HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2000 Planning Commission Minutes } .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
ROLL
• The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard,William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice
Berg, and Sandra Smith. Commissioner Daniel Kluth was absent. The following represented
City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul
Weinberger,Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young.
City Council Representatives Gabriel Jabbour and Richard Flint were present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#1) #2623 FRED JOHNSON, 1926 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES,
6:31 p.m.—6:45 p.m.
Fred Johnson,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to remove an existing residence and detached
garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75' lakeshore
setback. Weinberger stated this is one of three lots that are all located on the south side of
Fagerness Road,with all three lots only having a depth of 70' from the lakeshore.
• Originally the Applicants had requested variances to lot width, lot area, lakeshore setback and
hardcover in order to construct a house consisting of 1,690 square feet. After discussions with
Staff,the Applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural
coverage limitations. Weinberger noted for lots under 10,000 square feet,the property can have
a maximum of 1,500 square feet of structure.
The Applicants have revised their plans and have redesigned the house to reduce the structural
coverage to 1,495 square feet,with the elimination of additional hardcover that would have been
required for a third stall to the garage. Weinberger stated the amount of hardcover that exists on
the property currently is fairly equal to what is being proposed.
Weinberger stated since the property is located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback, it has
had variances granted in the past to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions
placed on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed
what had previously existed since no hardcover is normally permitted within 75' of the lakeshore.
Weinberger noted the existing house and deck are located only a few feet from the lakeshore,
with removal of the house and construction of a new residence resulting in a setback averaging
30 feet to the house. Relocating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate
setback to the street, with 30 feet being the required setback to the street. Weinberger noted the
Applicants are proposing a setback of 20 feet, which would allow sufficient space to back out of
the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street and would provide
off street parking for the property.
•
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20,2000
(#2623 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
•
Weinberger stated the Applicants are also proposing a small covered entrance consisting of
36 square feet to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. This
would result in total structural coverage in the amount of 1,531 square feet, which equals the
amount of structure that currently exists on the property.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to structural coverage to permit
replacement of the 1,531 square feet of structure where 1,500 is allowed by Code; a variance
to permit structure tao be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore; and a variance to permit 2,079
square feet of hardcover where none is allowed.
Weinberger stated Staff would request an updated survey prior to review by the City Council,
with the updated survey also indicating the lowest floor elevation for the new residence in order
to determine whether the new house will be located three feet above the OHWL.
Staffs only concern with this application is that structural coverage exceeds the allowable
1,500 square feet allowed under Code. Weinberger noted the amount of structural coverage being
proposed is equal to what currently exists on the property.
Johnson commented he would like to construct a larger residence,but due to the limits set by
the City of Orono,he has reduced the size of the building.
Lindquist inquired wheter the existing garage will also be removed.
Johnson stated it will be.
Hawn inquired it whether the deck has been included in the hardcover calculations.
qu �
Weinberger stated the deck has been included. Weinberger stated the deck proposed is a ground
level deck and would not be considered structural coverage.
Stoddard commented in order to be consistent the Planning Commission should look at requiring
the Applicant to reduce the amount of structural coverage to 1,500 square feet.
Hawn stated that was her only concern with this application as well. Hawn noted the Planning
Commission has typically not granted variances to structural coverages in the past.
Lindquist inquired what the size of the garage will be.
Johnson stated it will be 22.5 feet.
Lindquist inquired whether the garage could be reduced by one foot.
Johnson commented he would be willing to reduce the garage by one foot in order to keep the
front entryway.
Stoddard suggested that approval be made contingent upon structural coverage not exceeding
1,500 square feet.
•
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2623 FRED JOHNSON, Continued)
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2623,
1926 Fagerness Point Road, granting of a variance to permit structure to be located within
75 feet of the lakeshore and a variance to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover where none
is allowed,with the understanding the structural coverage will not exceed 1,500 square feet,
subject to the conditions outlined in the November 13, 2000 Planner's Report.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#2) #2625 MORGAN K.NELSON,3145 JAMESTOWN ROAD,VARIANCES,
6:45 p.m.—6:52 p.m.
Morgan Nelson, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a pool on the lakeside of the existing
residence and adjacent to a gazebo. The proposed setback from the pool to the OHWL of
Lake Classen is 123 feet, with the existing house being located 128 feet from the OHWL. The
existing residence was constructed prior to the 1992 Shoreland Ordinance requiring the 150 foot
setback from the OHWL. Lake Classen has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake by
• the DNR,which require the 150 foot setback for structures and septic systems.
Weinberger stated a second variance is required for the average lakeshore setback. The pool will
g q g
encroach nine feet into the average lakeshore setback defined by the principal structures of the
two adjacent properties. Weinberger stated this property contains a bluff by definition, with the
existing house and proposed pool being set back at least 40 feet from the top of the bluff.
Weinberger stated the proposed pool meets all required setbacks from the top of the bluff.
Weinberger commented the impact to the neighboring properties will be minimal due to the
existing vegetation and the gazebo located between the houses and will have little or no impact
on views enjoyed by the neighbor to the north.
Weinberger stated Staff's comments relating to hardship are contained on page two of his
Planner's Report. Weinberger commented placement of the pool behind the principal residence
would not function well as it would be located in the front of the house towards the street.
typically pools are located behind the house in a back yard. In addition,the street yard is the
site of the septic system and alternate site, leaving no other reasonable location for the pool.
Weinberger noted the proposed hardcover would be within the allowed percentages as required
by the Zoning Code.
Staff recommends approval of the variances.
Nelson stated Staff has given an accurate assessment of his proposal.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
•
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
(#2625 MORGAN NELSON, Continued) •
Lindquist moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2625,
3145 Jamestown Road,granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback and a variance
to the 150 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Classen. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#3) #2633 JEROME LAGUE, 2138 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES,
6:52 p.m.—7:07 p.m.
Paul Lague, Applicant's son,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to replace a lakeside second story deck.
The proposed deck is to be 14' by 36' and located approximately 86 feet from Lake Minnetonka.
On the west end of the proposed deck will be a ramp for accessing the yard. The ramp is
84 square feet. The old deck was in a deteriorated state and has been removed.
Bottenberg stated the deck/ramp will encroach 8 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The
residence was built in 1975 in its present location. The adjacent residence to the north has been
torn down and a new residence is being built further back on its lot to meet the average lakeshore
setback, making the deck protrude further into the average lakeshore setback than previously.
Bottenberg stated the lakeside patio of approximately 500 square feet will not increase the
hardcover coverage in the 75-350' zone because it is on top of the brick patio which is already •
counted as hardcover. The ramp on the west end of the proposed deck will increase the hardcover
coverage in the 75-250' zone by approximately 84 square feet.
