HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes�J
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 20, 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. Stephen Peterson and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented the
City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry
Frost. Mayor Callahan and Councilmember Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
( #1) #2017 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN, 3340 SHORELINE DRIVE - VACATION OF
PUBLIC ROADICONDITIONAL USE PERMPI'SNARIANCE /COMMERCIAL
SITE PLAN REVIEW 8:34 -10:26 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The Applicant, John O'Sullivan, along with applicant's consultants, Rob Thompson and
Jim. Coen were present.
• Mabusth reported that the application was a request for conditional use permits for a gas
station use and Class I Restaurant use. The application includes variances and the
vacation of 33' of Navarre Lane at the northwest of the property. The property under
commercial site plan review is located in the B -1 zoning district. The majority of the
property has been used for an outside storage yard and is the site of the old Martin's
Station. Mabusth said the City` sees no problem with the vacation of the roadway as it has
been barricaded since the 1960's and in an earlier vacation application in the mid 1980'x,
the City recommended approval but applicant never proceeded with application. The City
would ask easements over all utilities within vacated right of way. The neighboring
church property would need to be contacted to complete the vacation. Dan Clausen,
church representative, was present. He noted that the church would join in with the
vacation application. O'Sullivan supplied a letter from the church regarding their allowing
O'Sullivan's to use the church property for storm water retention.
The proposal includes improvements for a convenience store, a Culver's restaurant, a gas
station with canopy and a separate car wash. The structural setback requirement in the B-
1 zoning calls for a 35' setback from all residential lot lines for the structures. The main
structure meets that required setbacks except for the car wash, which would be located 5'
from a residential lot line. The side setback of 3' at the street side lot line adjacent to
commercial zone is allowed for parking. Mabusth noted that the code only distinguishes
setbacks for parking from the residential zoning. The setback variance for the car wash is
30'. A 7' variance is required for the parking along side residential lot line. A structural
excess of 5.2% is also proposed.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
Mabusth reviewed the car wash, the entrance and exits for the improvements including the
drive -in portion of the restaurant. She noted that the Engineer's report noted major
concern with the cross action of traffic at the curb cuts. The applicant would need to
review the traffic configuration with the City and County.
Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to review the restaurant and convenience store
use. There are 53 parking stalls planned with no credit given for the parking areas beneath
the gas canopy. Mabusth asked the Commissioners to consider the number of uses on the
site, structural coverage excess, and the compatibility of the uses and whether variances
should be granted for new development. The structural coverage is proposed at 20.2%
and is allowed at 15% in properties less than 1.99 acres.
Schroeder asked Mabusth to review the zoning. Mabusth said the B -1 permits the uses,
two through conditional use permits, restaurants and gas use. The retail is a permitted use
but the car wash is not a listed use. Mabusth said the Council would also need to approve
the locating of three gas stations at one intersection.
John O'Sullivan introduced Erwin and Marlene Smith as his business partners. O'Sullivan
said Jim Coen, one of his representatives, was a founder of Super America and was
• knowledgeable regarding petroleum and codes involving petroleum. Rob Thompson,
owner of C.I. Construction, who would be building the improvements, was also present.
O'Sullivan noted that the project involves an independent, free - standing, unit for the
Martin site only, and does not involve the church property, requiring no rezoning. He
noted a future project would blend in the church property. In answer to a question from
Schroeder, O'Sullivan said that the project for the church property would involve a
business and professional type development. Schroeder noted that the use was not
consistent with the zoning of the property, which is zoned LR -1 C residential. Coen said
they were in conversation regarding that issue with the City. Mabusth advised that the
Orono Staff has consistently advised applicant of difficulties involved with the rezoning of
this property.
O'Sullivan continued that the original O'Sullivan project was completed nine years ago on
the property across the street and has included two major store remodels. He said he has
used cutting edge technology, and the project has been considered an asset to the
community. O'Sullivan said he purchased the Martin property 18 months ago. He said the
traffic flows would be similar at the new project as the one currently in business, which
was built on 3/4 acre site. The Martin project is 1 -1/2 acres of usable land.
O'Sullivan said he has met with City Engineer Cook regarding concerns on the property
and has dealt with the issues and requirements. He said Cook was satisfied with the site
plan as presented. Staff has not received any confirmation from Cook.
2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
O'Sullivan reported on the benefits of the project, which he said would create 50 new jobs
with the opening of a moderate -priced restaurant, a higher speed and quality car wash, and
an automated gas store, which O'Sullivan said would relieve the congestion at his present
site as well as crossover traffic. O'Sullivan said Cook said the project would make the
intersection safer with right turn lanes and a signal monitored left turn lane. O'Sullivan
said the public surveyed in his present store expressed positive feedback.
B.J. Larson, a Lafayette area neighbor, asked if Navarre Lane would be open for traffic.
She was informed that the road would remain closed. Jim Coen added that the site would
be filled or elevated along the north side, and there would be no access to the rear.
John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood, whose property is north of the church, asked if fill would
be brought in to the east when vacating Navarre Lane and whether retaining walls would
be built. Coen said it would be built to the same level as the property on Martin's resulting
in a 2 -3' elevation change at Navarre Lane. Coen also noted that a retention pond would
be erected in the back area of the church property. Mabusth noted that Navarre Lane
would not be vacated all the way back to Olive Street. Mabusth asked that the applicant
meet with the Engineer to determine the boundaries of the vacation.
• Rick of Rick's Super Valu asked if the restaurant would be a sit down type. O'Sullivan
said the restaurant would be a step up from a McDonald's, but not quite a Perkin's. It
would seat 99 and have a pick up window. Menus were provided for the Commission to
review. The food will be made on the premises, prepared to order, and moderately priced.
Rick said he would like to see the traffic count increase in the area. O'Sullivan said the
convenience store would be simplified from his present one, not as upscale, as it would
not have a deli or espresso. O'Sullivan said Culver's has one restaurant in Buffalo, MN,
one in Iowa and Illinois and 38 in Wisconsin. Rick asked about the hours of the gas
station. O'Sullivan said the open times would be 10 am -10 pm for the restaurant with the
gas opening at 6 am and closing around the same time as the restaurant.
Smith asked if the restaurant concept included the gas or if the two could be separated and
still be viable. O'Sullivan said one without the other would not be viable with the
demographics and costs involved.
Schroeder asked if Culver's was generally developed with both gas and a restaurant. Coen
said it was generally free standing, though Culver's is planning several similar to this
project. He noted that the general public is supportive of the idea.
Smith asked if the car wash as a concept goes with the other two uses and was told it did.
O'Sullivan said he would be a franchisee, owning and operating the restaurant.
0
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1995
0 (#1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
Hawn inquired about entry, exit, and turns in and out of the car wash. O'Sullivan said
there would be both ingress and egress with stacking for the car wash behind the buildings
and away from the public areas. The car wash will be conveyorized taking 1 -1l2 minutes
per car, which would result in twice the volume in a fraction of the time to alleviate
congestion. Car traffic will be able to exit in both directions when leaving the car wash
with a left on CoRd 15 being short of the light. It was also noted that the parcel would
need little fill, and the current driveway is now near the intersection. It would be
necessary, however, to enter the convenience store to obtain a car wash. In the
future,there will be automated credit card payment at the pumps to alleviate the need to
enter the convenience store. There would be a common entry for the restaurant and store
with a 2 -way entry/exit from the store and restaurant for a 4 -way flow. The traffic pattern
for the drive in window would utilize the "going home" pattern with swinging to the right
for entry and to the right when leaving. The plan purposely flows the traffic to the car
wash and drive in window in the opposite directions.
