HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1993 Planning Commission Minutesvplanning Commission
•
CITY OF ORONO
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Council
MEETING DATE 10—/,43 -_13
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME OR NUMBER
NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
2.
J
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
20.
�► MINUTEST OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
• ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Charles Schroeder, Charles Nolan Jr., Sandra Smith, Stephen Peterson, Janice Berg, and
Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning
Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
( #1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE
180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (RENEWAL) -
PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 P.M. - 7:17 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Frederick and David White were present.
Gaffron explained that this was a request for a one lot subdivision. A parcel is proposed to be
split off from the lot with an existing house which would be 2 + acres leaving a 17 acre parcel
for future development. This application was before the City Council about four years ago and
received preliminary approval. That approval required that an additional 17' of right -of -way be
granted for a 'total of 50' from the centerline of County Road 19. Establishing an outlot
eliminates the present concerns for adding roads and park fees. It disallows the use of the
• remaining parcel as a building site until it is further subdivided. This application is for a
renewal of the same conditions.
David White noted that the wetland does not show up on DNR maps. There is a drainage ditch
put in by the County which drains the surrounding properties.
Frederick White stated that the approved conditions are not what they asked for but what the
City forced on them. They were to Council three times and they feel that it would cost more
do what the City asks than the land is worth.
SLhroedet stated t'_ °r : what the Planning Commission is being asked to do is review a renewal
of the same :application. He though the applicants may not be interested in renewing it on the
same basis.
White explained that originally they proposed three lots but the City would not approve that
unless interior roads were installed. When a building permit for the existing house was taken
out, three lots were established in the area and now they can't even get one lot from that same
area.
Gaffron explained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the original approval
resolution, a different application with a different fee structure would have to be filed. That
application would include park fees and interior roads.
• White stated the County would approve three accesses for three lots from the County road but
the City denied that request.
1
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE - CONT.
Schroeder reiterated that the Planning Commission was prepared to act only on the renewal
application as previously approved in September of 1989 and if there were any changes, the
application would have to be refiled.
Frederick White stated they do not accept the changes the City has required from their original
proposal and that the Court could decide in February.
Gaffron explained that a court case is pending because a purchase agreement in 1984 required
that a portion of the 17 acres be sold off. In order to do that, the subdivision process must be
followed with City. The City required certain conditions other than what the White's had hoped
for, making it difficult to sell.
Schroeder stated the Planning Commission has three options:
1. Approve as originally approved.
2. Deny the application.
3. Table the application.
Approved or denied, the application will proceed to Council in the current form. If this form
is not agreeable, Schroeder suggested the application be tabled so the Whites could work further
with the Zoning staff.
•
Nolan clarified that the outlot could be further subdivided at a later date. A separate application
would be required to do this at a later date.
White stated the City was requiring that all possible lots be established at the time of
subdivision.
Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission and Council's intent in allowing the outlot was
to avoid the requirement for interior roads. The City did not want to add more driveways to
a busy road even though the County might allow it.
Schroeder stated the Planning Commission was not prepared to redesign the subdivision. White
noted that 30 -40 plans had already been discussed with the City and this was the only one they
would approve.
It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1875 for Frederick and
David White for renewal of preliminary plat approval granted via Resolution No. 2508 on
September 18, 1988. Ayes 6, nays 0.
• 2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #2) JAMES W. OGLAND /DONALD J. STOYKE
3345/3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VACATION OF ROAD - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:19
P.M. - 7:50 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
James Ogland and Donald Stoyke were present.
Gaffron referred to a letter received from the DNR today that was handed out to Planning
Commission members as additional information to the packet. He explained that this application
is a request to vacate a portion of Hillside Place, a 25' wide dedicated right -of -way which
probably goes back 75 -100 years. This extends from Dakota Rail to the shore of Crystal Bay.
Within that strip is a paved, travelled right -of -way called Crystal Bay Road that doesn't show
on the maps. The City has maintained that road for many years and it is the sole access for
many houses in the area. No portion of that right -of -way is dedicated to the City. Gaffron
suggested the portion used for Crystal Bay Road not be vacated. A City sewer main comes from
Hillside Place to the south located roughly in the center of the property. The Stoyke house
would gain a better setback because of vacation since he would gain half of the property.
Topographic change is quite dramatic in this area. The issue with the DNR letter is that by State
statute, the City is required to notify the DNR of any vacation of a public right -of -way on
lakeshore property.
Schroeder read the letter addressed to Mike Gaffron from Martha Reger of the DNR which was
received by fax on October 18, 1993.
Jim Ogland, 3345 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he and Don Stoyke, 3339 Crystal Bay Road,
were requesting vacation of this fire lane, in which case the land would revert to the adjacent
property owners. He noted that the fire lanes were originally platted to provide access to the
lake for water in case of fire at the cottages. At one time, there were three such fire lanes but
two others have already been vacated. Ogland stated that he and his parents have lived at this
address for 50 years and have maintained this fire lane as part of their yard. By vacating this
fire lane, it would allow the lots to be more conforming and allow a clearer title for the adjacent
property owners. He added that the land is quite steep with several large trees with limited and
obsolete use. He has also talked with John Gerhardson, Public Works Director, who had no
objections to the vacation as long as a sewer easement was granted. Ogland stated that although
the DNR has the right to be notified, the City has the authority to make a final decision. He
felt that because of the terrain and closeness of the properties, it would be impractical to use as
a public access. The Stoyke home is 9" from the line of this property. Ogland felt the DNR
would always take the position to keep land for public use.
• 3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
(#2) JAMES W. OGLAND /DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT.
Smith asked if there were other access points in the vicinity. Ogland responded there was an
access 600' to the west and in Spring Park.
Smith asked about other properties that had been vacated in this area. Gaffron explained that
there was a 1969 vacation of a neighboring property but there was very little information in City
files regarding the process.
Warren Paschke, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he owned his property since 1938 and has
never seen anyone attempt to use the 25' strip for lake access. If the DNR were to try to use
this, it would cause a serious hardship for residents on that road because of the width of the
road. There are fire hydrants available for fire fighting and he did not feel fire fighting
equipment could reach the lake. Paschke noted that he supported the vacation request.
Gaffron stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the City should not vacate that portion
used as a travelled right -of -way and 10' either side of it and that each property owner should
additionally grant an easement to the City for the right -of -way of Crystal Bay Road in their
properties.
Ogland stated they were trying to simplify ownership of the property. A vacation with granting
of easements would be simpler than the City maintaining ownership of an island that was 38'
x 25'.
Smith asked if there were any intentions to develop the property. Ogland confirmed there were
not.
Lindquist noted that no sewer easement currently exists but typically a 10' easement on each side
of the sewer pipe is granted.
Lorraine Paschke, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, commented that when you drive down Crystal Bay
Road, there is a sign that says "No Public Parking". No one has ever known that there is any
public property on this road. Many residents on this road have requested no parking signs. She
disagreed with the DNR when they say that property is available for public use. Schroeder
agreed with Paschke as a practical matter but legally it may be different.
Schroeder noted that if vacating were approved, the Planning Commission would have to find
that it was in the public interest to do so. The letter from the DNR must be considered. He felt
if the DNR had a chance to look at this property, they may take a different view.
• 4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #2) JAMES W. OGLAND /DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT.
Ogland stated that vacation would put the property back on the tax roles which would be best
for the public interest. He does not like the encumbrances on the property because they don't
know if they should maintain it or not.
Smith asked about similar vacations on two neighboring properties.
Gaffron explained that one goes back to 1969 and the other before that. These two accesses
were similar and in the past it was found acceptable to grant a vacation.
Peterson stated he felt compelled by the DNR to avoid the vacation since there is a Minnesota
statute that gives clear guidelines.
Smith asked if the application were tabled, would conversation with the DNR be helpful.
Gaffron though it might. He also stated he had discussed with Reger the possibility of vacating
everything except the portion between the lake and the landward side of the road. He questioned
if any problems would be solved by vacating everything back from 10' off the road. This would
remove the issue of public access.
Lindquist stated he would like to see the property owners have this property but feels the need
to stay within the legalities of the system.
It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1876 to allow the applicants,
City and the DNR time to discuss the DNR concerns. Ayes 6, nays 0.
( 0) #1874 GARY DESANTIS /SAILORS WORLD
1955 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P.M. - 8:28 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Gary DeSantis of Sailors World was present.
Gaffron explained this request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two
storage structures of 8' x 8' x 20' on the property. He asked if Planning Commission were
interested in allowing more hardcover or the existing hardcover to be changed from grade -level
to a larger structure. The character of these structures should be considered vs. existing
buildings.
DeSantis explained the recent history of the property. Ownership of the property was gained
1 1/2 years ago. They felt the property would be more valuable with a building on it. It was
a long process obtaining a building permit. There is no storage in the building or on the
property for storage of lawn mowers or boating accessories. He expressed his concern over
i
5
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( 0) #1874 GARY DESANTIS /SAILORS WORLD - CONT.
hardcover noting that some off -site parking had been secured at the Minnetonka Art Center. He
felt that it may be better to take a couple parking spaces for placement of the storage structure
than to attempt to place them on a grassed area.