Bottenberg stated a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' zone is required as well as a variance
to the average lakeshore setback to permit the 8 foot encroachment.
City Staff recommends approval of the variance to build the deck and ramp.
Lague had no additional comments to Staff's report.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission typically does not permit additional hardcover,but does
allow the residents to replace what is currently existing. Hawn stated the ramp is an issue in this
application. Hawn inquired whether the deck could be reduced slightly.
Lague stated he could possibly make the ramp slightly narrow. Lague stated he has a picture
showing the previous deck,noting what is proposed is the exact same deck.
Hawn stated that is her understanding as well.
Lindquist stated the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the deck by 84 square feet.
Lague inquired whether it was a hardcover issue.
•
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
• (#2633 JEROME LAGUE, Continued)
Hawn stated it is a hardcover issue since the size of the deck is proposed to be 84 square feet
larger in size than what existed. Hawn stated when the existing hardcover exceeds the amount
that is allowed under Code,the Planning Commission typically will only allow replacement of
what currently exists and does not allow that amount of hardcover to be increased. Hawn
commented since they are routinely faced with requests to increase hardcover,they need to be
consistent in their approvals.
Lague stated his father is out of town and he was unaware that there was an issue with this
request. Lague inquired whether some landscape plastic and rock could be removed in order to
allow the size of deck being proposed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission does not trade rock and plastic for hardcover in other
areas. Hawn suggested that perhaps the deck could be reduced or redesigned to meet the current
hardcover.
Lindquist inquired how big the current deck is.
Lague stated the deck is 14' by 36'.
Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking to reduce the size of the deck to
84 square feet. Lindquist stated the Applicant would be allowed a 420 square foot deck.
Stoddard stated the other issue deals with the average lakeshore setback. Stoddard inquired
• whether there were any letters from the neighbors relating to this project.
Lague stated the new neighbors have not moved in yet and to his knowledge there is not a letter
agu s g yet g
in the file.
Weinberger stated the adjoining residence was recently torn down, which changes the average
lakeshore setback.
Stoddard inquired how far the deck would be from the lakeshore.
Bottenberg stated the new deck will be located 86 feet from the lakeshore.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting equal replacement of the existing deck.
Stoddard inquired whether this encroachment will permit the adjoining property owner from
encroaching into the average lakeshore setback.
Weinberger stated this application should not impact the average lakeshore setback on the
adjoining property.
Lindquist reiterated the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the deck or ramp to meet what
currently exists.
Lague commented that there has always been a ramp on this deck. Lague presented a picture of
the deck and ramp to the Planning Commission.
•
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
(#2633 JEROME LAGUE, Continued) •
Stoddard commented it was his understanding there was no ramp previously.
Hawn stated that was her understanding as well.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission generally will allow replacement of what is existing.
Hawn stated the building permit does not show replacement of the ramp.
Weinberger stated the existing deck was built quite a few years ago and the City does not have
a revised plan showing the ramp.
Hawn stated since the picture obviously shows the ramp did exist, she does not have a problem
allowing replacement of the deck and ramp.
Smith commented this appears to be a replacement situation rather than an increase in
hardcover.
Hawn stated the hardcover figures contained in the Planner's Report apparently are incorrect,
noting they are dealing with 84 square feet. Hawn stated since the deck and ramp have been
removed, it will be difficult to verify the previous hardcover.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2633, •
2138 Shadywood Road, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' zone and a
variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit replacement of a deck and ramp to
be no more than 588 total square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn noted the Applicant has previously indicated to Staff that he would be willing to remove
the existing landscape fabric and rock. Hawn inquired whether they are still willing to do so.
Lague stated they would be.
(#4) #2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,3235 IVY PLACE,VARIANCES,
7:07 p.m.—8:02 p.m.
Gary and Susan Cable, Applicants,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to allow hardcover in excess of
25 percent for a new house and driveway. The Applicants had previously been granted a
demolition permit to remove the principal and accessory buildings on the property. The house
has since been removed. The property owners have requested a variance to keep the existing
8' by 12' ice house located on the property.
•
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
• (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued)
Weinberger stated the Applicants have been working with Staff to develop a plan which meets
some of the objectives and ordinances of the City. Weinberger stated originally the Applicants
were proposing a larger house,with the revised plan calling for a smaller sized house. The
Applicants have been issued a building permit on the revised plan, which is under the 25 percent
allowable hardcover.
Weinberger stated the ice house is located on the lakeshore of the property approximately
47 feet from the lakeshore. On lakeshore lots, accessory buildings are not permitted to be located
closer to the lakeshore than the principal building on the property, not within 75 feet of the
lakeshore, and not within the average lakeshore setback. Weinberger stated a visual inspection
conducted of the ice house indicates that replacement of the foundation may be required at some
time in the near future. Typically the City of Orono requires variances to do anything other than
replacement of siding or the roof which have been considered cosmetic work that would not
extend the life of the structure. The Applicants have indicated they would like to replace the
foundation in the future,which would require variances.
Weinberger stated in order to allow the ice house to stay,the City would need to allow the
hardcover in the 0-75' zone to remain.
Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the driveway. The Applicants at the time
the building permit was issued, had agreed to remove the third stall to the garage which
would have been needed to be served by the driveway. Weinberger stated the amount of
driveway being proposed to service all three garage stalls was not feasible and additional
hardcover would have been required in order to access all three garage stalls. In order to receive
the building permit,the property owners reduced the size of the driveway and redesigned the
driveway to allow better access to the two remaining stalls.
Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is whether additional hardcover consisting of
100 square feet would be allowed on the property in order to access the third garage stall if
approved. Weinberger noted the previous residence had approximately 50 percent hardcover,
with the proposed house being built at approximately 26 percent hardcover with the third garage
stall.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a longer driveway in order to protect the
trees and to build the house in the existing topography,which will keep the elevation of the house
down and allow a better view of the lake. Weinberger noted the entire house meets the average
lakeshore setback.
Cable commented it has been a challenge to meet the City's hardcover requirements, which they
were unaware of at the time they purchased the property. Cable stated they would like to begin
construction on the new residence prior to the ground freezing. Cable indicated they have
reduced the size of the house and garage in order to meet the structural coverage limit. Cable
commented they would like to preserve the ice house, noting it has existed since the 1800s.
Cable commented they would also like an additional 100 square feet of hardcover for some
landscaping they would like to do.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20,2000
(#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued)
•
Stoddard stated the Planning Commission tends to limit structural coverage on new construction
to 15 percent and 25 percent hardcover.
