HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2000 Planning Commission Minutes •
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners William Stoddard, Daniel Kluth, Jay Nygard, and
Sandra Smith. Commissioners Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg were absent. The following
represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, Public Works Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#1) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE,AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITNARIANCE
Due to the absence of the Applicant, this item was heard after Item #4.
• CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#6) #2547 KIMBERLI AND WILLIAM ABBOTT, 470 BIG ISLAND, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCES, 6:35 p.m. -7:16 p.m.
Kimberli and William Abbott, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting after-the-fact variances to allow the continued
existence of a lakeshore retaining wall and stairway system that was constructed without the
proper permits sometime between 1987 and 1990.
A primary issue for the Planning Commission to consider is how much of the extensive
decking associated with the walls and stairway should be allowed to remain in place. Weinberger
noted the construction in question is located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where
normally no structure or hardcover is allowed.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are hoping to purchase the property located on Big Island
from Sam McCloud and to bring the property into compliance with the City's Codes. As a result
of a superstorm in 1987, the lakeshore in this area experienced severe erosion damage. Sometime
between 1987 and 1990, McCloud constructed an addition to the house, including a large deck,
and also a massive retaining wall, stairway and deck system at the shoreline, all without the
required permits.
In February of 1991, McCloud made an after-the-fact application requesting that the site
improvements be approved as built. The Planning Commission had reviewed the request at
its March 13, 1991 meeting, and tabled the application with a request that McCloud submit a
•
revised plan.
Page 1
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2547, Kimberli and William Abbott, Continued)
Weinberger stated the current application by the Abbotts is simply a request for retention of
the walls and stairway. Their request does not clearly specify whether they will accept removal
of most of the decking. The current application also does not provide the plans that were
required per the 1992 Planning Commission direction.
City Staff reviewed this application as if the construction has not occurred. Staff is recommending
the following:
1. Approval of land alteration conditional use permit and variance for retaining walls and stairway
to remain, subject to:
a) Removal of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stairways. Also,
removal of any retaining walls serving merely to support the deck.
b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4 feet high, and to
result in terrace widths not exceeding 3 feet. The intent is to create terraces that can be
suitably planted to screen the wall system. Applicant to submit revised plans for City
Engineer and Planning Commission to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning
Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls.
Applicant to provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls.
c) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4 feet.
d) Applicant is to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the
remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and
size of plantings. Planting schedule shall be adhered to with completion of plantings
• within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications.
2. Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and four foot walkway/stairway
system.
3. Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the
retaining walls and stairway system.
4. Deck near the cabin shall be modified to eliminate encroachment into the 0-75 foot setback
zone.
5. Applicant to obtain after-the-fact permit for cabin additions constructed without permit.
6. Recommend Council adoption of"automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with
resolution of after-the-fact variance/CUP/building permit application.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may elect to recommend approval of this application
subject to staff receipt and approval of design plans as specified in Item 1 prior to scheduling this
for Council action; or the Planning Commission may table this item pending receipt of plans for
Planning Commission. Weinberger noted if this application is tabled, an extension of the
60 day review period will be necessary since there was no December Planning Commission
meeting. This application did appear on the November Planning Commission agenda, but due
to the applicants not being able to be present at that meeting, the application was extended
until February 20. Weinberger stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for
February 23.
• Abbott stated he is not in total agreement with all the conditions stated tonight and would be
willing to work with Staff to arrive at some kind of compromise. Abbott stated he is fine with
Page 2
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2547 Kimberli and William Abbott, Continued)
removal of the decks, but noted that a three foot terrace width would not be possible.
Hawn inquired what the present height of the retaining walls is.
Abbott stated the majority of the retaining walls are under four feet, with one area being
approximately five feet in height. Abbott indicated he does not have a problem complying with
the four foot height regulation. Abbott requested he be allowed to retain the present terrace
width, noting if he is forced to comply with the three foot width, the entire structure would need
to be removed and he would not then be willing to purchase the property.
Kluth inquired why City Staff is requesting the three foot width.
Weinberger remarked the three foot standard is stated in the State Building Code. Weinberger
stated currently the width is approximately four to five feet wide.
Abbott stated since the wall has existed since approximately 1987, the engineering of the
structure has proven itself and should not wash out.
Kluth commented the four foot height standard to his understanding is called for to prevent injuries
should a child fall off the wall.
Abbott stated a railing does currently exist on top of the retaining wall.
• Smith inquired whether the retaining wall will need to be calculated into the height of the retaining wall.
Weinberger stated the structure is measured to the top of the railing.
Hawn inquired what the height of the railing is.
Abbott stated the railing is the standard 36 inches. Abbott stated the railing could be relocated
further back from the retaining wall. Abbott commented currently the landscaping conceals the
railing.
Hawn stated the railing will still need to be included in the calculations.
Abbott stated if that was the case, the retaining wall could only be one foot high, which would
not be feasible.
Hawn stated so far she has not heard anything that would substantiate the need for this
retaining wall structure to be constructed back in 1987.
Abbott commented it was his understanding some pictures exist in the City's file which show
the condition of the shoreline.
Weinberger stated he has not seen any pictures in the file of the retaining wall but that some
may exist of the decking. Weinberger stated he could review the file to see if any photographs
exist of the retaining wall and/or shoreline.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant or City Staff has a statement from the certified engineer
• which would indicate that this retaining wall is necessary to help prevent the shoreline from
eroding. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a showing of need by the
Page 3
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2547 Kimberli and William Abbott, Continued)
Applicant.
Weinberger stated City Staff is not in possession of a statement by a certified engineer.
Abbott commented the storm experienced in this area back in 1987, necessitated the need for
the retaining wall.
Hawn commented that this property has been discussed for a number of years, with the present
owner failing to bring this property into compliance or providing any evidence which would
demonstrate a need for this retaining wall structure. Hawn stated the present property owner
was told exactly what he needed to do to bring this property into compliance, which he has failed
to do, and the same type of showing needs to be demonstrated with this application.
Abbott stated the recommendations by City Staff appear to be the same as in the previous
application.
Hawn inquired whether there has ever been a finding that this retaining wall structure is
necessary to prevent further erosion along the shoreline.
Abbott commented he is attempting to resolve this issue. Abbott indicated if some type of
agreement is not reached, he will not be purchasing the property.
Hawn stated the cooperation of McCloud is needed to help resolve this issue. Hawn stated the
• Planning Commission must act within City Code as well as existing law and precedent.
Abbott stated he is in agreement that cooperation on McCloud's part is needed as well.
Stoddard stated the City of Orono does not allow structures to exist within the 0-75' lakeshore
setback. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission needs to have an opinion from an expert
on the need for the retaining wall.
