Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1994• MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Vice -Chair Stephen Peterson, Janice Berg, Charles Nolan, Jr., Sandy Smith and Candace Rowlette. Councilmember Gabriel Jabbour was present representing Council. City staff was represented by Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Carole Haseman. Members of the public present were Todd Nelson representing Minnetonka Boat Works; Rich Anderson representing Sailors World and North Shore Drive Marinas; Jim Dunn representing Lakeside Marina; Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue; Camilo Castellon, 1950 Shoreline Drive; Beverly Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive; and Lee Fischback, 3135 North Shore Drive. The meeting was called to order at 5:13 p.m. Peterson welcomed members of the public and began the meeting by stating the intention of the work session is to continue to review and discuss the B -2 Code, specific topics for this session including parking, restaurants, fishing tournaments, commercial dock locations and lake maintenance operations. Gaffron presented a brief review from previous discussions of permitted, accessory and . conditional uses. Accessory uses must have a permitted use before there can be an accessory use. Conditional uses can stand alone but require special Council approval. Permitted uses must be able to individually stand alone as a marina use and include rental slips, sales of boats, motors, trailers and marine accessories, repair and servicing of boats, on -land storage of boats in summer and winter, marine fuel sales, and bait and fishing tackle sales. Several accessory uses not currently allowed in the B -2 have been discussed at last month's work session and concluded by the Planning Commission to be inappropriate for B -2. These include ice skating rinks, tobagonning, Christmas tree sales, parasailing and automobile winter access. Accessory uses considered by Planning Commission to be appropriate in the B -2 so far include signs, head pump out for boats, sale of prepackaged foods, dive shop, club house for slip customers to use, sailing schools, rental boats, one caretaker dwelling unit for security purposes, sailboard sales /rental, ice fishing tackle sales but not ice fishing houses or equipment for sales /rental, and ice boats. Accessory uses left for further discussion were fishing tournaments, cross country ski sales /rental and snowmobile operations. Most of the conditional uses were left for further discussion except for cigarette sales, sale of 3.2 beer and transient boat launching which remain as reasonable uses. Additional information is needed before any discussion can be done regarding the conditional uses for boat clubs, on- demand launch of customer's boat stored on- site, charter boats, lake structure maintenance operation base and restaurants. is Gaffron noted that parking and landscape uses and performance standards need to be addressed at this time. Under Subd. 8 Parking Requirements, it is suggested that parking areas "need not 1 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 be paved" but shall be provided with appropriate stormwater runoff quality /quantity controls. Parking areas change hardcover. Peterson asked if any of the marinas have added catch basins or baffle systems. Gaffron responded that Sailors World incorporated a filter system along their entire sea wall. Mabusth added Windward and Minnetonka Boat Works have also addressed this issue. Gaffron noted that it is not an expensive process but takes space which results in a site use change for marinas. Nolan stated parking spaces cannot be designated without paving and inquired if the marinas met the parking requirements. Gaffron explained most marinas meet the required number of parking spaces required but the location of spaces do not meet the current code requirements. Nolan asked if there are parking problems at the marinas resulting in complaints from cars parking on the streets. Gaffron stated that it is not an everyday problem. Nolan questioned the 6 stalls per 10 slips parking ratio. Gaffron responded that if the spaces are managed properly the ratio is probably appropriate. Camilo Castellon, a neighbor living across from Sailors World, complained that parking is a constant problem in his area. Gaffron indicated Sailors World had been granted a variance for storage which takes up one spot but they have an agreement for additional parking arrangements at the Art Center. Rich Anderson from Sailors World stated the "no parking signs" are enforced in front of their location along County Road 15 and feels parking problems have been reduced. Peterson asked the marina owners if • the 6 per 10 ratio works. Jim Dunn replied that 5 per 10 is a figure used in various marine operations. is Gaffron addressed the code regarding 8 off - street parking spaces for the 1,000 s.f. of retail and 1 additional space for each 800 s.f. and after discussion members felt it made sense. Lee Fishback noted that cruise boat problems are not identified. Gaffron explained that item D is a proposed addition to the code and addresses charter boats, requiring 1 stall per 3 charter boat seats. Gaffron proceeded to Item F regarding parking and winter storage and stated most problems occur in the transition seasons in the spring and fall. An addition to the code is Item H pertaining to employee parking spaces. Peterson questioned if it was needed. Dunn reiterated the .5 formula and said management of the inside envelope and overflow issues were challenges to the marina operators. The impact of "no parking signs" along neighbors' property was discussed and the possibility of placing "residents only parking signs". Nolan suggested an appropriate parking ratio needs to be established and enforcement of parking violations. Dan Crear, a resident who has lived in the area of Sailors World for a number of years, said parking has never been a problem for him. Crear expressed displeasure with the proposal by the DNR for a ramp between two marinas on North Shore Drive. Councilmember Jabbour clarified that the DNR purchased a piece of land for public access and 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 explained part of the agreement with the DNR regarding no car /trailer parking within a mile of any public access. Gaffron proceeded with the code item of landscaping areas within the envelope. There is an inconsistency with the code for yard requirements. Nolan asked if regulations were relaxed to fit the existing areas, would problems arise in connection with development of new marinas? Gaffron stated there is one area available between Lakeside and Gayle's that is zoned B -2 which has four houses on it. The area between North Shore Drive and Lakeside Marina which the DNR bought is still zoned LR -1C -1, 1/2 acre single family residential. Nolan said the reality of a new marina is almost nil and more focus needs to be done on the existing marinas. Gaffron noted within the last ten years, major changes have been made to Minnetonka Boat Works, Windward and Sailors World. They have been granted a number of variances and while they do not completely meet all code standards, progress has been made. The lakeshore landscaping section has been in place since 1975. Gaffron noted that the lakeshore landscape area shall be equal to 10% of the depth of the lot. For instance, if there is 200' from the street to the lake, there must be a 20' strip along the lake that is landscaped. However, the lakeshore yard requirement of 75' seems to be in conflict with the 10% standard, and the requirement that all required yard areas be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs • would seem to override any other landscaping requirements. Gaffron noted the code requires that the detailed landscape plan for each landscaping area shall provide natural screening 50% opaque during summer months. A privacy fence may be required in addition to the natural landscaping. The use of any fencing shall not satisfy the requirements of providing natural landscaping. It has to be nursery stock. Gaffron explained that in 1975 three year plans were developed for landscape plantings. Some but not all of the marinas were successful with the program. He said a proposed addition to this section is all landscape areas shall be sufficiently delineated by acceptable physical barrier so as to eliminate the encroachment of vehicle parking or boat storage. A problem exists if you don't have a raised landscape area or curb that defines it, because cars and boats creep into the space and soon it is gone. • Another proposed addition to this section defines what landscaping means. All groundcover shall be natural living materials such as grass or other planted groundcover. Decorative rockbeds shall constitute no more than 10% of the required landscape areas. Smith questioned why some plantings do not take - is it because of neglect or lack of maintenance or other unique problems such as keeping lands healthy and well? Gaffron replied that all those have an impact. Salt from the winter roadsides can be a problem for the trees. Parking boats into bushes will cause damage. Landscaping is something that you have to work at. Peterson asked if there were any comments on landscaping. Rich Anderson asked if trees are more desirable rather than fencing. Gaffron replied that visually a fence will be sufficient for mere screening but is probably not desirable to look at. Mabusth added that for protection purposes you might want 3 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 fencing. She raised the point that view protection has never been addressed with marinas. Smith suggested eliminating the word "rockbed" and replace it with something all inclusive such as "non - natural materials". Peterson suggested working with the marinas to reestablish landscaping plans again. Gaffron inquired whether Planning Commission felt that a formal landscape plan approval process was necessary. Peterson suggested the marinas should submit a plan to staff with no involvement from the Planning Commission. Dunn identified a major parking problem for marinas occurs during boat launching in the spring. Summer months are easier to manage. Dan Crear added that he felt there has only been good change in the marinas particularly Windward and Sailors World. From a business standpoint, he feels you should be careful how you punish and look at the big picture. Gaffron moved on to area, height, lot width and yard requirements. B -2 lot area standards have always been a minimum of 2 acres, 200' width and 200' depth. In the past, there have been a number of zoning "flip flops" regarding the area between North Shore Drive Marina and Lakeside. Presently it is zoned single family residential. He mentioned that ten years ago Council said it might consider rezoning the area to B -2 if somebody accumulated 2 full acres • between the two marinas. Planning Commission may want to address whether 2 acres is reasonable. Do we want to make it tougher? If the lot area is changed from 2 acres to 3 or 4, it would be more difficult for the area between North Shore and Lakeside to get rezoned. Peterson stated that if the DNR proposal goes through, we may never have to worry about it. Members agreed that realistically 2 acres would not be large enough to discourage a rezoning to B -2. Gaffron stated that the City has a very minimal B -2 zoning district which includes six marinas, a gas station and the area between Lakeside and Gayle's. If the area between North Shore and Lakeside were to be rezoned, should the City set higher standards thus preventing any new marina development? Do we want a marina there or not? Beverly Blomberg expressed her opinion that standards should be tougher and would not want to see more marinas or access areas on that bay. Dunn stated that the Planning Commission has an opportunity to get this matter before the Council so the land can be developed either B -2, residential or multi -uses. Lee Fishback suggested the land be kept residential. Gaffron noted the City needs to encourage the ultimate outcome they want to strive for. If we make no decision what the outcome should be, nothing will change. Peterson agreed that a decision needs to made. Rowlette commented she prefers the expansion of the existing marinas rather than a new marina. Gaffron stated that the neighborhood might have different views. Dunn stated that gross acreage would be an issue for either B -2 or residential. Lee Fishback asked if the Planning Commission has already made a decision for that area by letting someone build a garage. Gaffron explained that the garage construction fits the current zoning standards for the area which is LR -1C -1 residential. 2 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 Gaffron read from a handout regarding additional performance standards which have been in place since the mid- 1970s. The first one pertains to suitable sanitary facilities which all our marinas now have available. Not all the marinas have a boat head pumpout station in the marina but if they all did maybe that would be overkill. No one has complained that the facility is not available. Item B states all means of access to the operation from any street shall be so located to avoid the routing of vehicles from the property over streets that serve abutting residential areas. All access roads shall be paved 30'. Item C reads all lighting on the premises shall be shielded. Item D limits the hours of running engines for purpose of running auxiliary equipment or testing from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It doesn't mean that you can't have boats going out into the evening but the general noisiness of testing engines should be limited. Gaffron mentioned the existing noise ordinance on land which states noise shall not extend past your property boundaries. Item E talks about maximum hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for retail sales and service except that is necessary to support normal fishing activity or other uses granted by the Council. Normal fishing activity probably doesn't include a fishing tournament. Gaffron said fishing tournament permits don't necessarily stop the problems but do warn all other agencies of the event. iItem F states at all times docks, seawalls and premises be kept in a neat and orderly manner. This can be dealt with by working with the owner. Dunn stated that Item E covers a reasonable operational time but the reference to auxiliary equipment in Item D could present a problem and perhaps needs to be defined. Rowlette suggested rewording Item E to be more specific. • Gaffron proceeded with Item G, persons in charge shall prohibit the dumping of garbage, etc. Rowlette suggested rewording Item G to encourage recycling. Camilo Castellon inquired if there are any provisions to enclose increasingly large garbage cans from the view of neighbors. Gaffron felt that the code does not do a good job of requiring screening for dumpsters. Peterson said the intent is to make receptacles available and convenient for people to use. Gaffron stated there seem to be two concerns - the small can that is handy and the dumpster that those small cans are dumped into. He suggested screening the dumpsters but the cans could be visible. Item 8 references no commercial docks or boat buoys shall extend further into waters than is reasonably necessary to accommodate docking and mooring of such craft. The length of docks shall be regulated by the City Code. Gaffron stated presently they are not regulated by code except by reference to old LMCD codes. The code also states that all such commercial docks and wharves shall be constructed and maintained of such materials and of such type of construction as will not render them unsafe or likely to endanger public enjoyment of the waters. There is nothing in our code that defines what is a safe dock. The LMCD does not have design or structural standards. Perhaps there are safety standards we could get into. The addition to 5 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 Item H is the prohibited use of non - encased expanded -bead polystyrene foam as a dock flotation material. Nolan questioned the outdated laws of the LMCD. Gaffron pointed out in Subd. 18 the City adopted Ordinances of the LMCD from the 1970s. Since that time, the LMCD has changed those Ordinances and added others. Rowlette commented that reference should not be made to the LMCD but adopt the same standards. Gaffron asked at what point do you want the City of Orono to assume jurisdiction on the lake side which then encroaches LMCD. Gaffron explained that cities surrounding Lake Minnetonka are voting on dissolution of the LMCD. Nolan felt docks should have building standards. Before Rowlette left she asked that Item K, winter boat density /storage be discussed. She requested that blue winter covers be eliminated and suggested the use of white only for boats which would blend in with the snow. Rich Anderson said he has noticed that residents use boat coverings of various colors and some yards do not look much better than marinas. Rowlette explained that if there is not a considerable price differential, the choice should be white for shrink wrap material. The next topic was fishing tournaments. Gaffron explained the City, LMCD, Water Patrol and DNR all issue permits for fishing tournaments. Orono's permit is issued by the Police Department. He said fishing tournament problems are usually associated with traffic and noise and those problems need to be enforced by the various agencies. After discussion, Peterson felt that fishing tournaments could be better handled under the "Parades and Special Events" section is of the code and not in the B -2. Peterson asked if there were other items to be discussed. Lee Fishback asked if a decision had actually been made to change lot area to 5 acres. Berg explained the item of lot area was discussed but no conclusion had been made. Rich Anderson added it seems arbitrary to increase lot area size from 2 to 5 acres. Peterson felt it needs to be looked at further and should either be increased or eliminated. Gaffron reiterated his previous statement regarding what the City might want to happen with that property and then tailor acreage numbers to encourage those results. Dunn addressed Items I and K regarding land density and expressed his concern with on land authority if the LMCD's jurisdiction is eliminated. Gaffron notified everyone the next work session meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 23rd at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. r 0 Stephen Peterson, Vice -Chair 0 i/ PLANNING COMMISSION C 4 COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE ZN PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ATTENDANCE The Orono Planning Commission met on February 22, 1994 with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Candace Rowlette, Steve Peterson, and Janice Berg. Commissioner Dale Lindquist was excused. The following represented staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, City Engineer Shawn Gustafson, and City Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) 1903 ERNEST LEMMERMAN 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL /4620 TONKAVIEW LANE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Mabusth reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report. She noted that the boundaries adjacent to Wildhurst and Tonkaview are vague. The surveyor advised a registration of the land may be required as a condition of platting. Mr. Lemmerman was present and had no comments. Chairman Schroeder noted this was a public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address this item. No one present wished to speak. • Rowlette moved, Peterson seconded, to recommend approval of #1903 for Ernest Lemmerman at 1297 Wildhurst Trail /4628 Tonkaview Lane, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Application cannot be presented for Council's action until legal description issue is resolved and plat is finalized. 2. Designation of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the perimeter property lines of both lots and 5' along the interior. 3. Realignment of side lot line so that existing garage can meet 10' side setback. 6 ayes, 0 nays. ( 0) #1897 R. HUNT GREENE AND JANE E. PICARD 865 PARTENWOOD ROAD VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth gave the staff report and noted that staff does not recommend removal of the backout apron because of the length of the driveway. Jane Picard was present and had no comments. • Chairman Schroeder stated he felt the applicants had made a good effort to make the changes recommended by the Planning Commission. He concurred with staff's recommendation regarding retention of the backout area. 1 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( 0) #1897 R. HUNT GREENE AND JANE E. PICARD - 865 PARTENWOOD ROAD - CONTINUED Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to approve #1897 for R. Hunt Greene and Jane E. Picard located at 865 Partenwood Road for the 650 square foot addition and limiting the overhang along the side to 1.5' and retaining the backout area. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #5) #1902 DAN R. GUENTHNER 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth reviewed the staff report and noted the presence of Dan Guenthner and John Hallson. Chairman Schroeder commented he felt the applicant should be required to protect the existing septic system. Mabusth stated there had been no calls to staff regarding this item. Mr. Guenthner stated the structure would be constructed with steel rather than wood. Nolan asked about the applicant's intention of farming on the Suess property, and Mr. Guenthner responded that he had decided against that because it was not workable. Nolan inquired if there would be any retail sales from the property and Mr. Guenthner responded that sales would be • wholesale only. Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to approve #1902 Conditional Use Permit for Dan R. Guenthner at 120 Golden View Drive subject to the following stipulations: 1. Structure shall be installed to meet all required standards of the State Building and Fire Codes. 2. Use of the structure shall be limited to the specific period of March 25 - June 15. 3. When the structure is taken down, the structure must be removed immediately from the site and not stored on the 6.5 acre parcel. 4. Notice to owner of property of potential of eliminating suitable septic areas on property because of the use of heavy equipment compacting soils. Existing and alternate septic sites must be staked prior to the installation of greenhouse or any other land alterations. 6 ayes, 0 nays. • 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( #6) #1904 ERIC AND SHELLY LILJEQUIST 3490 BIRCH LANE VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth reviewed the staff report and noted that any condition of approval must include recognition of the proposed hardcover at 2,194 square feet and that applicants are allowed 300 square feet of additional improvements for steps, deck, or sidewalk. Eric Liljequist reviewed the revised footprint for the new house and inquired why he was required to obtain the lot area variance. Chairman Schroeder responded that the area variance requirement was the means by which the City could regulate proposals which could prove to be objectionable for some reason. Smith noted that this was the process by which the ordinance requirements were reviewed to ensure they had been met. In this instance, the applicant has already met those requirements and done the revisions on his own. Nolan inquired if there would be any grading done on the lot and Mr. Liljequist responded affirmatively, noting that there would be drainage swales running down the side lot lines. Nolan moved, Berg seconded, to approve #1904 Variances for Eric and Shelly Liljequist at 3490 Birch Lane subject to submission of a grading plan and noting that the applicants are allowed • 300 square feet of additional hardcover. 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Liljequist requested that this application be forwarded to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 28, 1994. • ( #2) #1905 JOHN POWERS /KEN HOPKINS 75/85 FERNDALE GREEN SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Mabusth reviewed the staff report. Mr. Larry Berg, attorney for the applicant, noted that the owners of Lots 5 and 6 have been contacted regarding their option to purchase the parcels abutting their lots, and they have been considering this action. If they decide against this then the applicant intends to approach the Country Club to inquire if they would be interested in obtaining Parcels A and B. This could be accomplished through outright sale or possibly deeding these two parcels to the Country Club. Mr. Powers is proposing this action because he wishes to have legal jurisdiction over this area which he has always considered to be his back yard, and he would like to have the legal right to maintain it as such. If Parcels A, B and C are combined with the adjacent residential lots it will increase the area of these lots bringing them closer to legal size. He stated that the Country Club was presently maintaining the parcels and were willing to continue doing this. He requested the Planning Commission to approve their request. K3 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 • ( #2) #1905 JOHN POWERS /KEN HOPKINS - 75/85 FERNDALE GREEN - CONTINUED John Powers stated he is the owner of Lot 7, and Parcel C has functioned as his back yard for some time now, and he wishes to have the legal right to control it. Chairman Schroeder noted that the need for the wedge no longer exists, and he had no problem with the proposal. Mabusth read Resolutions previously approved by the City and the City Council Minutes of 2/11/91 referring to this property. She felt that the City Council was looking at maintaining the 2 acre minimum and the rural character despite the availability of sewer and water. Mr. Berg stated that for the present Mr. Powers intends to attach all three parcels to his lot pending the decision by his neighbors regarding whether they are interested in purchasing the parcels adjacent to their lots. He noted that the parcels are too small to be developed individually, and their only purpose can be to either increase the lot area of the adjacent lots or be deeded back to the Country Club or remain as they are in their present state. Chairman Schroeder commented this appeared to be a straightforward proposal and the 2 acre requirement is maintained after receipt of credit for the wetland. Discussion ensued regarding the possible future for Parcels A and B. Mr. Berg stated that the property was Torrens property and they had created legal descriptions that were acceptable and will have all three parcels certified as metes and bounds parcels and attached to Mr. Powers property or the neighbors' properties, depending on their decision regarding purchase. He noted that he doubted the Country Club would be interested in purchasing Parcels And B but would probably accept it as a gift. He stated they have no intention of transferring title of Parcel B without first conveying Parcel A, to avoid having no access to Parcel C. He stated the parcels cannot be developed because of restrictive covenants. Schroeder moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve #1905 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for John Powers /Ken Hopkins, 75/85 Ferndale Green, noting that Lot 2 will still be over 2 acres in area. She noted that the resolution should permit or encourage the contiguous landowners to have the option to purchase these parcels, but the property cannot be sold to anyone else. Also, Parcel B cannot be sold until Parcel A is sold, or both can be sold together. 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( #4) #1901 1903 TANDEM PROPERTIES 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth reviewed the staff report and noted the outstanding issues. She reviewed the topography and illustrated the drainage flow patterns and ponding areas and culvert locations. Smith inquired if the horse /jogging trail was included in the "trail" and not just the limestone surface which was located higher up. She described the conditions on the horse /jogging trail and the difficulties she has encountered in the past when using this trail. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg & Gronberg Associates, stated they have endeavored to reduce the drainage to allow this area to drain more quickly and thus be drier than it has been in the past. He commented that the drainage ponds located on the Dickey property could be enlarged to accommodate more water if needed. Chairman Schroeder inquired if the revised plans would make the drainage situation better than it is now, and Mr. Gronberg responded affirmatively. He affirmed that they have been dealing with both trails, not just the higher one. • Gustafson stated he was not aware of the problems with the horse trail in this area. He felt the developers had provided a great deal of storm water retention, but it may not be adequate to alleviate the problems on the lower trail. Peterson commented he felt the DNR had not maintained the lower trail the way it should be. Mabusth discussed the wetland mitigation issue, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. She referenced a letter from Director Ellen Sones regarding this, which stated she was satisfied with the plan and per the Wetland Act, they will be able to replace these wetlands with something better. Gronberg reviewed the proposed drainage plans and illustrated the locations of the holding ponds and flowage patterns upon release. He stated the holding ponds will slow the drainage rate significantly, and decrease the flow by approximately one - third. He stated that because the water will be released at a slower rate it will allow the water downstream to dissipate before additional water comes down. Rowlette inquired if there could be problems regarding the dry buildable area of the lots if the holding ponds become larger due to heavy rainfall and Mr. Gronberg responded they have allowed adequate area to prevent any problems like this from arising. Gustafson commented that it was a balancing act, because it was impossible to control the amount of precipitation, but he felt this was a workable plan. Discussion ensued regarding drainage problems downstream, and the Planning Commission expressed concern that this development would not exacerbate already existing drainage problems. E MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( #4) #1901 1903 TANDEM PROPERTIES - 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONTINUED Chairman Schroeder inquired how deep the ponds would be and Gronberg responded that they would be about two feet deep normally, but after a heavy rainfall could become as deep as four feet. Rowlette expressed concern that future property owners be made aware that the ponds serve a specific purpose and cannot be altered in any way. Gronberg responded that there will be easements over them. Greg Laughton inquired if the trail would be two feet lower and Gronberg responded that it will be about one foot lower but the DNR did not want to have too steep a grade because of maintenance reasons. Mr. Laughton discussed the drainage levels on his property and noted that during the hundred year storm event the water rose six feet. He was concerned about the future drainage in the area. He also felt that the drainage needed to be observed when the melting and freezing cycles were occurring during the winter months, because when the culverts become frozen, the water will back up behind them. He stated he was not opposed to the development, but was concerned that his property would be wetter longer as a result of the proposal. He stated he was concerned about the holding ponds filling up with silt and becoming unable to fulfill their intended purpose over time. • Gronberg stated that the wet ponds were implemented to allow for siltation to occur, and noted that once ground cover was established there was very little silt buildup. Mabusth noted that if problems occur with the ponds, the homeowners would more than likely contact the City, and corrective measures could be implemented but it will be the responsiblity of the future homeowners association to maintain drainage facilities. Discussion ensued regarding the efforts of the applicant to address the drainage concerns. Gustafson commented he felt that property downstream will benefit from the plan because the amount of runoff will be slowed, but that's as far as they can predict. Discussion ensued regarding the length of water retention and the amount of water that will be controlled. Gronberg reviewed the drainage on the Dickey property. He noted they had shifted the property lines to enlarge Lot 8 to allow for creation of a larger pond. They are also directing the drainage down into a large holding pond which will gather water from the Old Crystal Bay Road area. Chairman Schroeder inquired if there had been any further developments in the determination of historical significance for the proposed park. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Properties, stated they have a written agreement with Mrs. Dickey to respect this site and even if no conclusion is reached regarding the historical significance the area will be set aside for some purpose. He stated that they will have to find an owner for the property, such as the homeowners association or the City. If it were to become just another lot in the development they would have to go before the City Council to get approval for an additional lot. He stated they intend to explore all other possibilities before taking that approach. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( #4) #1901 1903 TANDEM PROPERTIES - 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONTINUED Chairman Schroeder inquired whether the Commissioners had any opinion regarding whether the trails in the development should be public or private. Sherokee Ilse stated that a majority of the Park Commissioners felt that if the lot did not become a park that the trails within the development should be private. Because the determination has not been made on the outlot, it's difficult to make the determination regarding the trails. They feel the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road should be public, but are indefinite about the internal trails at this time. Jim Ostenson commented he felt they should wait and see what the determination was regarding the outlot, and then decide about the trails after that. Discussion ensued regarding whether the trails should be public or private and the Commissioners felt that if there is no park, the trails should be private, but if there is a park, then they should be public trails linking the park to other areas of the City. Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to grant preliminary approval of #1903 Subdivision for Tandem Properties located at 2645/3025 Watertown Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of plat road within first phase of Dickey parcel subdivision as public road. Cul -de -sac roads on Coffin property shall be a private road. City to obtain underlying road and utility easements. 2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 5 along all interior lot lines and 10 along the perimeter boundaries and adjacent to road right -of -ways. 3. Prior to any site improvements, erosion control as shown on preliminary grading and drainage plans must be installed and maintained until natural groundcover is restored. 4. Prior to site grading improvements, all tested septic sites on the Coffin property must be fenced off. The following lots in the first phase development of the Dickey property must be fenced off: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Block 1, and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2. Note Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 will be fenced off at the time of the approval of the second phase construction for the interior plat road. 5. Drainfields to be moved 5' to east within Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 to allow for adequate separation for bike trail. 6. Well pit must be sealed within Lot 2, Block 2 of the Dickey property. 7. The following lots have been found to contain effective wetland areas not designated on the City's conservation area maps: 0 7 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ( #4) #1901 1903 TANDEM PROPERTIES - 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONTINUED Dickey parcel: Lot 2, Block 1 - Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, Block 2; Coffin property - Lots 1, 5, 6, and 10. Once again, designated wetlands of the City shall be shown as drainage easements on the plat. There are no designated wetlands within the Dickey property but within the first phase of the Coffin property, Lots 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 are involved with the designated wetland. Developer shall create covenants to be filed on the Chain of Title of these properties advising future owners of the limitations on the use of these areas and the need to first apply to the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District if any improvements are proposed at some future date before obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 8. Developer to install bike trail along Old Crystal Bay Road. 9. The Planning Commission would like to see the outlot remain as it is and the internal trails be public trails. 10. Readjustment of Lot 3, Block 1, Dickey parcel, so that 200' is met to rear of 50' front • street setback. 11. Drainfields and ponds shall be covered by easements recorded in the Chain of Title and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. 12. An interim cul -de -sac shall be constructed for Countryside Drive from the west, but the road shall be platted through. 6 ayes, 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Smith reported on the City Council meeting of February 14, 1944 and discussed the items which were approved. She noted the Lund Estate item had been tabled. Commissioner Rowlette stated she would attend the March 14, 1994 City Council Meeting as the Planning Commission representative. The joint meeting of the Planning Commission/City Council was discussed. It was decided to contact Mabusth to determine the most convenient date for the meeting to be scheduled. • 8 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. C� • 0 Charles J. Schroeder, Chairman • \ PLANNING COMMISSION C COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Janice Berg, Steve Peterson, Charles Nolan Jr. who arrived at 5:30 p.m., and Sandy Smith. City staff was represented by Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Members of the public present were Gary DeSantis and Richard Anderson representing Sailors World; Tom Enlow, 3185 North Shore Drive; Bev Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive; and JayAn Zullo, 3160 North Shore Drive. The meeting was called to order at 5:13 p.m. Schroeder explained this work session was to continue discussion of the B -2 Marina Zone and asked Gaffron to review past discussions. Gaffron continued that the Committee has been working through a proposed draft ordinance and has discussed uses, parking requirements (one of the main concerns with marinas), yard, landscape and area requirements, and about half of the additional performance standards. Discussion needs to be continued regarding additional performance standards; setbacks, hardcover, and tree removal; drainage; non - conforming uses; variances and landscaping; regulations for docks; and finish discussion of permitted, accessory and conditional uses. Schroeder reviewed the requests by some marina owners to consider some non - traditional marina activities such as cross - country ski rental, snowmobile repair and coffee shop operation. Schroeder expressed his thoughts regarding fishing tournaments and was not opposed to them as an accessory use provided there was a licensing procedure. Peterson noted the Chief of Police approves such a license and can stipulate requirements for the operation of a tournament. The Committee agreed to leave fishing tournaments as an accessory use. Cross - country ski rental and sales were discussed. Although this is not a marina based activity, there seemed to be no good reasons why this activity should not be allowed. DeSantis asked that the Committee consider including cross - country ski rental and sales as an accessory use. All members present were in agreement. Discussion continued with snowmobile sales /rental /service and snowmobile lake operations base. Peterson was opposed to any snowmobile activity at the marinas as it has nothing to do with marina activities. He stated that if the marinas were called something else and the code changed, then he would consider snowmobile activity. Schroeder agreed. Anderson stated that until recently snowmobile sales haven't been profitable which is why snowmobile sales have not been associated with marinas. He noted that St. Alban's Bay sold Snow Jet and Yamaha as an accessory use in the winter in 1969. Back when snowmobile sales were good, it was a primary use for marinas in the winter. North Star (Lakeside) at one time • 1 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 sold Polaris machines. McCharles sold Skidoos and Wayzata Marine sold snowmobiles. Anderson added that Skidoo, Yamaha, Polaris and Arctic Cat are the major dealers and would not put dealerships close together at neighboring marinas. Not all marinas could have sales because there wouldn't be enough dealerships. Peterson questioned this and thought some marina owners would not pursue winter activities such as snowmobile sales because they have enough repair and service business from the boating season to carry them through the winter. DeSantis felt that history shows marinas and snowmobiles do mix. Schroeder explained that the Planning Commission is considering uses that are not currently in the code, and snowmobile sales and rental is not currently allowed. Anderson asked why snowmobiles would not be allowed. Schroeder thought one reason was that the neighbors may object to the noise, particularly rental of snowmobiles. Another reason would be that bubbling marinas cause a significant safety issue. In addition to the noise, there is potential for snowmobiles to go through neighbors' yards. Anderson agreed that there could be a problem with driving through yards, but noted that newer snowmobiles have decibel regulations for noise. Berg stated they are still noisy as she lives on the lake and hears them. She felt noise on the lake carries better in the winter. Anderson stated the LMCD has adopted an ordinance for snowmobiles to operate 300 feet away from shore and felt if they were obeying this law, they would be difficult to hear on shore. DeSantis noted the exhaust system is better but some operators run straight pipes. He pointed out that whether marinas are involved or not, snowmobiles will not be kept off the Lake. Smith noted that snowmobiles cause safety and traffic issues because they cannot be kept on the lake. They do go into yards, along and across streets. Peterson suggested this activity be split into two issues - sales /service and rental. Smith agreed. Anderson reminded members that at the first meeting, there was a Lakeside Marina neighbor who had no problem with snowmobiles. He also noted that at Sailors World there would be no infringement on any neighbors and no reason to go across the street. Peterson asked representatives of Sailors World if they were interested in snowmobile activity in the future even though they have not been involved with snowmobiles in the past. DeSantis stated they did not have the facilities for sales and service of snowmobiles. However, the boat club that they operate has had members approach them about snowmobile use as part of the club. Sailors World would like the opportunity to fill their niche as each marina has its own characteristics. They would like the option to consider having two or three sleds to extend snowmobile service to their club members in the winter. 