is no place in which to move the structure, adding that there are no increases in structural amount, and the application wilt result in meeting the lot coverage requirement. Mabusth commented that the applicant was asked to consider removing paving improvements. The addendum notes that there is no parking on the road. The applicant needs off - street parking space and requested not having to remove the paving. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2097 for lakeshore setback, rear setback, hardcover, and lakeshore setback variances due to the hardships set forth in the hardship statement and due to improvements made towards meeting requirements. The approval includes the notation of the hardcover reduction as noted which must be completed prior to the footing inspection for deck improvement. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #11) #2048 KARI AND PAUL ROMPORTL, 4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:11 -10 :37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, along with their representative, Stu Hoarn, were present. Gaffron reported having received neighborhood letters regarding the application. The house to the west has been for sale. That owner voiced indifference to the application. Other neighbors were in favor of the application. The owner, Eva Theobald, is not in good health. Her realtor reported that she is in agreement with the application and has sold the property to the Rompord's contingent on application approval. 15 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#I I - #2098 Kan and Paul Rompord - Continued) Gaffron reported that the neighborhood is made up of small lots. This lot is 40' wide at the road and 50' wide at the lakeshore. The lot is in the I acre zoning, where 140' is the required minimum width. The property is 8550 s.f, or 115 acre, with an average width of 45'. The existing house is located down slope from the street. The required street setback is 30', with the proposed setback 25', and existing at 75'. The side setback requirement is 10', The proposed side setback is 8' at the northeast side and 6.8 -7.1' on the southwest side. The lot coverage allows for 15% or a minimum of 1500 s.f., which would be 17.5 %. It now exists at 690 s.f., or 8 %. The proposed coverage is 1795 s.f., or 21 %. Hardcover of 25% is allowed in the 75 -250' zone, but now exists at 29.7 %, and is proposed at 46 %. No hardcover is proposed in the 0 -75' zone. Gaffron noted that the code section regarding sloping lots which might allow a building some additional height and a lesser street setback, where the slope exceeds 25 %, would not be met by this proposal, therefore, requiring a variance. Gaffron posed the question to the Planning Commission regarding how they view a small lot with a small house, and upon total replacement, requiring street and side setback variances, hardcover variance, and lot coverage variances. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission has normally looked at these situations as opportunities to meet standards. He asked if the standards should be held to in this instance, citing the need to • find justification to allow the different variances. • Hoarn, the designer of the project, commented that the original house was not suitable for remodeling. He said he tried to give good spacing from adjacent buildings and setback from. the lakeshore, while still gaining off - street parking, since there is little parking available on Highwood. Horn said the layout of the house within the 25% slope allotment was not very probable. Horn said the design could be altered to gain the necessary 10' separation from the garage on the adjacent Iot. Horn said the drainage could be re- routed if necessary. Gaffron said the City Engineer should look at the situation. A neighbor, Ai Seran, was said to be under the impression that the existing catch basin was on his own property. Gaffron said there was no problem with the swale. He noted that Al Seran had recently rebuilt his home. It was noted that the width of the house would need to be no more than 26' wide in order to meet the 10' side setbacks at the midpoint of the lot_ The design is for a 25' wide house. The deck could be brought out and the garage brought in to meet side setback standards. Gaffron said elimination of the deck and porch would enable the property to nearly meet the lot coverage requirement. 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, l 996 (# I - #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl - Continued) Lindquist asked if Hoarn had looked at reducing the size of the proposed house. Hoarn said he would look at the calculations. He noted there was no garage on the property at this time, but it was a necessary feature. Hoarn said he has proposed to build under the garage, and possibly under the driveway using spancrete floors. A bridgeway is also possible to allow for more water absorption. It was noted that the code considers that hardcover. Smith said she visited the property and agreed with the need to meet the 10' side setback for safety reasons. She felt the proposal was too intensive for the lot and was concerned with the drainage issue. Hoarn asked for guideline numbers to assist him in any redesigning. Gaffron said 1500 s.f., or 17.5 %, would be allowed for lot coverage, noting a 300 s. f. gap from the design as it now stands. Schroeder said he understood that the lot was a hardship but the proposal was too much for the lot. Smith said it would take some change but not slot. Schroeder emphasized keeping to the 1500 s.f lot coverage amount and the 10' side setback requirement. Horn commented that with a minimum sized garage, it would leave less amount for the garage • area. Hawn asked