B.J. Larson commented that there were three houses located near the car wash and asked
if there would be any trees to cover the view. O'Sullivan noted the large number of
mature trees in the area now that would not be disturbed. It was also noted that there
would not be any lights behind the building in that area either.
Hawn voiced her concern with the traffic flow coming from th e pick up and ca r
wash near the entry to the restaurant. O'Sullivan agreed there was always the possibility
of pedestrians being hit no matter what prevention is taken. Coen said the design,
however, was such that people would not walk directly into the street by being directed
down a walking lane via a railing.
Schroeder asked about the traffic direction once a car left the drive in window. He was
told that the cars would swing around the front and exit either driveway. O'Sullivan said
he met with Hennepin County, John Gerhardson, and Glen Cook at the City offices in
early development stages. The same issues were discussed, and O'Sullivan said that all
were in agreement of the plan for traffic flow. Mabusth advised that she called for the
meeting and that this specific plan was not considered. Schroeder noted the intensive use
of the land, the amount of blacktop, and the question of whether the number of businesses
on one property were necessary.
Lindquist inquired about the lot coverage and the 5.2% variance required. Mabusth said a
very small part was controlled under the hardcover ordinance.
Mabusth said the applicant is obliged to provide storm water runoff and treatment before
going to the wetland area. Storm sewer would be required. The runoff would be sent to a
retention area constructed on the church property in answer to how the paving is dealt
with.
4
0
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
Mabusth said Gustafson is concerned with the traffic lanes and the need for additional area
for a right turn lane. Coen said the parking and standard dimensions were discussed with
Glenn Cook. O'Sullivan said he spoke with Gustafson and asked for detail and was told
Gustafson!s remarks were only an observation as he had not closely studied the plan.
Mabusth noted that this was not what Gustafson's report advised the City Staff.
Hawn inquired about the car wash operation with the projected use of 50 gallons of water
per car and 170 cars washed daily. O'Sullivan said the system will treat the water before
sending it to the retention pond and would go into the sanitary sewer system. He noted
that all chemicals used would be biodegradable. Coen added that the outside drain would
catch the water dripping from the cars and send it to the sanitary sewer. Thompson also
noted the driers in the car wash which would minimize the dripping. Hawn said the
amount of water used per car wash seemed to be a large amount. O'Sullivan said the
amount was moderate.
Lindquist remarked that, although he recognized what the applicant was attempting to
accomplish, the different uses appeared to be alot for such a small lot and questioned the
need. The question also arose whether the car wash was a principal or accessory use.
The car wash as proposed was considered a principal use.
Lindquist asked if 35% of the lot would be hardcover but was told only a small portion of
property was included in the hardcover zone.
Schroeder inquired about the function of the B -l. Mabusth commented that as long as
stormwater retention was provided, the project would meet the use and retention
requirements. This was theoretical as the facts have not been reviewed. Mabusth
informed Lindquist that the calculations would be reviewed before any approval was made
of the application.
Schroeder said he saw a difference in the use from the one property with a deli, auto
repair, and oil change with the number of cars that would frequent from a restaurant use.
The restaurant would present a maximum number of cars moving through the property at
certain busy time periods. Schroeder said he could view the project without the car wash.
O'Sullivan told Schroeder that when analyzed, the car wash was necessary. He felt the
itensity would be reduced with two sites providing similar products. He did not believe he
would gain new business and would not be as equally busy.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
0 ( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
The question arose whether the adjacent land was a tax forfeit parcel, but Mabusth said it
was owned by the Lafayette Ridge Homeowner's Association and asked Mr. Larson to
check on the paperwork required to remove the parcel from the tax forfeiture list to
ownership under the association. O'Sullivan noted that the association was in support of
his project. Schroeder said the project only makes sense because there is only open land
between the extensive wetland and car wash. Mabusth said it was necessary to define the
elevation of the wetland area. Schroeder said the project would be based on being at least
26 from the wetland area. Thompson said he has based the plan on the recorded
information and from speaking with Glenn Cook as to the wetland elevation at 931 as
providing an adequate distance from the 26' wetland setback. The distance would need to
be verified.
Schroeder noted that the retention pond would provide more protection for the wetland
area. Mabusth agreed in that the drainage now goes to the wetland area. A letter from
the church noted their agreement to the easement for a holding pond and grading.
Mabusth said the City would ask for additional retention area within the proposed storm
water pond as a condition of the vacation approval. Schroeder said he would like to see
grass installed in the area where Navarre Lane is vacated.
• Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval with the understanding
that the setback variance would be 30' for the car wash and a 7' variance for parking with
structural coverage excess approval of 5.2 %. Approval by Council would be needed for
allowance of a third fuel station on the intersection with buffering on the north side if
remaining residential. Verification of the distance to the wetland is required. A
verification letter regarding issues raised by Gustafson and addressed by Cook is required.
Navarre Lane vacation would be approved for vacation with requirement of green planting
areas being installed. The extent of the vacation and legal description of the church
property is required to complete the vacation. A retention pond would be required as
established by the City for the vacation with the proper easements obtained from the
church.
Hawn said she would be in support of the plan but not for the 30' setback for the car wash.
Smith said she was not in favor of the plan, especially in view of the car wash and new
construction of a very intensive project requiring variances along with the safety factors.
Smith said there was a possibility of a combination without the car wash.
0
�J
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
Jim Grabek voiced his dissension of the motion saying it was a bad mistake and a forcing
of a neighbor, who has been there for 9 years, not to invest in the neighborhood. Grabek
said the corner would not be developed with the turning down of the application. He said
the Commission was letting the community down just because they do not want a car
wash on the location. He asked if the Planning Commission has looked at why the car
wash is needed from a financial standpoint. Schroeder answered that it was not part of the
process to look specifically at the financial details of the car wash, nor did he believe it
would be divulged. Schroeder said whether a car wash was needed or not was not clear
to him noting granting of variances for new construction is not easily done. Grabek
continued by asking the amount of the project. After being informed by the applicant of
the cost of the project at $2.3 million, he opined it would be a disservice to the citizens of
Orono to deny the application.
Thompson noted that the car wash would be screened from the residential area.
Schroeder said that was not the point as there would be no development in that particular
area. Thompson said he thought the car wash was being denied due to the 5' setback.
Smith reiterated that the application involved granting of variances for new construction.
Understanding that the project was intensive, Smith said she was not opposed to the
conditional uses and structural coverage but opposed to the variances for structures and
parking, which Smith said should remain within the limits of the code in new construction.
Smith said she understood it was a good operation and an improvement to the area,
adding a car wash may be possible, but asked that it be done without requiring any
variances.
Hawn said she agrees with the comments by Smith and is concerned with the traffic plan
for the site. Hawn said she has not been satisfied with what she has been told, noting
there are too many entry directions and uses on the plan and can see an accident
occurring. Schroeder commented that this was a different issue from setbacks. Hawn
agreed but saw the denial of the variance as the only way to reduce the intensiveness of
the site.
Grabek asked if the Engineer has appraised the traffic pattern and safety. Mabusth said
the Engineer has major concerns and wants to discuss the concerns with the applicant and
Hennepin County. She said she has received no confirmation from Cook regarding the
resolutions of the concerns and noted a recent letter from Hennepin County expressing
their concern with the cross traffic activities at the intersections.
Grabek asked Hawn what she based her opinion on regarding the lack of safety. Hawn
answered that she uses her judgment of common sense but would be willing to listen to
what the applicant had to say.