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 • Anderson noted that Sailors World supports 12 children and their activities and they want to give back to the community. They have sponsored a baseball team, coached hockey and baseball, and have been instrumental in building a rink and baseball field. He does not want to be a marina operator that the City feels they have to micro - manage. He wants flexibility to be an entrepreneur and make his own decision about dealership opportunities. Peterson noted that snowmobile manufacturers want to have a full line of their products sold by dealers, including clothing and water bikes. Schroeder explained there is a reluctance by the City to permit marinas new uses because of past problems caused by a few operators. The City is trying to make marinas better neighbors by getting better screening, side setbacks and a little more "green" between the parking lot and the lake. Anderson agreed that on paper it looks like the City is trying to make these improvements. However, even though it looks like additional uses are being added, Christmas trees and snowmobiles have been sold in the past at marinas Peterson added that most of the marinas have been operating mainly as marinas. Nolan commented that just because an operator may have "gotten away with it" five years ago doesn't mean it should be allowed today. Schroeder stated that, regrettably, marinas have flaunted the setback and hardcover issues for a long time. Peterson compared ordinances for individual homeowners, such as cutting down trees at the shoreline, that were allowed 20 years ago but not today. Ordinances are modified for individual property owners just as they are for marinas. Schroeder continued that it seems what the public wants is for marinas to provide traditional marina activities. Berg added that a marina is a seasonal business. When it is purchased, the owner should consider it as such. Anderson responded that in the 1993 license application for North Shore Drive Marina, for which money had been received, Christmas tree sales were listed as a use. Gaffron explained this was an application that North Shore Drive Marina wanted the City to accept but in the license that was granted, there was no discussion of whether or not Christmas tree sales would be allowed. Anderson compared O'Sullivan's to a marina. There was a time when a gas station would not have been considered a convenience store. At the present time, the coffee idea at Sailors World seems to be a nice fit. Schroeder considered a convenience store a logical extension of a gas station. 3 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Schroeder asked for comments from the neighbors. Blomberg stated, "A marina is a marina is a marina." Enlow commented that no money could be made with the rental of only two snowmobiles and the general pubic is not trained to use them properly whereas club members may have some training. Smith reiterated that sales and rental should probably be two separate issues and asked if the marina owners see sales and rental as one concept. DeSantis stated that 40 -50% of the marinas had participated in snowmobile sales in some capacity in the past. Others, because of the make -up of their business, are not interested or dependent upon this activity. Gaffron asked if the conclusion could be drawn that if there is sales, there will be service and if there is rental there will be service but sales and rental should still be listed as two separate activities. Members agreed. Smith asked if the technology of fixing boats would translate to snowmobile repair. DeSantis felt there was a translation. Peterson added that if there were sales, there would be demonstrations and service. Nolan stated he was not particularly opposed to sales of snowmobiles but questioned the rental. He felt there was similarity between selling boats in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter with the same trained staff and equipment that provides an opportunity for winter income. He • added the demos would be monitored very closely by the marina owner as he would not want to lose his investment. He felt a snowmobile club would be more like rental than sales. • DeSantis commented that their interest in snowmobiles would be in a very controlled environment of families using their boats and requesting that the boat club provide the use of snowmobiles for the families and cross - country skiing. This would not be a full -blown operation, with no retail or service. Schroeder asked where the snowmobiles would be stored. DeSantis responded outside. Schroeder did not think they would actually store a $6,000 machine outside. Berg asked how many snowmobiles they thought would be needed for the boat club. DeSantis responded possibly four. Maybe only 30% or 20 boaters would be interested in snowmobiling. Schroeder suggested putting the issue of snowmobile sales /rental /service as a conditional use to gain better control. Nolan asked that rental be removed. Zullo, neighbor to North Shore Drive Marina, asked where snowmobiles would be stored in the summer. She pointed out that controls have not been fully developed for snowmobiling on the lake but there are groomed trails maintained by the County for this activity. DeSantis questioned the current snowmobile activity on the lake indicating only a 2 -3 % increase in activity might result from snowmobile activity at marinas: n u • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Berg felt the issue of storage should be addressed. Nolan commented that new snowmobiles would not be left unattended in the summer. Anderson stated that they would be stored off -site in the summer. Zullo noted that people leave their boats outside all winter so it could be a problem with those people having snowmobiles. Schroeder thought there was a stronger anti - snowmobile sales /service /rental than pro-snowmobile sales /service /rental group. Anderson asked how Schroeder came to that conclusion. Schroeder responded it was based on the Planning Commission meetings and comments made by those in attendance. Gaffron commented that the City has not included snowmobiles in the scheme of the B -2 zone in the past. Comments he has had from the community indicate the public doesn't want marinas to have expanded uses but to continue to be just marinas. Members agreed that snowmobile lake operations base (activity from rental and demonstration of snowmobiles out on the lake) should be removed from the accessory use list. Gaffron requested confirmation that sales and service of snowmobiles is now proposed to be added to the conditional use list and at some future time the conditions will have to be defined. All members agreed. Smith asked that service be added to the cross - country ski sales /rental. Schroeder continued with discussion of boat clubs and did not object if they were properly maintained. Nolan brought up the issue of parking ratio. Gaffron stated the proposed language for boat clubs would read, "Boat clubs (time share). Applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is available on the site." This leaves it up to Council's discretion to determine if adequate parking exists. Nolan questioned the general concept of boat clubs and expressed his concern with parking and the number of memberships sold in the boat club. Gaffron explained that a set of criteria, which has not been devised yet, would likely have to be placed on the conditional use permit to regulate a boat club. Peterson voiced his concern about launching on- demand and felt it could have five times the impact that boat clubs will have in the future. Anderson asked if there really is a parking problem on the lake. He lives on the lake and contends that the lake is being used less. There are only a few days during the year when a marina has a potential parking problem. Peterson commented that the police need to enforce the parking regulations and illegal roadside parking. 5 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 • DeSantis made the statement that each marina should be considered individually instead of trying to make all marinas fit under the same code. Schroeder responded that there is a problem creating an ordinance for each marina. The conditional use permit is a mechanism to allow for "hand- crafting" each marina. Anderson asked why snowmobile rental has to be removed from the list if it could be considered as a conditional use. Schroeder responded the feeling is that, generally speaking, the community would be against snowmobile rental but may not be so against snowmobile sales. Anderson felt if snowmobile rental was removed, that would mean snowmobile use for club members would also be removed. As a conditional use, there may be a possibility for snowmobile use. Members agreed that on- demand launch and boat clubs should be left as conditional uses and will be controlled through a conditional use permit application. Gaffron lead discussion on charter boat port-of -call reviewing that parking was proposed at one parking space per three seats on the boat. Parking, late -night activity, traffic safety as boaters leave, and hours of operation are all potential issues. Schroeder did not feel this would be objectionable as long as the hours of operation and parking issues were addressed and could be controlled under a conditional use permit. Blomberg had no problem with charter boats if common courtesy were used. She stated there had been some problems with late night returns but the police had been called and took care of the situation. Nolan noted that enforcement of hours would be important. Zullo pointed out that in Excelsior and Wayzata the marinas and public docks are in commercial areas so there is more public parking to accommodate charter boat users. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission wanted this amenity to be available to the public. If so, where should it happen? Enlow asked if the Orono marinas could operate out of those places already in existence. The boat could be parked at an Orono marina but would pick up people at other locations. Gaffron noted this would be a different concept and there probably would not be a problem parking a 50 foot boat at any of the marinas. Anderson asked for direction on the charter boat issue because he has an assumed contract on one left at North Shore Drive Marina. Gaffron responded that it has been allowed to happen in the past because charter boats were not addressed in the code. Anderson was concerned about the parking restrictions so that he would not be caught in the middle of major changes. G • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 • Gaffron asked Anderson if he wanted the option to have a charter boat operation even though he is not currently interested in pursuing charter boats. Anderson would like it left as a conditional use. Gaffron noted that in licensing a marina, the marina owner is required to be the person who is licensed and inform the City of any sub - leases or contracts they may have. Peterson was against having ports -of -call in Orono marinas although not opposed to storage. Nolan was in agreement with Peterson. Schroeder was not against them as long as there are regulations for control. Anderson noted that the LMCD requires some marinas to provide this amenity to get people on the lake. Smith did not think they were any more of a problem than any of the other conditional uses that were being considered. Peterson pointed out there are many fishing charter boats currently operating on the lake with a similar concept. Even though there may be only three fisherman on a fishing charter as opposed to fifty on a regular charter, it would still be considered a charter boat port-of -call. Schroeder thought it should be left as a conditional use and reviewed as it comes before the City. There would be a publicized hearing before the Planning Commission meeting so that neighbors would be able to give their comments. There was agreement to leave the charter boat ports -of -call as a conditional use. Gaffron suggested that CUP criteria be written so that Planning Commission and Council can address all of the concerns about charter boat operations and then determine on an individual basis if the operation should be allowed. Lake structure maintenance operations base was discussed including dredging, barges for milfoil harvesting, dock and lift devices, etc. Schroeder defined this as a case where lake owners need these services but probably do not want to see them since they are rather unsightly operations. The neighbors were opposed to having this type of equipment at the marinas. Peterson felt this type of equipment should be in commercial areas and not in Orono. Schroeder suggested permitting this activity for a few days but not indefinitely. Schroeder, Nolan, Berg and Smith were indifferent to allowing this activity. Anderson noted there was really only one marina that currently caused a problem. Schroeder explained that at some future time, Anderson may decide this may be a good business to be involved in. Zullo suggested a time limit be put on the activity noting that environmentally this large equipment is not conducive to being left in Maxwell Bay. Blomberg felt it should be excluded from the list of possible activities since there is already high density on Maxwell Bay. Smith, Nolan, Berg and Schroeder voted to leave this activity as a conditional use permit. Peterson was opposed. Restaurants as conditional uses were the next topic of discussion. Peterson was in favor of allowing restaurants while Schroeder was opposed. Zullo did not want the smell of food from the neighboring marina all weekend. Schroeder did not want to see another Lord Fletcher's on Maxwell Bay. Nolan did not think restaurants fit in the image of "low -key" marinas. Smith also would remove restaurants from the list. Peterson felt restaurants were a part of boating and would leave in as a conditional use. Berg agreed with Peterson. 7 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Gaffron noted the currently allowed (as a conditional use) sale of pre - packaged food is defined as "food that has been professionally prepared at a location other than on the premises... does not include full course meals or any food prep other than warming by use of an infrared microwave oven. The sale of food from vending machines is allowed. " If there were restaurants at marinas, traffic would come from both the lake and land. Zullo noted that even if there were not parking spaces for people to stop at the restaurant, traffic still flows through the neighborhood. Enlow opined this was a "not in my back yard" situation and was against anything that increased activity. DeSantis reiterated that each marina is very different and it is unfair to impose the same restrictions on all marinas. Gaffron explained there were no accessory uses currently allowed in the code. Conditional uses allowed are sale of 3.2 beer, sale of cigarettes and pre - packaged food. Schroeder added that the Planning Commission is looking at adding conditional uses to have a greater ability to tailor the uses to each marina. Anderson agreed with Peterson regarding boating and restaurants. Schroeder agreed it was a "nice thing to do" but in this case it is not appropriate for the neighborhood. A vote was called about leaving restaurants on the list of conditional uses. Smith, Nolan and Schroeder voted to remove it from the list. Berg and Peterson voted to include restaurants as a conditional use. DeSantis objected to having it removed. Schroeder explained this will go to Council for final approval. Gaffron added there would be a scheduled public hearing for further discussion. Schroeder began discussion of the coffee issue at Sailors World. DeSantis confirmed the coffee would be brewed, not from a vending machine. Peterson would consider that a restaurant. Schroeder stated there was a major safety issue in getting on/off Highway 15 in rush hour traffic. DeSantis stated the adjacent public launch is used around the clock and during rush hour. Anderson added that he had called a Hennepin County MnDOT representative and was told he had no problem with a coffee shop at Sailors World. Traffic counts were not done before the launch ramp was installed. Peterson responded that Hennepin County does have a problem with traffic on County Road 15 because they tried to do an upgrade but the City voted it down. Hennepin County was concerned about the accident rate which is higher than anywhere else in the Metro area. Peterson felt there was an extremely hazardous condition on County Road 15 and thought Hennepin County and members of Orono County Road 15 Committee felt the same way. When it came before the public, 75 people were at the meeting and did not want to see 8 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 any upgrades and would prefer that the highway deteriorate so the public would not want to use the roadway. DeSantis thought there was much activity at the boat launch throughout the day. There is also more traffic in the summer than the winter and they would only be using the coffee shop in the winter. Schroeder stated the ideal situation for DeSantis would be to get every car passing Sailors World to stop for a cup of expresso. DeSantis responded their intent was to offer an atmosphere and stimulate some winter business as there would not be a parking problem at the marina. Schroeder objected to the idea of a drive -thru coffee spot for safety reasons. Nolan felt it was inconsistent with the zoning. He suggested that if any kind of coffee shop would be considered, he would want to see it only for member use as a conditional use. Anderson asked if it would be better to have boats stored at Sailors World or parking for a coffee shop. Nolan did not see that as a choice. Anderson thought the Commission was considering alternatives. Schroeder responded that they would consider an expanded list of uses but it did not mean agreement with all suggestions to be included. Nolan reiterated that a restaurant at a marina would be inconsistent with the zoning. Although the B -2 zone is commercial, it is not a retail zone and is surrounded by residential. Members were in agreement that offering coffee to club members was acceptable but not the idea of a coffee shop that would draw the public off of Highway 15. Anderson explained that expresso is a hot topic at this time but it doesn't pay to do it just for club members. They see this as a winter use and would not do in the summer. Zullo agreed that offering expresso to club members would be acceptable but not to the general public. Nolan asked if it was necessary to spend $20,000 to make cappuccino. Anderson responded, that according to the Health Department, it is. Schroeder understood the request but was against the proposal for a limited restaurant use as there would not be any difference with another marina proposing a full -blown restaurant. Anderson pointed out that the City could control that through the conditional use permit. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission may be getting too specific on one issue at one site and informed members that DeSantis had the ability to make an application for a conditional use permit under pre - packaged foods making the argument that what he proposes fits the current code, or he can make an application to amend the code to include what he wants. Discussion moved to cigarette sales and sale of 3.2 beer which is already included in the code as a conditional use. Peterson was against both. Gaffron was unaware of any marinas that have actually applied for a conditional use permit to do these activities. He thought Crystal Bay • 9 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Service may have a cigarette license. Berg asked if it was important to marina users to have 3.2 beer and cigarette sales available. Anderson thought marina users may buy beer at the marina rather than making a stop someplace else for hard beer. He added that coffee is more important than 3.2 beer, trying to make the point that it would be better to sell coffee than beer. Nolan had a similar viewpoint as he did regarding coffee - leave as a conditional use but offer only to members /guests as a convenience. Peterson pointed out that the public is not limited from buying anything at any marina. Schroeder felt to be consistent, sales of cigarettes and 3.2 beer should be removed as a conditional use. Zullo also felt they should be taken out because the marinas are close to residential areas and those sales are not appropriate in residential neighborhoods. Gaffron stated these sales have been allowed as a conditional use for at least 20 years. Smith thought if it was important they could be left in but since it didn't seem important, she would agree to remove them. Gaffron explained that if a marina had a legitimate existing conditional use, there would be the opportunity for being "grandfathered" as a non- conforming use if there was not a gap of more than 12 months. Members agreed to remove cigarette sales and sale of 3.2 beer from the conditional use list. Gaffron questioned whether the Commission wanted to continue or set another meeting in two weeks to finish discussion. He asked whether the public hearing should be held at a regular Planning Commission meeting or at a special meeting. Members felt a special meeting was • more appropriate. Schroeder asked the members to continue with discussion of performance standard issues. Items A -H, page 5 of the Proposed Amendment to Municipal Code from the memo dated February 8, 1994, have been previously discussed. Item I deals with on -land boat storage. Only one marina has outside storage that exceeds 15' in height and that is three tiers and about 20' high. Two tiers would be about 15'. Schroeder saw no problem with this as written since any new structure would have to come before the City for approval. Gaffron reminded members that required yards are 75' at the lake, 30' at the street and 10' on either side. Required landscaping areas are 10' on sides, 10' on street and 10% of depth at the lake. All members were agreeable to Item J regarding gasoline storage. Peterson questioned whether this was currently being enforced. Gaffron noted that in the B -2 zone, as well as all business zones, no above ground storage tanks are allowed. Peterson thought the code should be amended and these tanks should be above ground and properly bermed. This should be made consistent with State regulations. Item K deals with on -land boat density. Gaffron explained that these are all new concepts that haven't been in the code before. Schroeder proposed this item be left for discussion at a later time. • 10 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Discussion moved to Subd. 13 regarding setback, hardcover and tree removal regulations. Gaffron pointed out that all of the Orono marinas have boundaries with residential property. Schroeder suggested that Items A, B, C and D be kept for new marinas but they don't apply to existing marinas. Gaffron suggested that the setback for activities, Item B, would be appropriate for existing as well as new marinas. Schroeder thought it would be difficult to make an owner move his gas dock. Peterson thought the City could inspect and may require the gas docks to be brought into compliance with State codes. Schroeder did not think the City would be able to force a marina to change its gas dock. Gaffron added that the grandfather rights would be another issue. Zullo thought the gas docks were a major concern and questioned if they were following the EPA guidelines. Schroeder suggest Gaffron check with the City Attorney on the gas dock laws. Although many marinas may be in violation, only when a marina comes in for a change can the City require a change in the gas docks. Schroeder suggested making a recommendation to the City Council that the Fire Chief inspect the gas docks and report back to Council. Members agreed. Gaffron asked if references to the LMCD should be taken out of the code. Schroeder thought there was overlap but the Planning Commission dealt mainly with land issues. • Schroeder continued with discussion about setback requirements. Gaffron confirmed there were relatively few actual complaints about marinas. Schroeder thought the complaints that were received had to do with setbacks such as storage of old boats encroaching into neighboring yards, screening issues, and runoff from parking into the lake. The only way the City has to encourage marinas to be better neighbors is when they come into the City for some change. In the past, licenses were a way for the City to place some control over the marinas but some marinas did not get licenses regularly and continued to operate. Schroeder suggested that the City require a landscape plan from each marina with better adherence but not necessarily the required setback. City staff could work with each marina to develop an acceptable plan. • Gaffron thought working with the marina is a good concept but there needs to be some sanctions if the plan is not completed within a certain time frame. He used Gayles as an example. Trees were planted twice and both times died. Gayle has no incentive to do the landscaping and sees it as a negative. Gaffron noted that for the record, Gayle's and all other marinas have paid for licenses every year even though they were not always granted. Schroeder does not think marinas are necessarily bad neighbors as they exist. He suggested leaving the code basically as it is which would effectively prohibit any new marinas to be built. The City should continue to work with the marinas to improve setbacks, drainage, etc. 11 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Gaffron noted the only area where pressure to develop a new marina might occur is the DNR lots and other land between Lakeside and North Shore Drive. This is not in the B -2 zone. The property between Gayles and Lakeside is not large enough to meet the two acre standards so the only thing that might be expected to happen is that these two existing marinas will encroach into that area. Smith asked if the code were written to be more realistic for the existing marinas if it would affect development of a possible future marina. Gaffron responded that the property between Gayles and Lakeside could be controlled in expansion through hardcover ordinances, etc. The other piece would only have to meet the lowered standards so that if the 75' setback were changed to 25', that is what new development would follow. Gaffron did not think that would be a wise change. Schroeder asked Anderson what he intended to do with North Shore Drive Marina. Anderson responded that he would continue with the plan on record with the City. By working with the City, it may help some time in the future if they ask for something. Schroeder asked if there was a way for the City to prevent a situation at a marina from getting worse, and how could changes be accomplished. Gaffron explained that the City could give the marinas a time frame, i.e. five years, in which to make changes. In a negative situation, the • marina might go to court stating they were not going to make required changes. The courts may say that five years is a reasonable period in which to require changes. If the City is not willing to wait for marinas needing changed to make zoning applications, then the code might be amended using a time frame for required changes. Schroeder asked that code language be kept the same and staff work with the marinas and neighbors to develop specific landscaping plans within a five -year period which would meet with Planning Commission approval (landscaping, reasonable setbacks, etc.). If these plans were not completed over a five -year period, there should be some consequences. Gaffron responded he would like to work up a draft and review it with the City Attorney for his response. Peterson thought enforcement would always be a problem. Gaffron added that everyone would have to know what the sanctions are at the end of the five -year period and they would have to be something the courts would support. The neighbors felt this was a step forward. Schroeder encouraged staff to get input from the neighbors in developing the plans for setbacks, screening, fences, etc. Zullo was in agreement with the idea of a time frame and consequences. Nolan asked if this concept had been attempted before. Gaffron referred to Subd. 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas which was a similar attempt in 1975. Nolan asked how a new plan would be any different from the 1975 code. Gaffron noted in the 1975 attempt there were • no sanctions if the plans were not completed and no incentives to complete them. Schroeder 12 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994 encouraged staff to look at incentives for completing a plan early, i.e. tax abatement. Nolan agreed that without incentives, the plan would be no better than before. Zullo thought there should be upkeep regulations as well as the initial plan since landscaping is only good for about ten years. She added that the City can ask a marina to landscape to control runoff. Gaffron replied that when changes are made, those requirements can be made. Zullo suggested the City move forward, not expecting the bad situations to be there forever. Peterson noted there was no incentive for marinas such as Gayles to do anything different than the way it has been done in the past. As long as he never changes anything, the City can't effectively require improvements. Schroeder asked what the neighbors would think if the City got a "landscape easement" and the neighbors maintain that easement. The question would be if the marina owners, neighbors or City would pay for the plantings. Berg suggested a special assessment. Schroeder pointed out that the marinas do not have to grant an easement. Schroeder thought this type of idea would have to be done on a cooperative basis. Members decided to drop the idea of an easement. Nolan did not think this attempt was much different than in the past and questioned if it would really work any better. Gaffron responded that with incentives and a negative end result (i.e. • some sort of sanctions for non - compliance) there might be some progress. Schroeder asked if there was a mechanism for tagging old boats encroaching into setbacks. Gaffron responded as junk there was. He suggested something be written in the code that talks specifically about unlicensed, inoperable boats being removed within a certain time period. This has been enforced in the past only by complaint. Nolan asked if there was success with that procedure. Gaffron confirmed it had been successful. • The next meeting was scheduled for March 9, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. Notices will be sent to neighbors. Anderson asked if there was an ordinance for storing boats outside an individual's property. Peterson responded there was but it has been violated often in Orono. Boats less than 20' can be stored on property. Anderson objected to the lack of enforcement of this code. Gaffron noted it also is an ordinance enforced only upon complaint. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder made a motion, Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m. 13 Charles Schroeder, Chair Person J C PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC ATTENDANCE COUNCIL cz, Ti , J MEETING DATE S � / PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Steve Peterson, Sandy Smith, and Dale Lindquist. Janice Berg arrived at 6:08 p.m. City staff were represented by Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee. Representing the marinas were Gary DeSantis of Sailors World, Todd Nelson of Minnetonka Boat Works, Jim Rivers of Windward Marina, and Jim Dunn of Lakeside Marina. Members of the public who were present were Bev Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive and Bob Bilger, Sr., 4005 North Shore Drive. The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. Peterson explained that the meeting was an informal work session with public hearings and Council action to follow. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission has been reviewing a draft of proposed revisions to the B -2 code. He provided "A Revised List of Uses" indicating the permitted, accessory and conditional uses that were considered and discussed at previous meetings. Discussion continued with Subd. 13, Setback, Hardcover and Tree Removal Regulations. The • Commission has considered whether existing marinas should be subject to different standards than a new marina. They questioned if there was any real incentive or benefit to changing the standards for hardcover and setbacks to fit what currently exists. The 75' setback is met by none of the existing marinas. No conclusions were reached at previous meetings. Lindquist thought standards should remain as they exist, knowing there would be variances for any new marinas or existing marinas that may request a change. Smith agreed. Peterson expressed concern over Item B, Subd. 13 which discusses the setback from residential property of 50' for marina operation and activities except for storage and parking. One of the marinas has a gas dock which is near a residential property line creating a very hazardous condition. Although there may be little the City can do about the situation, he felt the code should address hazardous situations to protect neighbors. Peterson is referring to a line extending from the on -land storage tanks out to the gas dock. Smith asked if there were any fire, safety or police ordinances to help guide the City with respect to gas docks. Gaffron responded the City has adopted the State Fire Code which regulates how a gas dock is built but doesn't necessarily address setbacks from neighboring property lines. Dunn commented that most of the marinas are quite current as they must follow State and Federal laws which the City could incorporate. He added that many residential properties have • far more hazardous situations with 50- gallon gas drums near their homes. 1' • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Gaffron asked Dunn how many times he had seen an inspector from the Fire Department at his marina. Dunn responded that he had never seen anyone representing the City but has dealt with the State. He noted that there were certain requirements of the fuel companies for gas docks and updates have to be done with any improvements to maintain current standards. Gaffron indicated that City Building Inspectors were involved when changes were made but were probably not involved with any regular inspections. DeSantis noted that in discussions with the UPA, all gas tanks would be required to be above ground by 1996/97 or be made of special material if below ground. The State is considering adoption of a requirement for some type of material that would absorb spill in the lake. Lindquist thought the City should look at the State regulations and leave the code with the current 50' setback. Peterson added that the City may want to add a requirement for a local fire inspection to the code. Rivers commented that the LMCD requires a 40' setback for gas tanks abutting residential property. Gaffron added that many marinas had obtained variances to that code through the years. Peterson noted that, theoretically, all docks are built within LMCD guidelines as they are the governing agency. • Dunn pointed out that a boat /operator may be the cause of an accident rather than the gas and gas dock, i.e. a recent incident at Gayle's. He added that the DNR is doing research on using composting techniques for treatment of bad spoils from spills. Peterson commented that Minnesota is one of the leading states in dealing with environmental and EPA issues. Gaffron explained the current policy on tree removal. Council has given staff the ability to deal with these requests. The City requires the homeowner to contact a tree service or reputable landscaper who will inspect the trees to determine their condition. A report is submitted and a restoration plan proposed if trees are to be removed. Members agreed to leave this policy as it exists. Discussion continued with Subd. 14, Drainage. Gaffron noted much of this section already exists. New language relates to submitting a drainage plan any time a new use is applied for, construction of facilities to manage stormwater runoff and acknowledgement of Shoreland Management Regulations and Flood Plain Management Regulations. Peterson noted that any time a major change takes place, drainage is included with the landscaping section. Members agreed there is an obligation to refer to the Surface Water Management Plan, the Shoreland Management Regulations and Flood Plain Management Regulations. Gaffron continued with Subd. 15, Non - Conforming Use, noting that no changes have been made since written in 1975. He gave an example of a current application by North Shore Drive . marina to do some cosmetic remodeling to a structure within 10' of the lake. This section 2 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 allows for the continued use of an existing use if not included on the current list of accepted uses. Peterson questioned why this section was necessary. Lindquist thought it should be taken out also as the reference to $3,000 is not current. Gaffron explained this section was put in place when the City was trying to get marinas to pull back from 350' to 200'. There are references to other sections of the code. Gaffron thought the City Attorney may suggest leaving at least parts of this code in place. Peterson questioned the $3,000 fair market value. Mabusth suggested the reference to structure could be removed. Lindquist thought the section should be reworked with the dollar figure updated if left in. Peterson suggested Gaffron have the City Attorney give an opinion on this section. Peterson asked if reference to the LMCD should be removed in Subd. 15, Section A. Gaffron thought if reference to the LMCD were removed, other sections should be added referencing docks since the LMCD is the regulating agency. Lindquist thought the LMCD should be left in to be sure dock regulations were addressed. Gaffron continued with discussion of Subd. 16, Variances, noting this is how variances are currently dealt with and saw no need to make any changes. Subd. 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas, was established with a four year time frame for making required improvements. Gaffron stated that in previous discussions Planning Commission members noted there was no incentive for completing a landscape plan and no sanction if the plan was not done. Lindquist reiterated there was no way to enforce this section so it should not be included in the code as written. Gaffron thought this could be included as a set of directives for when a variance is granted but would not work to apply to each marina at the current time. Peterson asked what kind of incentives could be offered to marinas. Rivers responded that he has been in business in Orono for over 20 years and there has never been a Council or*Planning Commission that was happy with the marinas. Complaints the City has received were always related to the appearance of the marinas not their operations. He thought the City was working towards developing a set of minimum standards that could be met, especially regarding setbacks, and then the City could be happy with the marinas. Minimum landscaping and setback requirements could be established. Peterson agreed that was the original intention but there have been problems with the " grandfathered " marina activities. Rivers added that the EPA will have strict regulations on runoff and there will be no choice but to make the improvements or there will be heavy fines and penalties. He felt if the City works with the marinas, it could help with meeting EPA requirements. He would like to see an end to the adversarial relationship and recognize that the marinas exist. Peterson questioned if the City was qualified to do that, noting the EPA has struggled with runoff issues and is unsure what the future changes may be. 91 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Dunn commented on the landscaping issue. He thought the goals and objectives of the City were reasonable but there have basically been no changes from what was done 10 years ago. He noted the EPA has their own program and the marinas are already living with those expectations. He added that a list has been established by the Planning Commission of things a marina operator can and cannot do and that has made the operators even less flexible than 11 years ago. He suggested the Commission make their requirements less burdensome - minimum standards can be dealt with. He commented that last year is the first time anyone from Council had visited his marina and they had a different perception of marina operations after leaving. As a result of the proposed changes, he stated, there was no reason for an operator to attempt to make a change at their marina because they would be told to make other required improvements or quit doing something they have already been doing. He expressed disappointment with having less incentive to make improvements than there was three years ago. He did not think there would be any new marinas on Lake Minnetonka only the possibility of expanding existing marinas. Smith asked if Dunn was referring to the "Revised List of Uses" or the landscaping which was part of the current discussion of Subd. 17. Dunn stated landscaping was not the issue but the list of uses. Mabusth asked if the Commission had recently reviewed the original directives from the Council or if any Councilmembers had talked with Planning Commission members. Peterson did not • think so. Gaffron thought that discussion may take place at the next joint work session, March 11. Planning Commission members agreed. DeSantis objected to the "Revised List of Uses" being brought to Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He felt the marinas would conform with landscaping, parking and runoff issues but there would be problems with some of the other uses. He thought "the best incentive would be to give the marinas enough credit ... that they will work within the framework and that which has been grandfathered in. Let's not make a big issue out of stuff that really isn't a big issue. " Working together on landscaping and keeping neighbors happy is important. Peterson noted the public hearings will bring much discussion on all these issues. Both the public and marina owners will have opportunities to express their opinions. Lindquist asked if DeSantis wanted to see all of the activities the marinas have ever performed in the past included in the code as permitted uses. DeSantis agreed. He does not agree with the way the "List of Uses" has been divided. Dunn replied the real issue is landscaping and would agree with minimum standards. Anything the marinas try to do is tied to land issues. He did not understand how boat rental could be considered as an accessory use at a marina and should be permitted as this is where boat sales happen. Signs should be a permitted use subject to City zoning, why is it an accessory use? 