Peterson asked if the applicant was aware of DNR comments on this application. DeSantis was
not but they were included as part of the original packet.
Nolan asked what the intended schedule of completion of improvements was for the property.
DeSantis responded that they had three years to complete the commercial site plan and that time
has not expired. The rainy season this summer has caused problems completing the parking lot
and landscaping.
DeSantis explained that the structures are moveable with no foundations and could be considered
temporary or permanent.
Nolan observed piles of lumber, a tractor, rotting timbers and a dumpster on the property and
questioned the standard practice of operation regarding use of these landscape areas. The City
has designated certain areas yet Nolan noted most of these areas had some type of coverage on
them, i.e. boat, construction materials, etc.
DeSantis responded that the marina is in a winter storage mode and has the ability to use the
property for winter storage. Landscape timbers will be removed when the landscape contractor
has time to complete his work.
Smith asked if some of the items could be moved to clean up the property. DeSantis asked
where they should be moved to. Nolan added that was the point he was trying to make. Even
if the landscaping were complete, would there still be materials left in landscaped areas? Is this
the standard of operation the Planning Commission could expect to see in the future?
DeSantis did not feel he should be criticized for not completing the improvements. Part of the
landscaping price was removal of the old timbers and the contractor has not completed that
portion.
Schroeder noted there were worthwhile improvements. The B -2 zone has been an issue for
consideration by the City for some time. He has concern over adding more hardcover in the
form of storage. He did not see renting storage space as part of the overall plan. He suggested
storage could occur across the street or on some other part of the property further from the lake.
He also expressed concern that aesthetically the storage buildings would not be consistent with
the existing buildings.
2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
.0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( 0) #1874 GARY DESANTIS /SAILORS WORLD - CONT.
Lindquist asked to have the 75' setback area defined and noted his objection to hardcover in the
0 -75' setback area.
Peterson also expressed concern over adding more structure to this already developed property.
He suggested looking at parking spaces 35, 36, 37 and 38 if the structures were to be placed on
the property. He felt the DNR was implying that the structure may be acceptable if placed over
existing hardcover.
Nolan stated that these structures tend to "look bad" after a period of time even though they are
galvanized. He asked if DeSantis would consider any other type of structure. DeSantis said
they would but explained that one of the strong points of these structures was the longevity of
weathering. He felt that maintaining the building would not be a problem since it would be
similar to some boat maintenance.
Berg asked if the structures would be leased. DeSantis confirmed that they could be with an
option to buy. He stated dock boxes do not provide sufficient volume for storage.
Schroeder stated he would be inclined to find some type of storage for the personal lawn mower,
etc. close to the existing building. He would be opposed to any type of "mini- storage" as there
isare off -site options for this.
Smith suggested DeSantis consider enlarging the existing outside shed (which has the same
outside siding) and using some inside cabinetry for life preservers, etc. Although this may not
be ideal to the applicant, it may be a workable compromise.
DeSantis stated it would depend on what could be attached. There is a need to store pumps.
Currently the shed houses only electrical equipment. He questioned if he would gain enough
storage by enlarging the shed but thought it would worth a try.
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to deny Application #1874 for the requested
hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for two storage structures. The proposed location
is unacceptable and there does not seem to be enough of a hardship.
DeSantis asked if the structures were moved to the parking spaces out of the 0 -75' setback area
and only one structure used, would the objection be removed.
Schroeder noted the 0 -75' setback issued would be addressed but the nature of the building and
hardcover are still issues.
• 7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( 0) #1874 GARY DESANTIS /SAILORS WORLD - CONT.
Nolan felt that if something long and narrow could be done along the building it would solve
the issue of aesthetics, no structural hardcover would be added to the site and it would provide
some storage, probably not all, but would be an improvement.
Gaffron stated that if the application were denied and sent to Council, Council could send it back
to Planning Commission for further consideration. Tabling the application would bring it back
to Planning Commission without any Council input.
DeSantis would prefer to have the application tabled.
Schroeder noted the feeling of the Planning Commission was to have a limited structure that was
compatible with the existing building, used principally for personal use and not rented out.
Lindquist added that further seasonal storage needs should be considered for off -site locations.
Peterson and Lindquist withdrew their motion.
It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1874 for a request for
hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two 8' x 8' x 20' storage modules on marina
property. Ayes 6, nays 0.
•
( #4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE
3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:40 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Charles Pyle was present.
Gaffron reviewed the request explaining the current request is slightly different than that
approved in 1992. The previous application included an addition to the side of the house, a
covered entryway and replacement of detached garage. There were some hardcover trade -offs
in the 0 -75' and 250 -500' setback areas. In the new application, no changes are proposed to the
driveway or garage. The addition to the house is still proposed with some hardcover removals.
Pyle explained that the initial bid was much higher than the final bid so they had to look at some
other alternatives.
Schroeder asked if there were any way to reduce the driveway.
Nolan asked if there were a way to reduce the breezeway.
•
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE
Pyle explained that the architect redesigned this with the architecture of the roof. He thought
some reduction would be possible. The garage could not be moved right next to the house
because there are bedroom windows on that side of the house. He confirmed that the exterior
of the garage would be redone at the time of the remodeling project.
Gaffron noted the breezeway could be shortened up with less sidewalk and more green space to
help reduce hardcover.
Pyle stated he would be agreeable to some reduction in the breezeway as well as some asphalt
in the driveway.
It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1878 subject to reductions
of approximately 10' of driveway parking apron and a portion of the breezeway for a total
hardcover reduction of approximately 250 s.f. The new design will be brought to Council. Other
conditions recommended by staff are still appropriate other than the change in percentage. Ayes
6, nays 0.
( #5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE
• 1127 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. - 9:05 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Allen and Kathleen Bakke were present.
Gaffron explained that this application is a result of the neighbor getting a survey and finding
the Bakke's fence to be over the lot line and the deck too close to the lot line. Upon
investigation, it was found the decks were done in 1985 without a building permit.
Bakke confirmed that the existing deck was refurbished in 1985 with an additional deck to the
front. He stated he had conversation with Tom Jacobs, the Building Official at that time, who
told him no permit was necessary to refurbish the deck. He feels there were inaccurate surveys
which is why the fence was not within the Bakke lot line. The east side fence has been moved
within the Bakke property line.
Gaffron addressed the issue of the shed. Bakke confirmed that the shed would be moved when
they left the property.
There was discussion about the accuracy of the survey submitted with the application. It was
determined that the survey submitted, dated October 6, 1993, is accurate.
0 9
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT.
Nolan asked about the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke explained it was for solar
heating of the pool.
Peterson asked about the fence to the back of the property shown on the survey that indicates
it is 2' over the lot line. Bakke stated he would move it within his line although the neighbor
said there was no problem to leave it where it was. Peterson thought the deck should be
approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply with the lot
line. The other fence had already been removed.
Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of
hardcover.
Gaffron explained that in the 250 -500' zone from the lake, only 30% of the property is allowed
to be in hard surface which includes driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, landscaped areas
underlain with plastic or fabric, etc. He did not think there was any way to reduce hardcover
other than removing some of the driveway or the existing decks. 32% hardcover probably
existed prior to the deck addition, now 35 % exists.
Bakke stated the turnaround was not necessary as they were able to back out. The shed
currently occupies that space but will be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed.
Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding after -the -fact variances for decks.
Peterson felt that, in this case, the deck construction is so old it is difficult to deal with but
otherwise these after -the -fact variances should be dealt with very carefully. Smith did not want
it to appear that as a violation becomes older, it may be overlooked.
It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1879 subject to the removal
of the shed, removal of the backup apron in the driveway as drawn and moving the fence so it
no longer encroaches the neighboring property. Ayes 5, nays 1.
Planning Commission members agreed there should be an after - the -fact variance application fee
paid and after - the -fact building permit fee.
Smith referred to an earlier application ( Sieff's) which was tabled because the Commission did
not feel they could approve extensive decking. Although the Bakke decking is older, she did
not feel that time should make a difference in the approach to the application.
Nolan felt there were differences with the Sieff application such as:
1. The Sieff's had very intense hardcover /decking - probably twice that as Bakke's.
• 10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT.
2. By taking the removals proposed at Bakke's, they come very close to
conformance of the hardcover requirements.
3. Fewer concessions were granted by the Sieff's.
Smith wanted to be sure that Planning Commission was not sending messages to residents that
you can "go do what you want to do and hope you don't get caught; and the longer you go
without getting caught, the more likely it is that you can continue to have what it is that you
wanted in the first place".
Schroeder noted that the applicant apparently had conversation with the Building Official at the
time the construction was done.
( #6) #1880 THOMAS AND JANE REGNIER
1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE - VARIANCE (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 9:07 - 9:10
P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Thomas Regnier was present.