7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued)
Schroeder read a letter from Dave Zetterstrom, who is the Entrance Permit Coordinator
for Hennepin County Public Works Department. The letter noted problems with ingress
and egress with the car wash, runoff from the site, the right of way, easements, the
extension of traffic lanes, and the need for a right turn lane.
Thompson said the same points were brought up by Cook. He said the runoff will be
contained and easements will be required for a right turn lane and for a sidewalk.
Thompson said they were not asking to bypass the issues and noted the many hoops yet to
go through to forward the project. He asked that the Planning Commission not
circumvent the concerns but make them conditions of an approval. He asked, if the safety
concerns could be satisfied, if the Planning Commission could move forward. Schroeder
agreed it could proceed that way but the Planning Commission recommendation was the
first step in the process.
Coen said Cook told him he could tell the Planning Commission that he supported the
project. Schroeder said the Commission does not operate on verbal agreement but would
require a written confirmation. The applicant asked that it be made a condition of the
approval.
• Hawn said, with the County also addressing concerns with egress and ingress and the
appeal to the site from families, she asked if the traffic flow could be redirected or a
barrier used. Hawn said she saw room for persuasion but is not satisfied at this point.
Schroeder asked if the car wash could not be moved, along with the other buildings,
toward the church property to alleviate the need for the variance. O'Sullivan said it had
been considered but would not work. The applicant noted that the entrance to the
restaurant on the car wash side was required by codes and for other reasons. Thompson
suggested a railing barrier be placed down the sidewalk area to force the restaurant
patrons away from the car wash and drive in window traffic flow.
Hawn noted the plan resulted in patrons crossing over the parking area, over the drive in
window area, and then over the car wash traffic area, and asked if there were any other
alternatives. O'Sullivan said he did not know of any other alternatives. He believes that
the traffic would be slowed down by the intentional forcing of traffic in different
directions. Hawn suggested moving a door.
Schroeder summed up the motion and noted that the application could be tabled if the
applicant preferred. He noted if the motion was denied, the application would go forward
to the Council. O'Sullivan asked that the application continue and noted his approval of
conditions placed on the motion if need be.
is
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan -Continued)
Hawn said she would need to hear from Hennepin County and be satisfied with the
resolution of their concerns.
Mabusth noted that the City Engineer's comments have not yet been received and asked if
the Planning Commission could act on this application without his comments.
Mayor Callahan reminded the Commission of the 60 -day rule for action. Mabusth noted
that the applicant would need to agree to tabling of application in writing.
O'Sullivan said he was surprised that it has taken so long for Hennepin County to respond
but asked that the application not be tabled but be continued with conditions placed on the
approval. He said he had assumed that Cook would have submitted a follow up on their
meeting.
Hawn said she could not make a recommendation without addressment of the issues.
Smith was informed that no County representative was present at the meeting the
applicant had with Cook. Zetterstrom was said to have been in attendance at an earlier
meeting in November with City Staff where normal concerns were voiced. The concerns
. were similar to those voiced with his application 9 years ago for the other station
according to O'Sullivan. He cited examples of issues from the last application along with
the end results and asked for reconsideration of the vote. Hawn said she would need to be
•
satisified with the concerns.
Thompson opined that it would not be fair to have a negative vote because some details
were not worked out. O'Sullivan said he would work with the City to address all the
issues on the final plan. He said it was Cook's opinion that there would be improved
safety at the intersection, the internal flow presented no problem, and a directional flow
arch could possibly be used for the car wash.
Vote: Ayes 2, Schroeder, Lindquist; Nays 2, Hawn, Smith. Motion denied.
Schroeder said the safety concerns would need to be satisified if the application came back
before the Planning Commission. He noted that the discussion on the application would
be in the minutes of the meeting and passed on to the Council for their review.
W,
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
( #2) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 3 -
ENCLOSED ICE ARENA AS A CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUATION OF
PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 16, 1996 -10:26 P.M. -12:10 A.M.
Schroeder reported that the proposed zoning amendment being debated was that of
Section 10.20, Subd. 3A of the Zoning Code involving conditional uses in the one family
residential zoning district. He read the amendment as currently written, noting the
importance placed on access to a highway and the installation of sewer. The proposed
amendment was read which relates to Subd. 3, under the heading of A. Schools. The Uses
Accessory to a High School, Indoor Sports Facilities, and specifics related to such
facilities are all added to the current code, which presently does not address any accessory
uses to schools. The Planning Commission is discussing whether the proposed
amendment should be added to the current ordinance.
Mabusth noted that a neighborhood information meeting was held by the Orono Hockey
Boosters Association, that involved the site plan for the Orono ice arena. Mabusth
attended that meeting. The zoning amendment would be required before any such facility
could be built and operated by a non -profit group.
Lindquist asked for comments from that information meeting. Mark Engebretson, who
represents the Orono Hockey Boosters Association, described the meeting's agenda. The
• neighbors were informed of where the project was at in terms of design and finances.
Engebretson said the association has begun to understood the neighbor's concerns as a
result of the meeting, which was set up to maintain an open communication. The meeting
was set to start the process of communication and not to necessarily provide answers.
Engebretson summarized the issues brought forward by the neighbors through a letter to
them, notifying them of this public hearing. Staff did not have a copy of that summary.
Engebretson said he expects to make a formal application to the City in March, 1996, and
then conduct another neighborhood meeting with results of the application process thus
far.
•
The Commission asked what the concerns were of the neighbors.
10
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Roger Zee, whose home is the second lot to the west from the proposed arena site, is
concerned with the 50' setback requirement for the school. Zee noted the arena was not a
school entity. Schroeder said the ice arena was the driving issue behind the amendment
but noted the other accessory uses also being considered, tennis facilities, field houses, and
gymnasiums. Zee asked what the code now says. Schroeder reiterated that these
accessory uses were not presently listed, but if proposed, the school would fall under the
conditional use permit for school use. Mabusth then reviewed the code as it now stands.
It was noted that there is presently a setback requirement of 50' for any building adjacent
to the residential district for school use. The code did not distinguish between access or
principal school uses. The amendment as proposed was noted relating the facilities under
consideration, as well as where such a facility could be located, the setback from any
residential lot, and by whom it shall be owned and/or operated by, namely the school or a
non -profit organization under a land lease arrangement with the school.
Zee remarked that the ice arena under consideration would not meet the acreage
requirements for such a building nor does it meet the height requirement. Mabusth said
any building would be subject to height restrictions listed in the residential code.
Zee questioned why another category was being added to the code to allow this usage.
• Schroeder said the City was contemplating expanding the code for such a facility on the
school land because of the non - profit group involvement.
Smith asked and received confirmation that if such a building or use was approved, the
facility would need to meet existing code. Smith then questioned why the setbacks would
be required in the amendment if it already exists in the code. She was informed it was
because the arena would be a new accessory use to what is presently. Smith then
questioned why a facility should be a certain number of feet away from the residential
district and whether the height restriction for the school should be used for such an
accessory use. Mabusth noted that this is what is being asked in the code amendment: Is
a 50' setback adequate for an ice arena? The height restriction is already addressed in the
code.
0
Schroeder said performance standards could be set, or those standards already in place
could be satisfactory.
11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #2 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Zee asked why there would be a need to add more rules when there is an ordinance
currently in effect. Schroeder again clarified that the code does not allow such a building
to be built and operated by non -profit groups. If the school would like to build an ice
arena, a field, etc., they now need to come before the Planning Commission with a CUP
under school conditional use permit. Schroeder and Mabusth said if the school would like
to build a baseball field, this would require a conditional use permit. Mabusth said a
conditional use permit would need to be granted for another school, a field, an athletic
structure, etc.