about the condition of the adjacent house. Kari Romportl said the house was in good shape but was all located within the 0 -75' zone. Gaffron noted that a potential buyer is considering adding on to that property. The design of the house is for 3 levels, though actually considered a 2 -story but the bedrooms being reversed. Gaffron again suggested eliminating the deck and porch. The applicants asked and were told that the hardcover on the neighboring property was thought to be in the range of near 50 %. Lindquist asked if it was possible to redesign the house to meet the 1500 s.f. requirement. Hoarn said the hardcover could be reduced in the driveway area, if it was changed to 20' instead of the 25', and would still allow for off - street parking. Schroeder asked if it was possible to meet the 10' side setback. Horn said he thought it was possible. Gaffron noted that the design was close to meeting it at this time. Horn said the hardcover would be increased if he pulled the house forward to meet the 10' side setback requirement. Smith said she would be willing to work on the side setback variance if the applicants were willing to work on the lot coverage amount. Horn said he would come back with a modified plan. • 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY I6, 1996 • (#11 - #2098 Karl and Paul Romportl - Continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2098. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. f #12j #2100 ROBERT AND DEBRA EDMUNDS, 1030 TONKAWA ROAD - VA.RIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING -10:37 -10:49 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Architect, Blake Bichanich, represented the applicants. Mabusth commented that houses on both sides of this property were of recent construction. The structure on this property will be removed and new construction is proposed. The property is in the I -acre zoning district and meets the area requirement at 1 -1/2 acres. The lot width, however, is not met at 101', where 140' is the standard, requiring a variance. A conditional use permit is also required for the filling of 550 to 600 cubic yards of fill to create a walkout. The fill will come from the excavation of an attached two story garage. The use of the fill is to remedy the runoff from property to north and create a stable building site. 550 cubic yards of fill will be used to prepare and • fill the building pad. Mabusth reported that there is a concern with drainage as the construction to the north has impacted this property. Drainage swales are planned along the sides of the house. Boulder walls, originally proposed over 4' in height, will now be amended not to exceed 4. It was noted that the proposal will meet the hardcover requirements. • Bichanich said the cutting of elevations at north side lot line will allow for access to the lower level storage of garage. The two retaining walls will be built to direct runoff so as not to disturb the existing drainage. Bichanich said the creation of a full walkout on the north and lake sides will alleviate the water and drainage problem. On the other side, fill will be brought in and retaining wall built to hold water from entering property to south. This will direct the water back in on the lot to naturally flow to the lake. Hawn inquired what will be done to disburse the water as there was alot of water to channel. Bichanich said he would contour it down to the 75' line to allow runoff to fan out at lakeshore. Lindquist asked how the new design sits on the lot in comparison to the existing house. Bichanich said the main floor of the existing house sits lower than the lowest level of the proposed house. 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16,199,6 0 (# 12 - #2100 Robert and Debra Edmunds - Continued) Schroeder inquired about the side setbacks. Bichanich said the side setbacks were at 101 . Mabusth said all side setbacks would be met. She added that the lot width variance is required because the existing house is being torn down and new construction is replacing it. There were no public comments, Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2100 for lot width variance and CUP for fill to create walkout with recommendations 1 -3 as stipulated in the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #13) #2102 HOWARD AND ELIZABETH MCMILLAN, 1275 LYMAN AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING -10:49 -11:05 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present • Mabusth reported that the conditional use permit and variance application involves the excavation of a pond within a designated City wetland. The pond is proposed at .125 acres, and the spoils from excavation will be used in the filling of a steep bank. The bank has been sustained by a retaining wall that is failing, and severe erosion is taking place. A letter from the City Engineer confirms that the proposed slope of bank will meet standards of DNR. A letter from a neighboring property owner favors the proposal. The property is located in the Orono Orchards Highlands plat approved in 1975. Mabusth said the City did not obtain a flowage and conservation easement over the wetland within applicant's property. The original wetland is approximated at the 958' elevation. Recent wetland testing has revealed a type 3 wetland immediately adjacent to the 958' between the 958' and 960' elevations. Type I wetlands are also present. Mabusth reported that applicants have submitted an amended pond drawing. The Engineer said the 12' of rise in 100' is acceptable for the restored bank and found little potential for erosion. Mabusth asked that the wetland be defined at the 958' elevation to include the newly defined type 3 wetland to the west of the 