Gaffron explained this was a renewal application with no changes from the original application
approved in 1990. The proposal requests a side street setback variance for construction of an
addition.
Schroeder asked about removing the fence. Regnier confirmed that the fenced area would be
removed with the landscaping improvements.
Smith asked if the graveled area was actively used for parking noting there was a car and two
boats at this site. Regnier explained the boat is waiting for some repairs and the yellow car will
be removed from the site.
It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith, to approve Application #1880 for Thomas
Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue, for the renewal variance of a side street setback variance for
construction of additions to the existing residence. Ayes 6, nays 0.
( #7) #1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN /O'SULLIVAN'S
2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - PUBLIC
HEARING
John O'Sullivan requested to be moved to the end of the Agenda.
0 11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #8) #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND
3855 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13 P.M. - 9:35 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Englund were present.
Gaffron explained this was a lot area variance for determining the buildability of a lot that is
0.37 acre. The Zoning Code requires .5 acre. Although several relatives own neighboring
parcels, no additional land is available. The lot is 100' wide and meets that standard. Some
drainage improvements have been made. A drainage culvert was installed in consultation with
the Public Works Department on the neighboring Anderson property. There are mature trees
on the property and it is not a designated wetland according to the maps. The property is in the
250 -500' hardcover zone where 30% hardcover is allowed. The conceptual proposal would not
be a problem on this lot. No other variances would be proposed. The property has been
assessed for sewer and a well would be required. A 14' alley to the rear would not be necessary
to vacate. 15 % lot coverage is allowed. Lot sizes vary in the neighborhood and this lot is not
inconsistent with the area.
Lindquist asked why Englund had no proposed house plan. Englund responded that he wanted
to be sure the lot was buildable before incurring the expense of designing a home.
Smith asked how much fill would be required because of the steep bank from the street to
the
proposed home site.
Englund stated he hoped to move as few trees as possible. He would fill only what is necessary
from the road to the house and the driveway would be level with the road. Some berming may
be necessary. Englund noted that fill required would be approximately 5 -6' in height.
A neighbor questioned what was being proposed and expressed concern over previous water
problems in this area. Englund confirmed there would be no grading on the back of the lot.
He noted an excessive amount of water in the spring that had drained as a result of the culvert
installation.
Gaffron explained there would be a significant amount of fill for the driveway and yard berming
but likely none under the house. If fill comes in piecemeal before the building permit is issued,
a conditional use permit would be required. If all fill is brought in at the time of house
construction, it can be brought in as part of the building permit.
Smith asked if how the fill was brought in could affect the drainage. Gaffron responded that a
grading plan would be required before any fill was brought onto the property.
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #8) #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND - CONT.
•
Lindquist expressed his concern over the drainage issue and cautioned the applicant as he
proceeds with development of the property.
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1883 for Steven Englund,
3855 Cherry Avenue, for a lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on a
0.37 acre parcel subject to conditions 1 -5 as listed in the staff memo dated October 5, 1993.
Ayes 6, nays 0.
( #9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER
475 OXFORD ROAD, AFTER- THE -FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:45 P.M
- 10:12 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Orville Fisher was present.
Gaffron explained that a complaint had been received from a resident that there had been some
tree cutting in the 0 -75' zone. Upon investigation, a Stop Work Order was issued as there had
been a number of trees, 6" in diameter or greater, removed in the 0 -75' zone as well as
intensive vegetation clearing. Tree cutting in the 0 -75' setback area is not allowed by City
Code. In addition, Shoreland Regulations that were adopted about one year ago prohibit
intensive vegetation cutting and clearing in the 0 -75' zone. Violation tags have been issued and
are pending in the courts. The applicant has had previous grading violations in the 0 -75' setback
area on previous property. Staff would recommend denial of the after - the -fact variance and look
at the proposed restoration plan to consider if it meets standards the City should require.
Gaffron noted other activity on the property as there is a sewer connection and remodeling
occurring which is separate from the tree cutting issue.
Fisher apologized to the public, Planning Commission and staff regarding the tree cutting and
stated it was not done intentionally. He explained that a college student had done the work
while the Fishers were out of town and was given instructions not to cut within the 0 -75' zone.
Both the college student and Fisher incorrectly measured from the shoreline. Fisher noted he
contacted a surveyor to verify the 75' setback line so they could determine the extent of the
damage, and he also contacted Jeanne Mabusth to begin steps for restoration and corrections.
He is not asking for approval of an after - the -fact variance but to determine what will be
necessary to correct the problem. A landscaper has been hired to develop a plan for restoration
of what had existed. Boxelder trees were removed but they would be replaced with trees (as
large as possible) that could survive in a low level, high water table area. A boxelder is
considered a weed tree that can't be purchased commercially so more expensive trees will be
replaced.
13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT.
Melvin J. Peterson, who formerly lived on the property and is technically the current owner as
the closing has not yet taken place, expressed his concern over what impact the current problems
could have on the November closing. He did not know about any of the activity in the yard or
tree cutting. Fisher noted the title is a transfer for a Contract for Deed. Schroeder noted that
typically the Planning Commission deals with the owner of the property, not a future owner.
Since the issue is with the applicant, it will be assumed he is the owner.
Schroeder asked why Fisher wanted to cut the trees since he was fully aware of the City's
position of activity in the 0 -75' setback area because of previous problems. Fisher explained
they did not want to cut as many as were cut but wanted to gain additional views. Schroeder
asked how he would gain views by cutting only trees from 75' back since there would still be
trees in the 0 -75' area. Fisher responded that most of the larger trees were 60' and back and
thought that was beyond the 75' setback. He had assumed the water was at a high water mark
this year although he did not have a survey. He measured from the waterline with a tape
measure. Gaffron explained this would not work because the water is actually lower than
normal at a 929 elevation. Schroeder pointed out that had Fisher cut only from the 75' line
back, it would not have helped his views.
•Fisher did not want the area clear cut because there is a neighboring tennis court that he wanted
to be left screened.
Lindquist asked how large the trees being proposed for replacement would be. Fisher responded
they would be Ash and Linden trees as tall as those taken out and 4 -5" in diameter. Schroeder
asked if all trees taken out would be replaced, even those out of the 75' zone. Fisher confirmed
not all of them would be replaced. Lindquist asked if the proposed screen on the south side
would be done at the same time as the rest of the replacement. Fisher responded that currently
only 12 -13 trees were scheduled to be replaced in the 0 -75' zone.
Schroeder asked if the City could do anything about requiring tree replacement outside of the
0 -75' zone given the nature of this particular issue. Gaffron felt it could be tied to mitigation
of the area.
Peterson asked how staff felt about the planting proposal. Gaffron responded that there had
existed understory and screening, and that the replantings proposed might have a different
character which might be considered good or bad. If the root system is still in place, some of
the understory may grow back which would be better than if it were all grubbed out.
Nolan noted the 4 -5" trees to be replaced would require large equipment to do the work. He
felt understory would be desirable and asked about the discussion of gray -twig dogwood.
14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #9) #{1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT.
Gaffron explained that the landscaper had suggested gray -twig dogwood as a species that would
thrive in this type of environment.
Nolan questioned the number of trees being replaced, noting there were many more trees cut
when the smaller trees and understory are considered. He felt the applicant may be getting just
what he wanted by clear cutting the area and then only replacing a few trees. This is similar
to the previous discussion about after - the -fact variances. The City would not want to set an
example that it is ok to do as you want and you have a problem only if you get caught. This
problem is really only paying a little extra money to get what you wanted in the first place.
Fisher stated this was not his intent. He had a surveyor identify each tree and its location so
the replacement would be in the same location. The new trees will actually provide more
screening than the lower boxelder trees that were previously there. From the house, the Fishers
actually looked over the boxelder trees while the new trees will be much taller and larger. They
will be placed in the exact location of the previous trees. Schroeder thought it would be a long
time before the trees would be large enough to impact the views.
Lindquist asked what could be done other than replant the larger trees and add some understory.
Schroeder thought that since this is a chance to make improvements, everything should be done
to make improvements. Lindquist stated that if the situation was to improve, more trees would
be required.
Fisher stated the project could become quite costly. Schroeder responded that, "With all due
respect, cost was not a relevant consideration since the situation was avoidable. The goal now
is to do the right thing for the City and protect the lake. "
Lindquist asked what would be a reasonable amount of plantings to replace what was destroyed.
Gaffron suggested the landscaper, Dale Gustafson, would be able to help resolve that issue.
Peterson stated that the Planning Commission was being asked to consider the after - the -fact
variance, not plan for the restoration. Schroeder indicated a restoration plan was included so
may need consideration. Nolan did not want to accept the plan as submitted. Smith added she
would like to see a combination of larger trees and understory to come close to restoring the
area as it was.
It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Nolan, to deny Application #1884 for Orville Fisher,
475 Oxford Road, for an after - the -fact variance related to clear cutting in the restricted 0 -75'
zone. Staff is directed to work with the Fisher's landscape engineer to develop a plan that would
0 15
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT.
compensate for the large trees taken out and to plant understory so as to duplicate or improve
what existed prior to the clear cutting. This plan should be complete prior to the next Council
meeting so the plantings can be done as soon as possible this fall. Ayes 6, nays 0.