Smith said she would like to know the neighbors viewpoint on the issue, whether they
were supportive of such uses or not, and if so, what performance standards they would
like to see for such buildings.
Zee said the neighbors were concerned with such issues as parking, lighting, and noise.
Mabusth said these concerns are all addressed when an application comes before the City
for a conditional use permit. Zee said he could not understand creating a code amendment
for one specific building. Schroeder said that was not quite accurate. Mabusth said the
amendment was to allow the school to be able to ask for such facilities and other non-
profit groups as long as special standards were created. Zee asked if the school was
• requesting such a building. Mabusth informed him they were not but were supportive of
the idea. It was again reitereated that the amendment was to allow for other uses that may
be operated or built by a non - profit agency.
Zee asked why no representative was present for the schools if they had such an interest.
The Community Education Director as well as Athletic Director for the schools were
present and voiced the support of the school district and superintendent, who asked to be
informed of the night's proceedings.
Melanie DeLuca, Orono Community Education Director, said she saw the school campus
as being a regional campus for the area serving many people, and the arena would add
many new dimensions with girls hockey, community needs, summer programs, and
expanding for future opportunities. She felt the arena would be a natural addition to the
school campus.
Schroeder asked how the school could accomplish getting a facility without needing to
pay for it. Mark Engebretson said he has spoken with Superintendent Mich and Assistant
Superintendent Lawson, who will be making recommendations at the next board meeting
for financial support. The contribution amount has now been isolated and will be made
public soon. Schroeder received confirmation that school support was necessary.
Engebretson noted the uniqueness of being able to place an arena next to a school for the
use of the students. He noted that the school is all for it and thus made the land available.
•
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Jim Grabek said he appreciated the association keeping the neighbors abreast of the
information regarding the arena. Grabek then brought attention to a Staff memo dated
1/11/96 from Mabusth which notes phase I of the amendment revising the code to allow
the ice arena use. Grabek notes that Mabusth said if the amendment was not done, she
advised the code would not allow the arena use as proposed under the current code. He
voiced concern with the City wanting the project done and not considering the philosophy
behind amending the code. Grabek felt that before any vote was made to amend the code,
it should be determined how the philosophy would influence the citizens and the school.
He also noted that, although the Orono Boosters was a fine organization, it was unknown
what the condition of the organization would be in two years and under whose
responsibility the ice arena would fall, noting the significant financial contribution and the
need to know the financial status of the association. He also felt the review of the
Engineer should also be heard first before any amendment was made.
Schroeder said some of the points brought up by Grabek have been previously discussed.
He noted that the amendment was being considered at this time and the specifics of the
application would be reviewed at a later date under the required conditional use review.
Grabek opined that the specifics were pertinent to the code amendment. It was Grabek's
opinion that the Commission was placing the "cart before the horse" and the amendment
• was only being considered because of the specific application. Grabek noted that the
specific proposal was not a state or taxpayer funded accessory use. Schroeder said the
intricacies of the lease were presently not for debate. Grabek asked the Commission to
think about amending the code for a non - taxpayer based organizational use. Grabek did
note that the organization was open to discussing the issues. He added that he was not
necessarily against the proposal but could not see any amendment to the code before the
issues were debated. He asked that any conceptual support be carefully considered.
Lindquist clarified that Grabek did not believe a vote should be taken on the amendment
without further philosophical debate regarding the accessory use or the facility being
owned or operated by a non -profit group. Grabek said he felt the specific use should be
run by the school only and the issue sufficiently debated to determine that the taxpayers
would not find themselves owning a facility.
Melanie said that conceptually the best interest of the school would be to allow the use on
the school property and understood the details would be debated at a later time.
Grabek said if the discussion was about conceptual approval of the building by the school,
the Planning Commission should make the same commitment to regulations of the
frontage on Hwy 6 as it has to that on Hwy 12 This was a specific concern of his.
Schroeder agreed that the building would be one of the largest in Orono, and this would
• be the first attempt to lay out performance standards.
13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Mark Engebretson said his perspective on the process is different. He feels the agreement
set up with the school district would determine the success of the project operation and
sees the conditional use permit as a separate issue. Engebretson said he hopes that there is
not the perception that the association is getting ahead of itself.
Grabek said he saw each step as getting one step further to an agreement with
concessions. He said he sees nothing wrong with discussing the concept and looking at
the regulations before amending the code. Grabek does not believe the first step should be
taken without seeing the entire picture.
Schroeder said he was not suggesting an approval but was looking at it as a step in the
process, adding that was why he was asking what the specific concerns were for the
project. Grabek listed several concerns voiced by the neighbors, such as lighting, building
facade, noise, hours of operation, and air filters. He commented that the neighbors were
willing to be open about the issues. Schroeder noted that a sketch plan review and the
information meeting have been held so far in the process.
Mabusth remarked on a comment made by Grabek at the neighborhood meeting. Grabek
had said that the City should review the lease agreement with the school district, and
• specifically asked who would be responsible if the association should default.
Engebretson agreed that the school would retain ownership, if such default should occur,
and would be part of the lease agreement with the landlord. Mabusth said there was a
question about the accessory use to the school if the land was sold to the non - profit
organization but noted that the school in this case would retain ownership of the land.
Schroeder noted that the ownership of the land could only be under the school. Mabusth
said the reason for the code amendment is that the school is not building or operating the
facility. She noted that early in the process the City Attorney said the code would have to
be amended to allow a non -profit group to erect the ice arena on school property.
Mabusth then asked for specifics on either additions or amendment to the suggested code
amendment.
•
Lindquist asked if any other use should be included under the school heading. It was
determined by the Commission that only the ice arena should be included under the
subheading of accessory uses to the high school.
Schroeder said he would like to know what did occur at the neighbor meeting before any
further discussion of the amendment.
Engebretson said the project addresses other issues than just the hockey issue noting the
use by the girls teams.
14
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Rick Keemon, a board member of the Orono Baseball Association, said he sees the facility
as a community and multiple use facility and as a community issue. He noted the need for
gymnasium space for spring practice and other community activities. Schroeder said he
understood this but said the debate was over land use, the specifics of which will take care
of the facility and the neighbors' perspective.
Zee again questioned the acreage needed to build such a facility and whether the parcel
was treated as one or separate lots. Mabusth said the 4+ acres must be legally combined
with the school property and that the residential code only requires 2 acres for a permitted
or conditional use.
Grabek commented that the arena was a large building placed in a large acreage with alot
of setbacks from the roadway and open space. He saw the approach as being different
than that of a school. Grabek said he is concerned with the aesthetics from Hwy 6 noting
it would appear to be more commercialized than what is expected in a residential zone or
school area. He felt these issues should be answered before proceeding ahead with any
amendment or variances.
Zee said the neighborhood meeting was successful. He said the issues discussed were
• hours of operation, the wetlands, noise, parking, road improvements. He noted the
concern over finances, and if any such problems arose, questioned whether the facility
would be used in the middle of the night.
Lindquist asked if any issues were resolved to the neighbors' satisfaction. Vee said a
sketch plan was viewed but nothing was resolved. Lindquist said the Commission was
looking for a win -win situation. Vee said there were a broad number of questions and
hurdles to go through before any resolutions could be made.