Hawn concurred that the 15 percent structural coverage will need to be adhered to. Hawn stated
the City typically does not allow any hardcover within the 0-75' zone, noting the City has
ordinances in place which permits replacement of those structures only under certain
circumstances.
Hawn commented she personally is unsure about what plan is being presented to the Planning
Commission tonight,noting the Planning Commission is not here to design the Applicant's house
and driveway. Hawn stated she would like to know exactly what hardcover the Planning
Commission is being asked to consider. Hawn stated if the ice house remains,the third stall of
the garage and driveway will probably not be approved.
Berg inquired whether there will be a front sidewalk between the front entry and the driveway.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing a sidewalk. Weinberger stated the building
permit does not show a sidewalk.
Smith inquired whether the sidewalk is included in the 100 additional square feet of hardcover.
Weinberger stated that is included in the 100 square feet. Weinberger stated the 50 feet of excess
hardcover does include the ice house.
Smith commented it is her opinion if the Applicants wish to keep the ice house,they may do so, •
but that they will need to come back before the Planning Commission at the time the foundation
of the ice house is proposed to be replaced. Smith stated typically the City does not approve
replacement of foundations for structures located within the 0-75' zone.
Lindquist commented in his view the ice house should be removed if the Applicants want
the additional hardcover.
Smith stated the decision to keep the ice house is up to the Applicants.
Lindquist stated if the ice house remains, the amount of hardcover should be limited to 25
percent.
Smith stated she would be in agreement with the 25 percent hardcover limit.
Hawn inquired whether they need to look at top of the bluff requirements,noting there is a steep
dropoff.
Weinberger stated there is no bluff situation on this property.
Lindquist inquired how many square feet they are over on the hardcover.
•
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
• (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued)
Weinberger stated the total amount of hardcover proposed without including the sidewalk based
on the building permit, with no driveway to the third stall of the garage, is 50 square feet over
what is allowed. Weinberger stated in order to complete the driveway and sidewalk, another
additional 100 square feet of hardcover would be required, which brings it up to 150 square feet
over what is allowed.
Smith commented the Applicant will need to decide whether he would like to keep the ice house
or have the additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk.
Nygard stated just because the foundation of the ice house has been damaged by the elements
over the years,the Applicant should not be restricted from replacing that foundation in the future.
Nygard stated the remainder of the structure appears to be fairly solid and the Applicant should be
allowed to make improvements to the foundation if he so desires. Nygard stated he does have
some concerns regarding the third stall to the garage and no driveway.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Mrs. Cable commented the neighbor would like to see the ice house remain as well.
Smith stated it is the responsibility of the City to protect the lakeshore by limiting what is allowed
to be built within the 0-75' zone.
Berg stated the City's present Code requires the building to be removed if the foundation needs
to be replaced.
Hawn commented the hardcover is contingent upon whether the ice house remains.
Nygard stated he would like to see the hardcover remain within the 25 percent limit with or
without the ice house.
Smith moved to recommend approval of Application ##2636,3235 Ivy Place, granting of
a hardcover variance to permit 100 square feet over the 25 percent limit,which would
include a sidewalk but not a driveway in front of a third stall, for total hardcover in the
amount of 3,396 square feet. NO SECOND.
Hawn stated in her view since this is new construction,there is no justification for the additional
hardcover.
Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the house relocated.
Hawn stated she would like to see the ice house removed and their plans revised to exclude the
third garage stall in order to meet the 25 percent limit.
Stoddard stated in order to keep the ice house,the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the
garage or house somewhat.
•
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20,2000
(#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued)
111
Nygard stated the Planning Commission is firm on the 15 percent structural coverage limit and
the 25 percent hardcover limit on new construction.
Cable stated they would like to keep the house in the proposed location in order to preserve the
existing trees. Cable stated he is doubtful whether the size of the house can be reduced any
further.
Mrs. Cable commented they have five children,with some bedrooms being located above the
garage.
Hawn stated she is unsure exactly what they are being asked to approve since they do not have a
plan in front of them outlining all of the items being requested.
Smith stated what is in front of them does include the ice house,with the amount of hardcover
being in excess of the 25 percent limit.
Hawn stated she can either make a motion denying the application or table the matter to allow the
Applicant time to decide whether to keep the ice house. Hawn inquired why a building permit
was issued prior to the variance being approved.
Weinberger stated a building permit was issued on the revised plan,noting that they were under
the 25 percent hardcover limit and met all the required setbacks. Weinberger stated the
Applicants are requesting the additional hardcover in order to keep the ice house and expand
the driveway area,along with a sidewalk.
•
Berg noted the plan has changed since the building permit was issued.
Hawn commented in her view she does not see a hardship.
Berg commented she also is confused by exactly what is being requested since there is no plan
outlining the changes before them.
Lindquist stated he would be in favor of denying the variance and letting the building permit
stand.
Hawn stated she was in agreement with Lindquist. Hawn noted the demolition permit called for
the ice house to be removed.
Mrs. Cable stated they were never informed the ice house had to be removed.
Gaffron inquired whether the City had a survey at the time the demolition permit was issued.
A gentleman in the audience indicated he does not know.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend denial of Application 2636,3235 Ivy
Place,based on the additional hardcover being requested in excess of the 25 percent limit
from the time the original building permit was issued.
•
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
• (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued)
Stoddard noted if this application is denied,he would need to wait for six months before
submitting a new application.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his application tabled. Hawn stated
that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires.
Mrs. Cable inquired whether they could still proceed with construction of the residence as
originally proposed.
Hawn stated they could proceed with construction in accordance with the building permit. Hawn
stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until
January at the earliest.
Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the
additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk.
Hawn inquired whether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the
driveway and sidewalk meeting the 25 percent hardcover limit and removal of the ice house.
Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the sidewalk possibly consisting of stepping stones.
Lindquist stated if this application is denied,they could still proceed under the building permit.
Lindquist stated they need to stay within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the property.
Smith commented if the ice house is removed,that would give the A pp licants an additional
96 feet of hardcover.
Hawn reiterated the Planning Commission typically does not grant any variances to structural
coverage or hardcover on new construction. Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their
plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building official.
Mrs. Cable inquired whether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they
decide to keep it at this time.
Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more than 25 percent of the
foundation is replaced.
Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of
the structure,the repairs are not permitted.
Gaffron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the time it became non-conforming.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled.
Cable stated they would like their application tabled.
Lindquist rescinded his motion.
•
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) •
Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to table Application #2636,3235 Ivy Place.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:30 p.m.
(#8) #2634/2635 G & G Holding Company, 1130 & 1140 Loma Linda Avenue,
Lot Line Rearrangement and Variance,8:03 p.m.—8: 54 p.m.