Huff commented that the Hennepin Soils office has criteria that has been established on a buffer
strip that may be helpful.
( #7) #1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN /O'SULLIVAN'S
2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - PUBLIC
HEARING 10:15 P.M. - 10:55 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
John O'Sullivan was present.
Gaffron explained that in 1987 the City did a commercial site plan review for this property.
One of the City's requirements was that a fire lane be established. It was brought to the
attention of the building inspector by the Orono police that the fire lane is not accomplishing
what it was intended to do. The building inspector has required that the property owner stripe
and mark the fire lane. The property owner feels he should not be required to do so. This
application is essentially a request for an amendment to the commercial site plan approved
previously.
Schroeder asked why this application was before the Planning Commission. Gaffron explained
that it is part of the appeal process stated in the Code when the applicant does not want to
comply with City requirements. Because Mound is a contract city, the appeal process is to the
City Council, not to the State Fire Marshal.
O'Sullivan gave a summary of his position on how this situation came about. He noted in
February of 1988 he was given a permit that stated he complied with all conditions. He
indicated there never has been any striping or signage indicating a fire lane and he has operated
5 1/2 years without these.
O'Sullivan continued that on July 15, 1993 an Orono police officer tagged one of O'Sullivan's
employees for parking a motorcycle in the storefront, and that the employee told the officer that
other officers have stopped at the station and said they would not tag anyone for parking there
and it wasn't a legal fire lane. O'Sullivan noted that the citation ended up being revoked but
it became an issue with the Chief, and this resulted in a letter from Stephen Sullivan, Chief of
Police, to O'Sullivan, dated July 28, 1993. (O'Sullivan gave copies of this letter to Planning
Commission members.)
0 16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #7) #1882 JOHN M. O SULLIVAN /O SULLIVAN S - CONT.
O'Sullivan's response, in a letter dated August 10, 1993 to Steve Sullivan, included the
statement "I am not aware of any officers parking in our fire lane and my night managers have
also confirmed this. We do not have a legal fire lane and only consider the area directly in front
of our entrance /exit doors a No Parking area. "
O'Sullivan indicated he sent the letter to the Chief because they sit on the board together on a
monthly basis, and he assumed that the letter he sent would not be shared with the officers. He
stated he felt the officers were getting some "unfair heat". He noted that he also copied the
letter to the Orono Police Officers Union representative so they would know O'Sullivan's
feelings on the matter.
O'Sullivan continued that this lead to an interoffice memo dated August 9 from Officer Larry
Tomcheck to Chief Sullivan regarding the research he did as to whether O'Sullivan's had a fire
lane. Apparently Tomcheck concluded that there is no code for it or no need for a fire lane.
O'Sullivan stated the next event was a meeting in late August on O'Sullivan's property with Fire
Marshal Jerry Babb, Officer Tomcheck and O'Sullivan. He noted that Babb stated there was
no code mandating a fire lane and it was ludicrous to impose it on O'Sullivan as other stations
did not have fire lanes, and Babb told O'Sullivan it would only be enforced if he wanted to have
a fire lane. Babb concluded by saying that if the City required O'Sullivan to put up a fire lane,
it would have to be enforced with every other business in Orono. O'Sullivan indicated that at
that point, he did not think there was any further issue.
O'Sullivan continued that later Lyle Oman, Orono Building Official, met with him with the
original site plan stating that the fire lane was part of the original resolution and must be
enforced. O'Sullivan felt that his customers who had been parking in this area for the past 5
1/2 years would be upset when they were cited for parking in that area.
O'Sullivan indicated that on approximately September 25, he had a phone conversation with
Jerry Babb regarding the past issues and asked Babb for a written letter confirming the fact that
no fire lane was necessary. On October 5, O'Sullivan received a letter from the Mound Fire
Chief regarding the designation of a fire lane. There was nothing in the letter that said anything
about a City or State code that would require the fire lane. The letter was signed by the Fire
Chief and two Fire Marshals, one of them being Jerry Babb. He questioned who had caused
these people to change their minds but did not call either one of them.
O'Sullivan noted he then talked with some members of the Orono Council as he expected further
problems over this issue. On September 24 he filed this application with the City since he didn't
know how else to proceed.
• 17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #7) #1882 JOHN M. O SULLIVAN /O SULLIVAN S - CONT.
O'Sullivan then distributed to the Planning Commission a letter, dated October 18, 1993, to John
O'Sullivan from Officer Tomcheck who could not be at the Planning Commission meeting.
O'Sullivan quoted from Officer Tomcheck's letter: "Mr. Oman said that there could be
something in the building plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector,
may have placed a fire lane on the building plan, but he is unauthorized to do so. " O'Sullivan
noted he confirmed that with Don Bryce, Mound Fire Chief. He also wanted Bryce to explain
why he needed a fire lane for "life safety" because he felt they had a very safe facility.
O'Sullivan stated that on October 18 he talked with the State Fire Marshal's Office who stated
that if he were 150' off of the road, a designated fire lane would be required. He has three
access points and is less than 150' off the road so there is no issue with that.
Peterson noted that the 1987 building permit application and variance did require a fire lane.
O'Sullivan stated that the code the Chief quotes indicates that the fire lane can only be
designated by the Fire Chief, not a Building Inspector. Therefore, O'Sullivan would argue that
he never had a legal fire lane since it was improperly imposed by Tom Jacobs.
O'Sullivan closed with the following points:
1. They have gone over 5 years without a fire lane.
2. He contends they never had a fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not have the
authority to impose one on the site plan.
3. The plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department.
4. Immediate competitors do not have fire lanes.
5. He feels he is being discriminated against with a required fire lane since other
businesses do not have this requirement.
6. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes, including Wayzata, Plymouth,
Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and Excelsior.
7. Pictures were passed around of neighboring businesses that do not have
designated fire lanes.
O'Sullivan noted that he had called Don Bryce and asked why he changed his stance on the fire
lane issue, and Bryce had agreed there is no code and stated he did it to appease the police
department. O'Sullivan also indicated he found out that the letter had not been written by Bryce
but by Mike Palm, one of the Fire Marshals.
0 18
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
(#7) #{1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN /O'SULLIVAN'S - CONT.
O'Sullivan went on to say that Bryce stopped at O'Sullivan's at 5:30 p.m. today and asked if
he would agree with striping a small area in front of the windows. He did not agree because
of the principle of the issue when no one else is asked to do the same thing. He noted that
Bryce agreed there was no site obstruction because the cash register is on a platform and
overlooks the gas pumps.
Peterson asked if O'Sullivan had ever received a registered letter from the Chief of Police of
Orono stating that a fire lane was required on the property. O'Sullivan responded that he had
not.
Peterson then asked Gaffron to look at Orono Code Section 9.34, Section 7 (C) where there is
discussion about the Fire Marshal and the Mound Fire Chief. Peterson quoted, "The Chief of
Police is hereby empowered to order the establishment, designation and maintenance of fire lanes
on public or private property wherever and to whatever extent as he may determine is reasonably
necessary to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. In this determination, the Police
Chief (not the Fire Chief) may confer with and accept the recommendations of the Building
Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. The Fire Lane Order shall be
in writing and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the property owner of
record. " Peterson suggested that this states it is not the Fire Chief but the Police Chief that has
the right to designate the fire lane, and asked why the Chief of Police had not written such a
letter.
O'Sullivan noted that Chief Sullivan had not taken the issue up with him but had let others deal
with the problem.
Schroeder thought the requirement for fire lanes would have to be consistent and should not be
applied inconsistently to the detriment of the business owner.
Schroeder asked if a 16' section of white striping would solve this matter. O'Sullivan responded
that it would for the Fire Chief.
Schroeder stated this appears to be an issue that the Fire Chief and Police Chief must sort out
and resolve.
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to refer the issue of fire lanes to Council and the
Chief of Police for his opinion regarding Section 9.34 of Section 7 (C) and determination if, in
fact, there is a need for a fire lane or not. Schroeder added that all other similar situations
should also be reviewed. Ayes 6, nays 0.
0 19
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
(#7) #1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN /O'SULLIVAN'S - CONT.
O'Sullivan asked if the municipality had the right to supersede Minnesota Fire Codes. Schroeder
stated that would require the City Attorney's opinion.
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY
3025 WATERTOWN ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN
REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - NO ACTION REQUIRED
Dick Putnam (Tandem Properties), Jim Deanovic (Peter Andrea Company), Mark Gronberg
(property owner) and Robert Hare (broker from Burnett Realty) were present.
Gaffron explained this was a sketch plan review for development of 130 acres at Old Crystal Bay
Road and Watertown Road. Some concerns to be considered are access issues, wetlands, trails
and the historic significance of the property.