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Peterson responded that some of the accessory uses were not changes from the code as it was created 20 years ago, such as boat rental. Lindquist commented that there will be operators who run minimum operations and that is what the City wants to address. Dunn made an example of Prior Lake who never had any zoning whereas Orono has had the zoning and is trying to fine -tune it. He stated that some operators have to maintain minimum operations because of the land and envelope they have to work with while others can be more aggressive and have to make the most of all opportunities. He felt if the City worked with each marina they could develop a list of activities that would be appropriate for that marina. By working with the parking formula, the property only allows so much activity. Peterson reiterated that these meetings have been work sessions and their recommendations are not necessarily what will be the end result. Comments the operators have made will be brought to Council's attention. Discussion continued with Subdivision 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas. Gaffron suggested leaving the language basically the same with a little tweaking and updating. Members • agreed. Subdivision 18, Regulations Relating to Location, Construction, Installation and Maintenance of Docks, Boat Mooring Areas and Other Fixed or Floating Structures and Objects on Lakes - Adoption by Reference, references three LMCD ordinances. Peterson thought this section should remain at this time as the City needs to be able to "reserve the right to deny any variance to provisions of Ordinance No. 1 as amended, even though the same variance was granted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District". Smith asked why specific ordinances needed to be referenced. Gaffron responded that if, for instance, the specific ordinance on dock standards was not referenced, there would be nothing to enforce. Members agreed these references should be updated. Lindquist did not think the language needed to be changed for Subdivision 19, Reference to Other Ordinances. Dunn suggested including a disclaimer in both Subdivisions 18 and 19 regarding the LMCD and add reference to the code about the DNR as the authority on the lake. Members agreed there should be reference to the DNR. Peterson expressed concern that the DNR may not care about the individual cities since the DNR looks at the entire populace of Minnesota and what will be beneficial to the whole. Peterson asked if anything had been missed in the work session discussions. Gaffron replied that Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 had not been discussed. He stated that Subdivision . 1 states a purpose that focuses on taking care of the environment and being a good neighbor by 5 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 not diminishing the neighboring real estate values but specifically references businesses located to service boats for recreational purposes. This came from the 1975 Council. Peterson thought this could be written as proposed. Subdivision 2 deals with definitions. Peterson thought this was pretty straightforward. Gaffron continued with discussion of Subdivision 4 which requires a review of any application for a building permit to do work at a marina and questioned if reference to the Lake Use Committee should be omitted. Peterson asked what the Orono code says when a marina does not pay for a license. Gaffron responded that all of the marinas regularly pay their license fees. The City has denied the issuance of the license to a number of them for various lengths of time, however, no action was taken to stop their operation. Peterson noted that from a legal standpoint if the City cashes the check, they have granted them a license. Peterson indicated he would remain after the meeting to discuss any personal comments or concerns of the people present. Smith asked if another work session should be scheduled after the joint work session on March • 11. DeSantis commented that he had a problem with the "List of Uses" being submitted to the Council which indicates that the list has been agreed upon and, in fact, there is not agreement. He felt the Council could have pre- conceived ideas. He questioned what should be a permitted use. Smith suggested re- ranking or marking up the list so the Planning Commission had something in writing to refer to. Gaffron reviewed the definitions of uses. A permitted use means it can be the primary and only use for that site. If there is vacant land, one of these uses could be the only use. For example, a marina owner or neighbor would not want to see a piece of vacant land with nothing on it but a sign which is why it is considered an accessory use. Accessory use means it is secondary to one of the permitted uses. He thought boat rental could be considered as a permitted use. Conditional uses are things the City will allow a marina to do if a set of standards is met that has been set up in the code. Gaffron noted the right hand list is a list of items that were discussed at the various work sessions with the majority opinion being they should not be included as a use within the B -2 zone. Dunn suggested the Planning Commission take the "List of Uses" to the Council and go through each item to get their input. 6 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Members agreed to make a decision about another work .session after the Friday joint work session. Lindquist felt there was a responsibility to the people present to have an additional work session prior to a public hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting closed at 6:38 p.m. • • 7 • 4 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE L/ COUNCIL PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 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, Candace Rowlette and Dale Lindquist. The following represented City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #2) #1906 GEORGE M. ROSCOE 4030 ELM STREET - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Roscoe and Bob Huibrecte, their builder, were present. Mabusth explained that the applicants were seeking only a lot area variance. She noted this lot was consistent with other lots in the Minnetonka Summit Park neighborhood. Neighboring properties range from .50 to .80 acre. Roscoe explained that they purchased the property in December, 1993 with an existing single e family home and single car garage which they intended to demolish and rebuild. They were misinformed about the one acre and 80% requirements. They hope to begin construction of a new residence when road restrictions are lifted. The property was listed and sold for land value only. He added the two wells on the property were abandoned and a new well is to be installed. • Mabusth discussed the severe elevations at the east lot line indicating that the proposed drainage will follow to the south to Elm Street. Smith asked if the Roscoes had comments from the neighbors. Mr. Roscoe replied the neighbors were pleased to see the demolition and a new house being constructed. Peterson expressed concern about directing too much runoff to the west side of the property where a creek exists. Roscoe explained this was the Park Avenue right -of -way which receives runoff from the unimproved road corridors to the north. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Lindquist, to approve Application #1906 for George M. Roscoe, 4030 Elm Street, for a lot area variance to construct a new residence. Ayes 7, nays 0. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #1) #1898 PAUL AND ROSE HAUSER 2801 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:12 P.M. - 7:19 P.M. The Chairman announced that this is the continuation of a public hearing originally held at the January 18th meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Hauser were present. Mabusth reviewed the proposal for an addition at 32' x 25' submitted for the January meeting and the current proposal at 25' x 27'. The proposed addition is reduced by 75 s.f. with a reduction in the driveway of 69 s.f. and the removal of a lakeshore staircase. Planning Commission members had previously had no objections to the setback variance for the breakfast nook addition and after -the -fact deck because there was sufficient room for safety vehicles to maneuver and the breakfast nook addition was exposed to a neighboring garage. Mabusth explained the hardcover in the 75 -250' setback area was originally proposed at 30.8 % and has been reduced to 28.6%. Within the 250 -500' setback area, hardcover was at 56.9% and is proposed at 30 %. Smith noted there was no typical arrangement for garage placement on properties in the Casco Point area. Often garages are kept near the street to minimize hardcover. Aesthetically she would like to see a different placement of the garage but had no better suggestion. • Nolan asked if the sidewalk would be moved closer to the garage. Hauser confirmed it would be moved under the overhang. Rowlette commented the applicants had made a good effort at improvements. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Nolan, to approve Application #1898 for Paul and Rose Hauser, 2801 Casco Point Road, to allow variances for side setbacks, an average lakeshore setback and hardcover for additions to the existing residence. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #3) #1907 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT 1400 BRACKETT'S POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 P.M. - 7:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Scott Crawford was present to represent the applicants. Mabusth explained the applicants' proposal to renovate a stone step accessway and railing. At an earlier review, the Planning Commission approved replacement of stone steps in another location that had been incorrectly removed. • 2 r - • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #3) #1907 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT - cont. Members discussed the existing boathouse noting that any structural repair of the boathouse would require approval of the City. Schroeder asked if the same ordinance applied to the grotto at the lakeshore. Mabusth explained that when any improvements were proposed within lakeshore, variance approval is required. The repair of the stone steps also involves slight land alterations within the protected area and the City is concerned about soil erosion. Rowlette questioned if four staircases for 600' of shoreline was appropriate and thought this should be discussed at some future date. Smith asked if the steps were being repaired to maintain the ambiance of the lakeshore or if they were functional. Lindquist noted people would be walking down to the lake at different places and the steps would be useful or they would be crawling up and down the bank. Smith did not see any problem in repairing the most northerly steps because there were potential erosion problems. Schroeder asked that the applicant recognize that when the wooden boat facility deteriorates, it will need to be removed. Rowlette agreed because there is already hardcover allowed with the steps in the 0 -75' setback area. • Crawford agreed to discuss the Planning Commission's request to consider the removal of the boathouse with the Jundt's. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1907 for James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Brackett's Point Road, for variances to repair two stone step accessways as needed. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #4) #1908 DAVID CARLSON 620 BIG ISLAND - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:33 P.M. - 7:41 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. David Carlson was present. Mabusth reviewed the applicant's proposal to install a 12' x 18' storage shed within the flood fringe area of Lake Minnetonka. The Watershed District has reviewed this request and advised they had no problem with the proposal. She noted that all setbacks except the average lakeshore setback were met. No hardcover problems existed. If the shed were moved out of the flood fringe area, it would be too close to the septic area and the 30' interior lot line setback would not be met. • 3 • M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #4) #1908 DAVID CARLSON - cont. Carlson stated a shed had previously existed and had been moved. He added that it would not be on a cement slab but on pilings (932.5 elevation) similar to the new cabin to avoid flood conditions. Smith asked if the shed could be attached to the cabin so there would not be an additional structure on the property. Carlson responded that it would cost approximately $30,000 to get a crane back on the property to add pilings to the cabin. He explained the shed would match the design of the cabin. The shed will be placed on hand - poured footings. Nolan asked if the flood fringe area was part of the flood plain. Mabusth responded affirmatively and added that the flood plain area cannot be altered so as to change retention capabilities. Schroeder felt there were safety concerns also. Smith asked what would be stored in the shed. Carlson replied there would be a lawn mower, water skis, children's water toys, etc. that are now stored on the porch. Schroeder noted the hardship for this applicant is that nothing on this unique property exists outside of the flood fringe. • It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Peterson, to approve Application #1908 for David Carlson, 620 Big Island, for an accessory structure to be placed in the flood fringe area, provided the structure is raised above the flood fringe (932.5) and approving a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE 1485 GREEN TREES ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:42 P.M. - 8:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. David and Margaret Vergeyle were present. Mabusth reviewed the definition of bluffs as a steep slope that is located in the shoreland area and rises 25' above the OHWL of the water body. The grade from toe to a point at least 25' above the water is 30% or greater and must drain toward the water body. The "toe of the bluff" means the lower point of a 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18 %. "Top of the bluff" is the higher point of a 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18 %. There is a 30' setback for structures from the top of a bluff. The "bluff impact zone" is the area within 20' of the top of the bluff. Mabusth referred to overhead diagrams in explaining these definitions. The regulations apply to shoreland areas within 1000' feet of a water body. The intention of the code is to prevent erosion of steeper elevations that drain to lakes. Staff would like to redefine the "top of bluff" to be less restrictive. • 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 (##5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE - cont. Mabusth noted that the Vergeyle property is the last of the lots to be developed in the Green Trees on Tanager Lake subdivision. She explained that the applicants have been working with staff to get a building permit approved. The lot was approved in 1980 at 1.69 acre. A driveway easement was created that additionally reduced the size of the lot. This would have required the applicants to seek a lot area variance. The Vergeyles rid themselves of the driveway easement but now have been told they have a bluff to deal with. Mabusth reviewed a diagram of the Vergeyle property indicating the visual and code definitions of "top of bluff" somewhere between the 950 and 959 elevations. If the house were moved further away from the bluff impact zone and placed closer to the road, this may have a negative impact on the aesthetics for the rest of the neighborhood. Nolan asked how the visual top of bluff was determined. Mabusth responded that determination was made just by looking at where the slope starts to level off and steeper elevations end. Mabusth explained that the applicants propose to set the house at the top of the bluff determined by the visual standard which accommodates the 50' street setback. The City Engineer has confirmed there is no need to continue filling beyond the lakeside foundation of the residence. • n the bluff existed at the time of platting. Smith asked why the lot was created as it was when p g Mabusth replied that bluffs were not recognized at the time. The setback was 75' from the shoreline at that time and now there is a 100' setback. is Schroeder felt the real issue with the bluff is erosion. He had no visual objection as it is consistent with the neighborhood. He asked the builder if it were possible to move the house closer to the road to minimize erosion. The applicants replied that they had tried to stay behind the 50' required street setback and septic setbacks. David Vergeyle noted that if the house were moved closer to the street there could be septic setback problems and may not be aesthetically pleasing. Schroeder thought he may be more likely to approve of a street setback to prevent erosion problems. Smith asked the square footage of the proposed home. The applicants responded it was 4400 s.f. (2200 per floor) to be constructed as a one -story walkout. David Vergeyle explained they had worked very hard with their builders to stay within the building envelope and the design of the home had been reduced twice already. Smith noted the home was comparable in size to other homes in the neighborhood adding that perhaps this lot would dictate a smaller home in order to accommodate the uniqueness of the lot. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE - cont. Lindquist asked for further explanation of the grading plan. Mabusth explained that filling would stop at the main foundation to the lakeside of the home. Rowlette asked to see a diagram with the footprint of the house. Peterson inquired about the proposed roof drains noting that in a recent application a unique percolation system had been designed to address erosion. Mabusth responded that the applicants had no hardcover problem and the roof drains were proposed to minimize potential erosion. She noted there is a wetland at the bottom of the property. The property has a right to have a dock but certain standards must be followed to minimize any impact. Rowlette asked who would be involved in the dock approval. Mabusth replied there would be a City permit required and review by the LMCD. The dock would have to be placed at the 929.4 elevation. Schroeder reiterated that erosion must be a major concern to the owners and builder. He asked if it made sense to move the house into the 50' street setback area. Nolan questioned if the filling would be minimized if the house were moved 10' closer to the • street but not up to the street to take advantage of the flat area. He expressed his appreciation for the care the applicants took to stay out of the 50' setback area but was unsure if that was the most important thing in this case. Nolan thought the house could be juggled around the septic drainfield. David Vergeyle thought that was possible but noted they bought the property also because of the lakeviews and wanted to keep that as a consideration. Schroeder noted there was a general willingness to consider a variance to the 50' setback in exchange for improving the erosion issue. The applicants indicated there was a financial incentive to consider moving the house back 10'. Rowlette expressed her views against granting variances on a new lot. She felt there were solutions such as changing the design of the house. Margaret Vergeyle explained that the house had been designed based on the setbacks they knew about. Nolan agreed that the applicants did not know they were going to have the bluff problem and was willing to consider a modification to the street setback. He was not suggesting any encroachment to the septic system. He did not feel 10' was an absolute number and the applicants should work toward a number around 10'. David Vergeyle asked if there would be a problem with the side yard setback since that side faced the neighbor's garage. Nolan did not think there would be a problem. 0 is 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE - cont. Rowlette stated the Planning Commission was in the position of either denying the application and sending it on to Council, tabling it to be reconsidered by Planning Commission or approving it as proposed. The builder noted the roof design was to be contemporary and flat with water drainage having less impact on the lot than currently exists. The drainage would be carefully directed. Lindquist noted there were drains proposed on each side of the house to the 933' elevation. Peterson questioned if the drainage would be properly percolated before entering the lake. Mabusth responded that the water would be outletted at the 125' setback. The City would be concerned with the velocity and would want to make sure that there were no erosion problems at the site where it outletted in the lower lakeshore yard. Mabusth reviewed the "common sense" definition noting it would not significantly help the applicant in this case noting the location of house to the 950 elevation was the visual and the 960 elevation as defined by code. Schroeder noted that this lot would be unbuildable if all codes were adhered to. He was inclined • to approve the application if the house were moved back if it made sense. is Nolan was concerned with the fill issue. Mabusth noted that by moving the house back even 10', technically it would still be in the bluff impact zone but would reduce filling in the protected area. Lindquist was sensitive to the effort the applicants have made in working with this property and would probably vote for this variance if the house were moved. He expressed his concern regarding filling activities. Nolan felt the applicants were willing to come back to the Planning Commission with some proposed revisions. David Vergeyle did not see any problem with repositioning before the next Council meeting. Nolan stressed that repositioning would only be important if there was some benefit realized. Smith stated she would like to see the proposed changes before sending to Council. She would be willing to look at street setback variances. David Vergeyle stated that delays are costing them money and would like to see this brought before Council as soon as possible. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 is ( #5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE - cont. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to approve Application #1909 for David and Margaret Vergeyle, 1485 Green Trees Road, as proposed requiring the approval of variances for the proposed house that will be located within the bluff impact zone with the proviso that the applicants need to make a case to the City Council that there is a compelling reason not to move the house approximately 10' and also recommended approval of up to a 10' street setback variance to accommodate the move of the house. There is to be no further fill to the lakeside of the foundation and the runoff from drains will incorporate appropriate percolation if feasible. Ayes 4, nays 2, 1 abstention. Smith was opposed to approving this application because she was uncertain that leaving the decision up to the applicants as to whether to reposition the house or not was the correct way to proceed. She felt the application was being moved along too quickly. Rowlette understood the investment and redesigns the applicants have worked on but felt part of their problems were related to the design of the house. She thought a different house design with a different driveway approach may help them work within the building envelope. Berg abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. 0 Schroeder noted this was the first application the Planning Commission had dealt with that involved the bluff impact zone. The bluff ordinance made the Vergeyle lot unbuildable. The builder requested that the City advise prospective builders of such ordinances since the Vergeyles had been working on the design of their home for over 1' /z years. He stated 80% of the homes on the lake are built in these zones. Mabusth noted that anytime any of those properties proposed any additions, they would be required to apply for similar variances. The builder felt most of the existing homes did not have erosion problems even though they were built in the bluff impact zone. ( #6) #1910 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 795 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:41 P.M. - 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Neal Lawson was present representing the school district. Mabusth explained this application involves a request to install a storage shed in the northwest comer of the property noting the applicant was unaware of the required 50' setback and is willing to meet this setback. The applicant is also proposing a bleacher /storage structure along the east side of the property adjacent to the tennis courts. • P �J �J • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #6) #1910 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 - cont. Mabusth stated the proposed shed will not be screened by the treeline and affects the neighbor to the north. The structure will meet the 50' setback with a height of 15 -16'. Flood lights will be installed facing the school. The building is proposed of steel siding with wood trusses. Schroeder asked Lawson if there would be a problem providing additional screening. Lawson replied that he was unsure if additional screening will help very much. Smith asked if there was any possibility of locating the shed next to one of the existing dugouts or attach it to an existing structure so there were fewer structures scattered throughout the property. Lawson did not see the structure as being randomly placed. If it were attached to the dugouts, a variance would be required and there could be obstruction of the view of the baseball field. Lawson commented that most of the facilities are used by community groups who use the buildings for storage of youth equipment. It was determined that this location was the best for the storage shed and doesn't interfere with other activities. This is an out -of -the -way area and is not useable for anything else. Smith asked where the seating for the tennis courts and small storage area were to be located. Lawson explained it would not affect existing trees. The school has an orchard from which trees have been relocated to other areas of the school property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rowlette, to approve Application #1910 for the Orono School District, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, for a conditional use permit for two accessory structures to be moved back to the 50' setback with staffs recommendation for proper lighting and erosion control. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. - 9:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Lemmerman were present. Mabusth reviewed the lot line rearrangement which determined a building envelope that was approved before anyone was aware of the bluff impact. She reviewed the bluff definition of 50' segments with an 18% or greater slope. Nolan questioned why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application now instead of at the time of an actual building permit application. Mabusth responded that an area variance needs to be dealt with as part of the subdivision application and a building envelope defined. 0� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 0 (#'n #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN - cont. Members questioned why the bluff was not addressed at the time of the original subdivision review. Mabusth advised prior to filing the subdivision application, the surveyor advised of boundary problems and that torrens department would require a plat. The City would have accepted a simple metes and bounds division. Because of the costs involved, the applicant chose to first file the subdivision application and receive conceptual direction from Council before filing area variance, completing formal plat and possible registration of lands. She added that the bluff issue became effective in April of 1993. She did not get topographic information until the night of the February meeting. Nolan asked if this lot were within 1000' feet of shoreline since the bluff issues are part of the Shoreland Regulations. Mabusth confirmed that the property is within 1000' of Forest Lake. Members felt this ordinance was a little too restrictive. Marsha Hickey, 4640 Tonkaview Road, stated that when they moved in they were under the assumption that lots were to be 1 acre or greater. Mabusth confirmed this was a 1 acre zoning district. Hickey objected to the proposed lot being less than 1 acre. Lemmerman replied that he had attempted to do a lot line rearrangement with the Hickeys in 1986 but they were not willing to proceed so he decided to move ahead with a different approach. Schroeder noted this area had many lots that were less than 1 acre. Nolan stated the lot was considered a buildable lot prior to the proposed lot line rearrangement. They were trying to make the lot a better lot for building. The adjacent developed lot is small at 75' x 100'. Schroeder asked if Lemmerman planned to build on the proposed lot. Lemmerman responded that he did not but wanted to sell the property as a buildable lot. Mabusth explained that the building envelope is defined by the visual top of bluff. Lemmerman noted that City sewer was available to this lot which was different than the previous application. A 30' x 80' building envelope exists. Mabusth reviewed comments made by Ceil Strauss of the DNR who had no problem with accepting the visual top of bluff. She explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a lot area variance and it should be noted that there is a bluff impact zone within this property and that a building envelope is defined. 10 • MINIMS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 (#'n #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN - cont. Lindquist opposed making a decision on this request until the code definitions were cleared up. He added that by the current code definition, Parcel A is not a buildable lot and wanted clarification as to whether the visual or code definition was to be applied to this property. He felt this was different than the previous application because this subdivision application has not been approved whereas the Vergeyle lot was already created. Mabusth agreed with Lindquist's opinion and suggested tabling this application until an amendment of the bluff impact zone could be considered or the Planning Commission could deny the current request. Lemmerman expressed his frustration with the money he has spent only to find out now that the lot is unbuildable. Mabusth noted that the lot could be built on at the lower elevations where the original home was located but that is not what the applicant wants. The Council was also unaware of any bluff impacts when they conceptually approved the lot line rearrangement. Rowlette felt if the Planning Commission approved the lot line rearrangement that they in effect approved the lot area variance at the same time and they should not be looking at this request until someone wants to build on the lot. Mayor Callahan stated his understanding was that the lot line rearrangement came to the Council 0 with approval from the Planning Commission. However, staff felt another hearing would be needed because Mr. Lemmerman needed to complete a formal plat rather than a simple metes and bounds subdivision. The Lemmermans had to stop and go through a registration. The applicant did not want to proceed with the area variance when he found out how much money it would cost so proceeded with a lot line rearrangement to get conceptual approval. Schroeder reviewed previous steps in the application. With the topographic maps provided and consideration of the bluff impact zone, this lot would be considered unbuildable without variances for lot area and bluff impact zone. He asked if the Planning Commission used the visual top of bluff and approved the building envelope if they would see an application for actual proposed construction. Mabusth replied that performance standards exist for staff to work with and if the setback is met, only staff would deal with a building application. Schroeder noted for that to happen, the Planning Commission would have to decide to use the visual top of bluff for this application. Schroeder explained the bluff impact zone has been established to protect erosion from bluff areas. Rowlette added that when hardcover and structure are added to a lot, more runoff and water exist and it moves faster. 0 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 0 (#7) #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN - cont. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith, to table Application #1910 for Ernest Lemmerman, 4620 Tonkaview Lane, for a lot area variance and a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone for 30 days to allow the City time to make a determination of the interpretation of the bluff impact zone. Ayes 4, nays 3. Rowlette was opposed to tabling the application because she felt the Planning Commission did not effectively do its job by not bringing the bluff issue to Mr. Lemmerman's attention at the beginning of his application. She felt a decision should be made according to what would be reasonable for this lot and then consider how future bluff issues should be handled. Peterson and Berg agreed with Rowlette. Schroeder asked Lemmerman how the delay of 30 days would affect him. Lemmerman responded that it would not hurt him but questioned if it would be a buildable lot and where he should go from this point. Lemmerman stated he has already spent a lot of money for this approval. Schroeder replied that, technically, they could not say the lot would be buildable. ( #8) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Rowlette reported that Council tabled the Tandem Properties application at their March 14 • meeting. There was much discussion about drainage issues and Council felt the Planning Commission had done a good job in addressing the drainage issue. The fact that the bike trail must be located 30' in was never brought up at Planning Commission meetings, even with Park Commission representatives present, which affects two lots. The bike path was not drawn on any plans. Planning Commission members thought the trail would be in the road right -of -way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Mabusth noted that an on -site meeting had been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. March 21, 1994 and the bike trail issues would be resolved. Huff did not approve of the cul -de -sacs because they did not meet code and roads should have been connected where possible. (#9) OTHER ISSUES Schroeder reported that the joint Council /Planning Commission work session was very productive with much discussion regarding the B -2 zone. Meetings need to be scheduled to discuss the B -2 zone and amendment to the bluff impact zone ordinance. Members preferred a 5:00 p.m. meeting and Gaffron is to schedule. WA • .0 .. . - -w MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • - HELD MARCH 21, 1994 (#10) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the January 18, 1994 and February 22, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #11) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Nolan volunteered to attend the April 11, 1994 Council meeting. Smith also plans to attend. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Callahan commented that during the work on the Shoreland Regulations, Council did not want to adopt the bluff impact zone but Gaffron indicated the DNR may not accept the ordinance without this being included. Jabbour noted that Orono was one of the first cities to adopt the Shoreland Regulations. Since that time, other cities have had more flexibility when adopting the ordinance. He stated much of the bluff ordinance was written to address concerns for the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. He would not hold to a strict use of the bluff impact zone. Mayor Callahan agreed. Mabusth explained the DNR is aware that Orono will want to change sections of this ordinance. • Peterson congratulated Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg on their reappointment to the Planning Commission for three more years. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Schroeder to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person. 0 13 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ATTENDANCE The Orono Planning Commission met on April 18, 1994 in the Orono City Council Chambers with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Steve Peterson, Janice Berg and Dale Lindquist. Commissioner Candace Rowlette was excused. The following represented staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and City Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #1914 THOMAS G. AND PHYLLIS COLWELL /TIM AND BETH TRAFF, 1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AND 2640 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Gaffron gave the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the request under either of the two options listed in the staff report. Peterson asked about the garage and Gaffron responded that it would continue to be located 10' from the lot line and belongs to the Colwell's. Tom Colwell stated that they had initially jogged the lot line to meet the two -acre lot area requirement. Smith asked if there was the potential for another subdivision in the future and • Gaffron responded that staff had not analyzed that potential. Mabusth commented that Lot 3 was no longer deemed to be a buildable lot, and it was unlikely there would be further subdivision on this property. Lindquist asked about the staff recommendation and Gaffron responded that depending on a number of factors, at the discretion of the County Surveyor, this may have to be a replat rather than a metes - and - bounds division. If a plat is done, it will have to be reviewed twice by the City Council whereas if a metes and bounds description is used, it only requires review once by the Council. Mr. Colwell stated that his surveyor had recommended that they do a formal plat to avoid any further complications. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. Tim Traff noted that it was more expensive to do a plat rather than a metes and bounds description. He asked if there were any variances from the new ordinance requiring a 150' setback instead of the 75' distance. Chair Schroeder responded affirmatively. As no one else wished to speak, he closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of #1914 Subdivision /Lot Line Rearrangement for Thomas G. and Phyllis Colwell /Tim and Beth Traff at 1130 Old Crystal Bay Road and 2640 North Shore Drive per the staff recommendation. Ayes 6, nays 0. • 1 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 (#2) #1921 MARY A. ULRICH, 1000 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Gaffron reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mark Gronberg was present representing the applicant. Peterson asked if the applicant had any problems with any of the conditions and Gronberg responded negatively. Discussion ensued regarding the park dedication fee and Gaffron noted that it would be 8% of the fair market value of the new lot only. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing; no one present wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued regarding the setbacks from the easement from the ordinary high water mark to avoid problems in the future. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of #1921 Preliminary Subdivision for Mary A. Ulrich, 1000 Loma Linda Avenue subject to stipulations 1 -11 as listed in the staff report and the addition of #12, to require delineation of the wetland along Loma Linda Avenue. Ayes 6, nays 0. 0 (0) #1922 ROBERT AND ELIZABETH MELAMED, 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The applicant was not present. Chair Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of #1922 Preliminary Subdivision for Robert and Elizabeth Melamed at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #4) AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 3 Gaffron reviewed the ordinance criteria and definitions proposed for inclusion in the ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendments. Peterson asked what other cities were doing and Gaffron responded he had not discussed this with any others. He felt that the City needed to have something that would give staff the ability to make a determination without having to resort to litigation to resolve differences of opinion. He noted that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was concerned about erosion and protection of the lake shore. Lindquist commended staff on a well - written ordinance. Chair Schroeder opened the public hearing. Beverly and Louis Smerling, 2683 Casco Point Road were present. Mrs. Swirling stated she felt that this was relevant and needed and was glad to see some changes made. She noted they have had a great deal of erosion and have had to build retaining walls on their property to stabilize it. Chair Schroeder noted that drainage was always a concern in the Casco Point area and the Planning Commission is • looking at where it was appropriate to construct houses. 