JoEllen Hurr,G&G Holding Company, appeared on behalf of Stanley and Luella Goldberg.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated this is a two-part application,with consideration being given to a lot line
rearrangement of the property,vacation of a platted undeveloped alley, and a variance
request to permit construction of an accessory structure between the principal structure and the
front property line.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting vacation of the platted alley. The alley presently
is undeveloped and has not been used for public travel. The only public purpose the alley
currently serves is to provide sewer service. The City of Orono does not intend to develop or
maintain this alley. A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it serves as the only
public access for the lot located at 1140 Loma Linda. A condition of the vacation would require
an access and utility easement over the portion of the vacated alley that is used for sewer
service. Weinberger stated vacation of the alley may be justified since it does not serve a
public service outside of the sewer service.
Weinberger stated if the vacation of the alley is approved. the lot line rearrangement would be
between the two parcels shown as Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel B is currently developed with
a cabin consisting of approximately 500 square feet in size. The second parcel is currently
vacate, with a possible request in the future to construct a structure on this property. Weinberger
stated half of the vacated public alley would be transferred to Parcel A,with the other half being
vacated.
Weinberger stated there are four parcels in common ownership in this area by the same property
owner, with an amendment being completed to allow the entire 20 feet of the vacated alley to
become part of Parcel A. Weinberger stated a portion of the vacated alley would also be
transferred to Parcel B, with a small portion of Parcel A becoming a part of Parcel B as part of
the lot line rearrangement. Weinberger stated Parcel B would be increased by 30 feet and would
result in a developed 8,500 square foot parcel. Parcel A would increase in size by approximately
1,500 square feet.
Weinberger stated both parcels would be developed subsequent to the vacation and lot line
rearrangement, with both lots being under the minimum one acre requirement for this district.
These lots would then be considered as record lots.which would require variances to lot width
•
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(#2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, Continued)
and lot area for each of the lots. Weinberger stated due to the lot line rearrangement,the front
property lines would change and become narrower.
Weinberger stated Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the request for the
vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement prior to the variance part of the application being
heard. Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement and vacation of the alley.
Hurr stated she has no additional comments to Staff's report but would be happy to answer any
questions the Planning Commission may have.
Bill Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue, inquired whether the service road would stay in its
current location.
Weinberger stated that would remain as the driveway access to the property. Weinberger stated
the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement allows for the two lots to become larger in
size and to reduce the need for setbacks.
Jeff Johnson, 1145 Loma Linda Avenue, stated he did provide a letter to the City regarding this
application.
Weinberger stated he does have the letter in the file. Weinberger stated the letter indicates he
is against the variance to allow lot lines or building size or hardcover which would restrict his
• view of the lake. In addition,the property owners should have been aware of the size of the lots
and building requirements prior to purchase and should not pose a hardship on the adjoining
property.
Johnson stated he was told there would be no encroachment into the lot line.
Weinberger stated as proposed, if the alley is vacated and a portion of the service road becomes
part of Parcel A,the defined front property line would be along Loma Linda, which would
require a 30 foot setback to the south property line. Weinberger stated the closest any structure
could be built to the property line would be 30 feet,with the old requirement being 35 feet from
the edge of the service road.
Hurr commented they are not constructing any building on Parcel B. Hurr stated they are not
proposing any variances to the 30 foot setback at this time. Hun noted that trees could be
planted which would in essence block his view as much as a building would.
Nygard inquired how the 15 percent structural coverage rule applies to this small lot.
Weinberger stated 15 percent of the lot would allow a footprint of 2,100 square feet, which could
be affected by any existing hardcover on the property. Weinberger stated they will not know
what is being proposed until they request a building permit.
Hawn commented it is possible in her view that a house could potentially impact his view
even though his lot is located downhill. Hawn noted the height of the building could not exceed
30 feet.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, Continued)
Stoddard commented he personally does not have a problem with vacating the alley,but
inquired whether they would be able to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Hurr stated they are proposing to construct a house consisting of 1,297 square feet. Hun stated
it would not be possible to construct a garage on this property, noting the property owners use
this property seasonally. Hun stated Parcel A would lose its lake view,with Parcel B having a
view of the lake.
Lindquist inquired whether the City has a history of vacating service roads.
Weinberger stated to his knowledge the City has vacated some service roads. Weinberger
commented the City has a number of roads that have been platted between properties but if
those are not needed and the properties are combined,the City has vacated them. Weinberger
stated the determining factor is whether the road services a public purpose.
Hawn commented she has a problem with one of the lots being only 30 feet wide.
Hun stated it is 50 feet wide.
Weinberger stated it is really 50 feet and not the 30 feet noted in the report.
Hawn noted the lot width on Parcel A has been reduced from 147.21 down to 100 feet.
Hun stated she did speak with Staff regarding that,noting she is not sure where the 147 feet •
comes from.
Weinberger stated this width would be 147 feet,but technically the lot width is the narrower of
the two on Loma Linda. Weinberger stated there really has not been a change,but a property
has gone tax forfeit,which is no longer part of the property. Weinberger stated the dimensions
have not changed but merely where the front property line is being considered.
Lindquist stated he would be in favor of the vacation if the setback remained the same.
Hurr inquired what setback they would have with the vacation.
Weinberger stated they would have a 50 foot setback.
Hun commented they would have a 50 foot setback but would be entitled to plant trees in that
area.
Lindquist stated once the alley is vacated, it becomes their property.
Weinberger stated currently they have a 35 foot setback.
Lindquist stated they can either vote on it tonight or table the application.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
(#2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, CONTINUED)
Hun stated the Planning Commission could vote on the vacation, with a condition of approval
being a 50 foot setback.
Hawn commented the Applicant could request the City Council to reduce the setback.
Hurr commented in her view the Planning Commission is limiting an already small lot by
increasing the setback. Hurr stated the intent with the vacation was to increase the size of the
lots.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has a responsibility to maintain the neighbor's sight
lines.
Hun stated the 50 foot setback will restrict this lot by limiting the buildable area.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2634/2635,
1130 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, granting of a lot line rearrangement and vacation of
the platted undeveloped alley,with the understanding there will be a 50 foot setback on
Parcel A for all structures. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Weinberger stated also as part of this application the Applicants are proposing to construct a new
residence on proposed Parcel B. The plans would include a 1,237 square foot house to replace
the existing cabin and removal of the parking and drive area located within the vacated
right-of-way. The Applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to allow 29.8 percent of
• hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 25 percent is allowed.
Weinberger indicated the Applicants are not proposing a garage on this property. In the past
the City has seen applications that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed
and later an application is received for a garage. Weinberger stated a garage could not be located
where the parking area is proposed since it is restricted from development because of the sewer
line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property owners have indicated
they do not intend to build a garage on this lot.