Putnam explained that on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road is the Coffin property
consisting of approximately 62 acres. The Dickey property, on the south side of Watertown
Road, is about 68 acres and contains a large arena and the site of the "Ancient Ones". The
Dickey property is basically farm land with the exception of the old homestead where there are
trees and the arena. The Coffin property has a number of fields with some forests and a
number of wetland areas. When the property was bought, the City did not show any wetlands
on the map. Other agencies define these wetland areas differently.
Putnam stated the plan connects the two properties by continuing the existing public road from
Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive.
The developers have talked to the Orono Park Commission. There are two plans included in
the Planning Commission packet, one designed before the Park Commission meeting and one
after their on -site visit and comments.
Approximately 3 1/2 acres have been identified as part of the historic site including the barn,
farm site and burial area. A public trail connecting the historic site to the DNR woods has been
illustrated which is adjacent to the Luce Line. That property has been donated by the Dickey's.
A trail would also be considered along Old Crystal Bay in an easement over the right -of -way.
On the Coffin property, two cul -de -sac roads are being considered because the wetlands and
woods make it difficult to design a looped road.
Two acre lots are being considered for both sites which is the zoning requirement. 24 lots could
be developed on the Coffin property and 26 lots on the Dickey property.
0 20
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT.
The Park Commission felt it would make more sense to restore the existing home rather than
the barn to use for an interpretive center because it would be less expensive.
Gaffron commented on the public vs. private road access issues. Putnam expressed his surprise
when they met on site and Gaffron indicated that just because the road was platted at a 60' right -
of -way it would not be considered a public road. Putnam asked why Casco Point Road, where
he lives, was plowed by the City which was a cul -de -sac and the City wouldn't maintain this
type of road. The developers would propose that the streets be public and publicly maintained
although they have been told that is not the case. The roads would be constructed to public
standards but maintained as private. Topography, existing homes and proposed lots will
determine where the roads will be constructed.
Smith asked if there had been discussions with the Native American community regarding sacred
grounds. She wants to be assured that nothing will be disturbed that is considered sacred and
there will be no repercussions in 50 years. She volunteered to be involved with any discussions.
Deanovic explained that a medicine man must come to the site to determine where sacred
grounds exist. Two medicine men, one from Montana and the other from Canada, have already
been to the site and determined the same area as sacred ground. Smith asked if members of the
local Native American community had been involved. Deanovic thought Pat Dickey would be
• able to confirm that this is the sacred ground as she has worked extensively with the Native
Americans. Smith also wants confirmation directly from the Native American community that
no lands will be disturbed that are considered sacred. Putnam suggested a group, be formed
who has an interest in this issue to work on the details. This group could include Smith, and
representatives from the Council and Park Commission. State archaeologists have already been
involved and confirmed the hillside as sacred. It is no longer legal to "dig" to determine the
status of sacred ground. The Native Americans object to digging but walking on it is acceptable.
Smith asked about the possible consideration to maintain the horse barn as a stable and riding
arena for the development. Putnam explained that has been dropped from the plan for two
reasons: 1) They were unsure if the soils were useable in the pasture area. 2) They did not
have enough information when they first considered it. Feedback about having a riding arena
at this location was not positive.
Smith asked what the plans were for screening the lots that abut the Luce Line on the Coffin
property. Putnam explained that the existing tree lines would not be disturbed and there may
be possible enhancements of the wetland area.
Smith questioned the concept of an interpretive center and asked who would maintain it
financially. The Park Commission has indicated there is not money available for maintenance.
is 21
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT.
Deanovic thought that it could be maintained privately after talking with Pat Dickey. Although
the barn would be desirable to use, it would be more expensive. Smith would like to the see
the barn kept at least in its present condition.
Putnam commented that there were other considerations for the barn site. Parking has been a
problem for users of the Luce Line and this site could be a possibility to provide parking and
some use of the barn.
Smith asked if the DNR would be interested in working on the trail idea connecting to the Luce
Line. Putnam stated that as a regional trail, this would not meet the criteria but as an offshoot
for the municipality it would make a lot of sense.
Smith asked if the designated trails were on outlots so they could be converted to roads if that
was ever desired. Putnam responded that discussions had taken place with agencies such as the
Fish and Wildlife Department and Corps of Engineers to create a drainage system of creeks and
ponds that do not currently exist. The trail would be 25 -30' wide and publicly dedicated but not
a road.
Smith asked if the location where the sweat lodges are could be protected. Putnam responded
• that there is no significance to where they are placed, that was just the most convenient location.
Putnam stated that as developers they would like to try to create a path so that everyone benefits
but if the City says that path has to be subtracted from the 2 -acre lot area, it may not be
worthwhile. For the person owning a lot and selling, it may be better not to have the trail.
However, for the benefit of the whole area, a trail makes a lot of sense.
Schroeder asked the status of the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road. Gaffron thought things had
come to a halt and did not know how the agreements with the property owners along the trail
had turned out. Money continues to be a problem.
Peterson asked what the feelings were about the possible choice of a southern corridor for
Highway 12 as it would greatly impact their property. Putnam felt there was some risk but
added that development could discourage this route as the final choice.
Peterson stated that the proposal looks good but has a concern with the wetland issues. How
will it be handled if there is no septic site available on some of the lots and how will the lots be
designed since there are wetlands scattered throughout the property?
0 22
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT.
Deanovic responded that a large group had visited the site including representatives of the
Watershed District, City staff, Army Corps of Engineers, BWSR and Steve Schirmers for septic
sites. In the end, City ordinances will be a determining factor. Deanovic thought 1:1 mitigation
may be possible. The Watershed representative felt this was an opportunity for improvements.
One of the main issues is that what was classified as wetlands in the past differs from current
definitions.
Most of the wetlands were classified as Type 1. Gaffron confirmed that under MPCA standards
there are certain types of wetlands that meet the criteria for septic installation.
Putnam felt their biggest problem will be dealing with the Orono ordinances relative to the
setbacks for septic systems and the dry buildable land.
Putnam gave examples of how the wetland maps differ. According to the City map, there was
2.66 acres of wetlands on the Coffin property but 12.15 acres have been identified by their
consultant using current methods. Deanovic explained that City maps were done in 1974 and
wetlands were identified under different standards on a black and white aerial photo. Although
the Dickey property showed no wetlands on City maps, surveyors designated approximately 4
acres. Putnam explained that on the Coffin property of 62 acres, if the City maps were used
lot sizes would be 2.47 acres. If the wetlands were subtracted, lot sizes would be reduced to
2.08 acres. The City will have to decide how to deal with the wetland designations.
Deanovic commented that they had discussed with other agencies how they felt about changing
some of the wetlands. They were agreeable since better wetlands would be built rather than a
"rut in a field ".
Putnam stated that according to Orono's code, it they created a NURP pond or wetland, that
would have to be subtracted off of the two acres. At this time it is a 1:1 replacement but after
January 1 it will be 2:1. The way it stands now, if four acres of wetland were altered at this
site, four acres of wetland would have to be replaced somewhere else. This could be done on
site, within the Watershed District or within the County. If, for example, a wetland were
replaced in Medina, what benefit does that have for Orono even though it meets the State
requirements?
Putnam noted that staff had suggested to Putnam he not look at planned development since this
property is not in a sewered area. Meeting a 2 -acre requirement may create a problem on some
of the lots with the wetlands considered and meeting the 75' setback from the wetlands for septic
systems.
• 23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT.
Deanovic pointed out that no matter how the lot sizes are calculated, they are over 2 acres.
Problems in the French Creek development may have been caused by not having full disclosure.
Gaffron explained there were designated septic sites in that planned development of 1 -1.25 acre
sites. However, when the sites were developed, there were different views of where the house
should be placed, etc. so it was difficult to protect the septic sites.
Peterson opined that it may be the best alternative to replace wetlands in Medina if the ultimate
goal is to protect wetlands even though it would be a loss to Orono. Schroeder felt the wetlands
should be saved in Orono. Two people from BWSR, the governmental agency that enforces the
technical wetland policies, did not favor mitigation in another area.
Putnam stated at this time the ordinances don't mesh between the State and municipalities, which
causes many problems.
Schroeder asked how important it was that the lots be two acres. He thought some five acre lots
might solve some of the problems. Putnam thought it may be more difficult on the Dickey
property because there is already a pattern established. Wetlands, ponds and trees actually
increase the value of the property. Their view is that the Coffin property is more valuable and
the homes will be higher priced. Not all people want to have large lots they have to mow.
• also aesthetics. The developer is proposing
Hare commented that economics are involved but a P P P g
development that may be better for the City. High ground makes a parcel more valuable. A
five acre site with only one acre of dry buildable may not be any more valuable than a two acre
lot that is all dry buildable. People who are looking for lots in the Orono area are looking for
space between their neighbors yet want to be part of a community.
Schroeder asked what the expectations are of the price of the lots and homes. Deanovic thought
the Dickey property would be $80,000 - $110,000 per lot and the Coffin property would be
higher, more comparable to Tuckborough in Medina.