Abbott stated he is willing to remove all decking within the 0-75'setback and is only asking for
some leeway on the width of the terrace. Abbott stated in his view the railing should not be
included in the calculation for the height of the retaining wall and some type of agreement will
need to be reached on that issue as well.
Hawn commented a one foot retaining wall will probably not be very effective, but that the
Applicant will first need to provide some evidence that a retaining wall is necessary in this area
before the design of the structure can be discussed.
Abbott inquired if he produced pictures showing the erosion along the shoreline, whether that
would be sufficient to demonstate the need for the structure.
Hawn stated pictures and/or a statement by an engineer would help to demonstrate a need for
retaining walls in this area.
Weinberger stated had the property owner requested the proper permits prior to any construction
being done on the property, City Staff would have requested evidence showing the condition of
the property as well as a statement by an engineer to help demonstrate the need for the retaining
• wall. Weinberger indicated that information would then have been reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and Staff would have made a determination whether erosion along the shoreline was
Page 4
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2547 Kimberli and William Abbott, Continued)
in fact occurring. Weinberger stated he has not seen any photographs illustrating the condition
of the shoreline prior to construction of the retaining walls.
Hawn commented there appears to be a reference to the fact that the City Engineer did review this
situation in 1991.
Kluth stated he would be willing to accept a statement by an engineer or landscape architect.
Kluth stated Gaffron's March 12, 1991 memorandum states, "The City Engineer has examined the
structure in terms of the necessity of the retaining walls. He determined that the width of the
bank does need some kind of a supporting system. He is suggesting that the walls with a
height exceeding three to four feet be lowered, and that some interior walls be added. The City
Engineer has indicated that the stability of existing walls is questionable. He also stated that the
lower walls would be easier to screen from the lake." Kluth stated apparently the findings of the
previous Planning Commissions have taken the recommendations of the City Engineer into
consideration. Kluth stated this Planning Commission could either adopt the findings and
recommendations of the City Engineer made in 1991 or they could elect to have the site
re-inspected by another engineer.
Stoddard indicated the Planning Commission is attempting to work with the Applicant on this
issue, but noted that City Staff is unable to visit the site at this time of the year.
• Hawn commented she is unsure whether photographs of the area would be sufficient to demonstrate
the need for retaining walls. Hawn stated she would like to make a record demonstrating the
need for the retaining walls.
Abbott stated it is his understanding he needs to address whether the current retaining wall
system is adequate as well as determine whether erosion has occurred to this area. Abbott
inquired whether there were any other issues that need to be addressed.
Hawn commented there probably are other issues that will need to be discussed, but inquired
whether the Applicant would be willing to obtain a statement by an engineer demonstrating the
need for the structure prior to those issues being discussed. Hawn stated it may not be
possible to obtain that statement until the springtime, and inquired whether the Applicant would
be willing to wait.
Abbott stated he would be agreeable to obtain an opinion by an engineer. Abbott inquired whether
some agreement could be reached on the width of the stairway. Abbott indicated the structure was
constructed out of railroad ties and could possibly be reduced somewhat.
Stoddard stated in his view the width of the stairway is a small item compared to the overall
structure. Stoddard stated he would be agreeable to leaving the width of the stairway as is if
a benefit could be demonstrated.
Abbott indicated he will probably be able to comply with the other conditions recommended by
City Staff.
Stoddard stated the Applicant will need to address whether retaining walls are needed in this
area and also to look at whether the overall structure can be reduced and made to blend in more
• with the area.
Page 5
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2547 Kimberli and William Abbott, Continued)
Abbott stated he is willing to submit additional information on this application.
Kluth stated he would like to see the Applicant obtain an opinion by an engineer on the necessity
of retaining walls and how much of the structure is actually needed.
Hawn stated it would be helpful if the Applicant submitted revised plans showing how he
intends to have the structure constructed. Hawn stated there probably will not be any variances
allowed on the cabin.
Abbott stated an after-the-fact variance is needed.
Weinberger stated after-the-fact building permits are needed on the cabin.
Abbott indicated he is willing to update the septic system located on the property. Abbott
stated he is willing to waive the 60 day review period on this application.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is required to have one conforming septic site. Weinberger
requested the Applicant be required to submit a letter requesting the extension of the 60 day
review period.
Stoddard moved, Smith seconded,to table Application #2547, 470 Big island, to allow
the Applicant time to comply with the conditions and recommendations outlined in the
January 12, 2000 Planner's Report, and subject to submission of a letter agreeing to
• waive the 60 day review period.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#2) #2400 MARK AND ARLETTE PLOEN, 4345/4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CLASS I
SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 7:17 p.m. -7:31 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Mark and Arlette Ploen, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement between
the lots that results in two lots that will be greater than the one acre minimum lot size for the
zoning district. This property is located within the LR-1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential
District. Weinberger stated currently the lots consist of 1.7 acres and the other .25 acres in
size.
Weinberger stated one issue for the Planning Commission to consider with this application is
the fact that this proposal would create two lots that will not meet the 140 feet required lot
width at the lakeshore and structure setback. Variances would be required to be approved to
permit the lot line rearrangement. Lot A would have a lot width of 114 feet and Lot B is
proposed to have a lot width of 113 feet, where lots in this zoning district are required to have
• 140 feet lot width.
Page 6
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued)
City Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements along new property lines and vacate
any drainage and utility easements along the old property line.
2. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both
properties.
3. Prior to City Council review three original surveys of the survey completed by a licensed
surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted,with signature blocks.
4. Variances be granted for lot width on both Lots A and B and both shall be considered
Record Lots.
5. Applicant shall dedicate or quit claim right-of-way to Hennepin County.
Weinberger stated the property currently is platted within a Hennepin County easement, with
Hennepin County requesting that the easement be deeded over to the County, with Hennepin
County then having full ownership of that portion of the property.
Smith inquired whether the intent of the Applicants was to build on both lots or to sell one of the
. lots.
Mrs. Ploen indicated they intend to sell Lot B and leave Lot A as is.
Hawn commented that Lot A will end up with two garages located on the property. Hawn inquired
whether those garages will remain.
Mrs. Ploen stated the garage located closest to Lot B will be removed.
Kluth inquired whether a portion of the existing house is located within the Hennepin County
easement.
Weinberger stated this is a standard request by Hennepin County in subdivisions. Weinberger
stated at the time the deeds to the properties are created for the two new lots, that a quit claim
deeded be created dedicating this portion of the property to Hennepin County. Weinberger
stated the property would actually be deeded over to Hennepin County.
Kluth inquired whether that portion of the house would then be deeded over to the County.
Weinberger stated this is a standard request by Hennepin County. Weinberger stated City Staff
would be willing to work with Hennepin County on this issue. Weinberger stated an additional
permit may be needed to retain the deck.