958' elevation. She also noted that the type I wetlands must also be protected. Corp of Engineer and MC" approval is also required. Mabusth said Engineer Gustafson has approved the seeding of a prairie restoration mix similar to the MnIDOT mix, which would also be used in disturbed areas of wetland and upland areas. • 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 0 (# 13 - #2102 Howard and Elizabeth McMillan - Continued) Howard McMillan said it was their attempt to combat in a non -toxic way the elimination of the purple looseleaf in the non - excavation areas. He said they were trying to redevelop cattails and create a normal natural state. Lill McMillan noted the approval of the project by their neighbors to the east and west. She also said the MCA ID has been notified but still need to contact the Corp of Engineers. Schroeder read into the minutes a letter from a neighbor, E. Paul Pesak, approving the plan. Schroeder informed the applicants of the Planning Commissions' standard for a natural setting around the pond area. Mabusth said the Engineer has cited the plan as an excellent example of providing transitional areas within the irregular shoreline and graduated slopes. Smith reiterated the desire of the Commission to not have any "pretty pond" applications and to meet performance standards. Lindquist noted that the application is in line with this standard with the use of prairie restoration mix and the designed slope. Howard McMillan commented that he realized the 3 -5' depth is normal to create a wildlife habitat. • Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2102 for a CUP /variance allowing for an open water area with a conservation easement and conditions 1 -5 as stipulated in the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. • ( #14) #2104 B. SCOTT BALL, 1065 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING -11 :05 -11:15 P.M. The Certificate ofMaiiing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was represented by George Stickney. Gaffron recalled the Bail application from several months ago regarding the installation of bay windows in the existing house. The applicants have decided, and now propose, that the best option is to remove the existing house and driveway and build a new home. Stickney informed the Commission on the transformation from remodeling to a new home. He noted that the proposal would now orient the house well on the lot. It was noted how the average Lakeshore Iine on the property swings in towards the home. 20 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 k414 - 421U4 B. Scott Hall - Continued) Gaffron continued that the proposal calls for lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback variances. The property consists of .88 acres in the 2 -acre zoning district. The property does not meet the 200' lot width requirement with 180' width and 163' at the 75' line. The 75' setback is met. The proposal is for a conforming 30' side setback. The hardcover needs to be adjusted slightly to meet the 25% limit. Gaffron reported that the existing house is located all in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed house would be located with a slight encroachment of that line but has no impact on lake views enjoyed by the neighboring properties. Gaffron noted that the new plan has not yet been reviewed by the City Engineer. The garage proposed at 938' would need to be contoured to the 940' elevation. Three feet of fill would be required to the basement level to bring the elevation from 932.5' to 935' to meet the flood plain requirements. The fill would need to come up to the driveway. Gaffron said the City files show a historic concern with the drainage to the neighboring property to the east. This will be reviewed by the Engineer so as not to impact the neighbors. Gaffron said the Engineer's review will occur prior to the application going before the Council.. Stickney noted that there was very little slope or elevation change to the proposal. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2104 with the hardcover meeting the 25% allowed, the drainage and grading plans to be reviewed and approved by the Engineer prior to final Council action. Vote: Ayes 4, Mays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW ( #15) #2103 ORONO HOCKEY BOOSTERS, INC., 1025 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW Mabusth noted that the agenda item was for conceptual review not requiring any action. Present were Mark Engebretson, president of the Orono Hockey Boosters, and Ted Rozeboom, architect for the ice arena. The land under consideration for the ice arena is a 4.4 acre parcel owned by the school district. The school district has not legally combined all of their owned parcels and have buildings and uses that expand from one parcel to another. A lease period of 35 -55 years is proposed with an option to purchase at any time. Mabusth said the major issue for this application is a land use matter as there is no exact fit for this use within the City code. 21 �J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #15 • #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) The application proposes a 160'x240' enclosed ice arena located 50' from the west lot line, 50' from the north, and 150'+ from either the south or east lot lines. A 130 stall parking lot is proposed to the south of the arena. The property is in a residential zone. The parking lot will be subject to residential setbacks. It's location 20' from the front line, typical of commercial properties, will require a variance. Height of the building is also an issue. Finished grade heights are proposed at 28' at the west lot line, 41.5' at the east, 35.5' at the south, and 41' to the north. Mabusth