Hare thought that enhancing the wetlands may make the property more valuable. Putnam stated
they would probably relocate some of them. This is an opportunity to alter Type 1 wetlands but
you wouldn't want to alter Type 3 wetlands, nor would that be allowed.
Nolan asked what other developments the developers have done. Some of the projects they did
were Copperfield in Mendota Heights, several projects in Eden Prairie including Summer Oaks,
and many sites for Centex Homes in Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and Mendota Heights. They have
not done any projects with septic systems.
0 24
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
s
HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - .CONY.
Nolan felt it desirable to take some of the Type 1 wetlands and integrate them through the
neighborhood with a good plan. Some areas could be developed into more productive wetlands.
Mitigation on the site is preferable to looking in other areas.
A meeting with the developer and Planning Commission members was scheduled for 9:00 a.m,
Saturday, October 23. The sketch plan will also be presented to Council at the October 25
meeting.
( #11) FLAG LOTS - FINALIZE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Berg, to table discussion of this item until
Thursday morning at the special Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0.
( #12) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
Lindquist and Peterson reported that in the Jundt application problem the Council did not
approve a deck at the bottom of the stairway for storage in the 0 -75' setback zone. Council
requested that adequate hardships be stated on the applications. Surveys need to be accurate.
Council denied the Spinner application as the Planning Commission had recommended. Nolan
commented that the Spinner survey was inaccurate and had been pointed out.
( #13) OTHER ISSUES
Smith mentioned the meeting with Long Lake and Orono with a mediator over the Highway 12
issue. This was the second meeting and Smith is attending them. A MnDOT representative is
available as a technical advisor. Orono is represented by the entire Council. These meetings
run parallel to the Policy Committee meetings which are MnDOT meetings. Two meeting dates
are set in November and again in January. The meetings are open to the public and held at the
Orono Council Chambers. Smith commented that MnDOT stated the reason they are looking
at Highway 12 upgrades is because the people from Wilmar want to get into the Cities.
Schroeder reminded members further discussion needs to take place before the end of November
regarding the B -2 zone and encouraged members to visit all of the marinas.
Schroeder stated Mabusth had checked into insurance for Planning Commission members. His
question was whether they are insured if they injure a dog, etc., not if one of the members is
injured on an inspection. Gaffron will research further.
• 25
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COWUSSION MEETING
• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993
( #14) APPROVAL OF MiNU MS
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the September 20,.
1993 Planning Comniasion meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0.
( #15) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL NMETING
Berg volunteereA to attend the November 8, 1993 Council meeting.
( #16) PLANNING COMAUSSION - PUBLIC HEARING OCTt7M 21t 1993 AT 8:04
A.M.
Schroeder ittninded inembers of the Thursday meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plait
Amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to adjourn the regular Planning CornmissioIl
meeting at 12:38 p.m.
26
r�
Charics Schr, ocdcr, Chair Person.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
• MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1993
ROLL
The Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chairman Charles Schroeder, Planning Commission Members Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan,
Stephen Peterson, and Janice Berg. Commission Members Rowlette and Lindquist were absent.
City staff was represented by Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron.
Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
( #1) PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Gaffron presented background information regarding this proposed amendment to add policy
language to the Environmental Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to the
application of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for new storm water ponds,
and the application of "Best Management Practices" for land alteration projects. He noted that
adoption of this language is required by the Metropolitan Council before they will approve
Orono's MUSA boundary amendment for the Nettles and sewer plant properties. He noted that
forty other metro area cities had adopted similar language to -date.
Gaffron noted that the City Council had adopted a resolution of intent to add this language to
the Comprehensive Plan and implement the policies by revising the zoning code by May 15,
1995. He further noted that adoption of NURP standards will result in the general use of "wet"
detention ponds, as opposed to the fully draining ponds that were commonly incorporated into
subdivisions during the 1980s. He also noted that the "Best Management Practices for
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas ", a document provided by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, contains methods and practices that are commonly in use by the City staff and
engineer currently, although they are merely guidelines rather than code requirements.
Gaffron noted that the proposed revisions would incorporate one paragraph regarding Best
Management Practices, and one sentence regarding NURP standards. He also noted that the
May 15, 1995 deadline was the same deadline date by which Orono must have its storm water
management plans in compliance with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan.
Schroeder questioned how adoption of the NURP and BMP standards would affect the City's
current practices. Gaffron indicated that the main difference would be in the use of wet
detention ponds, which have somewhat different dimensions and parameters than dry ponds, but
which should have only a minor financial implication for developers. He also noted that staff
and the City Engineer already have put into use many of the Best Management Practices
identified. He indicated as we progress with our storm water management plan review,
ordinances will be developed regarding the use of fertilizers, street sweeping, and many of the
practices which are not currently required by code.
•
AC NMS OF THE SPECIAL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD OCTOBER. 31, 1993
Paterson questioned whether the City needed until May 1995 to upgrade its storm water
ordinances, and Indicated that he would hope they could be completed sooner. Gaffron noted
that most cities had been allowed six to eight montris by Met Council for ltnpleawnting their
"Interim Strategy ", and Orono's May 1995 deadline was apparently somewhat of a compromise
on Met Council's part,
It was moved by Janice Berg, seconded by Charles Nolan, to recommend adoption of the
proposed language into Part 11, Chapter 3 "General Policies for Natuxal Resource Management"
in the Oro,ta Conununity Matutgement Plan as proposed, Schroeder indicated this is a public
hearing and no members of the public were present to comment. The motion carried on a vote
of 5 to 0.
02) FLAG LOTS - RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCTI,
Schroeder asked whether any Commission members had questions on the proposed
r,ecorntmndation to Council regarding flag lots. Smith questioncd as to whether some of ow
standards should apply to existing lots or existing residences. Scbroeder questioned what would
be the Impact of applying these standards to existing properties. Gaffrron indicated that some
of the area and setback standards would certainly result in additional variance applications in
neighborhoods that "bought into" the existing situation, and therefore the new requirements
would probably be a nuisance. Some existing buildings would become nonconforming
structures.
Schroeder noted that, for instance, screening might only be an issue for an existing flag lot in
a dense area such as Casco Point, and questioned whether there were complaints of this nature.
Gaffron indicated there arc virtually no complaints regarding existing flag lots. Schroeder
indicated that there appears to be little meal for imposing these recommended requirements on
existing properties.
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to transmit the recommended standards for the creation and
use of new flag lots as outlined in the staff memo, as Planning Commission's recommendation
to Council. Motion carried an a vote of 5 to 0.
Schroeder reiuiuded the Commission of its scheduled 9:00 a.m. Saturday meeting to view the
Coffin and Dickey properties.
Motion was made by Smith, seconded by Berg, to adjourn, at 8:35 a.m. Motion carried.
Charles Schroeder, Chair Person
0-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
40 NOVEMBER 15, 1993
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on November 15, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. with the following
members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Charles Nolan Jr., Stephen Peterson, and Dale
Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne
Mabusth and Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Schroeder announced that Agenda Item #3, #1876 for James W. Ogland /Donald J.
Stoyke had been withdrawn per the applicants request and Item #11, #1893 for Christine Freeman
had been rescheduled until the January Planning Commission meeting.
1. $1850 James Spinner
940 North Arm Drive - Variances - Revised Plan - Referral from Council
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and reviewed the
amended proposal with the Planning Commission. Mr. Herstein, the applicant's consultant,
was present and stated that his client has agreed to offer the removal of paved area between
the lakeside and the proposed garage addition.
Chairman Schroeder inquired if the hill would have to be cut into and Mr. Herstein responded
• affirmatively and stated that there was a steep slope in this area. Commissioner Nolan
inquired if the applicant had considered regrading the area and Mr. Herstein responded he
had not.
Schroeder asked if the concrete area on the north side of the house could be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding the concrete pad on the north side of the residence and
whether the petitioner would be willing to remove it.
Commissioner Nolan moved. Schroeder seconded, to deny #1850 variance for James Spinner
at 940 North Arm Drive based on the following findia :
1. The petitioner was requesting a variance for new structural hardcover within the 0 -75'
setback area and this is very difficult to approve.
2. The amount of the variance requested is excessive and approval was to be based on
less than adequate concessions .
Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, and Peterson voted "aye ". Commissioner Lindquist voted
"no ". Motion carried.
Commissioner Lindquist stated he voted no because he felt that the petitioner was reducing
the amount of hardcover on the property and he supported the proposal.
•
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
41. #1850 Gary DeSantis /Sailors World
1955 Shoreline Drive - Variances - continuation of Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. Gary DeSantis, the
applicant, was present and explained the lack of storage space was a hardship and he
requested the Planning Commission to approve his request. He stated the DNR was
concerned about locating the proposed storage module as far away from the water as
possible. He stated he was willing to provide landscaping and screening to buffer the module
from the view from the roadway. He stated that Ceil Strauss of the DNR had said she would
send a letter to the Planning Commission stating that the proposed location was acceptable.