Lindquist asked when the Hockey Boosters expect to have answers or resolutions to the
issues that have been voiced. Engebretson said the agenda for the neighborhood meeting
was only a start in the process. The plan is to submit a complete application in March
with another meeting with the neighbors early in March to address their concerns.
Engebretson noted the association needs the neighbors' approval for the project to be
successful. Lindquist said he would have to be satisfied that the issues brought forward by
the neighbors were resolved before he could recommend any approval. Engebretson said
he agreed noting they were working on those concerns. Lindquist said he was not
comfortable voting on the issue until the issues were resolved. Engebretson noted the
need to respond to a time frame. The fund raising was based on being able to provide
information to those willing to contribute their support. Lindquist responded that he
understood that concern but was responsible for looking at all of the issues. Mabusth
advised many of the specific concerns raised by neighbors are more typically addressed in
• the conditional use permit review.
15
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
is
( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Smith asked if the Commission could agree to the use with performance standards set at a
later time for this particular use or for the school itself. She questioned whether both need
to be done at this time. Lindquist said he did not conceptually disagree with that
suggestion. Engebretson agreed that the association saw the amendment to the code and
the review of the plan and approval as separate issues.
Schroeder said the Commission is unable to accommodate the timing necessary for the
hockey association but added that the Commission would try to be responsive. He noted
the need for a full discussion of the project itself but felt the issue should probably be
tabled at this time. Schroeder said he would like to see a work session scheduled with the
school, the boosters, and the neighbors to discuss a conditional use permit for a hockey
arena with a non -profit organization.
Mabusth asked about the amendment itself and what performance standards are needed in
the code amendment before adding specifics in the conditional use permit itself.
Schroeder said he was not sure where the optimal placement of such an arena should be.
Lindquist said he needs to know what the school officially would like to see be done.
Schroeder agreed.
e Hawn asked if there was agreement on any of the pieces laid before the Commission
regarding the amendment itself. She asked if they agreed in principal on including the ice
arena, tennis facility, field, house and gymnasium as Indoor Sports Facilities, noting that
the conditional use permit would take care of the specifics. She asked whether the
Commissioners approved conceptually of an ice arena in the same parcel as the school.
Hawn noted that in the future there may be the need to find additional non - contiguous
land for such facilities and would the Commission want to be that restrictive in the
placement.
Grabek interjected at this point that he saw Smith as being inconsistent as she was not
requiring seeing specific details on this issue but did so on another application. He then
informed Hawn that it was a waste of taxpayers money to approve such an amendment
when the school has not asked for such a change. Hawn said she felt the school would
come before the Commission if asked to do so. Schroeder said it was a procedural matter.
Mayor Callahan reminded the Commission that it was the Council who requested the
Planning Commission to review the proposed amendment. He asked that the Commission
decide if an arena was feasible as an accessory use and if it should be on the school
property only. At that point, Callahan said the Commission could decide on specific
performance standards. He added that the particular building does not answer the
fundamental question of a facility as an accessory use. He noted the Council's interest in
the philosophical need of such facilities as a civic concern.
e
16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued)
Hawn suggested IA be recommended. Smith said the subheadings, a,b,c, could be
performance standards set at another time. Schroeder said he was not in favor of la
regarding the location.
Engebretson questioned a.3) regarding the non -profit organization. Schroeder questioned
how broad that statement could be as a practical matter. Hawn said the land lease
arrangements could be protected with specific performance standards. Schroeder noted
that the performance standards and the land lease arrangements were two separate issues.
Engebretson thought the land lease arrangement could be combined with the conditional
use permit. Mabusth said this issue goes back to advice from the City Attorney that the
use cannot be allowed without amending the ordinance upfront. She continued that the
use is not the problem but the ownership and who will operate it.
A woman in the audience commented that she understood Orono to stand for open land
and suggested an open ice rink. Mabusth said the issue of the arena has been before the
City for quite some time and the V.A. made prospective buyers of the neighboring
property, such as this homeowner, aware that the land was being considered for an ice
arena. Schroeder noted that the City stands for many things, open space, quality of life,
education, recreation, etc.
• Smith asked this neighbor if some sort of arena would meet her approval, but again voiced
� pp g
her suggestion for an open ice rink. Vee added that there was other land available than
this particular corner and could not see placing a large building on a small parcel of land.
Schroeder noted that the proposal was regarding amending the ordinance for an arena as
an accessory use to a high school and other issues will be addressed at a later date.
•
Hawn suggested that the indoor sports facility not be confined only to an ice arena to
eliminate such discussions at a later point. Schroeder said he believed such discussions
were important.
Engebretson asked the Commission to contemplate the ownership of the facilities under
the amendment. Schroeder said a later work session could discuss this issue and may
result in a future amendment to the proposal under discussion. Smith questioned whether
a.3 was required to be in the code. Mabusth asked how else a non -profit organization
could be distinguished from a school as it cannot come under the school umbrella.
Schroeder said a work session could contain the discussion of how the school views the
non -profit land lease arrangements. It was noted that all work sessions are public
meetings. Engebretson asked if the land lease agreement could be made as a standard
under the school use for a specific project. Schroeder said he would not be in favor of
that.
17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
is Amendment ( #2 Proposed Zoning - Continued)
Schroeder moved to recommend approval of Zoning Amendment Section 10.20,
Subdivision 3, to include A. Schools. 1.) Uses Accessory to a High School of A. Indoor
Ice Arena.
Mabusth noted that the Council has asked the Commission if the code should be amended
and if the use was appropriate. Where the location could be for the ice arena has already
been determined as Mabusth noted the area on CoRd 6 was denied by the school and
Council due to safety concerns. The school and Council agreed that the only appropriate
space was on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Hawn asked if the language needed
to be so specific, and the Commissioners determined that the language of a.1) could be
amended to state that "all such facilities should be located on land owned by the school."
a.2) was eliminated as the Commission would like to have greater flexibility with setbacks
as part of specific performance standards.
With a.2) eliminated, a.3) became a.2) and after discussion of the need for such a
statement as advised by the Attorney, was amended to state, "all such facilities shall be
owned and operated by the school, or by a non -profit organization under a land lease
arrangement with the school which shall be acceptable and approved by the City."
• Schroeder said he would require another meeting before he could agree to what is now
considered a.2)
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the amended amendment as
follows:
Section 10.20 One Family Residential District
Subd 3 Conditional Uses
A. Schools
) Uses Accessory to a High School
A. Ice Arenas
a.1) All such facilities shall be located on
land owned by the school.
a.2) All such facilities shall be owned and
operated by the school, or by a non - profit
organization under a land lease arrangement
with the school which shall be acceptable and
approved by the City.
Vote: Ayes 3, Hawn, Smith, Lindquist; Nays 1, Schroeder. Motion passed.
• It was agreed that a work session would be scheduled in the near future.
18
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•
ACTION ITEMS
( #3) #2105 JON AND SALLY MITCHELL LEBEDOFF, 1101 WEST FERNDALE
ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:01 -7 :06 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicants were represented by Attorney, Robert Mitchell.
Mabusth reported that the application was for a renewal variance seeking approval of
multiple variances to allow construction of a new residence and removal of the existing
residence, which is located closer to the lake than the new residence will be. The property
is sewered. The new smaller footprint is 38'x60' for a 2 -story structure to be located 1'
from the west side lot line, 11.7' from the east side lot line, 43' from the street where a 50'
setback is required, and proposed at 20' from the lakeshore of the main lake. During the
1994 review, it was questioned as to whether the DNR would approve the 20' lakeshore
setback. A letter is included in the packet noting the approval by the DNR of the 20'
setback from the main lake. The home is currently located 75' from the lagoon, and the
new construction is also proposed 75' from the lagoon meeting the required setback. A
structural coverage variance is required, but there will be a 168 s.f reduction in structural
coverage. There will also be a hardcover reduction with the new construction.