clarified these were peak heights and not mean heights, although, a height variance will be required. Another issue with the application is the lack of sewer. The sewer question should, however, be resolved by permit time in April when construction is to begin. Mabusth said the City should be in receipt of Met Council's position by March. Lindquist asked if plans work out as now set forth, a sewer connection should be made. Mabusth said this is unknown at this point. Gaffron said there is a 60 day time frame for a yes or no answer, but it could be extended. Mabusth said the City could know if the land has been approved for sewer within 4 months. A variance for a holding tank is being • requested if the need should arise. When asked by Lindquist if the holding tank would be done, Engebretson said he did not know. Due to the high cost, Engebretson said the start date would probably be delayed. Smith inquired of the cost. Engebretson said in terms of the total cost of the project, it was not major. Mabusth said, according to Gaffron and Weckman, it was impossible to locate septic on the site and additional testing may be required on the school property. It was agreed that the proposed use would not occur without sewer service. • Mabusth inquired about the cost of the facility, it's funding, and lease option, which required a 90% of funds to allow construction to begin. Engebretson said the total budget for the project was slated at 2 -1/2 million dollars, complete, on the school district property, consisting of an Olympic size sheet of ice. The arena would open with a reserve of $100,000. The operating feasibility was considered to be the least of concerns for the Boosters. Engebretson reported that the cost estimate for the ice arena included the parking and paving improvements. Engebretson said the arena could be opened at a cost of 2 million dollars with some interior work needing completion. 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Engebretson said the fund raising has taken twice as long as expected but has been a good effort. The fund is catching up to where it was projected to be at this time. The funds are from private donations but the municipalities and school districts will be asked for donations. Donations and pledges are at 1.3 million with aide of Mound hockey and with continuing with pre - package pledges through a bank, the funds should hit the 2 million dollar mark according to Engebretson. The school district is requiring a demonstratable funding of 90 %, and Engebretson said he sees no problem with meeting that expectation. Schroeder asked when the 901/o mark was expected to be met and was informed by Engebretson, April, 1996. Schroeder also asked the cost of operating. Engebretson said operating would be at $145,000 year with a $100,000 capital reserve. The costs would be recouped through the sale of ice time from 3 high school teams, the Orono program, community activities, skate sharpening and concessions. Engebretson said the revenues are fairly reliable. Hawn asked if the arena would operate on a year round basis. Engebretson said the mechanical equipment is sized for year around use, but the program's budget is based on a 6 month ice use. The remaining 6 month use would be for other community uses of the 100'x200' concrete floor. The budget expenses are based over a 12 month period with the • budget income over a 6 month period. Lindquist asked if other Olympic size sheets were built recently. Engebretson said the 200'x I00' is standard and arenas are being expanded to Olympic size. There is a new Olympic size single sheet in Lakeville, which is comparable, according to Engebretson, but with Orono's being a better design. Engebretson did not know if Lakeville was meeting their budget numbers. Smith asked what the arena would do for the community that was not being done today. Engebretson said the indoor ice would provide ice time that is now not available. Staggering growth in the girls hockey program is one need for the arena. Figuring skating is also a growing interest. With these two programs and the high school hockey, other uses get shut out of ice time. There is no opportunity now for handicap use, and recreational use is disappearing with the large demand for ice from youth and hockey programs. Engebretson said the Orono Boosters could have used 300 additional hours this year. Schroeder inquired about the facility in Delano and whether it was being fully utilized. Engebretson said it was being fully used. There is a half allocation with Mound after the high school and 140 hours with Wayzata. 50 hours were obtained by Blake. All of the ice time has been sold according to Engebretson. He added that past problems for Delano was the heavy debt load and that has been corrected with the high demand for indoor ice. • He noted the cost two years ago was at $90 an hour for ice time and is now at $125/hour, 73 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Schroeder asked if the Boosters would be operating at a surplus and what would happen to the surplus. Engebretson said the projections are for selling all ice in prime time at $125/hour with $100,000 from net, $20,000 from skate sharpening, and $100,000 from advertising for a $220,000 revenue per year. With a $150,000 operating cost and a $100,000 surplus, the $60,000 - 70,000 would allow for building maintenance and be reinvested into the program. The money would help to buy down the participation cost. Engebretson said if there was true surplus, the Boosters would like to give the money away. Lindquist asked if there would be preferential treatment to Orono residents. Engebretson said the cost would be the same to all participants. Smith asked if the use would