Mr. DeSantis discussed the exterior appearance of the building and explained why it was not
feasible to make an addition onto the existing building because of the existing window and
door placement.
Commissioner Nolan inquired how much the setback variance would be if the module were
placed as shown on the plans and Ms. Mabusth responded that it would require a 40'
setback variance. Mr. DeSantis stated that the position of the module shown on the plans
was the position selected by the DNR. He noted that it could be moved if the Planning
Commission preferred a different location.
Chairman Schroeder stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation but was not
• supportive of the proposed location. Commissioner Peterson inquired what made the module
movable, and Mr. DeSantis responded that it could be moved from one place to another if
it were placed directly on the asphalt and not on a foundation. Ms. Mabusth commented
that the structure was designed to blend in with the principal structure. Mr. DeSantis
reviewed the proposed landscaping to screen the storage module.
Commissioner Nolan inquired about the trash enclosure and whether the area of the site
occupied by a walkway was necessary, and Mr. DeSantis responded affirmatively.
Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of constructing an addition onto the existing
building. Mr. DeSantis explained why this was not practicable because of the placement of
windows and doors in the principal structure.
Commissioner Lindquist moved Peterson seconded to approve #1874 variance for a 30'
setback to allow a storage module to be placed on Space #34 without a foundation, directly
on the asphalt, subject to the following stipulations:
1. The applicant provide a landscape plan for staff review and approval for screening of
the proposed storage module.
2. The doors of the storage module face away from the street.
Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
#1876 James W. Ogland /Donald J. Stoyke
3345/3339 Crystal Bay Road - Vacation of road - Continuation of Public Hearing
This item was withdrawn by the applicants in a letter which was entered into the record.
4. #1886 Robert L. Melamed
1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Land Alteration - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Duke Haas, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, asked if the proposal would include removal of the
old gravel road. Ms. Mabusth responded affirmatively, and stated that the City would require
that the entire area be restored to natural ground cover, as it was before the road was there.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Robert Melamed, the applicant, stated that it was required by the City Engineer that they
provide an updated grading plan, and they are in agreement with that condition.
• Commissioner Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, for approval of $ 1886 Conditional Use
Permit for Robert L. Melamed at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South to permit filling of
approximately 1,800 cubic yards of fill, subject to submission of revised grading plans for
staff review and approval. Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted
"aye ". Motion carried.
5. #1887 Robert L. Melamed
1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that staff
recommended approval of the request to allow construction of a guest house on the property
located at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South, based on the understanding that a subdivision
of the property will soon be forthcoming.
Robert Melamed, the applicant, stated he was proposing to construct the guest house as a
residence for his mother. He stated that they plan on submitting a request for a subdivision
in January, and he did not anticipate any variances to be associated with that petition.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
. The Public Hearing was closed.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
• Commissioner Peterson moved Nolan seconded for agl2roval of #1887 Conditional Use
Permit for Robert L. Melamed at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South to permit construction of
a guest house on the property, subject to the following stipulation:
1. In the event that the forthcoming subdivision is not finalized, the second residential
unit must not be used for rental purposes, but must remain for the exclusive use of
the applicant, his family members, guests, or hired help.
Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
6. #1888 Paul and VeNita Schnebele
835 Forest Arms Lane - Variance - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Paul Schnebele, the applicant, stated they propose to install new landscaping and remove
the remaining rock and plastic. He showed the areas that were already completed and those
that will be done next spring.
Chairman Schroeder inquired if there had been any comments from any of the neighbors.
Mr. Schnebele stated that one neighbor had his garage next to the property line and the other
neighbor would have a clear view of the channel.
Commissioner Peterson inquired if there had been any water problems in the neighbor to the
east's back yard, and Mr. Schnebele responded that he was unaware of any.
Commissioner Lindquist moved, Nolan seconded, for approval of #1888 Variance for
lakeshore setback variance for lakeside addition to existing residence for Paul and VeNita
Schnebele at 835 Forest Arms Lane subject to the following stipulation:
Applicant remove the additional rock and plastic hardsurface cover as recommended
by staff.
Chairman Schroeder directed staff to determine the percent of rock and plastic that will need
to be removed prior to review by the City Council.
0 Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
al
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
�. #1889 Rodney J. Batzlaff
1115 Brown Road South - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report.
Rodney Batzlaff, the applicant, gave a brief history of the site and the lot division.
Commissioner Nolan stated he was concerned about the screening from adjacent properties.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Nolan moved, Lindquist seconded, for approval of #1889 Variance Renewal
for Rodney J. Batzlaff at 1115 Brown Road South, subject to the following stipulations:
1. The principal structure shall be moved 2' to the north to eliminate the side yard
setback variance.
• 2. Screening shall be placed between the subject property and the parcel to the south.
3. The shed located in the rear yard shall be moved to conform to the side yard setback
requirement.
Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
8. #1890 Craig Hertzenberg
115 Smith Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that the
applicant is proposing to retain a new portion of the detached structure consisting of a single
stall garage. The well is located in a landscaped area and there will be adequate clearance,
so the well does not need to be relocated.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Nolan inquired if the septic system was adequate and Ms. Mabusth responded
affirmatively, and noted there was not a problem with the amount of lot coverage.
,0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
is Commissioner Nolan inquired how the applicant planned on doing the roof, and Mr.
q PP P 9
Hertzenberg responded that it will be a new roof. Commissioner Nolan inquired if the
applicant had considered excavating under the new addition to increase the amount of
storage space available. Mr. Hertzenberg stated they had considered that, but the only area
suitable for excavation was that located under the proposed family room, and there was no
way to provide access to that area from the within the basement because it was separated
by a crawl space.
Chairman Schroeder moved Peterson seconded, to approve #1890 Variance for Craig
Hertzenberg at 115 Smith Avenue with the side yard setback as proposed. Commissioners
Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
9. 1891 Brian and Barbara Ehalt /Don and Glee Jarnes
140 Leaf Street - Variance - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report, and stated that Mr.
Jaynes has agreed to grant a 25' easement for future roadway expansion. She noted that
a street setback and the hardcover excesses in the 75 -250' setback area at approximately
6% are at issue.
Commissioner Peterson inquired about the curb cut and whether it would be realigned further
• to the north. He also inquired about the hill and the applicant responded that he would go
around it. Commissioner Lindquist asked if the applicant proposed to have a single garage
door, and Mr. Jaynes responded affirmatively, and noted that it would be a 16 foot wide
single door.
Commissioner Nolan inquired about the concrete patio along the back portion of the house
to the lakeside and whether the applicant proposed to remove it. Mr. Jaynes responded that
it was an existing patio, and he proposed to retain it. Chairman Schroeder stated he was
concerned about the increase in hardcover and he felt that at least a portion of the patio
should be removed to lessen the amount of the hardcover variance. Commissioner Peterson
commented that he saw the patio when he visited the site, although it was not indicated on
the survey.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the patio and the amount of hardsurface coverage
on the site. Ms. Mabusth noted that the surveyor had not indicated the patio on the plans,
but it was approximately 6' x 15' in area. Staff felt that if 7.5 square feet were removed
from the existing patio it would be sufficient to bring the hardcover area into compliance with
ordinance requirements. Mr. Jaynes noted that closing was contingent upon approval of this
variance request.
Commissioner Peterson commented he did not have a problem with the applicant's proposal;
however, he was concerned about the accuracy of the survey which had been submitted.
• Chairman Schroeder commented he did not support increasing the amount of hardsurface
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
•
coverage on the site; Commissioner Nolan agreed, and stated he felt that steps should be
9 9 P
taken to lessen the amount of hardsurface coverage. He supported staff's recommendation
for removal of 7 square feet of patio.
Commissioner Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, for approval of #1891 Variance for Brian
Ehalt /Don Jaynes at 140 Leaf Street with the understanding that there will be no increase in
the 0 -75' setback area of hardcover area and the applicant will submit a revised survey
showing the hardcover within the 75 -250' setback area at no more than 30 %.
Chairman Schroeder noted he was uncomfortable moving ahead without an accurate survey,
and stated this was not something he liked to do. Commissioner Lindquist stated he felt the
applicant should submit a revised survey prior to City Council review, which had the
dimensions on it.
Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
10. #1892 Bruce Kehring
4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public Hearing
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. She noted that
Blake Bichanich, the architect for the applicant was also present. She stated that the sewer
• was 150' away and the applicant will be able to connect to it. The applicant will have to
make a payment of a front footage charge as part of the sewer connection fee.
Bruce Kehring, the applicant, explained that the roof of the house is proposed to be used as
an exterior entertainment area to avoid the use of patios or decks. He stated the highest
point of the house is 30'. Ms. Mabusth stated that a small portion of the house will be
three -story and the ordinance allows for a 2.5 stories. The proposed house meets the 30'
height requirement but will require a variance for three stories.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Ms. Mabusth explained staff's position regarding the average lakeshore setback and stated
there is no problem because the lots are separated by a public roadway, and the property
owner has no claim on the view. The current property owner, Roger Byboth, stated he had
talked to the neighbors and they were glad to see the proposal.