Hawn inquired where the Applicant stood on deeding a portion of their property to Hennepin
County.
Mr. Ploen stated in his opinion the road needs to be widened in that area, and if the County
• owns a portion of his residence, he would not be able to contest the widening of the road.
Page 7
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued)
Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the
County could elect to condemn the property.
Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot
width front yard setback.
Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation.
Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area,
but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement.
Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units.
Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this
application.
Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by
City Staff.
Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2400,
•
4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject
to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further
subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed.
Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine.
(#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m.
Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks &Associates.
Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting,
where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns
regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected
waterway.
The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south
of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns
regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested
the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to
help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail.
• As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have
Page 8
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line
Trail with the sewer line.
Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road,
ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has
recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and
not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum
50 foot width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest
proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the
cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots.
Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G,
which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a
joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and
Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width
to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of
the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger
indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence.
Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to
utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance
Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots.
• Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is
owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes
with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue
becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to
construct a roadway to serve his development.
Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the
subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some
concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will
not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested
information for review and approval by City Staff.
Weinberger stated this proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with
the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line.
The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to
a final plat application.
1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as
requested by the City Engineer.
2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles,
shall be approved by Staff prior to review.
3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site.
• 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review
and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the
Page 9
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires.
5. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration
and wetland mitigation.
6. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by
the City Attorney.
7. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review.
8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage)
predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a
seven lot subdivision.
City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a
number of complex issues, which includes the following:
A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be
replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval.
B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway
access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10 percent slope.
• C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all
runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to
Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka.
D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted
for additional review.
Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRD.
Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to
work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his
title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision
via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago.
Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations
of the Planning Commission and City Staff.
Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two
north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees.
Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland.
Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding
pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major
issue to resolve.
• Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of
lots from four to three.
Page 10
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor.
Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable.
Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRD must meet all the minimum
lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots
in this subdivision.
Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg
pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg
stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which
may not become flooded.
Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland.
Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and
would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not
have needed to be included in the wetland calculations.
Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the
information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting
the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer
look at increasing the lot size as much as possible.
• Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner.
Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission
act on his application.
Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access.
Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout
stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company,
who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to
serve his subdivision.
Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this
item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the
property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the
document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues,
such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences.
Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of
this issue.
Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private
road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would
allow the developer to build a public road.
• David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented.
Page 11
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed
within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger
stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The
additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the
City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's
property.
Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed.
Weinberger stated they could.
Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved.
Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would
run across the northern portion of his property.
Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision
would not be approved.
Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City
Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being
necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of
a 28 foot roadway.
• Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible,
noting there will be no parking on the roadway.
Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for
emergerncy vehicles.
Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway.
Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve
in terms of density.
Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size
of the lots, and the size of the roadway.
Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself
would be serving seven lots.
Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision.
Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development.
Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created.
Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating
• resolution of the access issue.
Page 12
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved.
Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application
tonight.
Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue.
Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue.
Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a
24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway.
Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots.
Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce
the number of lots.
Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated
City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some
direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with.
Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the
number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to
leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny
• this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur
on this application.
Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, 120 Brown
Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong
recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this
subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000
Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. -9:20 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County.
Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct
a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline
Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for
commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus
making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an
application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county
maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1 C district
permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district.
• Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter
Page 13
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2555 Hennepin County, Continued)
months as well as storage by the LMCD of their milfoil harvesters. The facility is used
primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15
between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. In addition, the
DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning boats, trailers and other watercraft on this property.
Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will
be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest corner of the
property. Currently the LMCD stores four milfoil harvesters at this site.
Weinberger stated Hennepin County is proposing to construct a building consisting of
7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons, which amounts to approximately
one-third of the annual mixed salt/sand usage during the winter months. The building would
provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. Currently that operation is conducted
outdoors. The proposed building is 70 feet by 112 feet in size, with the height of the building
being 42 feet in height. A height variance would be needed since the proposed building exceeds
the height of the principal building. Weinberger noted the height of the principal building is
approximately 18 to 20 feet in height.
County Staff has indicated the operations would reduce the noise to the surrounding
neighborhoods and would also eliminate the salt and sand runoff into the adjacent wetlands
during storms. Hennepin County is estimating the number of round trip truck runs would be
reduced to 60 based on the size of the proposed building.
Weinberger stated the Burlington Northern Railroad exists to the north of this site, with the
•
property to the southwest being zoned LR-1C-1, and the southeast being zoned B-5, Commercial.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono has recently purchased the land immediately adjacent to
this site, which is zoned LR-1 C-1. The property to the west of this site is zoned residential.
Weinberger stated the proposed stormwater management plan includes construction of a
stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and
for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. Weinberger recommended approval of this
application be conditioned upon review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the
City Engineer.
Weinberger stated in order for a zoning code amendment to be approved, the Planning
Commission should consider the following:
A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1A" District except that Planned Residential
Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only.
B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions:
a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres.
b. Property shall have direct access to a County road.
c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennpin County facilities.
d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional
use permit, to be determined by the City Council.
e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code.
Weinberger stated a variance to permit hardcover alteration is needed as well as a variance
• to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure
and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property. A variance is also
Page 14
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued)
required to permit the storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized
accessory structure on this lot. A conditional use permit is required for the grading on the
property and construction of the stormwater management pond.
City Staff is recommending approval of Alternative A to amend the code and approve variances
for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance
Facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Staff is recommending approval
based on the following conditions:
1. A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by
the City Engineer.
2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased.
3. Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the
City Engineer.
4. Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site.
5. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot.
6. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment.
7. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title to the property alerting property
• owners of WCA protected wetlands.
8. A conservation and flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond.
9. The county facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance.
10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate
view to residential properties.
11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final
lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval.
12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized
accessory structure.
13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional
use permit are satisfied.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may chose to approve the application as presented
by Hennepin County, approve the variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a
conditional use permit to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site,
or to recommend denial of the application, which will mean the site will continue to exist as a
legal non-conforming use.
Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock had no comment.
• Mike O'Connor inquired whether the height of the proposed building would block the neighbors'
view of the lake.
Page 15
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2555 Hennepin County, Continued)
Weinberger stated the adjacent land is owned by the City of Orono, which might possibly become
park land in the future. Weinberger stated there may be one or two residents to the west that
may experience a slight impact on their view of the lake.
Hawn inquired whether there were any other comments from the public.
There were no further public comments regarding this application.
Smith inquired whether the City had received any phone calls regarding this application.
Weinberger stated the City did receive a couple of phone calls. The residents were informed that
the deliveries would be lessened with the new facility and hopefully would occur more during the
daytime hours.