be on a first come -first served basis or by contract. Engebretson said there would be an annual contract up front for prime time use. The time would then be allocated between games and scrimmages. The two biggest buyers of ice time would be the school and Orono hockey use. Smith also asked if there was projected ice time allocated for other uses, such as handicap. Engebretson said there would be more time available during prime time than the association itself needed. He added that it was hard to predict the amount of time that would be needed by the girls' league. Smith asked what would occur if it was found that the financial situation was not working, whether it would revert to school or city ownership. Engebretson said he did not know but could not imagine the project failing. He noted the number of ice hours used by the different programs, the need now for additional time, and operating with a $100,000 reserve as reasons for its predicted viability. Engebretson was asked what effect the arena would have at the Pond and at the Delano rink. Engebretson said it would allow other towns to have ice time available noting the shortage as it is now. Engebretson also added that the arena would be operating without a debt load beyond the operating cost, which would distinguish it from other rinks. Hawn noted that the school was currently buying ice time at the pond at cost, which is $30 less an hour. She asked why the school would be willing to pay premium rate when they currently do not have to pay that price. Engebretson said there was a shortage of space at the pond, no bus service to the pond, and with the need for girls' league expansion, the school was willing and prepared to budget for the additional cost. Engebretson was asked if there were any for -profit ice arenas. He said there were, and they tended to be more grandiose. 24 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) During public comments, George Stickney, who is on the fund raising committee for the project, reported on the need for ice time and the effort being made to make the arena debt free. Stickney said he was totally in favor of the rink. Mabusth asked the architect, Ted Rozeboom, to elaborate on the building itself. Mabusth commented that the exterior finish of the ice arena was similar to that of the City facility. Rozeboom said the palate had changed but was vernacular with the institutions as to its long term durability with the use of masonry and oversized brick or stone, possibly Kasota stone. There will be a vertical difference compared to the metal seamed roof used on the City facility. Bowstring trusses will be reflective of the rolling hills in the area. On an economical standpoint, the building will fit in with some conformities. Mabusth asked Rozeboom to elaborate on the floor plan. Rozeboom said there were 3 -4 basic components: the Olympic size sheet of ice; a south- facing entry lobby using a concentration of windows and glass and sitting 2 -1/2' to 3' higher than the ice; a public restroom, concession, and administrative office portion with a meeting room of 1000 s.f overlooking the rink. There will be seating for 500. The building will be placed into the hillside and curved and pushed into the hill on the west to minimize the height. Without the use of alot of windows, Rozeboom said the brick selection was very important. The 4 locker rooms, with two shared toilet facilities, will be located on the east side beyond the trussed area along with the mechanical and Zamboni rooms. Rozeboom noted the difficulty in working with and costs associated with the soils, but said the site was good. Mabusth noted the importance of keeping any noisy activities away from the existing residential along west lot line. Engebretson confirmed that the active areas will be away from the residences. Lindquist asked if any comments have been received from residents on the west side of the property. Engebretson said no. Mabusth noted the information meeting scheduled by applicants for residents on Wednesday, January 24, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Schroeder asked if there was the ability to change from a non -profit status to a for - profit. status. Engebretson said there was not adding that a non -profit organization is exempt from paying real estate taxes. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( #15 - #2143 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Schroeder asked Mabusth to enlighten the applicant to what the City will be looking at. Mabusth said a memo has been written informing the applicant on what the City looks at citing examples of height and other variances, the need for the parking lot to be moved out of the street setback, site constraints, as well as performance standards that all applicants are obliged to follow, which are included in Exhibit L. Mabusth said, although there are no designated wetlands on the site, there are 2 wetland basins, and this becomes of issue noting the parking lot is located within one of the basins. The wetlands are classified as "unintentional" as they were created over the years by land alterations on the school property. Mabusth said if the applicant complies with certain standards of the Corp of Engineers and MCWD, there may not be any need to mitigate on the site. Mabusth said the key problem is getting sewer approved for the property. The permit is before the Met Council for their approval. It is Staff and Planning Commission's job to inform applicant of code requirements and potential for variance during this planning process. Lindquist said he was interested in what the neighbors had to say on the subject noting the importance in listening to their concerns. The upcoming meeting will