Mabusth noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the prior
application, and the Council had approved it. This application is a renewal with no
changes.
Attorney Mitchell said the applicants' house had not sold, and applicants had decided to
delay construction of a new house.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve the renewal variance application with
conditions as noted by Staff. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#4) #2106 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD, 2605 KELLY AVENUE -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:06 -7:11 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The Applicants were present.
•
19
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•(#4 - #2106 William and Laura Stoddard - Continued)
Mabusth reminded the Commission of the approved application in 1994 for a guest house
use. The structure, at that time, did not have a bath or kitchen and has now been
converted and refurbished. A fire, which begun in the refrigerator, destroyed a wall of the
guesthouse. The application is to replace the existing wall, which is located 3. P from the
side lot line, requiring a variance. Before reconstruction can begin, approval is needed.
There will be no changes in the building envelope.
Stoddard said the fire occurred two weeks after the guest house refurbishing was
completed, while they were away. He noted that the rule requiring a gypsum wall to
protect a house from a fire beginning in the garage working in reverse as the fire occurred
in the kitchen and protected the garage area. Stoddard said the structure has been on the
property for over 3 5 years.
Schroeder inquired how the fire started. Stoddard said the fire personnel and investigator
could find no reason for its occurrence. It started in the refrigerator, not in the wiring, and
there is nothing left of the refrigerator other than sheet metal.
There were no public comments.
• Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of the side setback variance to
allow the reconstruction of the portion of an exterior wall of the guest house. Vote Ayes
4, Nays 0. The application was noted to be on the agenda for the upcoming Council
meeting.
is
( #5) #2109 TODD SMITH, 1380 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC
HEARING 7:11 -7:22 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the application was for side, rear, and structural coverage variances
to construct a 3- season, 10'x14' porch. A survey was done in 1982 in preparation for an
earlier variance application for a 10'x30' addition for a bedroom/living room. There was
concern at that time because the property was not sewered. The property is now sewered.
The porch, however, was not shown on the survey in 1982 and has since been constructed
over the paved patio. 6 -1/2' portion is covered by roof extension and the remaining 3 -1/2'
by plastic panels. Mabusth reviewed the elevation showing the principal structure addition
noting that the expansion will not go beyond the existing envelope or existing paved
10'x 14' area.
20
C�
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #5 - #2109 Todd Smith - Continued)
Hawn said she had no problem with the application but questioned the access to the rear
of the property. She requested that no more hardcover be laid to establish any pathway.
Mabusth asked the applicant how the well would be accessed. Applicant said he would
take the lilac bushes down.
Schroeder asked how the applicant would access the rear. The applicant said he would
shovel to the back door and would walk on the grassed area to access the rear.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth noted a letter from neighbors, Gregory and Julianne Peterson, which Schroeder
read as part of the public record, who voiced their support of the project.
Smith brought attention to the structural coverage and its excess amount over the
allowable. Smith said she would prefer that the corner of the addition be taken off so it
would not extend past the line of the adjacent two houses. Smith also said that if the
application was approved, she would request that a recommendation of no structural
improvements be noted in the resolution. Schroeder commented that the application
• called for no additional increase. Mabusth and Smith commented that the addition would
be of a more permanent nature. Schroeder asked if sewering was a factor to consider,
which Smith agreed did help.
•
Hawn said the fact that the property was adjacent to a park made the application more
appealing.
Smith noted that a fence separated the property from another garage which would,
otherwise, almost appear to be on the same property. Smith asked the applicant about
lumber laying on the property. The applicant said it was part of the front siding being
installed.
Schroeder said the improvements were nice but did note the small lot with a large amount
of structural coverage.
Lindquist said he concurs with Smith on the request that no additional structure be
allowed. Smith said future owners need to be aware of this request.
21
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( 95 - 92109 Todd Smith - Continued)
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of side and rear variances for a
3- season porch with the provision that the applicant understands that no future structural
coverage would be approved without a matching removal to maintain the level of
coverage as it now stands. Schroeder noted that this would not bind a future commission.
Mabusth said the request would be passed on to the Council. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
( #6 - #2114 JOAN DAYTON, 2465 FRENCH LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HEARING 7:22 -7:38 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bob Dayton was present.
Mabusth reported that the property in question consists of Lots 1, 2, 3 of the Johnson
French Lake 2nd Addition, lakeshore lots adjacent to French Lake South Basin. A
redefinition of the North Basin of French Lake reclassified the area to the north as
wetlands in 1992. Now, instead of a 150' setback from an environmental lake, a 26'
setback is required from the wetlands. This results in an improvement to the building
envelope for Lot 1 and has opened up the 75 -250' zone for Lot 2. Mabusth noted that a
• 1980's application granted a permit for a deck. Up to 1992, the 75' setback was required
for new construction. 40 s.f of the deck and 37 s.f of the structure encroaches into the 0-
75' setback zone. Now the entire house is located in the 75 -150' zone. The shoreland
regulations now require a 150' setback from the OHWL at 93 L. This results in the entire
home being non- conforming and the need for a variance application for any additions to
the home. From the 75 -150' setback, there is no structural improvement allowed but a
grade level patio or landscaped area underlaen with plastic, etc., would be allowed. Non-
structural hardcover is now deemed allowable, though not structural, and non - structural
hardcover can be considered conforming.
is
The applicant seeks a hardcover variance in the 75 -250' zone and lakeshore setback
variance for both of the planned additions. The dining room is 88' from the natural
environmental lake. The 3- season porch is 86' from the lake. In reviewing the hardcover
facts as lots are not combined, there is an excess in the 75 -250' zone within just Lot 2.
The 75 -250' area of this lot exceeds the allowed hardcover by 4.1% at 29.1 %. Mabusth
said the applicant should be given the opportunity to consider all options before legally
combining properties. The applicant was to be asked how he wished to handle this matter
of hardcover excess on Lot 2.
22
u
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #6 - #2110 Joan Dayton - Continued)
Lindquist asked Dayton if he would consider combining the three lots. Dayton said he
was willing to do so in order not to create the hardcover calculation as an issue. He
would combine enough of the property in order to meet the hardcover requirement noting
his lack of intention in adding any more hardcover. Mabusth informed the applicant that
he should analyze the facts and have the property reviewed by his surveyor as he may not
wish to combine the lots noting the possible need to only combine two of the lots.
Schroeder emphasized the need to look at what is occurring in Lot 2. Dayton said he
would do what is necessary to expedite the application. Schroeder said any action could
be made as part of the recommendation by the Commission. Dayton said he had no plans
to do anything in Lot 1 and this area where the detached garage is located could be added
to Lot 2. Mabusth said a lot line rearrangement or a combination of two lots could be
done. Mabusth confirmed that either a legal combination with lot 3 or a lot rearrangement
would solve the encroachment of the garage.
Schroeder said it was a matter of clarification asking what the code says about non-
structural versus structural. Mabusth said the only time structural coverage comes into
play is when you are dealing with a property less than 1.99 acres in size. This applies in all
zoning districts. Schroeder inquired about an earlier comment regarding structural and
non - structural coverage in the 75' -250' setback. Mabusth said there are certain non-
structural improvements that are allowed when dealing with a natural environmental lake,
such as a grade level patio or landscape rock with underlayment as long as there is no
excess hardcover in the 75 -250'. Schroeder noted that the improvements were modest,
especially in light of a possible legal combination with Lot 1. Hawn said the impact was
minimal as there was already hardcover underneath where the more permanent hardcover
would be placed.