Stoddard commented some consideration should be given to the fact that this facility serves
the needs of the community rather than an individual business or resident. Stoddard stated he
has a concern with the proposed height of the building as well as the hardcover due to the
closeness to Lake Minnetonka. Stoddard indicated he would not approve a variance to height
or hardcover based on the current zoning of the property and the City's comprehensive plan.
Hawn stated she has a number of concerns regarding this application as well, noting that a
number of variances are being requested. Hawn questioned whether this site lends itself well
to this purpose, noting that the proposed use will not enhance the area. Hawn commented
• this is an opportunity for the City and Hennepin County to review this property and its use.
Hawn stated she would like more reassurance from the County that Lake Minnetonka will be
protected from sand and salt runoff from this site. Hawn commented in her view the proposed
use is also much more intense than what the property is currently being used for.
Kluth inquired why the height at the peak of the building needs to be at 42 feet.
Chock stated the building needs to accommodate dump trucks, which necessitates the need
for additional headroom and trusses.
Kluth inquired whether the service area will be expanded with the new facility.
Chock stated the service area will remain the same. Chock noted the facility will have the
capacity to store one-third of the amount of sand and salt used over the winter months. Chock
stated the present outdoor storage will be eliminated and will be converted into grassy areas.
Kluth inquired what hours of operation the County is anticipating for this building.
Chock stated the facility will need to operate at all hours depending on when it snows.
Nygard pointed out the proposed use is basically opposite of what the City's Comprehensive
Plan calls for in this area, which should be addressed.
Stoddard inquired whether any underground storage tanks exist on this site.
• Chock stated the County does have some underground storage tanks located on the site, which
are hooked up to electronic monitoring devices.
Page 16
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2555 Hennepin County, Continued)
Smith expressed a concern with the size of the proposed facility as well as the need for a
zoning amendment.
Hawn inquired whether the County has pursued other sites for this facility.
Nowlan stated to his knowledge other sites have not been looked at, noting this is the only
parcel in the City which is owned by the County.
Hawn indicated she would like to see this application tabled to allow Hennepin County some
additional time to explore other possible sites for this storage facility.
Nowlan stated the advantages to this building include indoor storage of the salt and sand, which
would eliminate the runoff into Lake Minnetonka, increased life to the salt and sand by being
stored indoors, lower noise level, and fewer deliveries to this site.
Stoddard commented he would like to see the height of the building kept at 20 feet, noting he
would not be in favor of a height variance for anything over 20 feet. Stoddard noted he is an
agreement that this is not the ideal location for this facility.
Kluth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin
County.
Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt being
• stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor into why steel was not chosen.
Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other sites for the
facility. Smith stated she also has concerns regarding the size of the building as well as the
need for a zoning code amendment.
Chock remarked it would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet the needs of this area with a
smaller sized building.
Nowlan stated the County would like to have this building constructed in time for next year's
winter season. Nowlan stated if the application is tabled, completion of the building by that
time would be questionable.
Hawn stated the Applicants can either have the Planning Commission vote on this application
as it has been presented tonight or to table the application to allow the County additional time
to review other sites. Hawn commented in her view it appears the application will be denied.
Nowlan requested the Planning Commission act on this application.
The Planning Commission noted the use of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the City.
Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2555,
Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive,Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit and Variances based upon issues dealing with the City's Comprehensive Code
and Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
•
Page 17
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
(Recess taken from 9:20 p.m. -9:28 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED
(#1) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE,AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITNARIANCE, 9:28 p.m. -9:31 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The Applicant was not present.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant had submitted any additional information on this
application.
Weinberger stated he has had very little contact with the Applicant, with no additional information
having been submitted.
Hawn noted this application has been called on two separate occasions, with no appearance
by the Applicant or a representative on his behalf. Hawn stated this application cannot be
approved without the additional information being submitted.
Hawn inquired whether the 60 day review period needs to be extended.
• Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated the City does have the right to extend the 60 day review
period under State Statutes without the Applicant's consent.
Hawn suggested this application be extended to allow the Applicant time to submit the
additional information.
Hawn moved, Kluth seconded,to continue the denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt,
2523 Kelly Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use PermitNariance, and to return this
matter back to the City Council for their review.
Barrett noted the Applicant has received two letters from the City outlining the requirements
of the City relating to the variances. Barrett stated without the additional information being
submitted by the Applicant, a hardship has not been demonstrated and the application can be
denied.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#5)#2543 TED AND JUDITH EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD -VARIANCES, 9:32 p.m. -
10:06 p.m.
Ted Edin, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the November Planning Commission meeting
• to allow the Applicant time to revise his plan in an effort to reduce hardcover.
Page 18
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• (#2543 Ted and Judith Edin, Continued)
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to replace an existing deck and adding a
small bump-out section, 8 feet by 12 feet, to serve as a sitting area, and remove 829 square feet of
hardcover in the 75-250'setback area. The Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story
deck on the lakeside of the house due to its deteriorating condition.
Weinberger stated the hardcover in the 0-75' setback will remain at 9.9 percent, with the
hardcover in the 75-250'setback being reduced from 77.11 percent to 68.9 percent. The
Applicant had indicated he would be agreeable to removing some of the existing rock and plastic
underlayment located on the property. Weinberger noted the overall structure coverage will
increase from 23.3 percent to 23.9 percent with the added bump-out section.
Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted a letter addressing hardship.
City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to rebuild the deck to the same
dimensions as what currently exists. City Staff is not recommending approval of the bump-out
section to the deck due to the increase in the amount of structural coverage on the property.
Edin stated due to a shared driveway, his property has higher than normal hardcover. Edin
noted at the last Planning Commission meeting he was told to reduce the hardcover, which
he has done in the 75-250' setback.
Weinberger remarked that this is the same basic proposal that was presented to the Planning
Commission at its November meeting. Weinberger stated the application was tabled to give
• the Applicant time to review his application and to make the necessary changes.
Nygard noted the minutes from the November meeting reflect that the Applicant was asked to
reduce hardcover.
Edin indicated he is unable to reduce hardcover any further.
Hawn stated she has concerns regarding the amount of hardcover and structural coverage on
the property. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission tends to adhere to the 15 percent
structural coverage requirement. The Applicant was advised that he would probably be allowed
to replace the existing deck due to its poor condition but would probably not be allowed to
add to the size of the deck due to the increase in structural coverage on the property, which
presently exceeds the amount allowed on the property. Hawn stated the Applicant will need
to reduce the size of the deck in order to reduce the amount of structural coverage.
Edin stated the amount of structural coverage on the property was not discussed at the last
meeting.
Smith stated the Planning Commission will allow the Applicant to replace the existing deck
to the same dimensions.
Weinberger pointed out the Planner's Report, which was provided to the Applicant, does refer to a
variance for structural coverage. Weinberger stated Staffs recommendations remain the same.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth inquired whether the structural coverage could be reduced on this property.