Weinberger stated it would be impossible to locate a garage on this lot without the need for a
variance due to the small size of the lot and the utility easement that will exist on this lot.
Weinberger stated the Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
with the Applicants showing hardcover for one space. Staff is recommending an additional space
be added, which will increase hardcover. Staff does have some concerns regarding the amount of
hardcover on this lot, but due to the small size of the lot, Staff would allow some overage in the
amount of hardcover on the lot to permit a reasonably sized house to be constructed on the
property and to provide sufficient parking space. Weinberger noted the size of the property is
being increased with the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement.
Hurr stated the driveway could perhaps be reduced slightly from the 10 feet.
Lindquist inquired what the amount of hardcover will be on this lot.
•
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
(#2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, Continued) 111
Weinberger stated the amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-2-�0' zone is 1,187 square feet,
with the Applicants proposing 1,177 square feet. Weinberger noted the changes recommended
by Staff are incorporated into the hardcover calculation and would result in the hardcover being
over by 589 square feet. Weinberger indicated almost one-half of the hardcover is to
accommodate onsite parking as required by ordinance. Weinberger noted the structure is under
the amount allowed.
Hun commented there is a discrepancy in the surveys and the size of the lots. Hurr indicated
Bockmann's residence does not meet the 75' setback.
Bockmann stated his survey indicates a different number.
Hurr stated his survey shows 42 feet to the lakeshore,with the survey for the Goldbergs showing
22 feet. Hun stated she did discuss this issue with Bockmann. Hurr commented another issue
was that the average lakeshore setback used for the Bockmann house was the house located
across the street, which was the incorrect lakeshore setback. Hun stated if the Goldbergs' survey
is used,the Bockmann house does not meet the 75 foot setback.
Lindquist inquired whether the Goldbergs' survey is recent.
Hun replied that it is.
Lindquist stated he needs to deal with the survey in front of him.
Jeff Johnson commented it was his understanding the house next to this roe also used the •
Je J g property rty
current driveway.
Hun stated that property has access off of Loma Linda. Hun noted that property owner has
utilized the driveway in the past.
Lindquist noted it is a public driveway. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is basically
looking at a request to construct a house on this lot.
Hurr stated the total hardcover on the lot would be 1,417 square feet.
Lindquist stated it was his understanding the hardcover was 1,717 square feet.
Weinberger stated the 1,777 square foot of hardcover includes the proposed house and the
Staff's proposed parking area and driveway. Staff is recommending if the plan is approved, it
be approved with the 1,777 square feet of hardcover.
Hawn commented the Applicants have the right to have 15 percent or 1,500 square feet,
whichever is greater, in structural coverage,which the Applicants do meet. Hawn stated the
amount of hardcover being added is required by ordinance for the additional parking space.
Hawn stated in her opinion she does not see any way the amount of hardcover could be reduced.
Lindquist stated he is in agreement with Hawn and does not have a problem with the variance.
•
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
• (#2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, Continued)
Smith inquired what the 1,777 square feet equates in terms of percentages.
Weinberger stated that would be 37.4 percent.
Smith stated the Planning Commission is basically approving new construction.
Hawn stated the house,which is under the 1,500 square feet, is already over the amount of
hardcover allowed for this lot.
Nygard stated due to the utility and sewer easement,the Applicants are limited in the area where
they could construct the parking area.
Hurr stated if the same 42 foot measurement was used as on the adjoining property,the hardcover
amount would be reduced to 27.9 percent. Hurr stated she was told by Gronberg that the distance
is 33 feet and not 22 feet. Hurr stated the hardcover could possibly be under 30 percent
depending on what survey number was used.
Lindquist moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2634/2635,
1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, permitting structural coverage in the amount of
1,237 square feet, and granting of a hardcover variance for hardcover in the 75-250' zone
in the amount of 1,777 square feet,with the understanding that no additional hardcover
will be permitted on this parcel. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
• Hurr noted the Applicants are not requesting any setback variances on this application.
(Recess taken from 8:54—9:02 p.m.)
Items 9, 10, and 11 were heard after Item No. 7.
(#5) #2637 WILLIAM AND NADINE MCGUIRE,315 WOODHILL ROAD,VARIANCE,
9:03 p.m.—9:07 p.m.
Luther Hockray, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the McGuires.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a
21.5' by 11.5' accessory structure between the principal structure and the front property line.
The south lot line would be considered the front lot line by Orono Code. The accessory structure
is proposed to be a tennis court pavilion,which will be located 135 feet from the front property
line where the residence is located 285 feet. The proposed location for the accessory structure is
adjacent to the existing tennis court.
Weinberger stated the proposed location is the best spot on this property for this structure. A
building permit was issued to construct the foundation of the pavilion with the understanding the
variance application for the accessory structure may not be approved.
•
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2637 WILLIAM AND NADINE MCGUIRE,Continued) •
Weinberger stated the impact to the adjoining residences will be minimal,with the structure not
being visible during the'summer months due to the heavily wooded slope to the south. Structural
coverage and hardcover are not an issue with this application.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance to build a tennis pavilion next to the existing
tennis court.
Hockray stated the pavilion will be located near a heavily wooded area and will not be visible to
the neighbors.
There were no public comment regarding this application.
Lindquist moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2637,William
and Nadine McGuire,315 Woodhill Road, granting of a variance to permit an accessory
structure to be located closer to the street lot line than the principal residence.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#6) #2642 PATRICK &KRISTEN BURTON,2601 RAINEY ROAD,VARIANCE,
9:07 p.m.—9:16 p.m.
Kurt Baldwin, Landscape architect, appeared on behalf of the Burtons.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. •
Weinberger stated the Applicants are seeking approval for driveway construction through a
wetland. This lot was created in 1988, with the approval of the plat of"Trees to Be". The
Trees to Be development created Outlot B as a corridor for future private road access to the lot.
In 1988,when this subdivision was approved, approval for access over the wetland was not
granted. However, at that time it was noted approval would be required when the lot was
developed.
Weinberger stated at the time the subdivision was approved, a flowage and conservation
easement was taken over the wetlands requiring a variance to the terms and conditions of the
flowage and conservation easement. Weinberger stated because the proposal is for less than
500 cubic yards of fill, a land alteration permit can be granted at Staff level when the fill approval
is granted.
The Applicants are proposing to encroach upon the wetland with less than 125 cubic yards of
fill to construct the driveway. The wetland is a Type 2 wetland and not a city protected wetland.
The total wetland area impacted is approximately 1,500 square feet. The Applicants have also
submitted an application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for wetland alteration and
is scheduled to be heard on November 28, 2000.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have submitted a statement of hardship in that the only
access to the property is via Outlot B with a driveway at the north end of the property across
the wetland.