2 �J MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #4) AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 3 (CONTINUED) It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of the Amendment to Section 10.56, Subdivision 3, and direct staff to forward it to the City Council. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #5) #792 MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON, 510 BIG ISLAND - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Gaffron gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Peterson commented he felt that it was good to have a conditional use permit issued for the use and he did not want to limit the applicants to 150 users. The applicant noted that their membership was about 300 -350 family units, and they did not want to be in a situation where they had to count the number of people on the site. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing; no one present wished to speak, and the public hearing was closed. • Lindquist asked the applicants what number they would feel comfortable with and the applicants responded that they typically have had between 250 -300 people on the site during the busiest times. They were willing to give the City a schedule of events so they would be informed of the activities on Big Island, but they preferred not to be limited or having to take a head count. Chair Schroeder asked if 500 people would be acceptable as they were not comfortable having it open ended. Discussion ensued regarding the potential number of people the island could accommodate safely. Peterson commented that the Minnetonka Power Squadron had not done anything other than operate the facility in a very responsible manner; the other Commissioners concurred. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to approve #792 Conditional Use Permit for Minnetonka Power Squadron, 510 Big Island, as outlined in the staff report, with the limit of 500 people, beyond which the Minnetonka Power Squadron will need to obtain approval on a per -event basis from the City Council. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #6) #1881 JOHN WHITMAN, 1570 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Gaffron reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance subject to the six stipulations listed in the staff report. He discussed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposal to construct an 8 -acre basin to catch sediment from the surrounding properties. • K • • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #6) #1881 JOHN WHITMAN, 1570 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) John Whitman, the applicant was present, and indicated he was aware of those plans. Nolan asked what the applicant proposed to do when the driveway was constructed, regarding the proposal to construct an accessory structure, and Whitman responded that the driveway was being constructed to provide access to that portion of his property and it was being done for legal purposes. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing; no one present wished to address the Commission on this item. Whitman asked about the time period in which he had to complete the construction, as timely completion was of concern. Gaffron responded that he would have one year from the date of the final resolution in which to complete the construction. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Smith, to grant approval of #1881 Conditional Use Permit /Variance for John Whitman, 1570 Sixth Avenue North, subject to the six conditions listed in the staff report, and noting that the culvert size would be determined by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as included in the Developers Agreement. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer can oversee this process and a time frame can be established within the Developer's Agreement. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#7) #1912 TIM HILLMAN, 400 LEAF STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth gave the staff report and noted that the applicant advised that there are no access easements over the driveway serving the adjacent properties. Lindquist commented that the house has been there long enough so that it was an implied easement. Peterson asked if the applicants had considered moving the house back to eliminate some of the variances. Mabusth delineated the building envelope on the plans and noted that it would still require some setback variances because the house was 73 feet in length. Peterson asked about the accessory buildings and Tim Hillman responded that they were for his personal storage use. He stated he would be removing the vehicles stored outside from the property. Mabusth reviewed the drainage concerns and noted the City Engineer will review the drainage problems at the north lot line which result from final grading for Stubbs Bay sewer project. Discussion ensued regarding the setbacks incurred by the addition and staff advised that the addition would encroach no closer than the existing residence to the adjacent lot line. Hillman stated he has to put the entry addition on the south side. Mabusth noted that the garage has two levels; Hillman stated there would be three stalls on the upper level and two on the lower level. He stated he is a collector of antique cars, which is why he needs such a large garage and the additional storage structures. 4 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 (#7) #1912 TIM HILLMAN, 400 LEAF STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Smith inquired about the old building materials on the property and whether they would be used in the new construction or removed. Hillman responded they would be removed. Berg inquired if Mr. Hillman intended to do the construction himself of have it done, and Hillman responded he would do it himself with the assistance of a couple of friends. He proposed to have the outside construction completed by fall and intended to complete the interior during the winter months. Nolan commented he was uncomfortable with the setback variances and he felt they should be reworked so that they eliminated the side setback variance. Lindquist agreed, and noted he would like to see as few variances as possible. Peterson commented he felt the proposed plans were an improvement to the property but he felt that the variances should be eliminated on the south side. Smith asked if any accessory structures would be removed, and Hillman responded not as long as they were under the lot coverage limit. Nolan inquired if there would be a time limit placed on the construction and Mabusth responded that such limitations are spelled out in the Municipal Code. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of #1912 Variances • for Tim Hillman, 400 Leaf Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall establish and adhere to time limits for the construction. 2. The exterior of the garage shall match the construction materials of the new house; this is to be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. All exterior storage violations shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The City Engineer shall review the drainage concerns and work with the applicant to resolve problems. Ayes 4, nays 2. Smith and Nolan voted nay. ( #8) #1913 GREG J. TRUCHINSKI, 1580 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Greg Truchinski was present and requested that he be allowed to keep the tower in its present location because it provided less of an impact on adjacent properties. Mrs. David McMillan was present and stated that the proposed location for the tower will have a visual impact on their property but it would be greater if the tower was located further up the hill. She asked if the crossbars on the tower could be lower, which would reduce the impact on their property. 5 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #8) #1913 GREG J. TRUCHINSKI, 1580 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Chair Schroeder commented that the tower was presently located too close to the lot line and should be moved. He noted the alternative was to execute a hold harmless agreement with the City if they were to allow the tower to remain where it presently is located. Mabusth commented that both the David McMillans and Whitney McMillan would have to sign a hold harmless agreement with the City of Orono in order for that to occur. Greg Truchinski stated he would prefer to keep the tower where it is. He stated the most he can lower the bars is ten feet because it's more beneficial to transmission. Chair Schroeder stated he felt that the Planning Commission could approve the Conditional Use Permit and require the hold harmless agreements to be executed. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1913 Conditional Use Permit for Greg Truchinski, 1580 Fox Street, in its present location, subject to receiving hold harmless agreements from all affected properties subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and receipt of all permits and fees. The variance will run with the tenancy of Mr. Truchinski, and will terminate when he moves away. Ayes 6, nays • 0(#. 9) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBA UM, 41 09 HI GHWOO D ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that this item would need to be tabled pending the action taken by the City Council on the Bluff Ordinance. However, the item should be discussed by the Planning Commission at that time, if the applicant wished. Mr. Applebaum was present and indicated he would prefer discussion to take place. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and recommended that the item be tabled pending City Council resolution of the bluff ordinance. She reviewed the hardcover on the site and noted that reductions need to be made to achieve the required 15% lot coverage standard. George Applebaum discussed the topography on his property and where the location of the top of the bluff should be according to the new definition. Mabusth noted that staff required clarification regarding the exact dimension of the second level deck and Mr. Applebaum responded that the elevations were correct and not the floor plan, and that deck was a 6' deck. Mabusth noted that the deck area would be added to the structural coverage figures. She stated the proposed garage would be 10' from the street lot line and will be attached and will require a 35' setback from the street. The house does not meet the 35' setback from the street and the second story will require a variance. . Mabusth reviewed the areas of hardcover which do not coincide with the plans but it was noted on the survey, which was done in the winter, and possibly was not accurate and did R 0 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 (#9) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBAUM, 4109 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) not reflect accurately the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide a more accurate survey of existing conditions prior to their next review of his proposal next month. Nolan stated he felt that the project was very ambitious and he would be looking for more trade -offs to gain approval. He also had some problems with two access in the lakeshore yard. He felt that this could be redesigned to reduce the hardcover on the property. The site was already fully developed and he felt that the hardcover area could be reduced. Lindquist stated he had a problem with anything closer to the lake than was presently existing. Berg stated she felt the proposal was overbuilding the site. Peterson and Smith concurred. Mabusth asked if they had problems with the second story addition. Lindquist responded negatively, but stated he felt that it was better than what was presently existing on the site. He did not like the walkout proposed below grade. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Nolan to continue #1915 Variances for George Applebaum, 4109 Highwood Road until the next meeting in May. Ayes 6, nays 0. 0 (#10) #1916 IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Mr. James Jensen was present representing the applicant. Peterson inquired why the contractor had not obtained a building permit prior to constructing the guard house, and Mr. Jensen responded that he realized that was not the normal procedure, but he had informed the City what was going on, and had also contacted the Orono Police Department. Lindquist inquired why they had not constructed a temporary structure and Mr. Jensen responded that they desired the look of permanence and security as soon as possible which was why they proceeded as they did. He stated all the other buildings on the site were necessary and they could not remove any of the structures. Chair Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission wished to be on record as not being supportive of after - the -fact variances. Peterson stated he was denied access to the site twice when he went out to view the property, and he had a difficult time approving something he had not seen. Smith was concerned about setting a precedent if they approve after - the -fact variances. Mabusth responded that this particular situation was so unique, it was doubtful if there would be any other similar • instances occurring. She noted that staff would create a set of unique findings for approval of the variance which would avoid setting a precedent. 7 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #10) #1916 IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Councilmember Hurr advised that Council had been advised of the immediate need for the guard house. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to approve #1916 Conditional Use Permit for Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to submit an additional $275 to complete payment of the after - the -fact variance application fee at $200 (already submitted $125) and the after - the -fact penalty fee of $200. 2. Applicant to obtain a building permit subject to after - the -fact penalty fees. Chair Schroeder requested Mr. Jenson to inform the applicant that the Planning Commission could not visit the site and a special effort should be made to facilitate this in the future. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #11) #1917 FRANK AND MARTHA BENNETT, 315 TONKAWA ROAD - is CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 0 Mabusth reviewed the proposal for Planning Commission members and noted that prime access to the apartment was not gained via the primary structure as required by ordinance. James Jenson was present representing the applicants. Peterson stated he felt that this was one of the issues that needed to be reviewed in the ordinance, and he did not feel there was a need to enter accessory apartments through the principal structure. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1917 Conditional Use Permit for Frank and Martha Bennett at 315 Tonkawa Road with the provision that the accessory apartment cannot be used as a rental unit. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #12) #1918 JAMES K. AND JULIE ANN LYNCH- DANIELS, 1225 ORONO OAKS DRIVE - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Peterson to table #1918 Renewal of Conditional Use Permit for James K. and Julie Ann Lynch - Daniels at 1225 Orono Oaks Drive until the next meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. u MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #13) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that this item must be tabled due to the bluff issues and incomplete legal notification, but since many neighbors were present, the item would be discussed and public comments accepted. Gaffron reviewed the staff report and discussed the major issues involved with the proposal. He described the six variances required for the proposed house which needed to be addressed. Ty Bucey was present, and requested the Planning Commission to discuss the issues. He stated that they had a fire last December and he had two small children and they had moved three times, and were experiencing great hardship in getting the plans approved. Chair Schroeder stated that this lot was not unbuildable and they will have to grant some variances. He discussed the hardcover computations and the reason for the changes. He discussed the filling which was approved by the City and which will remain there. He stated he felt the critical issues were drainage and the height of the proposed house and the structural hardcover issue. He opened the public hearing. Beverly and Louis Smerling, 2683 Casco Point Road, stated she had lived there a long time • and she and her husband were opposed to the proposed variances because the house would be too high and would impact their property adversely. Mrs. Smerling stated she felt the house did not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and would be located too close to their property line. Chair Schroeder noted that the proposed garage would not be closer to the property line than the previous garage had been and the Smerling's garage was equally as close to the property line. Louis Smerling stated he felt that the proximity of the structures contributed to the fact that they had two mudslides on their property. He stated they have sympathy for the applicant but felt that they should have discussed their plans with neighborhood residents before the application went this far. Chair Schroeder noted that hardcover variances in the Casco Point area are of particular concern because of the erosion problems in this area. Allen Green, 2645 Casco Point Road stated he was concerned about the project because of aesthetics, conformity and the height of the proposed house which would impact the view from the lake shore. He felt that the proposed house was an improvement from the previous house and he felt the house should be approved. He commented that had the existing house not burned, the drainage issues would still be present. He believed the new construction would present an opportunity to direct the runoff from the site in a better way to avoid further erosion. He stated he was a long time resident of the area and strongly felt that this was an opportunity to improve the neighborhood. He requested the Planning Commission to grant the variances as requested. • Z • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #13) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) James Cradit, the architect for the petitioner, showed a photograph taken from the water showing the existing homes illustrating how the proposed house would look compared to the existing houses. He believed the applicant's proposed house followed the natural curve of the land and was a natural extension of the development in the area. Lindquist asked the petitioner to have the topographical information available at the next Planning Commission meeting. Bill Miller, who lived next to the Smerlings, stated he felt that the applicant should not be penalized by the location of the lot. He noted that with the new roof line on the house the runoff will not run onto the Smerlings property. He felt that the proposed house was not much larger than the original house and falls within the codes. He supported the proposed plan. Irene Standoff, stated her house was 31 feet tall and is presently the tallest house in the neighborhood. She supported the proposed plan. John Scherven, 2649 Casco Point Road, stated he was in favor of the house. Carl Shutts, 2665 Casco Point Road, stated he felt that • the new house would be a great improvement to the neighborhood. He was concerned about the drainage which will result from the new house but felt that he could work with the owner and the architect to resolve any problems. He had no problems with the height of the proposed house. Dick Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road, stated that he had found it necessary to remodel his house because it was falling down, so he had empathy with the applicant's dilemma. He felt that the new house would present an opportunity to resolve some of the existing drainage problems in the area. He requested the Planning Commission to look at what the neighborhood could become, rather than what it has been in the past. James Cradit discussed the drainage problems and noted that they have been looked at. He reviewed the plans and noted that they have been able to divert the drainage flow to reduce some of the runoff. Chair Schroeder requested that the drainage plans be discussed at the next meeting. He inquired if the applicant would be able to remove some of the fill and lower the house to reduce the height and alleviate some of the drainage problems. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage flow patterns and the possibility of diverting some of the flow down to the roadway. Chair Schroeder closed the public hearing. Smith and Nolan commented they felt the house was too high and the lot coverage was too intense. Chair Schroeder thanked the residents for Igtheir input and thanked them for attending the meeting. 10 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #13) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to defer action on #1919 Variances for Ty Busey at 2677 Casco Point Road until the next Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #14) #1920 PHILLIP OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth reviewed the proposal noting that the applicant sought approval of side and street setback variances along with area and width variances for new construction. The applicant planned to construct the residence in the same footprint as the original residence. Mr. Otto stated he had discussed the proposal with adjacent neighbors who had no problems with the proposed side yard setback. Nolan stated he was concerned about the steep topography and inquired how the applicant planned to stabilize the areas impacted. Mr. Otto responded he intended to construct retaining walls. Lindquist noted that Mr. Otto appeared to be basically replacing the structure and he had no problems with the proposal. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1920 Variances for Phillip Otto at 4116 Highwood Road, with the City Council to review the drainage plans with the intent of stabilizing problem areas after construction is completed. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #15) #19*ATELIER LESUEUR, INC., 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Martin Schneider, the property owner, noted that he had purchased the property with the intent to convert the building into a duplex, but he had withdrawn that proposal in the face of opposition from area residents. He discussed the history of the building and the uses that had been located on the site. He asked whether the present zoning would permit the proposed use, and Mabusth responded that the Planning Commission had two alternatives before them but that she felt that the use was non - conforming but found to be continuous, and could be approved with a conditional use permit. Schneider stated he supported the art school and felt that would benefit the entire community. Annette LeSeuer gave an overview of the school and the program they have available. She displayed paintings which had been done by students and teachers involved with the program. Peterson inquired about the fence between the two parking areas, and commented he felt it should be removed to facilitate parking. Chair Schroeder commented he did not see any reason why it could not be removed to allow the Art Center to share the parking area with the school. Annette LeSeuer commented that they would prefer to keep the building and grounds in an original condition, and they would be willing to add the blacktop if the City required it, but they preferred to retain the gravel as it was more original or historic. She also stated she did not have a problem with removing the fence. 11 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ( #15) #1920 ATELIER LESUEUR, INC., 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of #1923 Conditional Use Permit for Atelier LeSueur, Inc. at 2180 North Shore Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall limit enrollment to 20 -24 full -time students. 2. Applicant shall work closely with building staff to see that all necessary fire and building code improvements are installed within six months of the date of approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 3. The maximum occupancy of the structure shall be limited to a 100 person occupancy during the times of special exhibits or showings. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #16) , #1924 DON WINTER, 4620 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC 40 HEARING Gaffron reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request for accessory structure setback and area variances. The applicant was present and had no comments. • Chair Schroeder moved, Nolan seconded, for approval of #1924 Variances for Don Winter at 4620 North Arm Drive as recommended by staff. Ayes 6, nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #17) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1994. Nolan reviewed the actions taken by the City Council at their April 11, 1994 meeting. He noted that the Council had directed the Lundgren Brothers proposal back to the Planning Commission for further review. ( #18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Chair Schroeder noted that there is a meeting scheduled to review the draft B -2 zoning ordinance changes on Wednesday, April 20th. 12 • • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 1994 MEETING. It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Berg, to approve the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE MAY 9, 1994 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Commissioner Steve Peterson volunteered to attend the May 9th City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Smith, to adjourn the meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. 13 Respectfully submitted, Charles Schroeder, Chairman 0 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1. 2 3 4 5. •6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. I*. 20. ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER -t.L ,A MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 • ATTENDANCE The Orono Planning Commission met on May 16, 1994 in the Orono City Council Chambers with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Commissioners Charles Nolan, Steve Peterson, Janice Berg, Candace Rowlette, and Dale Lindquist. Commissioner Sandra Smith was absent. The following represented staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and City Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #1933 TANDEM PROPERTIES, 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE RESCHEDULED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1994 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. ( #2) #1895 PAT WOLFE, 2871 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER- THE -FACT VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY CITY ( #3) #1904 ERIC AND SHELLY LILJEQUIST, 3490 BIRCH LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING • Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the requests subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Nolan commented that he felt that the grading was going to be close and was unsure that the swale would solve the drainage problems. Mabusth stated that this was what the City Engineer had recommended and that staff will require a final grading plan with building permit application for the engineer's review. is Eric Liljequist stated that he had understood that the purpose of the depression was to hold the water before it ran off into the lake and now they were creating a swale to facilitate drainage into the lake which was confusing. Mabusth reviewed the elevations and the engineer's recommendation for mitigating the filling of the flood plain as required by federal flood control regulations. Nolan commented that the reason for the swale was to provide relief if the lake level rose above normal and provide somewhere for the water to go. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1904 Conditional Use Permit/Variance for Eric and Shelly Liljequist at 3940 Birch Lane subject to the conditions noted in the engineer's report and requiring the applicant and the engineer to resolve questions regarding the elevations prior to City Council review. Ayes 6, nays 0. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #4) 1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and outlined the area that was buildable. Ernest Lemmerman was present. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing continued from a pervious meeting. Ken Hickey stated he owned the lot immediately adjacent to that of the applicant, and stated he had sent a letter to the Planning Commission. He stated he was opposed to building on this lot because it is substandard, and it will cause erosion in the area. He believed the buildable area was too close to his house. Rowlette inquired about the average lot sizes in the area and Mabusth responded that they are all half -acre 1 plus acres in this area, and she noted that the subject lot is .78 acres in area. Lemmerman commented that he had purchased the land so that his homestead lot would be larger and more usable. Mabusth noted that the property had sewer available and would have been issued a building permit if the lot contained .8 acres or 80% of required area. Discussion ensued regarding the lot line rearrangement and the top of bluff definition as it would apply to the subject property. • Lindquist stated that he had problems with the application because the proposed lot area was under half an acre and the potential for further variances being requested in the future because of the size of the building envelope. Mabusth reviewed the building envelope location that complied with Orono standards. Lindquist questioned whether the lot was buildable given it's size. Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission had approved the lot line rearrangement with the proposed areas and dimensions and he felt that they could not take the position that the lots were now too small. Nolan commented that since they had approved the lots, then needed to make it the best it can be given the parameters they have available. He preferred to give the applicant a reasonable building envelope and see something built that was feasible. Hickey stated he felt that the lot should not be built on and while he has had an opportunity to purchase the property he felt it was too expensive. Chair Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission could approve the request with a note in the file that the Planning Commission would look at changing the building envelope through review when plans were formally submitted. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of #1911 lot area variance as proposed and a building envelope as defined by the required setbacks for Ernest Lemmerman at 4620 Tonkaview Lane, with the requirement that the sketch of • the defined building envelope be included as part of the resolution granting approval of the area variance in order to alert a future owner of the unique sloped building envelope. Ayes 5, nays 1. Lindquist stated he felt the lot area was too small to contain 2 1�1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #4) 1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) a suitable building envelope. ( #5) #1912 TIM HILLMAN, 400 LEAF STREET - VARIANCES - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW Mabusth reviewed the staff report and the options available to the Planning Commission. Tim Hillman was present and stated that to reduce the amount of lot coverage he proposed to remove the smallest shed and reduce the area of the upper deck from 6' x 25' to 6' x 14'. He believed that this would be adequate to meet the ordinance requirements. Chair Schroeder inquired if the applicant was willing to redesign the entryway and Hillman responded that he would consider it. Nolan stated that because of the easement the setback variances were substantially intensified which concerned him. He felt that if the plans were redesigned to meet the side year setback he would be much more inclined to support it. Commissioners Rowlette, Berg, and Lindquist concurred. Rowlette stated she was concerned about the potential for further development in the area and the • driveway being the only means of access for those properties and becoming a roadway in the future. • Chair Schroeder commented he felt that the entryway on the south side needed to be reduced or relocated so that it was at least 30' from the lot line. Lindquist moved to recommend approval of #1912 for Tim Hillman with the understanding that the existing small shed and portions of the upper deck would be removed to bring lot coverage into compliance with ordinance standards and the south side yard setback requirements because the easement may someday serve added residential development. Chair Schroeder stated he was reluctant to approve the request as submitted, and other Commissioners appeared to feel that way also. He felt that if the applicant wished to resubmit plans that conform to directives of the Commission that the Planning Commission could take action at a future meeting. He felt that the best action was to table the request to allow the applicant to explore possible revisions to the plans. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to table #1912 Variances for Tim Hillman at 400 Leaf Street, to allow the applicant to redesign the proposal. Ayes 6, nays 0. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 • ( #6) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBAUM, 4109 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth discussed the staff report and reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission. Rowlette and Nolan stated that they would like to see additional reduction of hardcover within the 0 -75 setback area. Chair Schroeder noted that there should not be any plastic located in this area and the second access stairs in the 0 -75 and they were looking for additional hardcover reductions. George Applebaum stated he needed the second walkway to get his lawn mower to the different levels and also he has elderly parents who have difficulty with steps. Nolan stated that it would still be possible to push the lawn mower over grass, and Mr. Applebaum concurred that would be possible. He discussed other areas of hardcover he was willing to remove. The cost of maintaining the boat house was discussed. Rowlette stated she felt that the applicant should reduce the amount of hardcover and the amount of the other variances, and she felt the request should be tabled. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of hardcover on the lot. Nolan stated that he felt this was a very intensely developed lot, and he would like to see the amount of hardcover reduced. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, but no one wished • to address the Commission. Applebaum stated that they were not doing any construction in the bluff area and Mabusth illustrated this area on the survey. She stated that the concerns were the visual impact and potential for erosion and the construction was within the required setback area. Chair Schroeder commented that he felt the hardcover was the main issue and he would like to see it reduced significantly so that it was closer to the ordinance requirements. Applebaum inquired if removal of the deck by the boat house would help and Nolan responded affirmatively, and noted that would be moving in the right direction. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1915 Variances for George Applebaum at 4109 Highwood Road, with the provision that the boat house deck be removed in addition to areas #11 and #12 and the plastic underliners because the steep topography has created undue hardship for the applicant. Ayes 5, nays 1. Rowlette stated she felt more hardcover reduction should be done and was not comfortable forwarding the request to the City Council. ( #7) #1918 JAMES K. AND JULIE ANN LYNCH- DANIELS, 1225 ORONO OAKS DRIVE - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING • Gaffron reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request for renewal of a wetland setback variance and conditional use permit for 4 0 MPaMS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #7) #1918 JAMES K. AND JULIE ANN LYNCH- DANIELS, 1225 ORONO OAKS DRIVE - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) constructing a driveway, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Bill Bonner stated he was the designer and builder and was present representing the applicants. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, and no one present wished to address the Commission. Bonner stated that they had submitted a new survey for completion of the driveway started some years ago, and he noted that they are moving a portion of the original fill which was misplaced, back within the existing easement boundary. He stated they propose to put in a new culvert and move more fill in so that the fill will carry the weight of the traffic. He introduced Max Norton, the landscape architect, who concurred with this. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1918 Conditional Use Permit for James K. and Julie Ann Lynch - Daniels at 1225 Orono Oaks Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #8) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING - RENOTIFICATION Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Gaffron reviewed the staff report. Chair Schroeder read a petition which had been submitted by neighborhood residents in support of the application and a letter from the neighbor directly to the north, Dr. Carl Shutts, into the record. Chair Schroeder noted that the drainage issue appeared to have been resolved and the applicant has reduced the height of the house and garage to address the concerns of adjacent residents. Rowlette commented that it appeared that the boat house needed some repairs made and she stated that if the cost of those repairs exceeded 75% of the value of the boat house, then it would have to be removed. Gaffron reviewed the ordinance requirements relating to structures within the 0 -75 foot setback area and how they applied to boat houses. Nolan stated that while there was some reduction in height, he was concerned about the building footprint area. Mr. Bucey responded that they have added a deck and made a connection between the house and garage, but essentially the footprint is the same as the original house. Nolan stated he felt the house was too large for the lot. Chair Schroeder stated that the house had been lowered significantly which would help with the sight lines from the adjacent residential properties. Peterson commented he 5 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #8) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING - RENOTIFICATION (CONTINUED) was satisfied that the applicant had done what the Planning Commission requested, and he felt there were times when grading would need to be done within a bluff area. He stated he supported the proposal. Mr. Mitchell stated he was an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Louis Smerling, and they were appreciative of the changes that the applicants had made to address their concerns. He submitted a letter which detailed items which still concern the Smerlings. These include that the house be built according to Orono building codes and they add shutters to the windows facing the Smerlings property. They are also concerned regarding the drainage and trust that it will be satisfactorily resolved. Lindquist asked if the Smerlings and Bucey's agreed to the terms listed in the letter and all responded affirmatively. Rowlette stated she felt that the revised plans showed a definite improvement but she was not in favor of any increase in hardcover on the property. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of #1919 Variances for Ty Bucey at 2677 Casco Point Road with the submitted letter being part of the application per the revised plans. Ayes 5, nays 1. Nolan stated he felt that the house was too large for the site. ( #9) #1925 PETER BOVEE, 840 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Gaffron reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request for a side setback variance to increase the roof pitch in a substandard setback area, based on the findings listed in the staff report. Charles Nolan inquired as to the existing house not conforming to the footprint shown on the submitted survey. Peter Bovee was present and stated that there had been a deck extending from the master bedroom which had been removed, and he would like to put a roof over the area, possibly to put back a covered deck or expand the bedroom. Lindquist commented that the survey was not current and it should be up to date prior to City Council review of the application. He felt that the Commission could approve raising the roof, but any other changes to the proposal should be resubmitted. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, but no one present wished to speak on this item. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1925 variances for Peter Bovee at 840 Old Long Lake Road, to allow the applicant to raise the roof. Ayes 6, nays 0. G • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #10) #1927 MARY K. MCCARTY, 245 TONKA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Dan Vaughn, 3440 Bayside Road, stated they had attempted to replat Parcels 1 and 2 several years ago and the proposed development may adversely impact their plans. He asked if 60' would be adequate distance from the applicant's house and when they might build. Mary McCarthy responded that she is required to meet the setback requirements for a two acre lot and she felt that she had done a good job of designing the house. Mabusth stated that the applicant has requested approval based on the concept plan, but final house plans have not yet been drawn. Chair Schroeder stated he felt that the applicant should submit formal plans because he was not comfortable granting a variance for something they haven't seen. Commission members noted that on many reviews formal plans are not drafted because applicants are only seeking direction from the City. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1927 lot area and rear setback variances for Mary K. McCarty at 245 Tonka Avenue because this • is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and the lot is very shallow and to allow for preservation of existing mature trees. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #11) #1928 SUZANNE K. WACKER, 1115 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report. She noted that in the previous review the shed in the rear yard was to be relocated to meet required setbacks and with the current proposal the new owner plans the removal. She noted that the applicant wished to expand the garage from 22' to 24' and that structure would encroach no further into the street setback area. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, but no one wished to speak. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1928 variance for Suzanne K. Wacker at 1115 Brown Road South subject to removal of the shed in the rear yard prior to final inspection. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #12) #1929 ALONZO B. SERAN, III, 4099 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Gaffron reviewed the staff report and the request for area width, side setback and • hardcover variances, and discussed the drainage in the area. Mr. Seran was present and stated that there is a significant amount of runoff onto his property from adjacent properties located upstream, but he felt that he could manage it by doing some tiling and 7 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #12) #1929 ALONZO B. SERAN, III, 4099 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) directing of the water flow. Lindquist inquired if the house could be moved closer to the lot line and Mr. Seran responded that he had designed the house to allow more room for the mature Red Oak and Basswood trees which exist as shown on the site plan. Nolan stated he felt that the topography between the house and the lakeshore should be looked at by the City Engineer because it was a very sensitive area. He commented that the City does not normally allow any grading within the 0 -75' setback area. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of #1929 variances for Alonzo B. Seran, III at 4099 Highwood Road, to allow replacement of the principal structure subject to approval of an integrated drainage plan. Ayes 5, nays I. Rowlette stated she would have preferred to have discussed some hardcover removal in the 0 -75' setback area. ( #13) #1930 MARGARET B. COST, 255 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING • Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report. Margaret Cost and Clark Engler, the architect, were present. Nolan inquired what was the grade of the driveway and Mr. Engler responded that it was 9 %. Chair Schroeder noted that this was a public hearing. Adrian and Pam Kearney, 265 South Brown Road, were present and Mr. Kearney stated they were concerned about the driveway's setback from their property line and felt the applicant could reduce the size of the house to meet the setback so the variance would not be required. They were also concerned about the preservation of the trees located in the vicinity of the proposed septic site which provide the only screening between their house and the proposed structure. Mr. Kearney felt that a smaller house would require a smaller septic system. They were also concerned about the driveway and he noted that the County Department of Transportation had stated that they would like to see the existing entrance closed off and a shared entrance created. He stated they would like to work with the applicant to retain as much of the existing circle as possible and preserve some of the trees. Discussion ensued regarding sight distances and possible means of access for both properties. Chair Schroeder commented that the separate driveway had been approved so the Commission could not address that issue, but he felt that the applicant and the Kearney's could work together to resolve this. Pam Kearney stated they feel there is a great deal of erosion which has occurred on the east side of the property which may have created a bluff situation. She noted that the • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #13) #1930 MARGARET B. COST, 255 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) elevations on the survey did not appear to reflect the real elevations that exist today. Mabusth noted that the topographic information had been provided with the Byfield Plat review and no land alterations had taken place on the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding the possible location of the septic system. Nolan stated he felt that the house could be redesigned to fit into the buildable area on the site and reduce the size of the building footprint. Discussion ensued regarding alternative locations for the driveway and the house. Chair Schroeder stated that the Commission was only acting on the structural setback variance from the tributary. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of #1930 structural setback variance from a protected tributary for Margaret B. Cost at 255 Brown Road South subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ayes 5, nays 1. Nolan stated he felt the house was too ambitious for the site. ( #14) #1931 MEGAN TULLY AND JAMES MCMANUS, 1910 SHADYWOOD ROAD - . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Gaffron reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request to replace a lakeshore retaining wall and stairway, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. James McManus stated that they do not plan to do any work on the north side so they are in agreement with the staff report. He stated they would do everything possible to minimize erosion. He stated they would prefer to use keystone instead of timbers. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing; no one present wished to speak. Rowlette inquired if the keystone would change anything, and Gaffron responded that it wouldn't, indicating it was just a different material with a somewhat different look than timber. Nolan inquired if the applicants had considered what they would do to stabilize the area immediately adjacent to the lake, possibly by adding boulders or additional rip rap to stabilize the shoreline. McManus indicated he would consider doing this. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of #1931 Conditional Use PermitNariance for Megan Tully and James McManus at 1910 Shadywood Road to allow replacement of a retaining wall structure, with the conditions that the vegetation be replaced, a work plan be submitted to the City, and the time limit for construction be a period of two weeks from commencement of work. Ayes 6, nays 0. 0 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #15) #1932 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278,685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report. Neal Lawson was present representing the Orono School District. Peterson inquired if the building could be relocated to eliminate the variance, and Lawson responded that no matter where the building was located on the site it would interfere with the fence or the ball fields. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, and no one present wished to address the Commission. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of #1932 Conditional Use Permit/Variance for Orono School District #278 at 685 Old Crystal Bay Road. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #16) #1934 RRH AND COMPANY, 710 GANDER ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Gaffron noted that the applicant was not present and briefly • reviewed the staff report for the benefit of the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Rhetts, who were present. Lindquist inquired if there would be a problem with the low depression in the area where a driveway would go, and Gaffron responded that it would have to be filled. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Mr. Rhetts noted he had submitted a letter which the Commission had, and that he was opposed to using the existing septic sites but since staff recommended alternatives he felt would be good for the environment, he would support it. Gaffron stated that if the ordinance was changed to not require the setback variances requested, this application will not be back before the Planning Commission. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist, to table #1934 Variances for RRH and Company at 710 Gander Road. Ayes 6, nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS ( #17) #1885 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2675 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - REVIEW OF AMENDED SKETCH PLAN Chair Schroeder noted that three members of the Planning Commission felt they had conflicts of interest, and Peterson, Rowlette, and Berg left the table for this discussion. • Mabusth reviewed the proposal. Terry Forbord, Vice President of Lundgren Brothers Construction Company introduced John Uban, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. 10 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #17) #1885 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2675 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - REVIEW OF AMENDED SKETCH PLAN (CONTINUED) Forbord and Uban gave an overview of the project and detailed the changes from the previous submittal. Forbord stated they have reduced the density in the project because the wetland laws have changed significantly and have directly impacted how they can develop the property. He noted that the school had taken more land in the are for institutional purposes. He stated they propose one acre lots on the south portion and two acre lots on the northern part of the site. Lindquist inquired if they would have to provide mitigation areas for the wetland areas they disturbed. Forbord responded that they will work with the City to determine where those areas will be as they aren't sure at this time just how much wetland area is involved. Uban reviewed the goals and described the wetlands on the site and how they plan to create a healthier complex of wetlands. He discussed how mitigation would be addressed. Forbord stated that the wetlands on the site have been severely impacted by the agricultural use of the land. Runoff from the site is contaminated and is not being treated. They will be meeting the requirements for cleaner and better managed runoff as required by state and federal wetland management laws. Discussion ensued regarding the Comprehensive Plan determination that this area should have sewer. Gaffron stated that when the issue of serving this area was discussed they took into consideration the soils and the high water table. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage patterns in the area. Chair Schroeder inquired what the actual proposed density was and Forbord responded they are proposing 44 units to be constructed. He stated they would not know exactly what the numbers would be until the project was completed. He explained the process of determining feasibility for the development and noted that the costs of developing this site will be three to four times higher than normally found in a development given the problems on the property and the distance or location of water and sewer service. He stated they have requested sketch plan review to determine if the City would approve the idea of the development prior to their investment of additional monies in the project. Nolan inquired about open space on the site and Forbord responded that they would prefer to have larger open spaces which would be of more benefit than numerous small open spaces throughout the site. Chair Schroeder inquired what the average lot size would be, including the open space, and Uban responded that 30% of the site would be open space and the lots would be approximately .85 acre in size, if they develop 44 lots. Forbord discussed the buffering from Willow and stated they would be working with the . City to determine the best means of achieving this. Nolan asked about the extensive grading proposed on the site and Forbord described the Heather Run development in Plymouth and explained how they enhanced the area through grading and design to 11 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #17) #1885 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2675 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - REVIEW OF AMENDED SKETCH PLAN (CONTINUED) create site amenities. He noted that to change the topography to the extent proposed would be very costly. He requested the Commission to give him some indication of how the City would like to see the open space areas developed. Mayor Callahan stated that the City Council had indicated that they would prefer to keep the density at 2 acres per lot, although they were not closed to the idea of using the PUD zoning classification. Lindquist stated that he was not sure what the right number of lots would be but he would like to see larger lots and smaller or fewer outlots created. Nolan stated he felt the concept of clustering on the site made sense, but he was not sure there should be so many lots. He felt that there should be more buffering between Willow and the adjacent lots, and some combinations of lots that would work better. He felt that the development could work with some redesign. Lindquist commented that perhaps the developer would wish to reconsider the amount of open space included in the plan, because sometimes it was difficult to get the Park Commission to accept it. Chair Schroeder stated he would like to see clustering for this site because it made sense qW given the fact that it was a relatively featureless property. He commented that perhaps the applicants should consider having outlots along Willow to provide buffering. He felt that efforts should be made to keep as much of the rural character as possible as that is the way that Orono has developed, and he felt that 44 lots would be too intense. He felt that the range should be between 29 to 35 lots. Chair Schroeder commented he felt that the project as proposed would not be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed future uses. He felt the density should be reduced, the wetlands upgraded, and the bike trail installed along Willow and connected to the school property. He felt there were other uses for open space, but was unsure what those should be. The Commission felt that landscaping should be installed along Willow and the western border of the property to provide buffering and screening from adjacent properties. • Forbord inquired if they could obtain park dedication credit for Outlot A and whether the Planning Commission could determine the amount of benefit to the Community. He inquired if they would approve the development density as proposed. Chair Schroeder commented that parks were expensive to maintain and he did not feel that the need for having a large open space was any incentive for a trade -off to get the 44 lot density. 12 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #18) SET DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON B -2 ZONING AMENDMENT After brief discussion, the Planning Commission established June 6, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time to hold the public hearing on the B -2 zoning amendment. ( #19) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 9, 1994 There was no Planning Commission representative present at the May 9, 1994 City Council meeting. ( #20) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION There were no other issues discussed. ( #21) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 1994 MEETING • It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the April 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Ayes 6, nays 0. • ( #22) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JUNE 13, 1994 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Lindquist volunteered to attend the June 13, 1994 meeting of the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles J. Schroed , Ch ' an 13 t PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE COUNCIL PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING • PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.41, B -2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Stephen Peterson, Candace Rowlette and Sandra Smith. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee represented City staff. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Schroeder noted the meeting was a public hearing being held to discuss the proposed amendment to the B -2 Lakeshore Business District, Section 10.41. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. There were no members of the public present. Schroeder explained that during this 6 -month review process there has been significant input from marina owners, residents, and neighbors of the marinas that is reflected in the development of this ordinance. Schroeder asked for comments from other Planning Commission members. Peterson commented that the best effort possible had been put forth and while there may be specific sentences he would not agree with, the overall draft was well done. Lindquist commented that there had been much input from marina owners and the public over isthe 7 -9 meetings held and hoped that the result is something everyone can live with. Schroeder noted the Planning Commission had been charged by the Council to review the B -2 ordinance about nine months ago. He added that Council may wish to review minutes of the past B -2 meetings to understand how the Planning Commission arrived at their recommendations regarding the new list of conditional uses. If any marina owner wishes to engage in activities that are considered conditional uses, there would be a review by Planning Commission and. Council with public hearings to discuss the conditional use before it would be approved by the City. • Rowlette questioned if the final product was something the City can uphold. Gaffron responded that the marina regulations deal not only with the physical aspects of the site but also the way they operate. The City has significant ability to get them to operate correctly but limited "clout" in making them change what physically exists on the site unless a zoning or permit application is made. One of the staff goals will be to obtain compliance with the things that can be controlled. Hopefully, those physical things that are objectionable can be dealt with through the. variance review when a marina wants to make some changes. He noted the Planning Commission made a conscious effort not to lower the standards to meet what currently exist` at the marina sites. Council had originally questioned whether the City should develop a ordinance to be more realistic with the current site conditions. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.419 • ' B -2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 Peterson thought the marina owners had perhaps come to the same conclusions as the Planning ry Commission which may be the reason there are no marina owners present. They may feel that their concerns had been discussed throughout the meetings and it was not necessary to be in attendance at this public hearing. Gaffron commented that he talked with one of the marina owners recently who was aware of the public hearing. Schroeder agreed that the City could do little to affect the physical characteristics of the marinas but may be able to affect their operations. He commented that Rowlette had originally suggested that there may be some potential "other" uses that could be added to the code in exchange for getting better physical compliance. Berg commented that she was pleased that snowmobiles were to come in as a conditional use permit. Smith agreed with comments made by other members and felt an excellent job had been done. Peterson asked if staff had any feeling as to how Council would react to the draft dated May 20, 1994. Mabusth noted that the Mayor had stated the Planning Commission should leave the uses alone . and work with the performance standards. Members agreed. Schroeder added that the uses needed to be considered in order to deal with performance standards. He did not think marinas were particularly bad neighbors and it was important for the City to continue to work with the marinas. Lindquist added that significant improvements had been made at Windward and Sailor's World as they came in for variances. Mabusth also stated that as the marinas want to make changes, the City could require improvements. However, if the marinas don't come in for improvement projects, the City has little clout in requiring improvements. Rowlette stated the Planning Commission needed to address uses to get the marinas "in the door" so the City could require improvements. Mabusth felt the marina owners started to turn when they saw that a "wish list" could require changes from them, although at first the marina owners looked positively at increased conditional uses. Schroeder stated they should recommend to Council that the City should work with the marinas and avoid any adversarial relationships. 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING • PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.41, B -2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 Rowlette added that there may not be 100% agreement by everyone to the proposed amendment but it is better than what existed. Changes can be made if necessary if there are parts that don't work. Smith asked what the next step would be. Gaffron responded that the draft ordinance would likely be brought to Council in about three weeks, June 27, with the Planning Commission recommendation for adoption. Smith restated that the approach taken by the Planning Commission was to conceptually develop a more workable ordinance by recognizing that the marinas are member of the community and have certain responsibilities. By drafting the ordinance as the Planning Commission did, there will be more give and take than in the past to work together with the marinas. Although some new uses are proposed, there are some strings attached. Gaffron reiterated that input had been received from the public and marina owners. Some aspects of what the marinas do can make them a "bad neighbor" but generally they are not problem neighbors. Peterson added that there would always be problems when there is a business in a residential • area. Gaffron commented that providing marinas with more use options reflects what is happening today and is a "trade off" for the marinas. The City should consider working with the marinas, not against them, and assist them in being an amenity rather than trying to stop them from being a problem. Lindquist reiterated that the Planning Commission purposely decided to write the ordinance with standards as they exist rather than changing it to meet the existing physical characteristics of the marinas. Mabusth stated that there were problems with some of the marinas as they exist because there is a "grandfather" situation with some of the uses. Gaffron thought additional language may be needed to address some of the existing uses that will now become conditional uses. Gaffron will request that the City Attorney review the draft and discuss the enforcement of conditional use permits for uses that already exist. Members requested that they get copies of the Attorney's opinion before the Planning Commission meeting of June 20 if possible so changes could be made at that meeting if they were necessary. Beverly Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive, arrived late and commended the Planning Commission for their well done work. Peterson thanked her for her attendance and interest in . previous meetings. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING . PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.41, B -2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the May 20, 1994 draft of the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Section 10.41 affecting the B -2 Lakeshore Business District, as presented in the memo dated May 31, 1994, subject to a complete review by the City Attorney to assess its enforceability. This will be presented to Council at the June 27 meeting, subject to the Attorney's comments. Ayes 6, nays 0. Planning Commission members commended Gaffron for a job well done, and for the long hours and work he has put in during the B -2 ordinance review process. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Berg, seconded by Lindquist, to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Ayes 6, nays 0. �� lxLet,' arles Schroeder, Chair Person El is • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on June 20, 1994 in the Orono City Council Chambers with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Commissioners Charles Nolan, Steve Peterson, Janice, Berg, Candace Rowlette, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and City Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #1933 TANDEM PROPERTIES, 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Dick Putnam, Jim Deanonic, and Mark Gronberg were present representing Tandem Properties. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the plans for the second phase of the development. She noted that the Corps of Engineers had asked that the filling be reduced on lots 17 and 18 and the applicant has requested that the Corps reconsider their amended proposal. The Corps felt the amended proposal was reasonable and would present the proposal before the Board. She discussed the drainage plans and the runoff impacts on the adjacent properties. Smith inquired about the drainage beneath the Luce Line Trail and Mark Gronberg responded • that they were creating a larger holding pond on their property to reduce the runoff to the south. He stated the culvert goes beneath both the Luce Line Trail and the adjacent horse trail. The issue of the outlot being designated a sacred site was discussed. This land will be placed in the public jurisdiction as it was felt to be more fitting than to have it within the jurisdiction of a homeowners association. Jim Deanonie stated that the Restoration Society was considering moving the barn to a site close to Valley Fair where it would be reconstructed along with other vintage barns. He believed they should have a determination on whether this barn will be selected within the next month or so. Mabusth reviewed the plans for the Coffin portion of the development. She reviewed the designated wetlands on the property and discussed the lot standards. She noted that lots 16 and 17 were considered back lots. Mabusth outlined the proposed location for the interior trails in the project. Dick Putnam stated they would put woodchips down for a surface but their intentions were to give the development residents access to the Luce Line trail. He believed that wood chips on the surface would be less intrusive, and noted that it would be left as it presently exists, with perhaps the addition of wood chips. He noted that this would be a private trail for the residents only, and not a public trail. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Mike Bursall asked if Outlot C, the private driveway would ever serve more than the proposed two lots. Mabusth responded that it would only serve the two lots, and if they wanted more lots it would have to come back before the • Planning Commission for a replat and he would be notified. 1 • MINIMS OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 ( #1) #1933 TANDEM PROPERTIES, 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Dean Moline, 248 Cygnet Place, asked about the drainage and if the existing drain tile would be changed. Mark Gronberg responded that it would be replaced with a more restricted outlet which would allow for regulation of the outflow. Ann McCort asked if the possible widening of Watertown Road would impact this project. Chair Schroeder responded that nothing definite has been proposed so it was difficult to project what would happen regarding the setbacks of the proposed lots. Dick Putnam stated that they would not risk developing these parcels if it appeared that the Highway 12 Corridor was going to be along Watertown Road. He commented they expect the other agency approvals to be through within a couple of weeks and they would like to begin the grading on the property as soon as possible. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1933 Preliminary Subdivision for Tandem Properties, 2645/3025 Watertown Road, subject to the eleven stipulations listed in the staff report and the addition of the following: • 12. There shall be no further land alterations to install trail within the subdivision. The trail shall be limited to a maximum width of 4 -5' and only wood chips shall be put down on the surface. 13. Lots 15 and 18 that abut cul -de -sac within Coffen portion will not be required to meet the lot width requirements at rear of front street setback line. 14. Lots 16 and 17 will be required to meet 150% of the required rear and side setbacks - side at 45' and rear at 75'. Vote: Ayes 7, nays 0. 02) ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.56, SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Gaffron reviewed the proposed amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance. He noted that a number of revisions were necessary due either to statute reference changes or to comply with the DNR's conditions of approval dating back to May 2, 1993. He also indicated the proposed change in classification from Natural Environment Lake Basins to Wetland Basins for French Lake North Basin and French Lake Sewer Lagoon, noting that these basins would continue to be protected wetlands. • F) • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 (#2) ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.56, SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (CONTINUED) It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of the amendments to Section 10.56, Shoreland Management Regulations, as recommended by staff. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( 0) #1936 CHARLES E. TROYAK, 2525 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Charles Troyak was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and outlined the variance request. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Charles Troyak stated that there would be adequate buffering between the two houses even after the proposed addition was constructed. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of #1936 Variance for Charles E. Troyak, 2525 Kelly Avenue. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #4) #1937 ERIKA AND HERBERT F. KAHLER, 2725 RAINEY ROAD - VARIANCES • - PUBLIC HEARING Herb and Erika Kahler were present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the requested variances and discussed the setbacks. Staff was concerned about the direction of the drainage from the tennis court and she reviewed the alternatives that would alleviate the potential drainage problem. Discussion ensued regarding the encroachment of the tennis court drainage into the area of the septic mound. • Rowlette inquired if the applicant would be willing to decrease the size of the tennis court by 2.5 feet on each end to shorten the area by 5 feet and avoid impacting the toe of the septic mound. Herb Kahler responded that he did not know what the implications of doing that would be. Chair Schroeder proposed that they approve the variances but locate the tennis court at least 10 feet from the mound and 10 feet from the lot lines. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of the variances for Erika and Herbert F. Kahler, 2725 Rainey Road, with the provision that grading and drainage plans be submitted prior to City Council review showing the drainage being directed away from the toe of the septic mound, and the tennis court being located a minimum of ten feet from the toe of the septic system and the side and rear lot lines. Ayes 7, nays 0. 3 • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 ( #5) #1938 DOUG OLSON, 537 PARK LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Doug Olson was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the proposal and the variances requested. She reviewed the existing hardcover on the property and noted that the applicant was requesting a 4.7% hardcover variance in the 75 -250 setback area. Discussion ensued regarding the distance of the proposed house from the top of the bluff and the setbacks of other houses in the area from the top of the bluff. It was noted that some of the houses are built within the bluff. Lindquist commented he would like to see the house moved back 10 feet to put the deck farther away from the bluff. Rowlette commented she would like to see hardcover at 25 %. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the house and the deck and garage. It was felt that the house should be moved closer to the street which would reduce the amount of the hardcover because the driveway would be reduced in length. Doug Olson asked if it would be possible to vacate some of the right -of -way and Mabusth responded that it was unlikely until the City Comprehensive Storm Water Plan is completed. Mr. Olson stated he did not have a problem moving the house 10 feet away from the bluff. • Discussion ensued regarding the decks and whether they could be reduced and Mr. Olson stated he was not willing to remove them. Chair Schroeder commented that given the results of the discussion, he felt the changes recommended by the Planning Commission were too conceptual to forward the application to the Council without their reviewing it in it's final form. He recommended that they table the application to allow the applicant to make the recommended changes to the plans. Discussion ensued regarding the changes recommended. The Planning Commission recommended that the plans reflect the house being moved 10 feet from the bluff, the hardcover area in the 0 -75 setback area at 1.4% and the hardcover area in the 75 -250 setback area not to exceed 26% to 29 %. The Planning Commission also recommended a 6' setback from the street. Chair Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission wants to see the final plans before the application is sent on to the City Council. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist to table #1938 Variances for Doug Olson, 537 Park Lane, to allow him to make the recommended changes to the plans. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #6) #1939 TIMOTHY OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Timothy Otten was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the • Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and the hardships of the property which make it difficult to construct the garage within the required setbacks. 4 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 ( #6) #1939 TIMOTHY OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Tim Otten discussed the plans for the garage and noted he plans to add trees along the east side of the garage to provide more buffering from adjacent properties. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1939 Variance for Timothy Otten, at 425 Turnham Road, including landscape screening on the east side of the garage as recommended by staff, and this is to be installed within one year from the date of building permit issuance. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1940 KEITH J. SPENCER, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Keith Spencer was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the proposal. Chair Schroeder read a letter regarding the disposal of material from the wildlife pond from City Engineer Shaun Gustafson. He noted the City should obtain a construction schedule from the applicant. Keith Spencer stated they plan to use hay bales as a means of erosion control while the dredging is underway. Lindquist inquired how long the process would take and Spencer responded he would have it completed within 30 days from the time construction commenced. Discussion ensued regarding waterfowl nesting areas and Peterson asked if the applicant intended to construct an island in the pond for that purpose. Spencer responded that he did not intend to construct one. Drainage in the area was discussed. The soils and amount of water in the area were discussed and concern was expressed regarding the potential for equipment getting stuck and mired in the wetland. The restoration process was discussed and the Planning Commission felt that a construction management should be included in an approval. The Planning Commission also felt that a letter of credit should be posted until the construction was completed to ensure that the streets were kept free of mud and debris from the dredging operation. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of #1940 Conditional Use Permit /Variance for Keith Spencer at 25 Orono Orchard Road North, subject to the five stipulations included in the staff report and the following additional stipulations: 6. A construction management plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the permit. Streets shall be kept clean during the construction process. 7. The entire project shall be completed within 90 days from the date of commencement. • 8. The applicant shall submit a Letter of Credit in the estimated amount of restoration of the area. P • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 (#7) #1940 KEITH J. SPENCER, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) 9. A site plan shall be submitted illustrating that 75 % of the perimeter will remain in its natural state and 25 % may be mowed within 6 feet of the edge of the wetland. Ayes 6, nays 1. Lindquist stated he felt that the pond should be defined prior to work commencing on it's construction. ( #8) #1941 LEROY AND WANDA FISCHBACH, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - TO BE RESCHEDULED AT A LATER DATE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1994 Lindquist reviewed the actions of the City Council at their meeting on June 13, 1994. • ( #10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith inquired about the Park Survey and Diann Goetten stated that it was being done now, and they expected to have the results in the near future. Smith inquired if it would be beneficial to have a member of the Planning Commission serve as a liaison between the Park Commission and the Planning Commission to enable the Planning Commission to have a better idea of what the future plans were for parks in Orono. After discussion, it was decided to wait until the survey was completed, and then perhaps have a meeting with the Park Commission to decide what the best means of establishing a regular method of communication would be. Mabusth suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could receive Park Commission packets, which would provide them with that information. ( #11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 16, 1994 MEETING It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to approve the May 16, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 6, abstentions 1. Chair Schroeder commented he had to abstain because he had not read them. Vice -chair Peterson stated that he would sign the Minutes. 0 • is is MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 ( #12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JULY 11, 1994 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Smith stated she would attend the July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. Rowlette stated she would attend the June 27, 1994 City Council meeting because there were several Planning Commission items scheduled for that agenda. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to adjourn the meeting. Ayes 7, nays 0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. VA Charles M. Schroeder, Chair PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (plegase print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 77 > I J,- 2 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. • 20. cv PION 7 7 YZZ 1/1 Vq 77-- • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist and Candace Rowlette. Charles Nolan, Jr. and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, and Recorder Carole Haseman. Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten and JoEllen Hurr were present. Vice -Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ( #1) #1938 DOUGLAS AND KAREN OLSON, 537 PARK LANE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 TO 7:12 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Olson were present. Mabusth noted the application was tabled from the June 20th meeting to allow applicant additional time to submit a revised plan addressing Planning Commission's concerns. The amended plan shows the proposed structure has now been moved closer to the street; corner of the garage is located 6' from street lot line; principal structure maintains a 10' setback from top of bluff except southeast corner of deck is located 8' from top of bluff. Lindquist commented the structure was the same except it was moved back. Douglas Olson noted the decks had been trimmed back. Mabusth advised the amended proposal will not require the alteration of the 982 elevation or bluff and that any drainage improvements would not impact the bluff. Douglas Olson stated one side of the property has a natural flow to the corner and the other side creates a swale so nothing will be altered. All drainage will be directed away from bluff. Chair Schroeder questioned whether the plan will work. Mabusth felt confident there was enough room and that drainage would not be going down the bank but directed towards the street. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson to recommend approval of Application #1938 for Douglas and Karen Olson, 537 Park Lane, for the variance as proposed and accepted the hardships stated by applicants. Rowlette commented this proposal is similar to new construction and voiced concern going over the 25 % allowed hardcover within the 75 -250' setback area. The owners need to realize that any further intensification of hardcover will not be allowed and may involve the removal of equal amounts of existing hardcover improvements. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. 1 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #2) #1941 LEE AND WANDA FISCHBACH - 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:13 TO 7:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Fischbach and John Spencer, their consultant, were present. Mabusth explained the application had been withdrawn from the June Planning Commission meeting to allow applicants more time to prepare for review. Under previous ownership, this property was involved with a variance application, portions of which were after - the -fact, dealing with the removal of a concrete patio and replacement with a grade level deck at 144 s.f. As part of the approval condition, the owner was to remove plastic beneath extensive crushed rock landscaping areas. The owners at that time refused and never proceeded with plans for a balcony. At this time the present owners propose removal of the upper level three season porch, and the construction of a two story addition located approximately 21' from the edge of the pond which is now considered part of the main lake of Lake Minnetonka. The 3' upper level deck will be located 18' from the edge of the pond. The expansion of an entry addition is also • proposed which does not require setback variances but there are hardcover excesses in the 75- 250' setback area. Major reductions in hardcover are proposed in the 75 -250' setback area. Lot coverage exists at 14.2% and is proposed at 15.04% requiring a variance of .04%. Chair Schroeder asked whether the reductions were coming from plastic removal. Mabusth confirmed noting that all the plastic would be removed. • John Spencer described the proposed plan and stated the deck was actually being make into a structure. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. Mr. and Mrs. Carl Johnson, 3105 North Shore Drive, who are neighbors, stated the proposal would be a nice improvement. Chair Schroeder explained that hardcover regulations are in place to protect Lake Minnetonka and voiced concern with the large addition of hardcover close to the Lake. Removing the plastic counts as a credit towards removal but actually it should never have been placed within the area. He asked what will be done to the area after the removal of plastic. Mr. Fischback said the landscape plan had not been completed but grass or flowers would be put in. The majority of the lot is in a no build zone which limits the amount of space with which to build on but the proposed improvements will finally offer a view of the lake and make the house more enjoyable. 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #2) #1941 LEE AND WANDA FISCHBACH - CONT. Smith voiced concern regarding loss of trees. Mabusth noted Janice Berg's comments regarding the loss of a pine and that she encouraged the trees be saved and perhaps moved. Mr. Fischback said the trees were beautiful but block all view of the lake. Chair Schroeder noted the ordinance that prohibits tree removal within lakeshore property. Mr. Fischback said he intends to move one tree and other trees would remain in their present location. Smith felt accommodations could be made to lessen the structural hardcover on the back side which jets out towards the pond. She has no problem with the proposal for the front side. The lot has limitations but asked if other options could be considered. Rowlette also agreed the proposed structure would be too close to the pond. Discussion ensued regarding possible changes. The Planning Commission recommended the structure be placed no closer to the pond than it is now with removal of all plastic and tree replacement. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Smith, to table Application #1941 for Lee and Wanda Fischback, 3135 North Shore Drive, to allow the applicants time to make the recommended changes to the plans. Ayes 5, nays 0. s( 0) #1942 WILLIAM J. STODDARD, 2605 KELLY AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:59 TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. William Stoddard was present. Mabusth explained applicant has filed for a conditional use permit for the continued use of finished living space above a detached garage as a guest house /apartment use. Currently the structure consists of two finished rooms and applicant proposes the installation of a bathroom and kitchen area within the existing building envelope. The principal structure is connected to water and sewer and applicant wishes to connect the guest house /apartment to sewer and water. The existing structure serves as additional living and recreation areas. Mr. Stoddard gave a brief history of the property and it is his intention to update the guest house and in no way rent it out. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. 0 3 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( 0) #1942 WILLIAM J. STODDARD - CONT. Rowlette asked about fire concerns because of the close proximity of structures. Mabusth reported that she had consulted with the Building Inspector and was advised there would be no problem as long as the 3' setback was maintained from the lot line. A fire wall separation is required between living area above and garage ceiling. Mabusth noted the immediate neighbors have expressed no concerns. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Rowlette to recommend approval of Application #1942 for William Stoddard, 2605 Kelly Avenue, of a conditional use permit for guest house and a variance to the area standard subject to conditions that structure may never be used for rental purposes, appropriate fire wall treatment be addressed and payment for sewer and water connection fees be paid. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #4) #1943 SAMUEL S. AND JOYCE C. MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09 TO 8:14 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. 0 Joyce C. Marfield and James M. Cooperman, her consultant, were present. Mabusth explained that applicant proposes the installation of a two -story exterior elevator addition with observation deck at the roof line. The proposed improvement requires a hardcover and side setback variances. A hardcover increase is proposed at .015% within the 75 -250' setback area. The height of the proposed structure is not an issue. It was noted that Berg approved the proposal as presented. James Cooperman addressed Mrs. Marfield's need for the elevator. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of Application #1943 for Samuel S. and Joyce C. Marfield, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane, for the variance as proposed and accepted the hardships stated by applicants. Ayes 5, nays 0. Mabusth stated the application will be placed on the Council agenda for the July 25th meeting. 4 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #5) #1944 BRADLEY AND DINA ETHERINGTON, 4055 ELM STREET - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:14 TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Bradley and Dina Etherington, Tim Feyo, husband of owner, and Mark Fuller, realtor were present. Mabusth explained this was the fourth renewal variance request to allow the sale of the property as a buildable site. There is no development plan for the property. The lot has adequate depth and width to allow construction of a residence without the need of any setback variances. Property is similar in size to the neighboring developed properties. It is difficult to determine the side lot lines of the property as property has not been staked. Mark Fuller indicated there had been a problem with property stakes being removed. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. • Lance Wile, 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, expressed neighborhood concerns regarding environmental and public safety issues. Problems exist with water runoff and a blind driveway. He had been advised the lot was unbuildable by realtors. If trees were removed, it could cause root damage to trees on other lots. He addressed the legal issues in Section 10.08, Subd. 3 and felt that this would decrease the value of his property. The owner had turned down an offer from Mr. Wile to purchase the property. He also noted a possible property line dispute on the west side. • Peterson indicated the last survey was done in June 1976. Mabusth said no changes have been made to the property but felt it would be helpful to have the property staked. Pat Swantek, 649 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, stated they had not encountered a problem with property stakes being removed and also noted concerns with water runoff into the Lake. Herman Laue, 594 Park Lane, stated his concern with lot lines, runoff and tree removals. Tim Feyo, husband of the owner of the subject property, indicated the property had been staked in the past and noted tree houses had been built by neighborhood children on the property creating a potential hazard and liability. k, 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #5) #1944 BRADLEY AND DINA ETHERINGTON - CONT. Shirley Laue, 594 Park Lane, stated the tree houses had been gone for at least ten years. For several years she has picked up glass, etc. out of the woods and suggested the owner clean up the property. Mark Fuller suggested the road be widened. Mabusth noted the road is public with a 30' right - of -way. Fuller indicated development of the property would be an improvement to the area. A hardship issue exists in the fact no other land is available to purchase. He is unaware of any encroachments and stated things are always improving and you can't stop people from building on their land. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a survey. Chair Schroeder pointed out to the potential purchasers that the lot is probably buildable but it might be difficult to satisfy the drainage and driveway issues. The adverse possession or encroachment could also be a problem. It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to table Application #1944 for Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street, to allow applicant additional time to provide an updated • survey and to stake lot lines. Bradley Etherington stated he understands the neighbors' concerns but as a potential buyer he sees the land as buildable. He agrees a new survey would be helpful. Rowlette noted that in the future she expects to see this only as a lot area variance. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #6) #1945 ROBERT AND VELMA WOLFF, 4450 FOREST LAKE LANDING, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING - 8:55 TO 9:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Wolff were present. Mabusth explained applicants propose construction of a 10'x14' three season porch over an existing deck with a side setback variance of 6.5' and a 26' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. No hardcover change is proposed within the 75 -250' setback area. Robert Wolff stated the structure was built in 1964 and no change is proposed for hard surface behind the 75' setback line. Lindquist noted nothing would be done with the steps. Schroeder questioned the landscape underlain with plastic and suggested an updated hardcover inventory. Mabusth noted there had been no improvements within the last few years and that the corrected hardcover facts were provided by surveyor with updated survey. Rowlette stated without some hardcover removals it would be difficult for her to approve the application. Chair Schroeder suggested removal of all underlain plastic within the landscape area. Rowlette agreed that all plastic and fabric needed to be removed and also suggested the concrete sidewalk be trimmed back along side of the house. Wolff agreed the sidewalk could be cut at a corner. Col 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #6) #1945 ROBERT AND VELMA WOLFF - CONT. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson to recommend approval of Application #1945 for Robert and Velma Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, to permit construction of a 10'x14' three season porch as proposed with additional removal of a portion of the sidewalk and /or paving along with all underlain plastic and fabric. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #7) #1947 SAILORS WORLD, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gary DeSantis was present. Mabusth explained that in December of 1993 Council granted approval of multiple variances to allow the installation of an 8'x20' storage module to have been installed within parking stall 34 which would have been 28' from the street lot line resulting in the loss of two stalls. Access to the module is from both sides. Landscaping is to be provided as a buffer. The module located within stall 34 creates a problem for the neighbor across the street because it blocks his view of the lake. City code does not say a property on the other side of the street has a right to a lake view. Applicant does wish to maintain a friendly, cooperative manner with his neighbors. Other issues to be addressed if the module is moved closer to street would be landscaping, safe access, and more intense variances. Councilmember Hurr reported the County would be expanding the roadway in that area to include at least a 4' shoulder. Chair Schroeder suggested moving it behind the building. Mabusth noted a problem regarding the 0 -75' setback area. Rowlette said on a recent site visit a dumpster was located close to the road which obstructed the roadway view. Gary DeSantis responded the dumpster was temporarily placed there because paving work was being completed on the site and the dumpster could now be moved back. Rowlette felt City staff should make a site determination to assess landscaping needs and visibility concerns and suggested the use of arborvitae. Councilmember Huff reminded everyone that the original intent of the landscaping was for screening purposes. Discussion continued regarding other options for possible sites. Camilo Castellon, a neighbor, stated his concerns regarding the storage module and felt stalls #20, 19 or 18 would be better options for him. He appreciated the cooperation he has received from Sailors World and realizes he has no legal rights in connection with the view. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #7) #1947 SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Mabusth noted a letter dated October 14, 1993 from the DNR stating the lot is already nonconforming but a storage unit placed on a portion of the property that is already hardcover but meets lakeshore setback may be acceptable as an alternative. The DNR also questioned if hardships existed. Lakeshore setback for the DNR is 50'. Peterson said stalls 16 or 17 would be better suited for the module. Mabusth felt stalls 19 or 20 might meet the 50' setback and offered to contact the DNR. Councilmember Hurr stated the DNR would expect Orono to enforce Orono's rules meeting the 75' setback. Chair Schroeder indicated it is getting difficult to protect the neighbor's view. Rowlette inquired what is actually stored in the module? Gary DeSantis stated snow fence, etc. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of Application #1947 for Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive to move the storage module to either stall #21, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 subject to further discussion and approval from the DNR and that landscaping needs be addressed depending upon the site. He requested Sailors World to file a completed landscape plan by the end of August. Mabusth noted she would have the access concerns reviewed by the engineer. Ayes 5, nays 0. Chair Schroeder called a four minute recess from 9:45 to 9:49 p.m. ( #8) #1946 K -P PROPERTIES INC, 4645 BAYSIDE ROAD - SKETCH PLAN OF RURAL SUBDIVISION Robert Olson and Donald Peterson were present. Mabusth explained applicants seek direction concerning a proposed rural subdivision involving a six lot division of the Olson property. Donald Peterson, President of K -P Properties, notified Planning Commission Members that negotiations to purchase the White property were unsuccessful and only option 1 is to be considered. Donald Peterson identified the wetland. An access point for the White property. needs to be addressed with perhaps dedication of an outlot for a future road. Discussion involving the sketch plan ensued. Donald Peterson noted both primary and alternate septic sites were available. He noted the woods would remain untouched and the need to create ponding for water drainage. If possible, they would like to start grading this fall. He stated development provisions would be made for access to the property owned by Whites and Armstrongs, the creation of a NERP pond and two septic systems per site would be established. The project will probably be open to all builders and home prices would be approximately in the $400,000 range. Chair Schroeder stated his concern that retention ponds be kept natural and noted that the roads would be private. Rowlette stated it would be necessary to set up an association to maintain the roads. Mabusth indicated the Park Commission may • desire a bike trail in the area. Don Peterson would like to obtain an easement to get a trail to North Arm Drive. Mabusth reminded him that trails would be deducted out of dry buildable land. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 ( #8) #1946 K -P PROPERTIES INC - CONT. Park Commission Members all agreed with the proposed sketch plan. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mabusth distributed a memo from Kevin Staunton dated July 17, 1994 regarding proposed amendments to zoning code Section 10.41 B -2 Lakeshore Business District Standards - enforceability questions. A future meeting will be scheduled to discuss the contents. ( #9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 27 AND JULY 11, 1994. Rowlette attended the Council meeting of June 27th and reported that the Applebaum application was passed without additional hardcover removals. She also noted Tandem properties was approved. iMabusth explained that the applications for Marfield and Doug Olson would be brought to the next Council meeting. • Smith attended the Council meeting of July 11th and reported that the applications for Lemmerman and Taylor were approved. Mabusth advised Planning Commission Members of the violation by Vergeyles in tree removal and excavation of the bluff. Vergeyles have been ordered to restore the area. Smith reported from the Park Commission meeting of July 5, 1994 in which she thanked them for the park tour, invited them to attend application reviews, and discussed the sacred ground for the Dickey /Coffin property. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #11) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 20, 1994 MEETING It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to approve the June 20, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 5, nays 0. 0 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1994 1 • ( #12) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6, 1994 B -2 PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #13) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Lindquist volunteered to attend the meeting of August 8, 1994 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Candace Rowlette noted she will not be in attendance for the September meeting. Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. 10 Charles Schroeder, Chair Person CANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE :L-51'�1!L PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 2 3 4 5 106 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 109 20 PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER % j: k M 194-i 2 �a.J CR 7 cl 04S C-a 1 LL F 317 Lr ►�., s irJ ✓✓ 19 av ✓A wt tt, le i i A m/l A to Le3 q� l rd, f Qt3wJc, UU AiIA % j: DRAf I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0 HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist. Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr. and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, and Recorder Carole Haseman. Councilmember Gabriel Jabbour was present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ( #1) #19'7 JACCI J. SEGNER, 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:01 P.M. Chair Schroeder noted the applicant was not present and stated the matter would be reviewed when applicant arrived. ( 0) #1941 LEROY CO IlwviJ�AON OF PUBLIC HEARING T7 SHORE 2 TO DRIVE VARIANCES LeRoy and Wanda Fischbach were present. • Gaffron explained the application had previously been tabled to allow applicants additional time to present a revised proposal. The amended plan shows a 3' upper level balcony that will extend to within 27' of the shoreline of the lagoon. There is a hardcover issue within the 0 -75' setback area where normally 25 % is allowed. The bulk of the house is within the 0 -75' zone. In a 1986 review, the lot area figure was 44,600 s.f. and now is shown at only 35,000 s.f. This indicates a possible error and the hardcover percentages need to be recalculated. The existing hardcover now is 3,694 s.f. and under the current plan is proposed to drop to 3,195 s.f. by removal of rock and plastic. In the 75 -250' setback area, existing hardcover is 5,031 s.f. which is being reduced to 3,342 s.f. Overall hardcover is being reduced from 8,800 s.f. or approximately 6,400 s.f. With the change in total lot area computation, there is no need for a lot coverage variance. Working with the corrected lot area size, hardcover in the 0 -75' setback area is 10.7% and within the 75 -250' zone is 23.9%. Are these setbacks and amounts of hardcover acceptable to grant variances? Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. Smith voiced concern with the larger trees. Mr. Fischbach stated any tree that would be removed and could not be replanted would be replaced. Chair Schroeder asked if the large tree needed to be removed. Mr. Fischbach said it is in the way and would be removed. All • concerns seem to be met. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 i ZONING FILE #1941 - CONT. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #1941 for LeRoy and Wanda Fischbach, 3135 North Shore Drive, for the variances as proposed and accepted the hardships stated by applicants, subject to the following conditions: applicants must provide an updated survey, all hardcover removals must be completed prior to footing inspection, erosion controls must be placed along the pond, and mature evergreen trees must be replanted. Smith asked that a minimum size be designated for replacement trees. Gaffron indicated that could be done and also suggested that the trees be identified for removal. Mr. Fischbach inquired what needed to be done regarding erosion control. Gaffron explained it would be necessary to install a silt fence during construction. Smith suggested a landscape plan and planting schedule be provided. Peterson noted the proposed motion is based on the lot size figures computed to be in the 44,000 s.f. range. Gaffron said he would meet with Fischbach's architect before sending the application to Council. Chair Schroeder indicated approval is based on structural coverage being 15 % or less of the total lot area. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #4) #1944 BRADLEY AND DINA ETHERINGTON, 4055 ELM STREET - RENEWAL VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:17 TO 7:35 Bradley and Dina Etherington and Mark Fuller, realtor were present. • Gaffron explained the application had previously been tabled to allow applicants additional time to provide an updated survey and to have lot lines staked. All requirements are met other than lot area for a single family building site. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. Lance Wile, 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane expressed concern with a possible dispute over encroachment of a lot line. Chair Schroeder inquired about the location of the lot line. Etherington stated the survey was properly done. Herman and Shirley Laue, 594 Park Lane, stated they have lived at that address since 1962. Some of the original pipes marking the lot lines are still in place. The recent survey does not come close. When he constructed a shed on his property, he made sure it within his property boundaries. He noted the property to the east had been surveyed which met his comer stake. Chair Schroeder asked if he would dispute the current survey. Mr. Laue answered in the affirmative. 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ZONING FILE #1944 - CONT. Peterson said the Planning Commission can act on the present survey dated August 4, 1994 unless someone can provide another survey. Mr. Wile noted another survey had been done about two months ago but did not have it available. Chair Schroeder stated even though the lot is below the 1 acre minimum, it is consistent with developed lots within the neighborhood. Drainage is another issue and any structure that is built should not cause drainage problems for the neighbors. Gaffron said the neighbors cannot dictate what is done but the Planning Commission needs to be reasonable and prudent in addressing the drainage concerns. Shirley Laue, neighbor to the west, stated the property is higher than other lots and is concerned with drainage. Chair Schroeder asked that a proper drainage plan be submitted along with building plans. Mark Fuller indicated that they would adhere to whatever plans staff and the Public Works Department recommends. • It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1944 for Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street, for renewal of the lot area variance subject to the following conditions: submittal of a survey meeting staff's satisfaction, submission of drainage and grading plans, legal combination of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Minnetonka Summit Park required prior to issuance of building permit and accepted the lot area hardship stated by applicants. Ayes 4, nays 0. Gaffron noted applicants' plans are to start building this fall and inquired about the grading plan. Chair Schroeder stated grading plans need to be submitted before the matter goes to Council. Lindquist also requested that both the drainage plan and lot line dispute need to be resolved prior to the application being forward to the Council. ( #2) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - 7:35 P.M. Chair Schroeder noted the applicant was not present and stated the matter would be reviewed at a later time. • 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #1) #1937 JACCI J. SEGNER, 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:36 TO 7:47 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jacci Segner was present. Gaffron explained the proposal is for a lot line rearrangement and combination involving Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47. The simple lot line rearrangement leaves two lots each with 100' of width and .5 acre meeting the zoning requirements. Unique to the parcel is an undeveloped road. According to the code, a road must be brought up to specific standards if more than two residences use the road. Currently there are two residences using driveways onto Hillside Place and the addition of two more lots would trigger an upgrade of the road. Applicant Segner owns both residences and has agreed to eliminate the use of both accesses at Hillside Place. Berming, vegetation, or fencing is suggested to eliminate continued use of the driveways. Lots 44 through 47 have been assessed for sewer. Water is not available and City code does not require that water be brought to the properties. Private wells are allowed. It is recommended that building permits not be issued until the existing driveway accesses are . removed. Drainage and utility easements must be granted. Upon application for a building permit, applicant will be responsible for $225.00 connection charge for each sewer connection plus $800 SAC charge (1994 rate). Jacci Segner asked about access for the northerly parcel via an alley off Bayview Place. Gaffron said access could not be addressed at this time and the Public Works Department would need to be involved in making a decision to allow that alternative access. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. The potential buyers were present and expressed concern with access. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement involving properties at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane subject to the following conditions: building permits will not be issued for new construction until primary access to 3300 Navarre Lane and secondary access to 2260 Bayview Place at Hillside Place are removed; installation of a barrier at Hillside Place of berms or trees and fencing to be approved by staff; and drainage and utility easements to be granted 10' along exterior lot lines and 5' at each side of shared lot line. Ayes 4, nays 0. Jacci Segner requested that berm not be a requirement because of potential water runoff problems to the Rood property. • 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #5) #1948 JOAN M. HARMON, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:47 TO 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Joan Harmon and Chris Ritts, attorney representing Frank Kokesh were present. Gaffron explained applicant is a non - resident and non -owner who requests a conditional use permit and variance to run a limited horse operation. Frank Kokesh, the owner of the property, has operated a horse business for several years. In 1985 a conditional use permit granted approval for his horse boarding and training operation but no renewal has ever been applied for. It is Ms. Harmon's intention to board only ten horses owned by five clients and provide riding lessons for only those clients. Chris Ritts stated Mr. Kokesh's son, Dan, and other family members live on or adjacent to the property and all have reason to frequent the site. Frank Kokesh resides on the property approximately six months of the year. The youngest daughter, Suzie, presently resides in the farm house. Peterson asked for clarification of Resolution #1894 referencing condition #5 which states the conditional use permit runs with the property not with the owner. Gaffron explained the code was amended in 1986 providing for a conditional use for stables and barns, private or public, and for a riding academy use. Since the code change, the owner never applied for a conditional use permit. Peterson noted that if applicant had continued to renew the conditional use permit, there would be no basis for the current request. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. Earl and Betty Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, recalled a prior incident in which the Donis applied for a conditional use permit to allow for use of their property by a local day care facility. Mr. Kokesh was instrumental in starting a petition in opposition to the project stating they did not want excess traffic in the area. The application was withdrawn when the Council restricted the use to only 20 children which would not have been profitable for the Dorns. In 1985 the Donis notified the City that Mr. Kokesh was operating a horse training and related business on his property. Eventually Council did grant Mr. Kokesh a conditional use permit for his business. A variance to the code is being requested for the current application which is almost the same as rezoning. This would break down the barrier of commercialism as opposed to conditional use. He sees no need for a code variance if the present operation is trimmed back. The street is dangerous at this time with a 40 mph speed limit and people use it as a short cut. 0 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 • ZONING FILE #1948 - CONT. Chair Schroeder explained a code variance is being considered to a level of usage which is less than the previous conditional use had permitted. Randy Weestrand, 525 Orchard Park Road, stated he would not object to limiting the operation to only 10 horses. Lindquist asked if other non -owner conditional use permits had been issued within the City? Gaffron stated he was unaware of any similar stable operation. Smith asked applicant what emergency arrangements would be in place. Joan Harmon explained two people would be hired that would be able to be on the premises within 5 to 10 minutes and also Suzie Kokesh who is knowledgeable would be living at the site. Phone numbers would be posted along with guidelines to follow in emergency situations. Chair Schroeder pointed out the issue of liability regarding owner versus non - owner. Chris Ritts indicated that Mr. Kokesh has a farm liability policy on the property and Ms. Harmon would also need coverage. Peterson stated he is opposed to the application because it goes against city code to allow a non - ownership commercial businesses to operate on anyone's property. Chris Ritts reassured Planning Commission Members that the Kokesh family would still be using the property and be • on the premises. Lindquist agreed with Peterson. Chair Schroeder suggested that subdivision be an alternative means to handle this request. He asked Councilmember Jabbour if there was a precedent for non -owner conditional use permits. Jabbour stated it is his understanding the conditional use permit is granted to the land not the applicant. He suggested the City Attorney be contacted for his opinion. Chair Schroeder explained that members are in agreement with applicant continuing to operate a limited horse facility but questioned if a conditional use permit can be transferred to a non - owner. Gaffron listed some conditional uses that are permitted within the 2 acre zones - schools, churches, clubs, camps, recreation areas, greenhouses, guest houses, antennas, crop and stock farms, keeping of animals, and stables and barns. For instance, the camp that is operated on Tonkawa Road is owned by a group and listed other examples. Chair Schroeder suggested tabling the application to see if there is precedent of a non -owner operator and that the City Attorney be contacted for guidance as to what basis can owners give up their right or obligation to operate under a conditional use permit. Chris Ritts stated he would check out legal issues and agreed to withdraw the application and have the owner resubmit it. 6 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0 HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #2) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. Chair Schroeder again noted applicant was not present and asked whether there was public interest. An interested parry inquired if changing the lot lines would affect the single family dwelling versus multi - family dwelling such as townhouses. Gaffron explained in the past a number of different schemes had been proposed that included townhouses. The current plan is to create two individual lots, each with a single family residence. Jim Beise, 2435 Dunwoody Avenue, expressed curiosity as to the outcome. ( #6) #1949 SANFORD ERIKSON, 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:35 TO 8:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. • Sanford Erikson was p resent. Gaffron explained applicant requests a variance for an average lakeshore setback for construction of a grade level deck and four season porch. The new addition and deck will not block neighbors' views of the lake because of the location and existing screening. No other variances are involved. Sanford Erikson commented they are new to the area and were surprised that a variance would be needed for such a project. He noted the only neighbor that might be affected is at a higher elevation and no impact would occur to their property. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of Application #1949 for Sanford Erikson, 4455 Forest Lake Landing, for the variance as proposed and accepted the irregular lot hardship stated by applicant. Ayes 4, nays 0. • 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 (#'n #1950 GLEN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:40 TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Glen Upton was present. Gaffron explained applicant proposes a room addition and attached garage to the existing house which is presently within the 0 -75' setback. The existing lakeshore setback for the house is at 31' with the addition proposed at 42' and proposed deck at 41' . Hardcover is a concern within the 0 -75' setback area with existing being at 17.8% and the proposal would increase it to 26.7 %. No hardcover will be added to the 75 -250' area which is now at 0 %. Lot coverage by structures exists at 1,208 s.f. or 14.4% where 15% is allowed and 1,876 s.f. or 22.3% is proposed. He pointed out that code allows any lot to have up to 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structure so that the variance is not from 15% but from 1,500 s.f. Actually it amounts to a 376 s.f. variance. No side or street setback variances are necessary. Lindquist inquired if the vacated county road was part of the property. Gaffron said it was an easement for driveway purposes serving neighboring properties and the easement cannot be credited toward lot area. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood, does not agree with letting owners encroach further into the lakeshore setback area. He referred to an incident in which he was denied permission to repair a pagoda on his property because it was located within the 0 -75' setback area. He commented everyone should be treated the same. Lindquist felt the proposed improvement is too ambitious for the lot. Chair Schroeder also agreed that the lot cannot take additional hardcover. Glen Upton asked if he could receive credit for the land across the road. Peterson explained there is no problem with the lot area coverage but the concern is the hardcover issue. Glen Upton expressed displeasure with the fact that he has more land than his neighbors but the Planning Commission will not allow him to improve his property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Schroeder to recommend denial of Application #1950 for Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive, for the variances as proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0. Chair Schroeder noted this matter would be placed on the City Council agenda for the September 12, 1994 meeting. • N MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #8) #1951 KENDRICK MELROSE, 50 CRISTOFORI CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:55 TO 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Kendrick Melrose and Bruce Bren, his contractor, were present. Gaffron explained Cristofori Woods is a recent PRD three lot subdivision. In 1992 a variance was granted the previous owner to allow structure to be placed 75' from the street line rather than the required 100'. The current owner proposes to expand the first floor family room and lower level exercise room which improvements require a side setback variance of 18.6' into the required 50' side yard. Topography has placed severe limits on the building site and this is the only location for the addition. The improvement would not be visible to the property to the south because of extensive vegetation. Kendrick Melrose pointed out he is not the original owner. When he bought the home, it was always his intention to have a family room. The lot is 23 acres but approximately 22 acres are wetlands or steep slopes unusable for building. Building alternatives to the east would encroach • the front lot line and the severe grade would create a roof line problem. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Schroeder to recommend approval of Application #1951 for Kendrick Melrose, 50 Cristofori Circle, for the variance as proposed and accepted the hardships stated by applicant. Smith suggested no further encroachment to the property in the future. Peterson also agreed as the home was originally built with a view of the wetlands. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #2) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - 9:05 P.M. Chair Schroeder asked if there was any representation for the Oberhauser application? No one appeared. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson to table this application until the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting for lack of representation. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #9) #1952 CHRISTINE FREEMAN, 2240 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICANT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:07 TO 9:27 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. • lake Stranz contractor, were present. Christine Freeman and B , E MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 0 ZONING FILE #1952 - CONT. Gaffron explained in February of 1994 the City approved a side setback variance for an addition to the west side of the existing residence subject to meeting hardcover limits. In spring when the snow melted, it was noted that a compacted rock driveway used for parking had not been taken into consideration for the hardcover calculations which puts applicant over the 25% requirement. Applicant now requests to keep a significant amount of the driveway. The overage amounts to approximately 1,850 s.f. Applicant suggests removal of plastic but does not want to lose the rock as it is needed for safety aspects of having it as a parking space. It does allow additional cars to be parked off the street. Christine Freeman explained she has given a friend permission to park a car on her premises for the summer. It is usually not used for that purpose but she does use it to park her boat trailer. It also provides parking space for repairmen. Chair Schroeder asked how long the rock had been there? Christine Freeman stated 10 years and indicated she would have a problem removing it as she needs access to her house and grass would probably not grow ,in that area because of runoff. Blake Stranz commented another issue is the limited space in front of the garage itself and this provides secondary safe parking for house guests. Chair Schroeder said a car could be parked in front of the garage and another in front of the gravel drive for use by house guests. Christine Freeman said in the winter time the area is not cleaned out. Smith felt is reductions could be made in the area between the garage and the house. Christine Freeman said it would be difficult to back or swing around a car or trailer without that space. Because of safety reasons, she needs to back into her garage. Chair Schroeder suggested that the area behind the garage be removed. He commented approval for her addition last winter would probably not have taken place without the tradeoff of hardcover. Gaffron requested that staff be given definite direction. He noted there is a question of hardcover that is driven on versus hardcover that is not. There is a fine line between what is merely "landscaping" and what is compacted "driven on" hardcover. Chair Schroeder indicated he has no problem with the driveway area to the south because of safety reasons. The other area could be removed. Christine Freeman stated all plastic would be removed per the previous variance. Gaffron suggested removal of all rock in the area along the northwest side of sidewalk and grass or bushes be used as a replacement. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of Application #1952 for Christine Freeman, 2240 Shadywood Road, noting that hardcover behind the garage and northwest of sidewalk be removed except for 3' strip adjacent to garage for firewood storage as discussed and accepted the hardships stated by applicant. Ayes 4, nays 0. 