There were no public comments.
Hawn inquired if the applicant would obtain an after - the -fact permit for the garage if the
lot line rearrangement was done. Dayton said he had asked the builder if he had obtained
a permit and added that he was willing to apply for an after- the -fact permit if need be.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application 92110 with the
understanding that a legal combination of Lots 1 and 2 be done and a lot line
rearrangement between Lots 2 and 3 in order to solve the encroachment issue. This is to
be resolved prior to the application going before the Council at their meeting of March 11.
An after - the -fact permit must also be obtained for the detached structure. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #7) #2111 T.J. BIEKER, 2440 OLD BEACH ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:38 -7:48 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Mabusth passed out a letter to the Commission, which was read by Schroeder, from the
MCWD, who saw no issue with the application noting no permit was required from them.
Mabusth reported that the application was for a permanent, T- shaped dock to be located
30' from the north lot line and 93' from the south lot line. The LMCD has received the
application which is being considered for approval. The DNR approval is also required
due to the T -shape of the dock rather than a linear permanent dock. Mabusth noted that
the width of the dock has been changed from 6' to 4. The amended plan also notes
concerns by Shawn Gustafson, the City Engineer, regarding the depth of the pilings and
center support. Gustafson said two 6" stringers could be used instead of five 6 ". Bieker
said the plan would be for five 6" stringers. Bieker said Gustafson was not aware that
stringers were made to that strength.
Mabusth noted an earlier dredging by the West Shore Lafayette Bay Association of a 50'
• wide channel. The spoils at that time were brought to the Freshwater Institute. A
neighbor brought concerns to Mabusth regarding the layout of the dock which went
beyond a 30' setback into the channel area. The channel was dug 30' from the shoreline at
a 50' width. Bieker said the original layout was for a 39' length as he was unaware of the
channel. The plan was then amended to a 24' length.
0
Mabusth said the work needs to be performed while the lake is frozen; therefore, the
application will go before the Council at their February 26 meeting.
Schroeder inquired if a permit was required from the DNR. It was noted that the
application process had been started.
Schroeder asked for public comments.
A lakeshore association member said he was satisfied with the 24' length asking that it not
extend beyond 30'. Mabusth informed the association that the City had no responsibility in
setting this limit but it was up to the private parties to enforce. This person asked if Mr.
Bieker could go beyond the 24' length if he chose. Schroeder said the length of the dock
would be voted upon by the Commission. Bieker said he did not wish to go against the
wishes of the association.
24
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #7 - #2111 T.J. Bieker - Continued)
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application 92111 for the
construction of a permanent 24' long dock as specified in the application. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS
(#8) #2108 NORBERT JOHNSON, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL -
SUBDIVISION /SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
This review is a sketch plan for a proposed 5 -lot subdivision and is for input only. It was
noted that no vote will be taken for any action at this time.
Mr. Johnson, the applicant, was present.
Mabusth reported that the proposed 5 -lot subdivision is on 7 acres bounded by Wildhurst
Trail and unimproved Garden Lane. Mabusth reported on the history and background of
the area in which this property is located. The Saga Hill Preservation Society, of whom
many were in attendance, were interested in gaining tax forfeit land for a park as well as
land currently owned by the Midwest Bank. The Saga Hill Society group are working
is with the City and the Park Commission regarding this endeavor. The Society is interested
in what happens on the property in question, currently owned by Arnold Soskin, who was
said to not reside in the area.
Mabusth noted that the property is within the MUSA with the nearest sewer located on
Tonkaview and Wildhurst. The plan is to gain both access and sewer from Wildhurst.
The proposal is for Lots 1 -5 and with a platted road with a culdesac. A 20' easement
corridor would provide access and sewer to Lot 3. The code requires a 30' outlot for
back lots, which would run along the shared lot line between Lots 2 and 4.
The Engineer's report gives various options for access and sewer in the Tonkaview plat.
The Engineer has suggested vacating Garden Lane and bring access in another way with a
major road to Wildhurst as well as sewer.
A second option by the Engineer would be to construct a private road with a future
extension outlot connecting with Garden Lane, which would stay private. A 30' outlot
would also be required for back lot. Mabusth said there is adequate area for a back lot.
The zoning only asks for I acre and the property has adequate area to meet the 150% area
standard. All lots meet the code for area.
Option 3 includes an outlot with an extension, but instead of creating a backlot, Lot 3
• would be realigned so it does not go through the ravine area. Driveway access would be
proposed in unimproved Garden Lane..
25
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #8 - #2108 Norbert Johnson - Continued)
Schroeder asked what was the purpose of Garden Lane. Mabusth said it was platted but
currently serves no property. Mabusth said 4 undeveloped parcels within the surrounding
Tonkaview plat need access and sewer and noted the opportunity at this time to gain an
easement for the sewer.
Mabusth outlined the drainageway for the area. There is one major drainageway which
drains to the northeast and one along the shared lot line at the south to Wildhurst. During
the review of an earlier subdivision, Mabusth said the Engineer asked for a 50 -75' wide
drainage easement over the ravine. Schroeder asked if this would still result in a buildable
lot. Mabusth said as long as there is at least 1/2 acre contiguous land in Lot 3, it is
considered buildable. If a backlot is created, the access cannot cross the ravine area
according to the flood plain ordinance.
Schroeder asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Johnson said his interest was
strictly limited to the parcel under consideration only. It is his plan to sell the lots, build
homes, and also live there. It was noted that he is not a professional developer.
Mabusth brought attention to the bluff area noting the need for a surveyor to define the
bluff area in the grading plan. Johnson said he understood the bluff issue.
• Durin g P ublic comments Gary Welsh 1214 Wildhurst inquired about the proposed
access road off Wildhurst, which would be located close to his property, and questioned
the straight uphill look of the road. Mabusth said Staff was out on site and found no
problems with sight lines for curb cuts. Welsh asked if Staff has reported to the applicant
on the stormwater runoff problems. Mabusth said Exhibit F addressed the stormwater
issue, questioning whether the project would intensify the storage of runoff for the site or
if an off -site improvement would be necessary. Welsh asked if the developer received
input from the Staff on the preliminary sketch. Mabusth reported that a stormwater
retention area is needed for the project, and the developer is responsible for providing
retention. She noted that the runoff cannot leave the site at a greater rate than at its
undeveloped rate. Welsh asked if Staff has studied the impact of the runoff since the
application has been made. Mabusth said it has not yet been done for the sketch plan but
will be as part of the formal application process and noted awareness of the problems.
Schroeder added that the property is steep and noted the need to understand the issue and
consider the stormwater management.
Sandy Rasmussen, Wildhurst Trail, asked if the proposed road was not wider than
necessary at 66' with a 120' diameter culdesac. Mabusth said the code calls for a 50' wide
road with a 100' diameter noting the plan would be amended. Rasmussen asked if it
would be the intention to minimize the road size. Mabusth said the road size would be an
. issue for discussion as well as storm sewers for the road.
26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
•( #$ - 92108 Norbert Johnson - Continued)
Norbert Johnson said it was his plan to have a curved road, not a straight forward road
design. He said he did not make note of the width but thought it would be designed at the
minimum width. He said the first time that he became aware that the road was designed
larger than necessary was when he spoke with a neighbor of the property, John Culliton.
He said he is willing to look at a different configuration to aid in controlling the runoff.