•
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
• (#2642 PATRICK&KRISTEN BURTON,Continued)
Staff recommends approval of a variance to the conditions of the Flowage and Conservation
Easement to allow the proposed wetland fill for driveway access subject to Minnehaha Creek
Watershed review and approval.
Baldwin stated the Applicants would like to commence construction in the early spring and need
the driveway across the wetland in order to access the remaining parcel. Baldwin stated they
have looked at a number of other options in order to gain access to this property,but feel this
is the only available site available for access. Baldwin requested approval of this application be
made contingent upon the WCWD review and approval, noting the Board will be reviewing this
matter prior to the upcoming City Council meeting.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission has made that a condition of approval in other
applications.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Nygard inquired how big the wetland is.
Baldwin stated the wetland is less than one acre and is a Type Ito II. Baldwin stated the
wetland has been delineated by a wetland specialist and does not show the typical soils found in
a normal wetland.
Stoddard noted for the record this is not a City protected wetland. Stoddard stated he would be
in favor of granting the driveway due to the limited land available for access to a larger plat of
land located behind it and does not set a precedent. Stoddard stated in his view this is a unique
piece of property with a very narrow inlet to a large piece of land.
Hawn commented this access point was also contemplated a number of years ago and the
Planning Commission is following the guidelines set down previously by the City Council.
Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2642,
2601 Rainey Road, granting of a variance to the conditions of the Flowage and
Conservation Easement to allow the proposed wetland fill for driveway access subject to
review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,with the understanding
the fill required for this access is less than 500 cubic yards. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#7) #2631 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code—Residential PUD,
9:16 p.m.—9:58 p.m.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission reviewed this zoning code amendment at their last
Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled following a short discussion. The Planning
Commission later reviewed this amendment at their October 18,2000 work session. Gaffron
stated according to those two discussions, Staff has incorporated some revisions to the
amendment.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,Continued) •
Gaffron stated the purpose of this zoning code amendment is to allow the City to meet some of
its housing goals that are documented in the City's Comprehensive Plan for higher density
housing in specified areas of the City. The revised draft of the ordinance does incorporate some
of the suggestions and standards that were outlined in the October 10 memorandum as it relates
to architectural standards and landscaping. It also incorporates standards that apply both to
single family detached housing and to attached multi-family housing units.
Gaffron stated the amendment has standards in place for single family detached that generally
reflect a one-third of an acre lot size, lot width of 90 feet, lot depth of 125 feet,with appropriate
setbacks. The amendment also addresses issues relating to accessory structures and parking
within the RPUD District. Also contained within the ordinance are sections relating to attached
dwelling units.
Gaffron stated an addition to those standards for an attached dwelling unit are standards
relating to landscaping and architectural standards that relate to both single family and attached
dwelling units. Gaffron noted this ordinance does not incorporate a height requirement or a
height restriction. Gaffron stated Staff has omitted that because the intent of the ordinance is
to create options and opportunities for housing types that do not currently exist within Orono.
Gaffron stated currently all of Orono's districts have a height limit of 30 feet or two and a half
stories. In order to meet higher density housing, it may be necessary to construct buildings that
are three stories, which would result in the structure exceeding the 30 foot height restriction.
Gaffron indicated the Orono Amber application, which is to be reviewed tonight by the Planning
Commission, is in fact a three story situation, and has an average height of about 38 feet,with
some portions of the building being 48 feet in height and some facades at 50 feet. •
Gaffron stated the City has a choice of incorporating a height standard into this ordinance or
omitting that language and incorporating some guidelines that could be used for construction of
this type.
Gaffron stated the City may also want to review why the City has height restrictions in
place. Gaffron noted the City has height restrictions to limit the visual impact to the surrounding
neighborhood,to maintain the light air and open space enjoyed by that site and the adjoining
properties, and to stay within the limitations of local fire fighting capabilities. Gaffron
commented most multi-family dwelling units will be located within areas that contain sewer and
water along with a requirement that the units contain a sprinkler system. Gaffron stated there
could be some other reasons for wanting to limit height of a structure in a particular area.
Without a height standard,the developer would have an opportunity to demonstrate to the City
why that height should allowed.
Gaffron commented this is a PUD ordinance,which is creating a zoning district that can only be
zoned by having a PUD process, which takes a 4/5's vote to change any property to the RPUD
District.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission wishes to discuss the ordinance in more detail,he
would be willing to answer any questions they may have on it. Staff is recommending approval
of this zoning code amendment. Gaffron stated in his view this ordinance allows the City on an
•
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued)
•
interim basis with the ability to develop not only the site in question but it also gives the City the
opportunity and a method for dealing with some of the other sites within the City that have been
reguided for multi-family housing. Gaffron stated Staff will be reviewing in the future the way
the zoning districts and the PUD code is set up.
Pat Grayhill,Attorney-at-Law, commented he has concerns regarding this ordinance amendment
since it may impact their development and they have not had a chance to review it to see how it
would affect their project.
Gaffron indicated this ordinance amendment will also be discussed at the upcoming City
Council meeting. Gaffron noted Orono's City Ordinances do not require a first or a second
reading of the ordinance. They require a review by the Planning Commission, a
recommendation, and then a review by the City Council.
Richard Flint, Council Member, commented in his view there should be a height restriction in
the ordinance amendment.
Gaffron stated height is measured by Orono's Code for a peaked or a pitched roof uses the
average of the highest gable. It also says on the ground end, especially on a sloped lot, you look
at either the high side of either the highest point where the ground abuts the building or ten feet
above the lowest point wherever the ground hits the building, whichever is lowest.
41110 Hawn commented in her opinion there should be some guidelines contained within the
ordinance to give some guidance to developers and to members of the Planning Commission
and City Council. Hawn stated her personal preference would be to see the height expressed in
stories rather than feet because it will give more leeway in terms of design.
Gaffron commented most stories are typically ten feet in height.
Mayor Jabbour stated due to the reguiding of some areas of the City,this ordinance is needed
to help address the issues raised by multi-family housing. Jabbour noted this zoning ordinance
deals with other sites within the City and should be considered a city-wide ordinance rather
than being specific to one particular lot.
Stoddard commented the proposal for the senior housing facility has prompted this zoning
code amendment. Stoddard noted the City Council has approved the new Comprehensive Plan
which identifies some areas within the City that are ripe for rezoning and could be utilized for
life cycle housing not available elsewhere in Orono.
Nygard inquired what the local fire department is capable of handling in terms of height of
the structures.
Gaffron stated the fire department has ladders that reach up to 28 feet. Gaffron noted the City
currently has houses that exceed 28 feet in height. Gaffron stated height is not necessarily a
limiting factor but it is an issue that needs to be discussed.