• Edin reiterated he was not aware the structural coverage needed to be reduced.
Page 19
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2543 Ted and Judith Edin, Continued)
Stoddard commented he would like City Staff to take the time to discuss this application with
the Applicant, especially regarding the issues relating to hardcover and structural coverage.
Kluth commented the minutes reflect the Applicant was requested to reduce hardcover on the
property. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant intends to change the lower deck at all.
Edin stated the lower deck will remain the same. Edin inquired what constitutes structural
coverage versus hardcover.
Hawn stated the building or residence is considered structural coverage.
Edin requested he be allowed to build the deck as proposed since structural coverage was not
discussed at the previous meeting.
Kluth stated the minutes reflect that rock and plastic are not considered hardcover. Kluth
indicated the reason for requesting hardcover be reduced is to reduce water runoff into
Lake Minnetonka. Kluth commented the Planning Commission does encourage residents to
replace old, deteriorating decks, but that they need to comply with structural coverage and
hardcover limits as much as possible.
Edin reiterated structural coverage was not discussed at the November meeting.
Hawn stated apparently there has been a failure in communication, but that the Planning
• Commission does require Applicants to adhere to structural coverage and hardcover limits as
much as possible. Hawn stated the Applicant will probably be allowed to replace the existing
deck but would not be allowed to increase the size of the deck.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to work with City Staff to resolve this
issue.
Smith stated the Applicant will need to stay within the existing dimensions of the deck, with
no increase in structural coverage and/or hardcover being allowed.
Edin indicated he will not be in town for next month's meeting. Edin inquired whether he is
required to do anything further with hardcover.
Kluth stated City Staff and the Planning Commission is recommending that the existing deck
may be replaced, with the structural coverage limit remaining the same.
Nygard indicated rock and plastic are considered hardcover.
Weinberger inquired whether he would like this to be scheduled for the February 23 Planning
Commission meeting.
Edin requested the matter be scheduled for March.
Stoddard suggested this application be tabled tonight to allow the Applicant time to discuss
hardcover and structural coverage with City Staff.
Hawn indicated removal of rock and plastic underlayment will not be counted towards any
• reduction in structural coverage.
Page 20
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2543 Ted and Judith Edin, Continued)
Mayor Jabbour commented the Applicant will not be allowed to increase hardcover in the
0-75' setback.
Hawn stated the Applicant will also need to stay out of the average lakeshore setback as well.
Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded,to table Application #2543, Ted and Judith Edin,
3025 Casco Point Road, Variances,to allow the Applicant time to submit revised
plans reflecting a reduced structural coverage limit. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#7) #2551 THOMAS MICHAEL RANDGAARD, 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:07 p.m. -10:30 p.m.
Thomas Randgaard, Applicant, was not present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a 14 foot
extension to an existing dock. The dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and is under the
jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The LMCD approved the Applicant's
permit in June, 1999. The LMCD permit indicates there is 120 feet between the permanent
dock and the opposite shore.
Weinberger indicated the permit for a permanent dock was issued in 1993.
• City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock
extension of 14 feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant maintains an active license with the LMCD.
2. The dock does not cause navigational problems or obstruct access within the channel.
3. Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from
the City of Orono.
Weinberger stated there is nothing within the City's Code which prohibits docks from being
located on a resident's property.
Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shadywood Road, stated he has sent a letter, along with Nick Ogle,
to the City outlining their concerns regarding this application. Zimmerman expressed concerns
regarding this dock application due to the use of this property as a party house and not a
live-in residence. Zimmerman stated an extension to the dock will allow for increased boat
traffic in the area, as well as the size of the boats being currently docked at this residence.
Zimmerman stated in his view there does not exist 120 feet between the permanent dock and
the opposite shore, and an extension to the dock would cause the channel to be narrowed
even further, which causes concerns as it relates to the safe passage of boats through the
channel.
Zimmerman indicated this property currently has two docks located on the property, which is
in violation of City Code.
• If this application is to be approved, Zimmerman requested the following conditions be added.
Page 21
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, Continued)
One, boats tied on the dock extension or permanent dock not be allowed to be used for parties
or other entertainment; two, boats larger than 26 feet long and 10 feet wide not be allowed to be
tied on the channel side of the permanent dock; and three, the second portable dock be removed as
long as the permanent dock exists. Zimmerman indicated these conditions are reasonable
and should be imposed should this application be approved.
Zimmerman noted this residence has been cited on a couple of occasions for disorderly conduct,
with the parties lasting two to three days.
Hawn inquired how long these parties have been going on.
Zimmerman stated the Applicant moved into the resident May 1st, with the first party being
held May 2nd. Zimmerman stated a navigational problem does exist in that the channel is very
shallow and narrow. Zimmerman stated the typical boats that are tied on this dock are large
in size and are left tied up for the entire weekend.
Mayor Jabbour indicated the City of Orono has worked hard to ensure that all the property
owners along Lake Minnetonka are guaranteed one dock, with the property owner being allowed
up to four boats.
Weinberger stated the LMCD does allow up to four boats per property with the exception of
special permits. Weinberger stated they have not been able to find anything in the code which
• limits the number of docks allowed per property. The City of Orono has encouraged the
residents to maintain only one dock in the past. Weinberger noted the docks must comply
with the setback requirements.
Richard Gay, 2735 Shadywood Road, presented pictures to the Planning Commission showing
the dock and channel. Gay inquired how the 120 measurement was arrived at.
Weinberger stated the LMCD measures from the end of the dock to the opposite shore.
Gay stated in his opinion the distance is closer to 70 feet. Gay stated due to the trees and
shallowness of the channel, it is very difficult to navigate through this area, particularly if large
boats are being docked in the area. Gay noted the Applicant owns a very large boat.
Gay indicated he was informed by City Staff a couple of years ago that a property is allowed
only one dock. Gay stated he would like to see only one dock per residential property as
well as the noise ordinance being complied with.
Hawn noted the LMCD permit lists the distance as being 120 feet.
Nygard stated he paced the area and arrived at roughly 75 feet.
Gay stated he has measured the area and arrived at 70 feet.
Don Miegel, 683 Sullivan Drive, expressed safety concerns with approval of the dock extension
given the shallowness and narrowness of the channel.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission cannot hear this application without the Applicant
• being present, but thanked the members of the audience for expressing their thoughts regarding
this application. Hawn indicated City Staff will notify the affected property owners of the next
Page 22 .
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, Continued)
hearing date. Hawn stated the minutes will reflect the comments of the neighbors, which will
be taken into account when voting on this application.
Zimmerman stated if this application is approved, he would like the City to take some steps to
restrict the second dock on this property.
Stoddard requested City Staff review the City's Codes and to check with the LMCD regarding
the number of docks permitted on a property.