Ms. Mabusth discussed the hardcover variance and the hardship created by the shape of the
parcel. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the property, and the drainage system
for the house was explained. The water will drain down from the roof into four holding
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
tanks and then slow) perk into a drainfield area to the west of the house. The shape of the
slowly p
lot was discussed in relation to hardship because there is adequate area, but the shape of
the lot limits the area available for the building.
Discussion ensued regarding the design of the house in relation to the shape of the lot and
the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson commented that this was a unique
situation and he liked the control of the drainage from the house. Chairman Schroeder
commented he felt the design was inconsistent with the neighborhood, and Mr. Kehring
responded that it was dictated by the shape of the lot.
Commissioner Peterson moved Lindquist seconded for aeproval of #1892 Variance for
Bruce Kehring 4415 Forest Lake Landing with the hardcover variance and a variance fora
three -story structure less than 30' in height based on the hardship of an unusual shaped lot
with a 13,700 sq. ft. building envelope. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and
Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
11. #1893 Christine Freeman
2240 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing (Rescheduled to January, 1994)
12. #1842 Tom Browne
760 Brown Road South - Variance - Request to modify approved Development Plan
• Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. Tom Browne, the
applicant, was present. Commissioner Lindquist inquired if staff had any problems with the
changes, and Ms. Mabusth responded negatively. Mr. Browne noted that the changes came
up after Council had approved the original plans.
Commissioner Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the modifications to the
approved Development Plans for Tom Browne at 760 Brown Road South as set forth in the
staff report. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion
carried.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
13. #1885 Lundgren Brothers Construction
2765 Sixth Avenue North - Sketch Plan Review for proposed subdivision
1�1
Commissioner Peterson left the table for the following discussion.
Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth stated that this was a sketch plan review
and required no action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the zoning was the
most important issue, and reviewed the staff report.
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
• Chairman Schroeder inquired if the proposal had been reviewed before the Council, and Ms.
Mabusth responded that the Council had informally considered whether the City would
consider the rezoning. Mayor Ed Callahan stated that the Council was not in favor of the
rezoning, and that was the extent of the discussion.
•
Mr. Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers, stated they were cognizant of the ordinance in Orono
and were aware of the issues. He stated they believe there are reasons why the rezoning
proposal should be considered and presented their development team to address those
concerns. He introduced Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Brian Olson,
Director of Land Development for Lundgren Brothers, Frank Svoboda, a Certified Wetland
Biologist to discuss the wetland mitigation issues, and Ken Adolph, a Principal Engineer with
Schoell and Madson in Minnetonka. Mr. Forbord stated that they have tried to provide
distinctive features in their developments which set them apart from those of other
developers in the metropolitan area. He noted that as the supply of available land diminishes,
they have had to take on projects that were more difficult to develop.
John Uban showed exhibits that were included in the packet and reviewed why they felt it
was important to the City of Orono to have this type of development. He discussed the
proposed zoning density and noted that while it is not what was envisioned in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, there are reasons why it should be considered. Among these is the
fact that the school is expanding and the church property has been sold and ballfields have
been constructed on property adjacent to the proposed site. He stated they believe this
project would balance the residential and commercial areas. He reviewed the PUD zoning
designation and discussed the reasons why they believe that a municipal sewer system is
needed for development of the property. He reviewed the cluster development idea and
stated they believe it to be both necessary and feasible. He discussed the buffering for the
project, and the ordinance criteria. He cited the busy roadways surrounding the site and the
adjacent land uses as being compatible with the proposed zoning.
Frank Svoboda discussed the wetland mitigation and enhancement involved with the project.
He discussed the compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses and stated that
they will create new wetlands at a ratio of 2 to 1, which would mean that two acres of
wetland will be created for every one acre of wetland lost. He illustrated where the wetlands
are located on the site and described the various types of trees and vegetation within those
wetland areas. He stated that most of the wetlands have been subject to agricultural tillage
in the past, depending on the amount of rainfall, and are not considered to be "pristine"
wetlands. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a variance to allow the wetlands
to be modified.
Ken Adolph, Schoell and Madson, discussed the high water table which precluded on -site
septic systems. He stated that sanitary sewer would be extended into the area, and noted
that it was reasonable to cluster the development into a pattern which could economically
be served by extending utilities into the area. He discussed the storm water management
41
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
• graphics illustrating the wetland
plan and the site grading and drainage plans. He showed g ap cs g
mitigation proposals.
John Uban reviewed the zoning issues and the density they are proposing at one unit per
acre. He discussed the site constraints and reviewed the design for the proposed
development. He explained how the runoff can be consolidated and retained in one large
wetland area by using the natural features of the site. He discussed tree preservation plans
and the roadway plan. He stated they believe it is beneficial to put the open space around
the perimeter of the site and cluster the houses together on the interior portion of the site.
He discussed the internal roadway system and their efforts to preserve the woods. He noted
that the site consists of 58.6 acres, and the development occupies 38 acres, which
comprises a density of one unit per acre. In summary, he noted that the proposed
development met the PUD ordinance criteria, and they would be creating a quality
development.
Chairman Schroeder discussed the one unit per acre density and the two acre lot minimum
standard. He inquired if it would be possible for the developers to increase the lot size to
meet the one unit per two acre density. Mr. Forbord stated that Lundgren Brothers had a
specific type of customer in mind when they designed this development, and projects were
designed based on demographics and community profiles. Their customer profile is
significantly different than that of their competitors. He stated they had worked with City
staff to design a project that would best suit their potential customers and in this case staff
supported a PUD format for development. He noted that the one unit per acre density
exceeded the normal density throughout the metropolitan area.
Chairman Schroeder commented that the City of Orono has 2 -5 acre minimum lot sizes,
which exceeds the standards of other communities in the metro area. Discussion ensued
regarding the costs involved with extending municipal utilities to the property and the issue
of how those costs would be passed on to the buyers of the lots within the proposed
development. Commissioner Nolan inquired why septic systems would not be feasible on
this site, and Ms. Mabusth responded that a study had been done in the early 1970's for an
earlier subdivision which indicated that no septic systems should be placed on this property.
She noted she felt that PUD was the proper zoning designation for this property.
The costs involved with extending City sewer to the property were discussed. The issue of
the density was discussed, with the Commission concurring that the one unit per two acre
density was preferable to the one unit per one acre density proposed by the applicant. Mr.
Forbord stated that it was not feasible to proceed with the project if that was going to be
the requirement of the City. He explained how their costs per lot are always higher than
those of other developers. Commissioner Nolan commented he felt there were benefits to
clustering the houses within the development, but he was concerned about the density and
inquired if the density could be reduced and the project still be viable. Mr. Forbord
responded that there was a diversity in what people wanted and he did not believe the
10
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
•
project would be viable if the were required to construct it with a one unit per two acre
P 1 Y q P
density.
Chairman Schroeder stated he supported the one unit per two acre density and he would like
to see the project developed with that density. Commissioner Lindquist stated he concurred
with Chairman Schroeder and he would have difficulty supporting the project as proposed.
Commissioner Nolan stated he thought the plan showed sensitivity to the area but the
density issue was something he had to agree with his fellow commissioners on. The overall
density of the project was discussed.
Mr. Forbord commented that if the City was going to require a density of two acres per unit
this property would not be developed by Lundgren Brothers and would probably not be
developed at all given the expense of providing municipal utilities. He asked if the City was
saying that they did not want this property to develop at all. Chairman Schroeder responded
that they wanted to see the land developed with fewer lots, but it was not accurate to say
that the City did not want the land to be developed at all. John Uban asked if the Planning
Commission would support a plan with multiple access from County Road 6, and all the
Commissioners responded negatively. Mr. Forbord stated that it was not the price of the
land which made it so expensive to develop the project, but the costs involved with the
grading costs, which were three times the usual given the poor soils and the high water
table. He stated they believe the site is ideal for a PUD zoning designation. Chairman
• Schroeder stated that they would consider the plan with a reduced density.
Commissioner Peterson returned to the table.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
14. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of November 8, 1993.
Chairman Schroeder reviewed the actions taken by the Council which included acceptance
of the Planning Commission recommendation regarding flag lots and staff had been directed
to draft an ordinance. He stated that the McKinney duplex was approved, although the City
Attorney had informed them that they could not legally require owner occupancy.
15. Other issues for discussion.
There were none.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF ORONO
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
*DDITIONAL ITEMS
16. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 18, 1993 meeting.
Commissioner Schroeder moved Lindquist seconded for approval of the October 18 1993
Planning Commission minutes as submitted. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and
Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 21, 1993 special meeting.
Chairman Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, for approval of the October 21, 1992
Planning Commission special meeting minutes as submitted. Commissioners Nolan,
Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion carried.
18. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the December 13, 1993 meeting
of the Council.
Chairman Schroeder volunteered to attend the December 13, 1993 City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
bt 11:00 p.m. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye ". Motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned.
•
12
Charles Schroeder, Chai