•
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) •
Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission should have some flexibility in
determining the height of the building.
Smith inquired how the Planning Commission should determine whether a structure is an
appropriate size if no guidelines are in place.
Lindquist stated a five to six story building may be appropriate along the new Highway 12
corridor but not appropriate elsewhere within the City. Lindquist stated the height of the
building should be taken into consideration with the topography of the land and the surrounding
area.
Gaffron stated in every case where the residential PUD will be in affect,the City will be rezoning
to a residential PUD and will be adjacent mostly to residential areas and possibly some
commercial. Gaffron recommended a different standard for set for those areas that lie within a
residential area than those within a commercial district. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission
may also want to look at setbacks in relation to height.
Berg commented in her view there should be some guidelines in place for developers that come
to the City to give them some direction on what the Planning Commission and City Council
would like to see for development.
Gaffron stated the City currently has an application for a senior housing facility that is not
presently allowed in any district. Gaffron stated the residential PUD will create a new zoning
district which will allow multi-family dwelling units and create some guidelines and standards
to help give some direction for that type of development. Gaffron stated he would like some 411
direction from the Planning Commission as it relates to this ordinance amendment.
Hawn commented she would like to see some height standards incorporated into the amendment.
Hawn stated she would like to limit the number of stories on lakeside properties as well as give
some flexibility to height depending on the area and other factors. Hawn stated she also would
like to see a ratio to setbacks incorporated into the amendment, i.e.,the larger the setback,the
taller the building can be.
Gaffron stated there is a section in the code that does talk about setbacks and relates setbacks to
height.
Nygard commented in his view the height restriction needs to be clear and well defined. Nygard
stated in his opinion anything over three stories is ambitious and would be difficult to approve.
Nygard stated he would like to see the buildings not exceed the height of the treetops.
Smith stated she would like to see some standards relating to height incorporated into the
amendment but would also like some flexibility.
Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this matter to a work session in December.
Berg stated she would like to discuss this amendment more indepth, noting she has a number of
questions on some items contained within the ordinance.
•
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
• (#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,Continued)
Lindquist commented in his view overall this is a good document in principal and he would
prefer to deal with the height restrictions on a per unit basis.
Berg stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the height of the structure,where it is
located,what it is adjacent to, and that there needs to be some guidelines in place to help give
direction to the developers.
Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded,to table Application#2631,Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code,Residential P.U.D.,to a work session in
November or December. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED
(#9) #2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code,Section 10.45
Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded,to table Application#2638 Zoning Code Amendment,
Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45,to a work session in November or
December in conjunction with Application#2631. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#10) #2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52
• Stoddard moved,Nygard seconded,to table Application#2639 Zoning Code Amendment,
Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52,to a work session in November or
December in conjunction with Application#2631. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#11) #2640/2641 Orono Ambar,LLC,2060 Wayzata Boulevard,P.U.D./Subdivision/
Rezoning/Commercial Site Plan Review, 10:01 p.m.— 11:32 p.m.
Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar,appeared.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted an application for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre
property. The Applicant is proposing rezoning for the two properties from the B-1, Retail
Sales Business District to B-6/PUD for office use of the proposed west parcel, and
RPUD/PUD for multi-family residential use of the proposed east parcel. The intended use of
the properties are a three story, 70 unit senior housing project,and a 23,000 square foot office
building.
Weinberger noted the subject parcel is platted as Outlot F, Sugarwoods, which is the parcel
immediately south of the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The only buffer between the residential
use in Suganvoods is a 40 foot wide platted outlot that is owned by the Suganvoods Homeowners
Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that
prohibits removal of trees greater than two inches in diameter within the rear setback for those
lots located closest to the proposed development. In order for any development to occur on the
IIIproperty,the lot would need to be replatted.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20,2000
(#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR,Continued) •
Weinberger stated they are proposing to rezone this property,which requires a comprehensive
plan amendment to change the guided land use designation for at least Lot 2. The rezoning
would allow Lot 1, which is proposed to have a 23,000 square foot office building constructed
on it,to be rezoned to the B-6 District. The second rezoning would be to rezone Lot 2 to the
RPUD, which would establish standards for a multi-family residential senior use of the building.
The Applicant is proposing to construct a three-story, 70 unit senior housing facility. The
housing would be similar to other senior housing facilities. Weinberger stated the 1980
Comprehensive Plan and the revised Comprehensive Plan has this area guided for commercial
use. The proposed senior housing would not fit under this designation, which results in the
need for a comprehensive plan amendment for Lot 2.
Weinberger stated Section 10.53 defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12
PUD,which is really the umbrella for this process being put in place to allow rezoning to occur
on this property. Weinberger noted Section 10.52 defines special requirements for rezoning
along the Highway 12 corridor.
The Applicant has provided site plans for both projects. Weinberger noted a site plan review
is required for each individual lot. Commercial site plan will typically involve all of the reviews
that are typically involved in any type of site plan review, including such things as landscaping,
parking, lighting,traffic flow, building height, setbacks, architectural materials, screening, and
any other design or use issues that exist.
Weinberger noted this is a preliminary plat application, which also involves replatting and •
subdivision of the two lots. Lot 2 consists of approximately four acres in size and would house
the senior housing facility. The 70 units would result in a density of 17.5 units per acre on the
property,which is higher than any other zoning district within the City of Orono,therefore
the RPUD ordinance would apply in this case. The RPUD would rely heavily on the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot to guide the lot towards the type of uses and
densities that would be allowed on this property. The RPUD would also provide those incentives
that are consistent with Orono's housing goals and includes modifications to regular density
requirements. The housing goal in this case is to provide moderately priced senior housing.
Weinberger stated the office use being proposed for Lot 1 would not require a comprehensive
plan amendment since the underlying land designation is for commercial use for the entire
site. Lot 1 consists of 2.1 acres. Weinberger noted the Applicant are looking for a conceptual
plan review and approval at this time.
Weinberger stated the preliminary plat would fall under the preliminary plat standards. Because
this is a non-residential plat,the City has the option of applying additional requirements that the
City would help this development fit within the neighborhood and to protect adjacent areas from
any nuisance uses on the property. Weinberger stated some of those provisions would include
permanent landscape buffer strips and any other additional screening or design elements that
would help it fit into the neighborhood better.
The Applicant is proposing to plat Lot 1 as an individual lot. Lot 2 would be platted creating
a building with 70 units, which would be accomplished by creating 70 separate tax parcels and
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
• (#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR,Continued)
70 separate legal descriptions. Under this type of plat,the units would be eventually owned by
a non-profit organization and each unit would be rented to an individual occupant.