Hawn indicated she would like the distance from the dock to the opposite shore re-measured.
Smith stated there are some safety concerns which should be addressed as well. Smith noted
the October letter from the LMCD does suggest some safety concerns.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to table Application #2551, Thomas Michael Randgaard,
2765 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit due to the absence of the Applicant.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#8) #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE -VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -
10:37 p.m.
• Steven Sigel, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to convert part of an existing deck on the
second level and third level on the lakeside of their residence into a three season porch and a
master bedroom addition. The proposed area is approximately 180 square feet on each level,
for a total of 360 square feet. Structural coverage will not increase. The amount of hardcover
in the 75-250' setback will also remain the same.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback.
The proposed addition will encroach 78 feet into the average lakeshore setback.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants received approval in 1997, to increase hardcover in the
75-250' setback area to 30.08 percent when they constructed a new garage.
Sigel indicated they would like to enclose the upper deck and convert it into a three season
porch. Sigel stated a large number of trees exist in the area, which will shield this addition
from the adjoining neighbors.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith commented she would like to see hardcover reduced somewhat in the 75-250' setback.
Smith noted the structural coverage is under the allowable 15 percent. Smith indicated she
does not have a problem granting a variance to the average lakeshore setback since the house
currently exists in the setback.
Hawn stated it was her recollection at the 1997 hearing, there was discussion regarding the
possibility of reducing the stairway in an effort to reduce hardcover.
• Sigel indicated they did consider reducing the stairway down to the lake. Sigel stated there
Page 23
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2552 Steven and Sheila Sigel, Continued)
is a significant number of steps down to the lake, with the variance indicating that if the steps
are to be replaced, they could replace it with a four foot concrete walkway. Sigel stated the
decks are included in the current hardcover numbers.
Hawn indicated she would not be opposed to a variance to the average lakeshore setback.
Kluth noted the structural coverage, hardcover numbers, and encroachment into the average
lakeshore setback do not change with this proposal.
Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2552,
Steven and Sheila Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, granting of a variance to average lakeshore
setback to permit the conversion of a three season porch and construction of a master
bedroom addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#9) #2553 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE -
VARIANCES, 10:38 p.m. - 10:52 p.m.
Mike Connor appeared on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to
construct and replace an existing, deteriorating sign on the property. The existing sign was
• constructed in 1956. The proposed sign is four feet by ten feet per side. The proposed sign
is smaller than the existing sign, but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square
feet per side. Bottenberg stated the sign will be illuminated and will be located in the same
location as the existing sign. The sign will be situated on a metal base approximately one foot
in height and will be at least five feet from the property line. The sign is intended to advertise
the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use approved by the Orono City Council in the mid 1950s.
Connor stated the new sign will be situated on a platform approximately two feet lower than
the existing sign. Connor stated they are intending to try a Bright Light and a Cool light to see
which produces the softest light. The current sign is illuminated by two floodlights. The size
of the new sign will be 40 square feet, with the existing sign 48 square feet.
Hawn inquired what hardship exists for the variance. Hawn pointed out hardships typically
are imposed by the property.
Connor stated a larger sign is needed for visibility off of County Road 15. Connor stated a
number of trees and overgrown brush exist in the area, which causes the area to be dark.
Connor stated the sign needs to be located further back from the road due to a ditch in the
area.
Stoddard inquired whether the sign is equivalent to other church signs in the area.
Weinberger stated this sign was looked at in comparison to other church signs in the area.
Weinberger stated there also exists a utility easement in this area as well as a ditch, which
necessitates the sign be located further back from the road. Weinberger stated the sign
identifies the use of the property.
•
Page 24
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2553 Good Shepherd, Continued)
Kluth noted Staff has recommended approval of this application.
Smith suggested the Applicant try the soft light first.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2553,
Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, granting of a variance for
signage square footage to allow a 40 square foot sign based upon the hardship
demonstrated,with the understanding soft lights will be used to illuminate the sign,
and if the lighting proves to be too bright,this issue will be reviewed and approved
by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstention 1; Kluth Abstained.
Kluth indicated he abstained due to a lack of information regarding this application.
Hawn inquired whether a variance was granted to the Calvary Church.
Bottenberg indicated a variance was granted to the Calvary Church approximately five years ago.
(#10) #2554 ANN AND GIL ANDERSON, 845 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, VARIANCES,
10:53 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.
Ann and Gil Anderson, Applicants, were present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom
addition to their residence. The addition will be constructed onto the side of their residence,
which is currently located 36.5 feet from the front property line. The septic site is located
59 feet to the south of the residence. Structural coverage is not an issue in this application.
The Applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback variance.
Hawn inquired where the addition was going, noting she is confused by the survey.
Mrs. Anderson indicated the addition will be constructed on the south side of the residence,
just opposite of the driveway.
Weinberger indicated the survey was completed by a certified surveyor, but due to the size
of the scale, it is sometimes necessary to break the survey lines. The Applicants are
proposing to add a master bedroom addition to the side of the residence. Weinberger stated
the addition should not adversely affect the adjoining neighbors.
Smith inquired whether there are any other issues regarding this application.
Weinberger stated the only issue is a variance to the front yard setback.
Smith noted the Planning Commission has looked favorably in the past on other similar
applications.
• There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 25
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2554 Ann and Gil Anderson, Continued)
Hawn moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2554,
Ann and Gil Anderson, 845 Willow Drive South, granting of a front yard setback
variance to permit the construction of an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom to their
residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#11) #2556 BARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER, 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES, 11:00 p.m. -11:49 p.m.
Barbara and Collins Cavender, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to remove an existing residence from a
property located at 1405 Rest Point Road and combine the lot with a vacant lot located at
1395 Rest Point Road. Combined the two lots are 13,238 square feet, or .30 acre, with
the lots being located in the LR-1B District, which has a minimum of one acre zoning. The
Applicants have requested various variances to permit construction of a single family home
on the property.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit a structure within 75'
of the lakeshore. The Applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 30'from the
lakeshore where 75' is required. Variances to hardcover are also required in the 0-75'
setback and the 75-250'setback. The proposed residence also encroaches 13.63 feet into
• the front street setback. The Applicants are also requesting a variance to structural
coverage.
Weinberger noted the Applicants have been working with City Staff in an attempt to arrive
at the best building pad for the proposed residence. Weinberger stated in order for the
Applicants to comply with as many of the City requirements as possible, the proposed
residence is situated in the best building site available for this lot. Weinberger stated the
house will need to be raised one foot in order to be above the high water level. Most of the
lot exists within 75' of Lake Minnetonka, so it should be assumed with development of this
lot that some structure and hardcover will be located within 75' of the lakeshore.