aid in answering this interest. Engebretson said the Boosters are also interested in the neighbors' concerns. It is their intent to identify and keep track of each piece of the process and to make sure all parties are aware of and kept up with the process. Engrebretson said the agreement and assistance of all is necessary for this project to be successful. Lindquist said he is supportive of the project and felt the height and parking issues could be resolved. His main concerns are with the sewering and the neighbors' viewpoints. Schroeder agreed with Lindquist. He wanted to make sure the project is not a financial burden noting it to be the largest building in Orono. Engebretson noted the size of the school building and the reason why it was placed near the building. Schroeder said the lease would be up to the Council and the School Board to deal with. Mabusth asked Engebretson to elaborate on the Orono Hockey Association group. Engrebretson said the group is made up of parents and guardians of children who skate. The Orono Boosters, Inc., is a non -profit organization made up of those members. The Orono Sports Facilities, Inc., is made up of the youth program, which promotes the project. Mabusth reiterated that the rink would be used 6 months out of the year. Engebretson said that was the initial projection. If it becomes possible to run the arena year round, this might be done, but the association wished to make a conservative prediction. Mabusth said the hours of operation should be included in the application. 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 ( i - *1 t U3 Orono .Hockey Boosters - Continued) Smith said her calculations for parking with 800 seating and 130 parking stalls would result in 8 people in a car and asked how this parking issue would be resolved. Engebretson said the school has told the association that the school parking could be used during home high school games. Permission for this school parking use will be part of the lease. The length of the walk to the arena was noted. Rozeboom said the district was considering a connecting walk. Mabusth said the Engineer would like to see a connecting drive. Lindquist said the application should state where the other parking stalls will be located. Engebretson said he viewed the solution as better than what is normally found with high schools, but he will address the situation. Mabusth said Staff will give the applicant a checkoff list. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #Ili) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1995 No representative was present at that meeting. Mabusth informed the Commissioners that the Council reaffirmed the denial resolution for • the Callen application, approved the Oberhauser application for the lot fine rearrangement with the request for final development plan. The application was tabled as Oberhauser was not able to post a security for removal of the structures. The application would be rescheduled before the Council when the two boarded up structures have been removed. ( #17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder commented that the perception that the job of Planning Commissioner and attendance at meetings has become more difficult, exemplified by the recent resignation of Candace Rowlette. He suggested a notion of using alternates to solve the problem with obtaining a quorum noting that Rowlette would be a good candidate for that position. Commission discussed the need to also protect the applicants and the City and the desire to preserve element of continuity. Jabbour asked that the Commissioners try to work through the problem. He noted the harmony in the group and the need to attract people of quality. The need to set a date for a work session to discuss the amendment regarding the ice arena was brought up. It was decided to trim the amendment request down to the school use only. Mabusth noted that there was a request originally to write the amendment on a • broader scope. She said she would seek further clarification on this matter. Schroeder felt that the school use only should be reviewed at this time. 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 • ( #17 - Other Items for Discussion - Continued) Hawn suggested looking at standards for commercial uses when considering the amendment. Mabusth agreed that this was a good point to consider. Smith noted that they were not working with huge developments in this area. Hawn said she was concerned that a situation arise for a proposed use to residential area that would meet the code but not be a desired use. Smith noted the need to set case -by -case standard performances now. Schroeder asked if it was possible for these uses to come into an area and build with a permit. It was noted that they would be all conditional uses. Schroeder said if this was possible, then there would be a problem. Gaffron said it was a matter of consistency. Schroeder said it is difficult to develop performance standards when they are not familiar with a use. Schroeder asked how the code could be amended to allow for the arena. The arena would need to be accessory to the school use. Mabusth said the school will not apply for the application based on the stipulations setforth in the agreement to lease. Lindquist said the Commission needs to look at the merits for each conditional use. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 1995. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #19) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE FEBRUARY 12,1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Elizabeth Hawn will attend the February 12, 1995 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:32 p.m. J r- Charles Schro er, Acting Chair Perso 28