10 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #10) #1953 WILLIAM ALLEN, 3475 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:28 TO 9:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Phillip Payne, contractor for the home owner, was present. Gaffron explained the request is for a side setback and lot coverage variance to construct an addition plus a deck to the rear of the house. There is also a request for a variance to the required 10' setback between the buildings. The 1' overhang will result in a separation setback of less than 3' requiring special fire wall construction. According to Section 10.04, Subd. 14 (C) regarding structural lot coverage there is an exception which states "Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures." The proposal is for 1,311.6 s.f. which is less than 1,500 s.f.; thus the lot coverage variance is not needed. He also is allowed 35% hardcover and only 31.7% is proposed so hardcover is not an issue. A side setback variance is needed along the west side. Chair Schroeder noted the hardship statement submitted by applicant. He asked how separation • setback issues had been handled in the past? Gaffron explained fire code issues can probably be addressed by installation of a fire wall but there may not be sufficient access for emergency vehicles to the rear of the property. Peterson felt the addition to the deck closes off the only means for emergency vehicles to access the property and the fire chief should be consulted for an opinion. Gaffron stated additional information is needed for height and location of the fence and adjacent houses. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. Phillip Payne indicated he would go along with whatever the fire chief allows. The west side of the deck could be moved in to 10'. Chair Schroeder said that would not solve the problem. Peterson requested an updated survey. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application ##1953 for William Allen, 3475 Livingston Avenue, as Planning Commission wants further information from the fire department and to allow applicant time to provide an updated survey showing as -built garage location. Ayes 4, nays 0. 40 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #11) #1954 LARRY ELSEN, 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:53 TO 10:12 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Larry Eisen was present. Gaffron explained in July of 1993 applicant received variance approvals for additions to his property. Because of hardcover excesses, applicant was asked to remove a shed. During the removal applicant found the existing privacy fence along the west/public access side to be in poor condition and replaced it without a permit. The new fence is within the same location except for a 5' section that has been installed parallel to the shoreline. Lawrence Eisen presented photos of the fence both before and after the construction. He considered the fence to be a safety hazard in its previous condition. Vines and plantings have been planted on both sides of the fence. Gaffron noted that the code does not allow fences within the 0 -75' setback area. If the fence is allowed to remain, the reasons need to be made clear. Lawrence Eisen indicated he did not know a permit was needed for a fence. Smith -felt plantings could have been a suitable replacement. Chair Schroeder said he was in agreement with the fence particularly next to a public access which prevents people from trespassing. is Lawrence Eisen expressed concern regarding children getting hurt on his property. He tries to maintain the area and has been a "good neighbor" to the beach. A neighbor commented how heavily used the beach is along his and Lawrence Eisen's property. The City has not maintained the area. Lawrence Eisen suggested the chain be dropped in the winter time to prevent snowmobilers from being hurt. To get around the chain, snowmobilers trespass on his property. Discussion ensued regarding the section of the fence parallel to the lake. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Schroeder to recommend approval of Application #1954 for Lawrence D. Eisen, 2879 Casco Point Road, for an after -the -fact variance to the installation of a fence for the portion parallel to Carman Street but the section parallel to the shoreline must be removed and accepted the hardships stated by applicant. Ayes 4, nays 0. 12 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 ( #12) #1955 ANDREW J. MCDERMOTT III, 2702 WALTERS PORT LANE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:12 TO 10:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Andrew McDermott III was present. Gaffron explained in May of 1991 applicant received approval for variances to construct a three - season porch, bathroom addition and deck/walkway. At this time applicant is proposing to construct a screen porch above a portion of the existing deck which would encroach into the required 35' street yard by 1'. Andrew McDermott stated the side deck along with other renovations to the house had been done in 1983 which plans had been approved by the City at that time. Perhaps the City did not realize it was 1' too close to the road. The improvement will not make it appear any closer to the street yard. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1955 for Andrew J. McDermott III, 2702 Walters Port Lane, for the 1' variance as proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #13) #1956 TOM AND CHRIS SMIEJA, 4040 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:17 TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Smieja were present. Gaffron explained applicant proposes a 26'x48' addition to the east side and a 16'x14' addition to the west side of the existing house. Because of the uniqueness of the lot, the additions require a side street setback variance and a side setback variance. Orchard Park Road is considered the front yard and Watertown Road is the side yard. The City Attorney is being consulted for a clarification of the code which does not seem to fit Orono's rural character. The side street setback requires 50' and proposed is at 45' and the existing is 42'. The required front setback is 100' and 38' is being proposed for the principal structure and 25' for the three season porch. No area variance is required. The additions do not change the size for septic use but the 0 existing and future septic area need to be protected. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 • ZONING FILE #1956 - CONT. Tom Smieja stated it is their intention to tear down the old garage next to the rear lot line. Chair Schroeder said his concern is with the 25'. After some discussion, it was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of Application #1956 for Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road, for variances as proposed including both the 25' and 45' setbacks with conditions that the septic areas be fenced off prior to construction, removal of the garage and noted the sighting problem at intersection of Watertown Road. Ayes 4, nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #14) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1994 Lindquist attended the Council meeting and reported that Council gave Stoddard approval to connect to the existing sewer unit instead of a separate connection. He noted that the application for Sailor's World was continued as applicant was not present. ( #15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Chair Schroeder noted the B -2 issue is still being reviewed by the City Attorney. Gaffron stated a date needs to be set for a meeting. Comments have been received from the attorney but he did not give specific direction. Chair Schroeder commented that the B -2 Code was revised to provide for extra conditional uses. Councilmember Jabbour spoke on B -2 code issues regarding marinas. After discussion, it was decided to set a date for the Planning Commission to meet so the B -2 matter could be moved on to Council. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #16) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 1994 MEETING It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to approve the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #17) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Chair Schroeder volunteered to attend the September 12, 1994 Council meeting. Lindquist gave notification that he is unable to attend the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING • HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 C� • ( #18) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE FOR B -2 WORK SESSION Chair Schroeder noted a date will be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. 15 Charles Schroeder, Chair Person PLANNING COMMISSION N. COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. �19. 20. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 0 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Vice -Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg. Chair Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, and Candace Rowlette were absent. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Sherry Frost represented Staff. Mayor Edward Callahan and Councilmember J. Diann Goetten were present. Vice -Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #1800 - MICHAEL PLANK, 411514125 WATERTOWN ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT REARRANGEMENT - RENEWAL OF 2/16/93 APPROVAL The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Smith, to table Item #1800 to the October 17, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes 4, Nays 0. • ( #2) #1914 - THOMAS G. & PHYLLIS COLWELL/TIM & BETH TRAFF, 2640 NORTH SHORE DRIVE /1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - REVISION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were not present. It was noted that the revision was minor and not a substantial change from the previously approved layout. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of Item #1914. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #3) #196" -DONALD R. PETERSON, K -P PROPERTIES, INCARVIN GEFFRE, 4645/4665 BAYSIDE ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Peterson was present. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( 0) Item #1967- D. Peterson/Geffre - Continued Gaffron stated property is located South of Bayside Road, East of County Road 19. The initial request was involving six lots to include the Geffre and Olson properties. Applicant's have been working with staff on this project. The City's two primary goals have been to create suitable access locations and drainfields that would meet the 6% slope limit for mound systems. At this point, applicant wishes to separate the Geffre residence from the application, split off the Olson house from their 17.5 acre parcel, so it can be sold and designate the remainder of the Olson property as Outlot A to be platted later. If this is done, the City would need to a)restrict Outlot A to be created for future development only, b)require Park Dedication Fees due when Outlot A is platted, and c)require future platting of Olson property to conform to the lot width, area, and setback standards of the RR -113 Zoning District. The developer is anticipating submittal of a four or five lot plat later this year. The applicant submitted a revision stating the simple lot division would not allow a curved line. The surveyor created a new outlot for a future driveway. D. Peterson said notices had been sent out for the future five -lot division. This drawing is to show the City what the current plans are for splitting off the house. The revision changed the 30' setback from • the deck to 50'. Copies of this revision were handed out to Commission members. D_ Peterson stated the reason for the application at this time was to facilitate the sale of the Olson residence. A review of the septic evaluation had been done, and D. Peterson said the conceptual five -lot plan needed to be revised to four lots. A lot division or plat for the four -lot revision would require time that the Olson's do not have if they wish to close on their property. D. Peterson also remarked that a legal matter is in question whether the outlot is needed. At this time, D. Peterson is asking for approval for one existing lot and an outlot which would be unbuildable without a plat. Smith asked if this would be setting a precedent, and Gaffron stated that the City would normally approve only an outlot that has an access. D. Peterson said this would cause Geffre to be less than two acres and therefore, non - conforming, without Outlot A deeded first to Geffre. Gaffron said this only makes sense in the big sub - division picture. To gain the easement that the Genre lot would provide, Nolan asked D. Peterson why the trade of properties under consideration is not being done at this time. Peterson said this would be done before the next meeting but, meanwhile, the Olson sale would fall through, and asked only for approval or denial from the Planning Commission in order to move this matter forward to the City Council. Nolan asked about the desirability of having the access to the outlot instead of County Road 94. Gaffron said the County will require access to both houses to be on the new road. Gaffron stated a conceptual agreement would need conditions attached to it. is • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( #3) Item #1967 - D. Peterson/Geffre - Continued Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to deny the application #1957. Ayes 3- Peterson, Smith, Berg; Nays 1- Nolan. #4) #1895 - PAT WOLFE, 2871 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was not present. Smith noted applicant assumed the item was being tabled at his prior request. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to table Item #1895 for review at the October 17 meeting. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #5) ITEM #1948 - FRANK KOKESH/JOAN M. HARMON, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERNIITSNARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffron noted the • applicants attorney had requested tabling. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to table Item #1948 to the October 17, 1994 meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#6) ITEM #1953 - WILLIAM ALLEN, 3475 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certficate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Allen was present. Item #1953 was tabled from last meeting pending receipt of an updated survey which has been received. This proposal is for an addition to the house and a deck. The separation between this addition and the garage would be only 3+ ft where 10 ft is required. Applicant is asking for a side setback variance from the ten ft requirement, and a setback variance between the buildings. No hardcover variance is required since the property meets the 35% limit, and no structural lot coverage variance is required since the property meets the 1500 sq ft allowed per code 10.03 subdivision C. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#6) Item #1953 - Allen - Continued It has been determined from speaking with the Mound Fire Dept. that the fire safety and emergency access issues were not a factor. The concern now is one of aesthetics. Peterson and Smith voiced concern over the area being highly developed and the small lot size which makes adding more structure difficult. Nolan was concerned with drainage. Allen stated he wants to remove the well pit and replace a portion of the foundation. Nolan asked that the applicant paint the house which Allen stated was his intent. The hardship statement refers to the problem of space. The addition is for an entry, an extension of the kitchen, and addition of a dining room. Peterson and Smith felt a 12x 14 addition would be more reasonable given the limited space and elimination of the deck would decrease the impact of additional house structure. Council saw no problem with a door stoop and steps as requested by Mr. Allen. Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Item #1953 for replacement of rear structure and amended addition size to 12'x14', with steps and stoop.. Applicant agreed to eliminate the deck. Approval subject to satisfactory drainage plan submitted to City, and proper removal of well if found defective. Ayes 4, Nays 0. • #7 ITEM #1958 - LOU 011-ERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffron noted the applicant has requested tabling in order to add a hardcover variance to his request. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Smith, to table Item #2958 to the October 17, 1994 meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #8) ITEM #1959 JAMES W. OGLAND, 3345 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - AFTER - THE -FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Ogiand was present. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#8) Item #1959 - Ogland - Continued Gaffron stated this is an after-the-fact variance where a shed is located over the lot line, extending into the right -of -way of Hillside Place, and is partially on the Dakota Rail property. This structure requires a 5' rear yard and I0' side yard setback. The lot coverage including the shed is 19.1% exceeding the 15% limit. Locating the structure in any street is not allowed, and the hardcover limitation is exceeded. There is also a sewer line which runs through where the shed is located. Gaffron stated a hold harmless agreement would be needed if the shed was allowed to stay on the City right -of -way as well as an easement from Dakota Rail. Another option would be to place the shed within the property lines. Peterson commented on the neat upkeep of said shed and property. He noted other sheds similarly located along the area but questioned whether Planning Commission could act on this affidavit with the shed sitting on Dakota Rail property. Ogland voiced the problem with space limitation in a lot of this size stressing the need for the shed. He also said the shed is on skids and can be easily moved. • The public road issue was discussed. Possible future repair of sewer line was determined not to be a problem. The road is being maintained as lawn here and elsewhere. Mayor Callahan commented on the probable difficulty with obtaining a Dakota Rail variance. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to table Item #1959 allowing applicant to present another option for shed location. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) ITEM #1960 - TOR JONSEN/NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#9) Item #1960 - Jehovah's Witness - Continued Gaffron stated this application is a request to expand the parking lot. A hardcover variance is required in the 500 -1000' zone. The 3600 sq ft driveway addition would result in hardcover exceeding the 35% limitation by S °fo for a total of 43 %. In reviewing this application, other issues have come to light. Two small additions were given building permits last year that should have required conditional -use permits before being allowed because of the church's location in a residential area. The proposed 14'x18' carport was built, not according to the plan for which a permit was issued, and actually extends 22' from the eastside of the building. This leaves a 47' side setback which is less than the 50' side setback requirement. A side setback variance or partial carport removal . is necessary. An existing drainage problem may also be exacerbated if the parking lot is expanded and would require a condition be placed on the application that the church be involved in solving the problem. A handicap ramp is part of this application and is to be located where hardcover already exists. The ramp is necessary due to an inside stairway. Applicant representative, Jeff Metzger relayed the church's desire to beautify the neighborhood. A error in calculation resulted in the carport extending into the side • setback requirement. The original parking lot plan approved in 1970 allowed for 52 stalls based on one stall per four seat capacity. The church did not fully utilize the 52 stall allotment at that time. Their request to add additional stalls now is to replace those lost with the building of the handicap ramp. Metzger also stated the church is willing to work with the City to solve the drainage problem. Glen Clark of Kingdom Hall commented that on- street parking is available but Togo Road is a narrow street. No comments have been received from the public regarding on- street Parking- Peterson inquired of the added gravel located on the lot which is considered hardcover. Congregation members did not think it was hardcover without plastic underneath. Peterson stated churches need to be aware of not only ordinances but hardcover limits. Peterson inquired of applicant what the hardship is requiring the need for additional parking citing the efficiencies that result when parking lot stalls are marked. Mesker stated the hardship was for the handicap ramp and the fact the parking lot initially approved in 1970 was not fully utilized. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 0 (#9) Item #1960 - Jehovah's Witness - Continued A discussion ensued on the drainage issue. A study needs to be done to see where the problems initiate. It was suggested the church meet with staff. The Commission members said the landscape plan can continue as well as the painting of the carport. Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to table Item 91960 to next Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #10) ITEM #1961 - WARREN L. PASCHKE, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffron said this application is for side and lake setback variances to replace the pre- existing deck and railing above the garage which was originally built in 1948. It is located less than 10' from the side and 75' from the lake. No hardcover is allowed in the 0 -75' Lakeshore setback zone but no variance is required since no increase in hardcover is being made. •Commission members voiced concern with contractors and homeowners working without proper permits. Applicant Paschke replied that he had inquired of both the contractor and carpenter of the need for permits and had been told none were needed. During public comment time, Mr. Ogland questioned the need for a variance to repair or replace an existing structure. Peterson stated each application is different. Smith stated today no building is allowed in the 0 -75' zone in order to protect the lake. Smith moved, Nolan seconded, to recommend approval of Item #1961. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #11) ITEM #1962 - PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC./BRUCE B. DAYTON, 900 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Ron Bowen of Prairie Restorations presented the plan to excavate a 7.5 acre pond within a Type 7 wetland with excavation and placement of 51,600 cubic yards of soil material. Bowen displayed a map of the area in question showing the ratio of wetlands, forests, excavation and deposition areas. Applicant Dayton is interested in enhancing the environment on his property with this project. Bowen is seeking Commission and MCWD approval for this project. Bowens sees this as a first defense in preserving the lake and says it will be developed as a natural watershed. u MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#11) Item # 1962 - Prairie Restorations/Dayton - Continued Peterson reported being at an on -site meeting remarking on its uniqueness and the support being given by both the DNR and MCWD. Bowen stated the Corp of Engineers also gave their support and had indicated Dayton was not in need of a permit from them. Gafiron commented that a Type 7 wetland has retention capabilities, and he would like the Watershed to comment on this matter. The City's 1974 Wetland Inventory Map does not show the pond area to be wetland, although it appears on the National Wetlands Inventory Map. Gafl'ron commented on the phosphorus retention capability of a. Type 7 wetland versus that of an open water wetland. Also, during disposal of the soil material, trucks will need to cross Long Lake Road, and the road will need to be maintained. The location of two proposed spoil disposal sites were discussed. Smith remarked on the hilly topography of the disposal site and questioned what this would do to drainage. Bowen said the area will not be built any higher than present with some material possibly taken out. The deposition areas will be seeded afterwards. Gaffron commented that the drainfield for the septic system located on the south disposal site cannot be covered over. An alternate site must be preserved for the house on this site. He also noted the NWI maps show part of this disposal site as wetland. During public comments, Darrell Anderson of 925 Old Long Lake Rd. and 920 W. Wayzata Blvd. shared his concern over drainage from the Dayton property. Anderson's drainfields are upstream and he has experienced water backing up onto his and a neighbor's property from a nearby culvert. Mrs. Anderson asked for clarification on where the soil material would be deposited.Bowen noted the plan proposes a 956' elevation for the pond north of the road and should not change water flowing into the culvert. The nearby Sweetser pond was discussed as needing control. Gaffron said a conceptual agreement would address as a minimum the following conditions and concerns: 1) Must follow Best Management Practices for protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2) Execution of a developer's agreement clearly stating how excavation and spoil disposal would be accomplished, time schedules, restoration, site revegetation, etc. 3) Acceptable outflow structure design. 4) Letter of credit covering restoration. 5) Need documentation that the Corp of Engineers require no permits. 6) Fish & Wildlife Service comments on the project. • 7) Need for MCWD perm }t and comments regarding the effect on Long Lake. • • u MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( #11) Item #1962 - Prairie Restorations/Dayton - Continued Peterson voiced the overall basic support of Schroeder and Lindquist, who were not present but who had discussed this project with him. Concerns were of where the dirt would go, the clean -up, and the drainage and wetlands issue. Peterson would like to see a waterfowl island; though, it is understood that this cannot be done under DNR regulations without additional permits. Gafiron said that other agencies are not against islands but require a more detailed review and process because it would constitute fill in the wetland. Bowen said he was rethinking the island issue, and it may become part of the project. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to recommend the approval of a conditional -use permit to include the above listed seven conditions, with Staff to draft a more detailed list of conditions. Because of such a large cooperative effort and waiting for receipt of above conditions, Callahan suggested moving ahead with a preliminary hearing with the City Council. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #12) ITEM #1963 - ENGEN & KOZOJED & ASSOCIATES, INC./JAMES & CAMILLE FARLEY, 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gafiron said this application is a request for lot width variance. The proposal is to remove existing house and replace with a new residence. The existing house is on a 4 -5 acre lot and has less than the 30' side setback. To alleviate that problem, the applicant wishes to remove the house and build a new one which creates a vacant lot for a period of time. The lot does not meet the 200' lot width requirement at the 50' front setback line. Gaffron also noted that this lot was not suitable for future subdivision due to septic limitations. Tim Engen, representative for Mrs. Farley, spoke on her behalf. Mrs. Farley and her son were also present. Engen stated he originally wanted to use the present foundation but decided against that because of the setback problems. After receiving the survey, it was also determined that the driveway is on the DNR property requiring reassessment. It was determined that the lot width at the garage would be 110' and 150' at the house. Keith Spencer questioned the intent for another structure on the property which is proposed to be built. It will only be a barn -type structure placed at the rear of the driveway and was told there are no more buildable sites on the property, precluding a second house or lot split. Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Item #1963 as proposed. Ayes 4, Nays 0. W u MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( #13) ITEM #1964 - CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH, 2420 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Applicant, Glenn Heinsch, Assistant Pastor of Calvary Memorial Church, was present. Gaffron stated the application is a request for variances for proposed signage. Applicant is asking to install a new school sign, lit from the inside, 8'x8' in size on an 11' brick wall. A conditional -use permit is required for signage in a residential area. This sign along with the two other existing signs would bring the total to 148 sq ft. The sign would exceed the square footage for an individual sign (12 sq ft allowed, 45 sq ft proposed), site signage square footage (24 sq ft allowed, 148 sq ft proposed), and the maximum height above grade (9' instead of the 8' allowed). Heinsch said the school is dependent on advertisement to attract students. Peterson discussed other signage in the vicinity and said this sign is consistent with the others, noting the sign will face Shoreline Drive which is commercial in character. • Berg moved, Nolan seconded, to approved Item #1964 as resented. Ayes 4 nays 0. P Y � Y ( #14) ITEM #1%5 - GUSTAFSON DESIGNIJAMES LEAR, 2525 DUNWOODY AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Applicant, James Lear, and Dale Gustafson of Gustafson Design were present. Gaffron stated the request is for a variance and conditional -use permit to construct retaining walls in lakeshore yard to repair a slumping problem where the bank is falling away. City Engineer reviewed the original plan but has not reviewed the newly submitted plan. The Engineer is concerned with boulder walls as there is a history of problems with this type failing. The plan is not detailed nor is it engineered. Lear does not wish for keystone -type walls, preferring a limestone which comes in shelves providing the same kind of stability. Lear is also interested in retaining the history and integrity of his home while receiving a comfort level with the life expectancy of the new walls. Commission members discussed the need for an engineered plan, detail on landscaping, and the hardcover calculations. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to table Item 41965. is Ayes 4, Nays 0. c MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( #15) ITEM #1966 - GUSTAFSON DESIGN/DOUGLAS OLSON, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Dale Gustafson of Gustafson Design was present on behalf of Mr. Olson. Gaffron stated this application is a request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for replacement of existing retaining walls and construction of a spa in the 0 -75' lakeshore setback zone. No survey has been received. Peterson stated there are potential problems with erosion, hardcover percentages, and retaining walls that need replacing, although he has no conceptual problems with the spa location. Nolan noted he is concerned with the lack of a survey. There are many areas considered hardcover that are not listed as such on the drawing submitted. He noted the excess of hardcover and said there are many areas where it can be reduced. Nolan has no problem with the spa itself but is looking for concessions from the owner and requested his presence at the next meeting. Nolan moved, Berg seconded, to table Item #1966 pending receipt of survey and complete hardcover facts. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #16) ITEM #1968 - KEITH & VIVI[AN BANGERT, 3500 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Bangert and his representative, Mr. RolofT , were present. 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1.994 ( #16) Item #1968 - Bangert - Continued Gaffron said this is a two acre vacant, lakeshore lot on Bayside Road to be served by public sewer. Applicant is requesting variances for lot area, lot width (165' where 200' is needed), and grading and tree removal in the 0 -75' Lakeshore setback zone for construction of a driveway and a single family residence. Mr. Roloffs has evaluated several schemes for access to the lot. There is a steep slope in the front of the property, 15' -20' high with a 1:1-1/2 slope. The best of three plans involves a driveway running along the front of the property and then turning toward the back. Roloff stated the initial slope is 8.5 %, with turn at natural grade and continues due north at 6.5% slope. There would be a retaining wall across the back of the driveway. Engineering concerns were 1)drainage with a culvert to prevent water going into Bayside Road, 2)approval by a registered engineer because of a wall higher than 4', 3)a guard rail on the west side, 4)headlight control on the east side, and 5)slope stabilization, erosion control, revegetation, and preservation with loss of large oak and other trees. Gaffron noted a letter received from Hennepin County Public Works stated the proposed curb cut is in the most acceptable access location of all choices, but none of the possible locations are very good along the 165' frontage. All other access possibilities require obtaining easements through neighboring properties. The building site at the top of the hill is potentially considered a bluff and the DNR has been asked to address this consideration. Roloffs asked for conceptual approval of the plan. Roloffs showed the schematics of the different proposals. A straight driveway up the east side proposed a major grade differential. The easement possibilities created major expense. Smith commented on the alternative easement route having the advantage of no major loss of vegetation. Nolan also reiterated this along with the safety problems involved in the steep driveway plan. Mr. Bangert stated he was not interested in a driveway on an easement over neighboring property- Neighbor to the east, Matt Manley, related the problems of drainage, a blind corner, loss of trees. Manley, personally, did not wish to deal with an easement issue as his property is for sale. Peterson questioned whether the lot was buildable without the proper access and noted the Commission's need for DNR input in resolving the bluff issue. Planning Commission urged the applicant to explore access through adjacent properties. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to deny Item #1968. Ayes 4, Nays 0. is MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 ( 017) ITEM #1%9 - CITY OF ORONO, 1355 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Nolan, to table Item #1969 to await a plan from City Engineer as required by the City. Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #IS) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 Schroeder was absent and unable to present the report. ( #19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None reported. ADDITIONAL ITEMS • ( 920) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 15, 1994 MEETING Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to table approval of the August 15, 1994 minutes as they required the signature of Chairman Schroeder, and only two of the members who attended that meeting are now present. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #21) REPRESENTATION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Nolan will attend the October 10, 1994 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, at 11:30 p.m. to adjourn the meeting. • r� 'PLANNING COMMISSION'-- "f COUNCIL _ ._ - - -- PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE le— /7- 5 '7 PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 8. 199. 20, PRESENT FOR (from agenda) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 17, 1994 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr_, was representative of the Council for this meeting. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ( #1) #1976 DON P. GAMBLE, HL, 4680 BAYSIDE ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBIDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 -7:25 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Donald Peterson represented the applicant. Mabusth reported this proposal is to divide Outlot C of the Painters Creek Planned Residential Subdivision, the remaining open space, Outlot D, from the former Ski Tonka property. The property is bounded by County Road 84 on the south and McCulley Road IS on the west_ The 13.38 acre property is to be divided into two lots in the five acre minimum lot zone. The lots do not meet the required lot width of 100' to the rear of the 300' front street setback. Lot 1 is defined as a corner lot and the code would define the front yard at CoRd 84, where there is limited lot width along the south lot line. Lot 2's front yard is also adjacent to CoRd 84 and has limited lot width to the south of the lot. There are suitable sites for septic treatment on both lots. The proposed building site on Lot 2 does not conform to required rear yard setback. The structure must be moved 60' south to conform to the 100' setback. The proposed building site on Lot 1 meets all required setbacks. Access is the main issue. The proposed driveway has not yet been shown. There is a safety concern because of a hill at CoRd 84_ Staff recommends access at west side of lot 2. Mabusth noted that these lots are in the Westonka School District, as lots in the Painters Creek PRD to east are in the Orono School District. Mr. Peterson said the building pad was incorrectly shown. Mabusth asked Mr. Peterson about the barn on Lot 2 which is not readily seen. Mr. Peterson said he will get a demolition permit and remove the barn. The prospective buyer of Lot 2 confirmed his concern with the rear lot line and asked for clarification from the commission whether the north lot line is really a side yard. Staff will work with this prospective buyer to address any questions concerning placement of is residence. • is MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 ( #1 - #1976 - Gamble - Continued) Peter Achey of 4720 Bayside voiced his concern with being able to safely access the lots. Due to the lay of the land, Achey felt placing the two driveways together would create a hazard, while the peak of the road on Bayside would provide what he felt would be a good safe entry. Mabusth said the County prefers locating new curb cuts off County roads. However, in this case, the County would approve access at Bayside Road rather than McCulley, due to the high usage of McCulley. Mr. Peterson noted a problem with combining the driveways due to the steep grade and said a safe access will be a priority. It was noted that a walkaway was shown for Lot I linking it to the Luce Line. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the two -lot subdivision application for Don Gamble at 4680 Bayside Road to include the 8 Staff recommendations listed, along with the additional requirements that walkway area connecting Lot 1 to Luce Line be constructed at existing grades with wood chips placed on surface, and curb cuts subject to approval by Hennepin County and the City of Orono. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #2) THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA ( #3) #1895 PAT WOLFE, 2971 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:25 -7 :50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Wolfe was present. Gaffron reported this application is for an after -the -fact variance for a shed located in the 0 -75' zone. The shed is 10'x12', requiring a building permit, is located 8' from the shoreline, and constitutes 120 s.f of hardcover within the lakeshore protected area. It is also 3.5' from the side lot line next to the public access and beach. The shed was totally reconstructed, except for foundation slab, and would require the approval of the City_ The DNR recommended denial of the variance and advised City to enforce its regulations. Gaff-on said there is a problem with the exact location of the side lot line. A Torrens action probably would be required to determine where the lot line is located. This could result in the loss of public beach area. The neighbors have sent supportive letters noting the shed has improved in appearance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • ( #3 - #1895 - Wolfe - Continued) • Mr. Wolfe commented that the City asked to install a drainage ditch six years ago which is 60 -70' from the shoreline. It buffers the shed though can be hazardous to children. Wolfe said the #1 problem is security. He feels the easement creates problems with trespassing and theft, and the shed eases this problem_ The shed houses the pump for his irrigation system and electricity for the system. Mr. Wolfe reported knowing he needed a building permit. He was of the opinion that the builder had acquired the permit and had placed a public notice sign on his lot. Wolfe later found out that no such permit was obtained, and the sign was probably stolen elsewhere Schroeder noted that the applicant should not have to incur malicious security problems suggesting a fence be erected in the area to help alleviate these problems. Schroeder reported that a neighbor had received a variance for such a fence. Nolan commented that security does not warrant a hardship in that security from specific intrusions noted by Applicant is not solved by a shed. Nolan noted there are other areas where the shed could be located. Council members also said a lock box, which. is about 4'x5' and 4' high, would serve the needs for the electrical and pump equipment. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to deny Application #1895 for an after -the -fact variance for construction of a shed for Pat Wolfe at 2871 Casco Point Road. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#4) #1959 JAMES W. OGLAND, 3345 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:50 -7:57 P.M. Mr. Ogland was present. Gaffron stated this application was tabled from the last meeting to devise a revision for the location of the shed. The shed is located on Dakota Rail right -of -way and built without a permit. Ogland has agreed to move the shed bringing it to the zero setback, 10' from the house which will preserve a large tree. Hardcover percentages have been calculated. A lot coverage variance is technically needed but is less than the 1500 s.f. allowed. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 (#4 - #1959 - Ogland - Continued) Rowlette questioned why no penalty was applied when the matter was an after- the -fact variance. Ogland said he had been told by the City that 120 s.£ shed did not require a permit and no one mentioned a variance to him. One year later, an inspector questioned him about the shed. Mabusth said the City now requires permits for sheds 120 sT or less to ensure setbacks are met. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to approve the rear yard setback variance, the side yard setback variance, and the lot coverage variance necessary to approve the shed in the above noted location. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #5) #1960 TOR JOHNSON/NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:57 -8:20 P.M. Tor Johnson and Representative, Jeff Metzger, were present. Gaffron reported this application is a request for hardcover variance and conditional use permit which was tabled at the previous meeting pending review of the drainage issue by the City Engineer and Public Works Department. The additional driveway will increase • the hardcover to 43% requiring a variance, where 35% now exists in the 500 -1000 zone. The CUP is for two additions which were built without the required conditional use permit. The carport has been constructed at a 47' side setback where 50' is required. The coat room meets all requirements. A $50 fee is to be added to the formal application. The area where the church is located has a drainage problem. The house to the east has a culvert with tile but it is failing and inadequate causing the home to flood during times of running water. The City Engineer has suggested bringing a swale or pipe along the east lot line of the church property which will carry the runoff into the catch basin next to Togo Road and evenually drain to the north. The applicant has agreed to installing either a 12" culvert or a Swale. Planning Commission members voiced concern with the plan diverting the water problems to another area. Representative Metzger commented that the neighbor of the church to the east is agreeable to this plan. The church will install a pipe the entire distance from the front to the back of the property. This will channel the water around the neighbor. Metzger has a plan detailing the elevation which shows the topography to be level along the east side of property. Gaffron said the plan is consistent with the stormwater issue. It was reported that the City Engineer has approved the plan, and the City will ask for a 15' drainage easement from the applicant. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • ( #5 - #19b0 - Johnson/Navarre Congregation. of Jehovah Witnesses - Continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #1960 for variance and conditional use permit per conditions set forth in Staff memo to include a 15' drainage easement over proposed drainageway subject to approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer, striping of the parking lot, and a $50 fine for the after- the -fact permit. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #1965 GUSTAFSON DESIGN /JAMES LEAP., 2525 DUNWOODY AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 8:25 -8:40 PAL Mr. Lear and Mr. Gustafson were both present. Gaffron reported this application was tabled from the last meeting awaiting a detailed landscaping plan which is now included in this package. The bank on the property has failed, and the plan consists of a series of retaining walls of a geo -grid nature with two terraces and a walkway to solve the erosion problem. The existing stairway will be removed. The 43 s.f. shed, which is 6' high, will remain for equipment storageand housing of the irrigation system pump. The City Engineer is in agreement with the plan but had noted the difficulty in mowing the slope area. The applicant decided not to mow the . slopes, instead protecting the areas with erosion mats and mulch. Gaffron sai d the Engineer did not want boulder -type rock which resulted in a plan consisting of a "lannon" stone product with fabric laid underneath. Staff commented that this plan should solve the slope issue and erosion problems. Rowlette remarked, that should the shed deteriorate, a 20 s.f. structure would be expected in the future. It was noted that the layer of fabric to be used in the plan was not considered hardcover, and the rip -rap will need to be approved by the watershed district. Nolan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #1965 with the Staff recommendation that a representative of American Engineering Testing be on site to observe the conditions during construction. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #7) #1967 K -P PROPERTIES/ROBERT OLSON, 4645 BAYSIDE ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL - 8:40 -9:00 P.M. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Olson were present. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 ( #7 - #1967 - K -P Properties/Olson - Continued) Gaffron reported the initial request was to subdivide the Olson residence from a 17.5 parcel leaving the rear property as an outlot for future development and an outlot with an access for future development. The plan was modified to facilitate the sale of the Olson residence. It includes a 2.3 acre lot, an outlot for a road, an outlot to be later transferred to adjacent property, and an outlot for future development. This would not include the Geffre property but would include an easement to connect a back road to Bayside. The question still arose whether the Olson property would be able to connect to an interior road. Another option was for an easement for a west access should the White property be acquired. It was determined that the White property would not be acquired and a 4 -lot division will occur of this property. At the last Council meeting, the plan was revised to not include the Geffre property, thus, creating an outlot with an easement. Gaffron noted a letter from City Attorney Barrett regarding concern over enforcement of the successors or heirs of the Geffre property to be bound to the terms of the easement agreement previously laid out. The Geffre property is now part of the plan through an agreement so this matter may no longer be of issue. The plan is now the same as that requested by the City Star, leaving options available and controls within the resolution what will happen under different scenarios of development. The park fees will be deferred on the outlot until it is developed. Gaffron said both access possibilities have been approved by the County and are workable. The residence does have a failing septic, and Gaffron noted it will be replaced at a new location. Schroeder voiced concern over the issue brought up by Barrett in his letter. Gaffron commented that any approval should stipulate the need for the City Attorney's approval as well. Mr. Peterson reported having a new signed agreement with Geffi-e binding successors and assignment should that occur, and a deferred agreement to make a transfer if Outlot B is used. Peterson also said the issue of the variances requested at the last Planning Commission meeting has been resolved. The plans now call for 200+' frontage on Bayside Road and 50 +' from the deck. Peterson reiterated why the plan is in two phases in order to facilitate the sale of the Olson property. He noted the comment given by the City Council at their meeting for the desire of the input of the Planning Commission. Mayor Callahan interjected to the Commission members that if they as well as the City Attorney were agreeable to the terms of the proposal, the City Council would be willing to look at this issue at their neat meeting. Mr. Olson commented on the importance of timeliness in this matter. G MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 Is { #7 - #1967 - K -P Properties/Olson - Continued} Rowlette commented on the shed located on Outlot C questioning whether it can or cannot remain without a principal structure, noting the need to place a time limit on the decision with removal after one year. Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1967 for a subdivision as proposed to include Staff recommendations 1 -10, reviewal of amendment document for Outlot D by City Attorney, and the removal of the shed on Outlot C after one year if a building permit is not issue for construction of principal residence. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #1969 CITY OF ORONO, 1355 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCE - 11:45 -11:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaf ron reported the parking lot is for the old post office and will have five parking stalls and one handicap stall. It will loop around the building. A variance for the 50' front setback is needed. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #1969 for a variance for the City of Orono_ Ayes 7, Nays 0_ (#9) #1970 SCOTT MICHAEL WOLD, 3026 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:00 -9:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Wold was present. Mabusth noted the receipt of a letter from a neighbor, Andrew Ronningan. It was written after reading the City Engineer's comments but prior to seeing the Staff recommendations. Mabusth reported this application is for a CUP for lot 2 of Kelly Second Addition for approval of a walkout design involving 450 cubic yards of soil correction under the building pad. This plan would raise the structure 8 -9' resulting in a major elevation change_ The application also involves land alterations within property to immediate west. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • (#9 - #1970 - Wold - Continued) 1�1 Mabusth said the City Engineer reports the need to protect the walkout single stall garage on the property to west from flooding. The applicant was given an option to design underground tile. This method would require hydraulic information to ensure adequate sizing of pipe so that flooding would be held one foot below the 104 -year storm level. The applicant, his engineer and the City Engineer agree there is adequate fall to support having an above- ground swale, rather than a below - ground pipe. The City would require a drainage easement from the applicant. Mr. Ronningan's letter voiced concern with the possible alteration to the topography which he was not in favor of, citing the excavation fill, raising of the property, and standing water. Mabusth said the building pad does not have to be moved toward the road, and also noted that the swale will aid the drainage problem on the west side and cause no erosion problems once ground cover has been restored. The applicant noted that the plan will redirect water around to the front and side. Schroeder commented that if there is no effect on Ronningan, his basic concerns would be with the fill being stored on the site until it was put back in place and fulfillment of the erosion control rules. Nolan's concern was with making sure that the drainage area was not being blocked during this construction period. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Aplication #1974 with Staff recommendations on 1,2, and 3, with a drainage easement be designated during construction prior to bringing in material. Ayes 7, Nays 0, ( #10) #1971 BRIAN KIPFER/GREG SARGEANT, 320 TURNHAM ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:15 -9:30 P.M. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicants, Brian Kipfer and Greg Sargeant, were present. Mabusth reported it was not the intent of the applicants to create a guesthouse within the living space of detached garage, but, because this area could function as an independent residental unit, Staff has asked that a CUP be filed. This property is 2.8 acres in size and has a septic sized for a four bedroom residence, which will adequately handle the bathroom in the garage living space. This living space consists of a loft area with a covered porch, a full bathroom, and a lower level work area with sinks. The Staffs concern is whether it is enough to deny the CUP in order that this space can never be used as a separate dwelling as 2.8 area could never meet requirements of code. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 0 ( #10 - #1971 - Kipfer /Sargeant - Continued) The applicants asked if a variance could be added to the title to ensure that they, along with future owners, could not use the space as a guesthouse. Mayor Callahan commented that Staff could add deed restrictions. Home - occupation permits were discussed. It was decided that this was not an issue in this matter. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application 91971 for a conditional -use permit for a guesthouse and instructed Staff to place said deed restriction on the property. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #11) #1972 DANIEL J. RADFORD, 3593 CRYSTAL PLACE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:30 -9:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Radford was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a street setback variance required for the 18 proposed 12'x16.4' three - season porch. The roof line on the north side of the residence would be expanded but setbacks are met at that northwest corner. The applicant was questioned whether it would be possible to locate the porch where it would be conforming. Radford replied this would cut off the amount of light entering the living room area and possibly cause problems with water drainage because of the roof line of both rear additions. The setback of the house in relation to the neighbors' homes was also discussed and found to be fairly consistent with one another. Mabusth noted there is no off - street parking or driveway on the property. The applicant did not wish to amend the application to include a garage. He was informed that this approval would affect the City approval of any future garage due to the lot coverage issue. Nolan moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve Application 41972 subject to a landscaping plan prior to receiving a building permit, a time frame on exterior improvements, completion within a one -year time period, cleaning up of the backyard area prior to receiving a building permit, and removal of the metal shed. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #12) #1973 THOMAS CASHMAN, 1509 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:55 -10:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. isMr. Cashman W�s present. 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 0 ( #12 - #1973 - Cashman - Continued) Mabusth reported this application is for a hardcover variance and a street setback variance to replace an existing garage now located in the road right -of -way and to construct a deck in the 0-75' zone. The DNR has reviewed the request. The AB profile shows a bluff at the 970 elevation and at the 976 elevation at the CD profile. A bluff setback variance is required as the garage will extend 15' within the required 30' setback and the deck 10' into the bluff. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has reviewed the analysis information and confirmed the location of the bluffs on the property. Strauss would not have a problem with the garage setback but would not like to see a deck built within the bluff or setback areas, recommending the deck be placed at the southeast corner outside of the 0 -75' zone and the 970 elevation requiring a side setback variance. This would provide a stable structure for connection of lakeshore access staircase. Mabusth noted the proposed improvements would not hinder the location of future septic sites on this property as there is no other viable area available. The only option for the applicant would be a holding tank or a limited septic area northeast of the house if the well is relocated on the site. The neighborhood is currently being reviewed for potential sewering in the fixture. • Planning Commission members voiced concern with erosion, drainage problems, and the amount of hardcover. Discussion revolved around the garage size and whether a new garage would be necessary or if renovation of the existing garage could be done. The Commission recommended applicant provide detailed grading, drainage, and erosion plans for placement of garage. They also advised garage should be trimmed back to no more than 20'x20`. The Commission members said they would not approve the proposed deck. Schroeder moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #1973 until new plans could be drawn. Ayes 6, Nays 1, Peterson. Peterson would deny the application. ( #13) #1974 TYLER CORBIN, 4685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:13 -11:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr_ Corbin was present. • 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • ( #13 - #19 74 - Corbin - Continued) 'L J Mabusth reported this application is for approval of a conditional use permit and lakeshore hardcover variance for the reconstruction of retaining walls within the lakeshore yard, major portions of which are located within the 0-75' setback area. The former walls were constructed of wood and had rotted and deteriorated to the point of requiring replacement. The applicant has provided silt fencing at the base of the bank to prevent further erosion into the lake. The applicant did not realize that permits were necessary t o replace existing walls and had begun installing boulder walls. The lower level wall that had been installed is approximately 3' high. Upon a site inspection, the Engineer determined the retaining walls would be over 7' in sections requiring drainage tiles and geo -tech fabric. The applicant has revised the plan, which the Engineer has approved, consisting of a 4' wide stairway and three boulder walls at 4' in height. The Engineer did not discuss landscaping, and Staff would recommend plantings to buffer the starkness. The applicant noted that although this plan calls for hardcover variance, he would be taking out gravel hardcover and replacing with grass between the walls. The Planning Commission members were very concerned with the large amount of hardcover existing on this property. There is 64% in the 75 -250' zone. Realizing the applicant is attempting to replace walls to retain his property, the Commission members asked if the applicant would be willing to remove other hardcover to reduce the exorbitant amount now existing. The Planning Commission would like the non - conforming driveway which runs down to the lake on the east side of the property removed. The applicant would like to retain this driveway as he feels it is a vital asset to him and his use of the lake. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #1974 with two added provisions: 1)presentation of a landscaping plan where the retaining walls are to be installed and 2)removal of the driveway from the existing parking area down to the lake over a five -year period. Ayes 6, Nays 1, Peterson, who said he would deny the application. ( #14) #1975 LARRY ANHALT, 2190 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING -11:00 -11:05 P.M. Applicant requested Item #1975 be tabled until the meeting of 11/21/94. Schroeder moved, Nolan seconded, to table Item #1975, Larry Anhalt, 2190 Wayzata Boulevard. Ayes 7, Nays 0. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • ( #15) #1977 LAWRENCE AND MARILYN DORR, 980 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 11:05 -11:20 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Graydon McCulley represented the applicants as well as their architect, Bruce Schmidt. Mabusth reported the applicants seek approval of an average Lakeshore setback variance to allow the construction of a new residence where a two -story cabin and detached garage now exist. The proposed structure will encroach 97' in front of the average lakeshore setback line but will minimize excavation of steeper elevations which would have resulted in the loss of trees. The structure will be located out of the bluff impact zone and 75'+ from lakeshore. An issue of concern is the impact of the new construction upon the lake views of the Hoffmans, neighbor to south. The peak of the house would be at the 985' elevation. The grade level basements starts at 980' elevation. The height difference between existing and new structures is 7'. Nolan noted the house is on a point and would no longer be prominent if moved back. 18 The hill behind the home is the hardship in this application. The Commission members discussed the right of people to view a lake from side windows. Planning Commission questioned the intent of the average lakeshore setback ordinance. • The applicant was asked if the new residence could be changed to minimize the effect on the neighbors. The Doff s said the plans were originally for a two -story home and have been changed to a story and a half. The applicant does not wish to change the pitch on the roof. The neighbor to the north voiced her approval of the plan. She said if the home would be built back into the hillside, it would cause erosion and tree removal. Former owner, Graydon McCulley, was present and said this was his summer home for 35 years. He is in approval of the replacement plan and have known the Doffs for some time. McCulley also said that being on a point is important and should make a difference. The Commission noted the absence of the Hoffinans, who are out -of -town. Several Commission members concurred that the topography of the property makes the present location the reasonable location for the new structure. The Commission emphasized the need for the applicants and the Hoffman to discuss the plans. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #1977 for an average lakeshore setback variance. Ayes 5, Nays 2, Peterson and Smith. 12 lr� u MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 SKETCH PLAN ( #16) #1978 WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - SKETCH PLAN PROPOSAL - NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED Valerie and Dan Hessburg, Executive Directors of Westonka Intervention Project, were present. Mabusth reported the applicant has filed a sketch plan application requesting a zoning amendment to allow a residential shelter for battered women and their children. Orono's single family residential zoning does not permit such use nor does its commercial zones. Support is being sought from the Planning Commission to amend the zoning code, which would result in Staff presenting the findings to the City Council. The Council must first direct the Planning Commission and Staff to proceed with a zoning amendment. The area in question is the old Grace Baptist Church, located at Co Rds 15 and 19 in Navarre, which is in a LR -1C zoning district. The site plan shows the topography of the area but has not yet addressed the parking issue. The floor plans reveal the lower level would be used for sleeping units consisting of nine rooms to handle up to a 20- person capacity level. A kitchen facility is also available in the church. The building would house the project offices as well. Mabusth noted that a. sprinkler system is not required for this is building. • ( #16 - #1978 - Westonka Intervention Project - Continued) Mr. Hessburg informed the Planning Commission members of the project's purpose, its detail, and who would benefit from the project. The project purpose is to break the cycle of violence prevalant in so many relationships. This building would give the victims and their children a place to stay while determining their next step. The police notify the agency. Volunteer advocates pick up the victim and encourage them to place a restraining order against the alleged batterer and counsels the victim on what their options are at the time. The project is staffed by eight paid administrative staff, five fulltime and three parttime, and 18 volunteers. The staff is paid by the Department of Corrections and Human Services on a per -diem basis resulting in $68 per day per victim per child. Part of the per diem would pay for the facility. Other monies are received from block grant and Minnesota Finance Housing money. The plan is to purchase the building for $190,000 with $80,000 down payment and financing of the remainder. The building would meet the demand of assisting 429 people per year. Statistics show the western suburbs' needs for this facility would surpass that number but have no plans for expansion. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 • (# 16 -Item # 1978 - Westonka Intervention Project - Continued) l� u The site location is in the heart of the area served. The project directors see that the facility will extend to serving all of the Lake Minnetonka area cities such as Shorewood, Excelsior, Greenwood, Tonka Bay, Deephaven, Wayzata, and Long Lake. It is a State policy that all police agencies must work with an intervention project such as this one. The Planning Commission expressed positive feedback on this project. They did question why this location was chosen when the southern side of Lake Minnetonka is more populated and is part of the project area. Hessburg reported on losing a donated site in Mound after eight people opposed the project. The site area was discussed. No outside play area was in the plans at this time. Parking will not be a problem since most victims are driven to the facility by the volunteer advocates. Police vehicles driving to this facility will be few for the same reason. The facility is conveniently located near grocery stores and bus stop areas. It is also in the area serviced by buses for three school districts to ease the transition for school -aged children involved. The Planning Commission members voted 7/0 to support the request to amend the zoning code in the LR -lC zoning district to allow usage of the building by the project. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #17) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10,1994 (CHARLES NOLAN) Nolan reported the application for the Bangert property driveway was approved by the City Council 4/0, even though the Planning Commission recommended denial 4/0, because the City deemed the property buildable when it provided sewer access to the property. ( #1$) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder reported receipt of a letter from Patricia Afelt, a friend of the Saga Hill area. Her group wishes to acquire the land for a park preserve and extended an invitation to a meeting discussing this on 10/20/94. City Administration is looking into the matter, 14 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1994 ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19,1994 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting as submitted. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 14,1994 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Sandra Smith will attend the November 14, 1994 meeting of the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 12:00 a.m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person 9 4-Vyt� 15 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 11 `Z" _ q I c1 PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 06. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 0'. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER lot AA leg L S ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 21, 1994 • ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Co -Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, and Dale Lindquist. Charles Schroeder, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council member J. Diann Goetten were present. Co -Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The public was informed that the presence of four commissioners was needed to form a quorum. The applicants were notified that any vote would be unofficial and were given the option to table their application to the January meeting. All applications reviewed and voted upon by the three member commission would continue on to the Council meeting where the public hearing would continue. ( #1) #1975 LARRY ANHALT, 2190 WAYZATA BLVD. - APPEALS - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council requested this item be tabled to the January, 1995, meeting. • Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Item #1975 for Larry Anhalt, 2190 Wayzata Blvd. to the January meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes 3, Nays 0. ( #2) #1979 RICHARD LITTLE, 1890 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7 :05 -7 :15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported the application is for a lakeshore setback variance, hardcover variances in the 0 -75' and 75 -25Y zones, and an additional average Lakeshore setback variance. The deck which needs to be reconstructed is in front of the average lakeshore setback area. The applicant has two proposals_ l) a complete rebuilding of the deck where it stood with no change in hardcover but still in excess of the hardcover limits; and 2) an expanded deck which would add 260 s.f. of hardcover in the 0 -75` zone and 169 s.f in the 75 -250` zone. Mabusth said the deck has already been removed, and the original survey does not show the deck. In observing the area, Mabusth said you can tell where the deck did exist but the deck should be placed on a survey for the official record. is MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 • ( #2 - #1979 Richard Little - Continued) The Applicant said the old deck had become hazardous. When the Applicant applied for a permit to re -build the deck after it had been taken down, they were informed of the need for the variances. Mrs. Little said they would like to remove some bushes which attract mosquitos and place the railing one step down so their lake view is not hampered. This would require a major expansion of new structure into the lakeshore protected area. The Commissioners agreed that the original deck should be rebuilt but they would not recommend new construction within the 0 -75' setback area. The Applicant asked if the deck could be increased in size within the 75 -250' setback area as along as they removed an equal amount of existing hardcover. Smith asked about the usage of the patio area in the walkout level suggesting a possible trade of hardcover to expand the deck in the zone mentioned. Peterson said a new survey will be needed to determine the exact location of the 0 -75' zone. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1979 for a deck replacement with the understanding that the excess hardcover be no more than what is recorded at 29.8% in the 75 -250' zone. An updated survey is also part of the approval. Ayes 3, Nays 0. • ( #3) #1980 A &T DEVELOPMENT, 460 PARK AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 -7:40 P.M. • The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth said the property is located in the lakeshore residential zone requiring one acre area. An existing lot of record need only meet 80116 of lot width and lot area standard. The application requires an area and lot width variance. The lot is .57 acres where .8 acre would be required. The width of the lot is 100' or 71% of the 140' requirement. Access to the lot is through Park Avenue, an undeveloped right -of -way at 30' in width.. The property is bounded by Tonkawa Road on the East and Park on the West. The drainage flows to the East. The access road becomes an issue as three residential units will be served. The Staff would recommend an extention of the existing paved road and a looped driveway. The final development plan must be reviewed by the Engineer. Mabusth noted that each of the four lots that make up the property was assigned a quarter unit for sewer. 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 is ( #3 - #1980 - A &T Development - Continued) The Applicant said he would like to build a driveway on his land and not on the public right -of -way, which he does not want to develop. Neighbor, Barry Knight, who owns the private access road to the north of the property in question asked about density control of the area. Peterson said the City looks for consistency within a neighborhood for development. This is a substandard area and the proposed application is consistent with the current pattern of development. Mabusth noted that this property is immediately adjacent to a rural area on the north and is located within the metro urban sewer area. Lindquist said that if this lot is determined to be buildable, the builder still has to meet other setback requirements. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1980 for A&T Development with the condition that the Applicant combine the four properties prior to application for building permit, provide detailed grading and drainage plans, and provide acceptable turnaround to be reviewed by City Engineer. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#4) #1981 TODD R COURNEYA, 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 -8:00 P.M. • The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth brought to the attention of the Comissioners a previous application for the property by the Lemmerman's to grant a variance for a new building pad. During this review, it was noted that the property was impacted by bluffs. The legal building envelope was defined with a 30' setback from the top of each bluff. The City Council directed that the site plan be included in the resolution so a future builder would know the limitations. The building envelope of the property has been severely restricted by the bluffs. Mabusth said there are two proposals for development. Proposal A calls for a 25' street setback, 46 from the traveled road of Tonkaview. This proposal minimizes any impact on the bluff area. The deck and stairs would be 17' from the top of one bluff at the 1010 elevation. A small section of principal structure would be 15' from the top of the bluff. Proposal B shows structure meets the 35' setback, but by meeting the setback, the building is pushed into the bluff. An accessory structure would be 8' from the bluff top at the 1010 elevation. With a street setback of 25', there would be no encroachment of the bluff but an encroachment of the bluff impact zone. Staff noted accessory structures could be relocated out of bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission was asked to compare the degrees of impact of the two proposals. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 •(#4 - #1981 - Courneya - Continued) Applicant, Todd Courneya, said Proposal A fits the land well. Smith asked about the square footage of the proposed house. The main level is about 1500 s.f with 1000 s.f on the second story. There would be a full basement. A down- sizing of the proposed house was suggested. The Commissioners present all agreed that although a street setback variance is preferred over extending the proposed house into the bluff area, the building should fit within the parameters previously determined by the Council. Neighbors had previously voiced their concern whether this lot was buildable. A member of the audience asked whether or not downsizing to a 22' wide home would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Lindquist said while this may be a valid concern, the restrictions placed on this property were based on alot of input and study of the property. Lindquist suggested Courneya get letters from the neighbors expressing their views on his amended proposal to be presented at a later meeting. At the Applicant's request, Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #1981 to the January meeting. Ayes 3, Nays 0. •( #5) #1982 DANIEL S. PERKINS, 55 LANDMARK DRIVE - VARIANCEICONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 -8;25 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported the Application is for a conditional -use permit required for land alterations over 100 cubic yards of material. A variance is required as dredging is proposed within a protected wetland area. The proposal involves the removal of 2000 cubic yards of material (peat) over a ten -year period. Excavations will create two ponds. The smaller pond would be 5000 s.f in area and take two years in time. The larger pond would be 25000 s.f and be completed in eight years. The excavated peat would be limited to 200 cubic yards each year. Loren Butterfield, who will be the contractor, will use the peat in his nursery business. Butterfield can only use approximately 200 cubic yards each year. Butterfield operates a nearby nursery and landscaping business. Butterfield will allow access through his property and create the ponds for the Applicant; and in turn, he would receive the peat material for use in his business. • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 ( #5 - #1982 - Perkins - Continued) Butterfield operates a nearby nursery and landscaping business. Butterfield will allow access through his property and create the ponds for the Applicant; and in turn, he would receive the peat material for use in his business. The method of removal would be with a 1/2 yard backhoe, or 3/4 yard in extreme conditions, and moved by three dump trucks, one 10 -yard and two five -yard. The holes would be 6' deep and 50' in diameter. Butterfield would drive over the wetland ponds after it has frozen in the winter time, dig the material, and pile it on his property for use in spring as potting material. This method is presently being used on his adjoining property. The DNR has sent literature on construction of wildlife ponds and how to rid them of reed canary grass and obtain aquatic vegetation. No DNR permit is required. Perkins said the ponds will have a slope of 5.1 at six foot depth. The ponds will be touched up after each digging. A letter from neighbors, lames and Patricia Todd, were entered into the record which gave their support of this plan. Letters from the MCWD and DNR state no need for permits from their agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized the work • under conditions stipulated in their letter via a nationwide permit. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1.982 for Daniel Perkins with conditions listed by City Staff and to include a yearly land alteration permit issued by Staff for excavation of peat. The excavation is not to exceed 200 cubic yards each year and must be performed during winter. Mr. Perkins is responsible for any safety problems. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#6) #1983 TOM AND MAUREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 -8:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported the Application is for a lakeshore setback variance required for a second story addition, an average Lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances. The existing house and addition is 24x50' located 39' from the lakeshore where 75' setback is required. The structure will encroach the average lakeshore setback by 10'. There will be no additional hardcover, but 28% exists in the 0 -75' setback where 0' is allowed, and 33% exists in the 75 -250' setback where 25% is allowed. The home is 20' wide and meets the • side setback requirement. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 • (#b - #1983 -Palm - Continued) Dave Sehok of 1680 Concordia and neighbor, Helen Trainer, commented that they approved of the proposed plan. The Applicant had met with Staff to discuss their options. If they would have built to the back, the home would block the common yard of the homes on either side and result in more hardcover. The height of the proposed addition is not a problem. Photos were provided to the Commissioners on what the home will look like. The Applicant also said that the foundation had been checked and found to be in good condition when they purchased the home. The shed located to the rear of the property was discussed as a means of reducing the total hardcover on the property. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #1983 for Lakeshore setback variance and average lakeshore setback variance for a second -story addition. To reduce the amount of hardcover, the shed will be removed at the time of construction. Ayes 3, Nays 0. ( #7) #1984 STEVEN M. ENGLUND, 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - RENEWAL • VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8 :40 -8:43 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. This application is for a renewal of a lot area variance which expired this month. The lot is located on Cherry Avenue and is consistent with the development in the area. It was noted that filling is to be limited and discouraged in the rear yard where a drainage retention area exists and evenually drains under the neighbor's driveway at the east. There were no changes from the original application. Smith moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #1984 for renewal variance for Steven Englund. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#8) #1985 BRUCE BREN HOMES, 1000 COX FARM ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:43 -4,48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publi(ai _were noted. The Applicant was present. • 6 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 ( #S - #1985 - Bruce Bren Homes - Continued) Mabusth reported the application is for a conditional -use permit as filling activities were found to be over the 140 cubic yards allowed with a building permit. A walkout is being created. The builder has amended the plans by changing the garage location to the higher elevation at the northwest corner of property. The Engineer approves drainage at the north side of residence with drainage flawing to the drainageway along the north lot line. Drainage to the south of residence must flow away from the septic area requiring a Swale between the house and septic. Staff will require an amended grades and drainage plan. The Applicant said the filling of the property was to prepare a building pad creating a more natural look. The result of that is the walkout as the lot slopes downward towards the lake. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #1985 for a CUP with a corrected elevation, revised drainage and grading plan before permit is granted. Ayes 3, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING • COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14,1494 • Charles Schroeder attended the Council meeting but was not present at this meeting. ( #]0)1995 CALENDAR - SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS - DISCUSSION The members present said they preferred to maintain the Monday night schedule for the Planning Comission meetings. ( #11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT Mayor Callahan asked the Planning Commission to look at the questions presented by the proposed project relating to zoning. Would the Planning Commission want to make a change in the City's zoning code? If yes, what should it be? Callahan said the Council members were not comfortable with changing the existing codes. The Council concluded that a change in a zoning code would be difficult to draft and a change that will fit one situation will not fit another. Callahan said the Council felt that the proposed location possessed advantages necessary for this project, which has merit. `1 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994 (#11 - Other Issues - Westonka Intervention Project - Continued) Callahan and Planning Commissioners determined that a separate meeting of the Planning Commission will have to be scheduled to discuss this project and contain a public hearing_ The project will be studied at the January meeting where the Commissioners will look at options available. ( #12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17,1994 MEETING Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 1994. Ayes 3, Nays 4. ( #13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE DECEMBER 12,1994 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Smith will attend the December 12, 1994 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT . Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 9:48 p.m. Ayes 3, Nays Q. �J Stephen Peterson, Co- Chair 8