The Applicants are requesting a variance to the amount of structural coverage normally
allowed so they may include the aount of existing structural coverage on the developed lot
located at 1405 Rest Point Road and 15 percent of the undeveloped lot at 1395 Rest Point
Road. The total structural coverage results in 17.4 percent, which is slightly above the
15 percent limit.
Weinberger stated the property contains a lift station owned by the City of Orono. The
property owners are being credited for 41 square feet of hardcover. Weinberger noted no
utility easement has been granted for the lift station installed on the property. Weinberger
indicated the City would like to work with the property owners to obtain a utility easement.
Weinberger indicated the previous owner of this vacant parcel had requested variances to
permit new construction which included a number of variances. That application was
reviewed in January, 1998, with the Planning Commission recommending denial based on the
size of the lot and lack of a sewer stub. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the
Applicant and was not reviewed by the City Council.
•
Page 26
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued)
City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot area to create a buildable lot.
Staff has concerns regarding the amount of total structural coverage on the property as the
City of Orono has been consistent in requiring lots not to exceed 15 percent coverage. The
total proposed coverage by the Applicant is 17.4 percent. The Applicant's rational for the
coverage to exceed the Code requirement is replacement of existing coverage on the developed
lot and 15 percent of the vacant lot. Weinberger stated if the application is approved, a condition
of approval would be to have the lots combined into one tax parcel prior to recording the
variance on the chain of title.
Mr. Cavender indicated they are attempting to construct a new house on the combined
lots which will fit in with the neighborhood and add value to the neighborhood. Cavender
noted the new residence will be located out of the right-of-way for Rest Point Road.
Cavender stated the hardship they are experiencing with this property is the small lot size,
which is limiting the number of options available for placement and size of the structure.
Cavender stated the setback from the lake is consistent with the other structures located in
this area.
Hawn commented the size of the lot really is not considered a hardship.
Kluth stated the Applicants are close to the 15 percent structural coverage standard, and
inquired whether the house could be downsized somewhat to meet the City's limit.
• Mrs. Cavender stated they have been working with their architect in an attempt to downsize
the house.
Bob Boyer, Building Contractor, stated an additional hardship for the Planning Commission to
consider is the fact that the original structures in this area were built as cabins and not as
year-round residences. Due to subsequent changes in the ordinances, hardships were
created. Boyer stated the lots in this area will never be able to meet the setback requirements.
Boyer stated they have attempted to limit the amount of structural coverage as well as
the hardcover.
Robert Bredeson, 1410 Rest Point Road, stated he has lived in this area for over 80 years,
and all the homes in this area are all located within 25 to 30 feet of the lake and all have
similar hardcover to what is being proposed. Bredeson commented the new residence
will be constructed out of the right-of-way and will complement the neighborhood. Bredeson
noted the existing residence has not been well maintained. Bredeson stated he is in support
of this project.
Mrs. Cavender presented pictures to the Planning Commission of the existing residence.
There were no further comments regarding this application.
Hawn commented in her view the proposed residence is an improvement over what currently
exists. Hawn noted the City historically adheres to its 15 percent structural coverage limit
as well as the 25 percent hardcover limit. Hawn stated due to the size of the lot, the proposed
residence will not be able to meet the lakeshore setback. Hawn stated she would be
reluctant to approve structural coverage over 15 percent.
• Smith commented the Applicants clearly will not be able to comply with all of the City's
Page 27
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued)
requirements due to the size of the lot. Smith inquired whether the house could be
downsized somewhat in an effort to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Smith
stated she prefers to see new construction at 15 percent or lower.
Stoddard stated he is in agreement with the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Stoddard inquired what the total square footage of the house is.
Becca Hein, Architect, noted the second floor of the house has not been designed at this
time, but will be approximately the same as the first floor.
Mrs. Cavender commented the second floor will not extend over the entire first floor.
Stoddard noted the footprint of the proposed residence is 2,300 square feet.
Smith inquired how close to the lake the residence is proposed to be located.
Mr. Cavender stated they would like to construct the house approximately 30 feet from
the lake.
Smith questioned whether the location of the residence could be moved further back from
the lake.
4110 Kluth commented he personally does not have a problem with the setback, but noted he
does have a concern regarding the total structural coverage being proposed for this lot.
Nygard commented he would like to see the hardcover within the 0-75'setback minimized
as much as possible.
Hawn noted this lot is relatively flat and would not require a stairway down to the lake.
Hawn noted for the record that a letter of support has been received by the City from
David Williams, 1400 Rest Point Road; Clarisse Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road; and
Pat Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road.
Mr. Cavender stated the City will receive a benefit by having the new residence being
located out of the City's right-of-way.
Mrs. Cavender stated their purchase agreement is contingent upon approval of their
application.
Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be able to downsize the structure.
Mrs. Cavender commented if they are required to redesign their plan, it would require a
significant amount of work. Cavender noted the proposed garage for the residence is not
oversized.
Hawn inquired whether the house could be located closer to the road.
Mrs. Cavender stated they will not be able to meet the setback requirements. Cavender
• indicated there are utility poles and a lift station located in the front yard, which necessitates
the house being located a little further back.
Page 28
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued)
Boyer stated due to the narrowness of Rest Point Road and the lack of parking available
on the street, the house and garage need to be located further back to accommodate a
car in the driveway.
Stoddard commented he would be willing to approve a variance to the front yard setback,
but that the Applicants need to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Stoddard suggested this application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans.
Stoddard stated the Applicant probably will not be allowed to construct a patio or walkway
to the lake.
Mrs. Cavender stated the patio is located off to the side.
Nygard noted the patio is still located within the 0-75'setback.
Smith recommended the Applicants attempt to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage
limit and relocate the house closer to the road.
Kluth indicated the number one issue is the structural coverage, with the 15 percent needing
to be complied with. Kluth stated he would like to see the hardcover under the 25 percent
limit as well due to environmental concerns. Kluth noted the 0-75' setback is the most
critical as it relates to hardcover due to the impact to the lake.
5 Hawn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to adhere to the
15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would be willing
to extend the 60 day review period should the Planning Commission table this application.
Weinberger indicated City Staff will continue to work with the Applicants.
Stoddard commented the front yard setback should be compatible with the other houses in
the neighborhood, and suggested the Applicants consider locating the house 35 feet from
the lake.
Smith commented she would like to see the house 35 to 40 feet from the lake.
Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants would like the Planning Commission to table their
application.
Mr. Cavender requested their application be tabled.
Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2556, Barbara and Collins
Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, Variances,to allow the Applicants time to
revise their plans, and to extend the 60 day review period. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#12) #2557 JUDITH AND DANIEL MCATHIE, 1449 BAY RIDGE ROAD -VARIANCES,
11:50 p.m. - 11:56 p.m.
Judith and Daniel McAthie, Applicants, were present.
• Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit the addition of a garage
Page 29
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2557 Judith and Daniel Mcathie, Continued)
and living space to the existing residence. They are proposing to raise the roof of the existing
structure for additional living space on the second story. The Applicants are also proposing
to enlarge the garage by approximately 350 square feet and reducing the size of the turn-around
in the driveway.
Bottenberg noted the amount of hardcover in the 75-250'setback will be reduced by 495.5
square feet, or 2.43 percent, for a total hardcover in the amount of 5,745.5 square feet or
28.27 percent. Bottenberg stated the amount of structural coverage is below the allowable
limit.
Bottenberg stated the residence was constructed at its present location in 1967, and now
requires variances for side yard setback and average lakeshore setback. The Applicants
are requesting a variance for the second story addition to encroach 20 feet into the average
lakeshore setback and a variance to permit a 10.62'setback to the north property line and
a 9.93'setback to the south property line where 30'setback is required.
City Staff is recommending approval of variances for side yard setback, average lakeshore
setback and hardcover in the 75-250'setback area.
Hawn inquired whether a variance to height is required on this application.
Bottenberg stated the height of the proposed structure is not an issue.
Mr. McAthie stated they are looking to update their residence. McAthie stated their neighbors
are in support of this project.
Bottenberg commented City Staff has received a phone from Michael Johnson, 1461 Bay Ridge
Road and Kent Whitworth, 1425 Bay Ridge Road, indicating their support of this project.
There were no public comments.
Kluth inquired where the hardcover was being reduced.
Mr. McAthie stated they removing some decking and a sidewalk located in the front.
Kluth moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2557,
Judith and Daniel McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road, granting of variances to side
yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 75-250' setback
area to permit the addition of a garage and living space to the existing residence.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#13) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON, 1780 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES,
11:57 p.m. - 12:23 p.m.
Anthony Patterson, Applicant, was present, along with David Bergman, Property Manager.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct additional living space to the
existing residence, replacing an existing deck, and replacing an existing side entrance with
• a slightly larger entrance. Presently the house is a one and a half story residence that will
Page 30
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued)
be expanded to a full two story house under this proposal.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting approval of variances for lot coverage,
hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250' setback area, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback.
The Applicants are proposing to decrease hardcover in the 0-75' setback to 45 square feet,
and increasing the amount of hardcover in the 75-250'setback to 45.1 percent. Bottenberg
noted the overall structural coverage on this lot with this proposal will be 19.3 percent.
Bottenberg stated the existing residence was built in the 1960s, creating the existing side
yard setbacks.
City Staff is recommending reconfiguring the lakeside deck and keeping it at its present
size of 285 square feet, which will eliminate the hardcover variance and encroachment into
the 0-75'setback area. Staff also recommends leaving the sidewalk and driveway as is to
allow for off street parking and a turn-around. Bottenberg stated the proposed side entrance
is reasonable in size and is not excessive for the lot or size house.
Bottenberg stated if the second story walls were to meet the 10 foot setback from the
north lot line, this would create odd shaped rooms and cause problems with the layout of
the second story.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
iHawn commented when she visited the site, the residence was already under construction
and she was puzzled by what was new construction and what was existing. Hawn inquired
why construction had commenced prior to the application being heard by the Planning
Commission.
Bergman stated he has spoken with the City's building inspector regarding this proposal.
The construction that is presently underway is outside the sideyard setback and a
building permit was issued to allow commencement of that work. Bergman stated the
property owners would like to have the work completed by April. Bergman stated the new
construction is over the existing foundation, and the work requiring variances has not been
commenced at this time.
Hawn inquired whether the new enclosed porch is entirely out of the 0-75' setback.
Bergman stated the enclosed porch is outside the 0-75'setback, with the existing deck
encroaching into the 0-75' setback.
Kluth noted the Applicants are proposing to increase the structural coverage on this property.
Bergman stated they are looking at expanding the entryway.
Kluth inquired whether the size of the deck could be reduced slightly to lower the amount
of structural coverage.
Bergman commented tonight was the first time they heard there was a different between
hardcover and structural coverage.
• Kluth stated the deck would be considered structural.
Page 31
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
•
(#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued)
Hawn commented the Planning Commission is reluctant to approve structural coverage
which exceeds the allowable 15 percent.
Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Kluth stated the
concrete sidewalk would be considered hardcover. Kluth stated if the deck is reduced by
ten square feet, structural coverage would be reduced to 18.2 percent, which is the
existing amount of structural coverage on the property.
Smith suggested the Applicants keep the structural coverage at the existing limit, noting
the code allows up to 15 percent structural coverage.
Hawn suggested the Applicants revise their plan in an effort to reduce the overall structural
coverage on the property.
Smith noted City Staff is recommending reconfiguration of the lakeside deck and keeping it
at its present size, which will eliminate the need for a hardcover variance and encroachment
into the 0-75'setback area.
Bergman inquired whether patio stones are considered hardcover.
Smith stated they would be counted as hardcover. Smith inquired whether the Applicants
would like their application tabled to allow them time to revise their plan.
• Kluth noted the sideyard is grandfathered in. Kluth recommended this application be
tabled.
Patterson inquired whether the application could proceed forward if they keep the hardcover
and structural coverage at the existing limits.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to review the revised plan before approving
it. Hawn stated she would not be comfortable approving this application prior to seeing
a revised plan.
Smith indicated she was in agreement with Hawn and that the Planning Commission really
needs to review the revised plan to see exactly what is being proposed before approval is
given.
Hawn advised the Applicant to have the application tabled.
Patterson requested the application be tabled.
Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2558, Anthony Patterson,
1780 Shadywood Road, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
•
Page 32
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000
• PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL
MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1999 AND DECEMBER 13, 1999, AND JANUARY 10, 2000
This item was not discussed.
(#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Mayor Jabbour suggested City Staff discuss the applications directly with the Applicants
prior to their appearance at the Planning Commission meeting to avoid any confusion
regarding hardcover and structural coverage limits. Jabbour stated plastic is considered
hardcover, noting that the City Council also requests that the residents remove the plastic
underlayment whenever possible.
Kluth commented the Planning Commission needs to have as much information as possible
regarding an application in order to make an informed decision.
Mayor Jabbour thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts on developing the City's
stormwater management plan.
Smith suggested the Planning Commission consider holding a December meeting in an
effort to avoid the lengthy meetings in January and February.
• (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Hawn requested the taped portion of the November 22, 1999 meeting concerning the Edin
application be reviewed to see if structural coverage was discussed.
(#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 25, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 8, 2000
January 25- Berg February 8- Smith
ADJOURNMENT
Nygard moved, Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:36 p.m.
,44
Elizabefh Ha n, Chair
•
Page 33