Mabusth said the topography of the land will be a limiting factor.
Rasmussen reitereated the comment made by Welsh on the concern of runoff. She noted
challenges with runoff and noted the need for a maximum confidence that there be a zero
variance in the incremental runoff from the project.
Cindy Culliton, 1131 Wildhurst, noted the major concern expressed by the MCWD when
they asked to add a 12' golf green on their property, which borders the ravine. She
questioned the effect of five houses, and asked when the MCWD would come in to
evaluate the project. Schroeder and Mabusth informed her that the MCWD is also
required to approve the project. Culliton asked how much power was given to the
MCWD? Mabusth noted conformance was required and both entities, the City and the
MCWD, abide by the same guidelines.
Jim Stephenson, West Branch Road, inquired about the Morgaard property to the north
noting the same issues apply to that property. Mabusth said these properties were not
included in the MUSA, and access to the property would be at Wildhurst, not Garden
Lane.
David Rahn, 1.134 Wildhurst, questioned the comment about the best access being from
Wildhurst, noting his disbelief that the Engineer would want a paved road going straight
up hill with what he felt was probably a 120' elevation change of the road. Ryan saw the
runoff washing straight across the road onto the property. He said this was the first
proposal he has seen with access from Wildhurst instead of Garden Lane. Mabusth
responded that the earlier 7 lot proposal involved two lots achieving access to Wildhurst
via a shared curb cut.
Schroeder asked Rahn if he was in favor of access from Garden Lane. Rahn said he was
not but neither was he in favor of the proposal as presented as far as the road was
concerned. Rahn said he cannot imagine controlling the water that would run off the
proposed road.
All agreed on the steepness of the incline. Lindquist said there were aiot of questions to
be answered concerning the road and would need input from the MCWD and the
Engineer. Mabusth said the Engineer would address these issues with the filing of the
• preliminary plat. Lindquist also noted the bluff issue and the need for a lot line
rearrangement.
27
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #8 - #2108 Norbert Johnson - Continued)
Rahn asked how the property was proposed to be divided in another recently application.
Mabusth said the previous application was a preliminary review only and did not go
beyond that. She said there were 7 lots, but that number was questionable. Rahn said he
was not for the development and the access from Wildhurst. He saw the only benefit was
with extending the sewer. He questioned the ability of a developer going from 7 to 4 lots,
being able to build a road and gain access, and whether there was an ulterior motive.
Johnson said he had no ulterior motive. Johnson said he would like to have the road
reconfigured as he understood the design could be improved upon. He said he was not
clear on all the concerns the Engineer would have.
Brian Peterson, CoRd 19, noted the problem with water quality in Forest Lake, and asked
if the project would need the approval of the LMCD. Mabusth said the MCWD deals
with the water quality, velocity, and quantity issues. Peterson noted the silt and by-
products that would go into the lake from the development. Schroeder informed Peterson
that there are City ordinances that protects the water quality. He noted that existing
problems in water quality are from existing development and the setbacks and ordinance
requirements are there to protect the lakes.
Peterson asked if the LMCD would be involved in the project. Mabusth said the LMCD
does not deal with land use, only lake use, from the 929.4' elevation to the lake. Mabusth
asked if his concern was not with the permanent structures but with the problems arising
from construction. Mabusth said the plans have to show how these problems will be
handled. She noted that the City is aware that the southeast area drains to a wetland on
eastside of Wildhurst and eventually to the lake and needs to be controlled.
Schroeder asked Patti Affeldt to tell what the Saga Hill Preservation. Society is about.
Affeldt said the group are neighbors who have banded together to preserve the area. She
noted they would prefer to gain ownership of the Soskin property but are unable to due to
manpower and financial limitations. Affeldt said their group is interested in keeping the
area undeveloped.
Lindquist asked Johnson if he has spoken with the Saga Hill group. Johnson said he
offered to through John Culliton but has not yet reviewed the development with them,
noting no one has as of yet called him. Lindquist noted the many issues to consider with
drainage, roads, the bluff, and the need to determine what is reasonable. He said it would
be helpful for Johnson to meet with the Saga Hill group to gain their input before coming
back before the Planning Commission.
Lindquist noted the time tables for meeting agendas and the usefulness of informal
meetings.
28
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #8 - #2108 Norbert Johnson - Continued)
Sandy Rasmussen commented in general from a property owner standpoint on the
largeness of the development and the runoff as major concerns. She noted the value of
open space. Rasmussen said individual site development has been anticipated but the size
of this development has come as a surprise. She sees the interest in residing in the area to
preclude the larger development.
Schroeder said any lots that are deemed buildable can be sold and developed. He noted
Johnson's willingness to consider the input of the neighbors. Schroeder noted the major
concerns, such as drainage, and the difficulty with developing this particular property. He
commented on the need for Johnson to work with Staff and the neighbors. Johnson said
he was willing to meet with the group and make improvements to his plans adding that he
had no grander plans than as presented. Lindquist told him to get the plan together first
and to meet with the Saga Hill group. Schroeder thanked the neighbors for their input and
for coming to the meeting. Smith suggested that those representing the constituency
should introduce themselves to Johnson. Mabusth asked the Saga Hill group to inform
Johnson of whom to contact.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
• (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1996 (ELIZABETH HAWN)
There was no report at this time.
( #10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Mayor Callahan reminded the Commissioners of the new 60 -day rule that went into effect
on January 1, 1996, relating to the time limit for action on applications.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
( #11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 16,1996 MEETING
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the January 16, 1996
Meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
( #12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE MARCH 11, 1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
• No representative was chosen to attend the above mentioned meeting.
29
NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONMSSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
0 ADJOURNMENT
•
•
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:13 a.m. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
J
Charles Schroeder, Acting Chair Person
30
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996
( #8 - #2 8 Norbert Johnson - Continued)
Sandy Rasmuss commented in general from a property owner standpoint on the
largeness of the de lopment and the runoff as major concern She noted the value of
open space. Rasmuss said individual site development has een anticipated but the size
of this development has me as a surprise. She sees the ' erest in residing in the area to
preclude the larger develop ent.
Schroeder said any lots that 4e eemed buildable can a sold and developed. He noted
Johnson's willingness to consider t e input of the nei bors. Schroeder noted the major
concerns, such as drainage, ancthe 'fficulty with d eloping this particular property. He
commented on the need for Johnson t work with taff and the neighbors. Johnson said
he was willing to meet with the group a make i provements to his plans adding that he
had no grander plans than as pre*nted. L dq ' t told him to get the plan together first
and to meet with the Saga Hill gr up. Schr e r thanked the neighbors for their input and
for coming to the meeting. Smithuggested at those representing the constituency
should introduce themselves to Johnson. M th asked the Saga Hill group to inform
Johnson of whom to contact.
PLANNING COMMISSION COM TS
( #9) REPORT BY PLANNING CO SSION RE SENTATIVE ATTENDING •
COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRU 12, 1996 (EL BETH HAWN)
There was no report at this time.
( #10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSIO \
Mayor Callahan reminded the mmissioners o the new 60 -day rule that went into effect
on January 1, 1996, relating tq the time limit for ction on applications.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
( #11) PLANNING COMIVIISSION APPROVAL )OF MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 16, 1996 MEETING
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Mi tes of the January 16, 1996
Meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 4, ys 0.
( #12) PLANNING . OMMSSION TO SELECT A RESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE MARCH 11, 1996 MEETING OF TH OUNCIL
No representative was chosen to attend the above mentioned meeting.
29