Surrounding this individual lot is the Suganvoods neighborhood to the north. Weinberger noted
a 40 foot outlot exists between this development and Sugarwoods, which is owned by the
Homeowners Association. There are also covenants and restrictions in place within the
Sugarwood development that prohibit the removal of any trees greater than two inches in
diameter. Weinberger noted there are five lots that actually abut to this proposed development.
To the south is the existing Highway 12,which is proposed to be relocated, and the existing
Highway 12 would eventually be turned over and maintained by Hennepin County. Located
east of this development is Brown Road, and as part of the Highway 12 relocation, would form
a complete lighted intersection with existing Highway 12.
Weinberger indicated the City is considering the various methods that are available to offer
financial assistance to this project. Some options the City will be considering is the creation of
a TIF District for this area,tax abatement or bonding for the project that would allow this type
of development to occur and to keep the rents affordable. Weinberger noted the City Council has
not made a determination on what type of financing should be offered at this time.
Weinberger stated the office building would consist of a 23,000 square foot office building with
a 21 stall parking area underneath the building. The actual size of the building is 172 feet by
80 feet,with the 80 feet being exposed to the residential areas to the north. The building is
designed to have a step-up appearance to lessen or soften the visual impact to the adjoining
area. Weinberger noted one portion of the building would consist of one story, with the
• remainder of the building being two stories. One access point would be off of the existing
Highway 12 corridor.
Proposed landscaping on the site for the office use consists of a number of plantings around the
property and within the parking area. Weinberger noted the landscaping could be subject to
additional requirements at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Weinberger stated one setback issue that needs to be addressed further would be the setback
between the building and the interior property line, which is shown at 30 feet. The B-6 district
requires a 35 foot setback. Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the height of the
building. noting that the building does meet the 30 foot maximum height restriction for the
B-6 district. Weinberger indicated the proposed tower on the building would have a defined
height of 32 feet,which is an architectural and design element on the building to help break up
the facade of the structure.
Weinberger stated the senior housing facility has a clock tower on the Highway 12 side of the
building and also incorporates some of the same design elements as the proposed office building.
Weinberger noted this facility would also have a step down from three stories to two stories,
which helps to make the mass of the building appear less. Due to the topography of the land,
half of the building would be located at a lower height, with the other half of the building being
ten feet higher in elevation. Weinberger noted the portion of the building facing Highway 12
would consist of the three stories.
Weinberger stated the setbacks that would apply in this situation are up for some discussion in
relation to the RPUD ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require setbacks based on
•
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR,Continued) •
building height in addition to minimum setbacks on the property. The plan before the Planning
Commission shows 40 feet between the building and the northern property line and 30 feet
where the garage entrance is located and the interior property line. Discussions have been held
between Staff and the developer about the possibility of moving the building further to the south.
Weinberger noted a pond has been constructed in the area which is designed to handle the water
runoff from Highway 12. Weinberger noted the pond is owned and operated by Mn/DOT.
Weinberger stated the other access to this site would be off of Brown Road and could be located
closer to the pond should the building be relocated slightly. However,this would result in the
removal of some mature trees on the site.
Weinberger stated the developer is proposing one space on the interior of the building for each
individual unit with the senior housing complex,with 83 outdoor spaces being shown for use
by guests to the building. Weinberger stated the City Engineer would like to keep the exterior
parking away from the main traveled portion of the road. Weinberger stated a portion of the
parking area could be relocated closer to the building, with outdoor parking only on the north
side of the road. Weinberger stated the road would be by easement and would not be platted,
which would allow a lesser setback.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should be advised that per the Highway 12 PUD
provisions by which this review will occur underneath,this proposal is in a general concept
stage, which is equivalent to a preliminary plat application. However,the City Council may hold
a second public hearing as allowed under the PUD ordinance and would require a 3/5's vote.
Weinberger stated under the PUD ordinance,there is a mandatory 60 day requirement for the •
g �' Y q
Planning Commission to make a recommendation, and because the Planning Commission does
not meet in December, this application would go beyond the 60 day limit. Weinberger noted the
developer may prefer to have a recommendation on this matter before the end of the year rather
than tabling of the application.
Dunbar commented he would like to address two items relating to the office building. Dunbar
stated the five foot variance on the east side could be adjusted to 35 feet,which would eliminate
the variance request. In an attempt to get the office building to look more like the housing in
the area,the tower has been eliminated and would not result in the need for any variances.
Dunbar stated their intent is to get a concept and a site plan that is acceptable to the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the neighborhood. Dunbar indicated they have a tight time frame
in which to get this project approved, and requested that concept approval be given as soon as
possible. Dunbar stated they are willing to work with the City and the neighborhood in order to
address the issues satisfactorily.
Dunbar indicated two neighborhood meetings have been held with the local residents. Dunbar
stated they have attempted to locate the narrowest portion of the office building next to the
neighborhood and to limit it to one story, with an 80 foot setback, to limit the impact on the
residential area. Dunbar stated they would like to preserve the vegetation in the front and place
some additional screening along the building. Dunbar commented they have attempted to make
the office building appear more residential looking to make it more appealing and to blend in
•
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR,Continued)
with the adjoining residential area.
Dunbar stated as it relates to the senior housing facility,they have reduced the number of
outdoor parking stalls to 50 and are considering the possibility of increasing the indoor parking
to 84 spaces. Dunbar noted they are looking at Staff's concerns and are attempting to address
those. Dunbar stated they could also remove the tower incorporated into the senior housing
facility.
Dunbar indicated they will need to discuss with the City Council any financing that could be
made available on this project. Dunbar noted a non-profit organization would own this facility
once constructed, with the mission of the non-profit to provide moderately priced senior
housing, which is somewhat dependent on the amount of financing provided by the City.
Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Suganvood Drive, inquired whether any family members would be
able to reside with the senior residents.
Dunbar stated under state law they are not permitted to have family members live in the senior
housing facility unless they are married.
Schommer inquired whether there would be balconies on the building and what they would be
used for.
Dunbar stated they are planning balconies on the facility, which will be used for sitting. Dunbar
indicated there will be no electrical outlets located on the outside of the building for the decks.
A resident in the audience inquired about the lighting and air-conditioning of the building.
Dunbar stated there will be air-conditioning units available in each individual unit.
Gaffron noted the City will require recessed outdoor lighting.
Dunbar stated they need to construct a 70 unit facility in order to help keep the rent increases
to a minimum.
Karl Berg, 2112, Sugarwood Drive, commented he has a number of issues he would like to
see addressed. Berg stated he would like to see the service road pass in front of the property.
Berg inquired about the height of the building and lighting at night. Berg commented in his view
the senior housing development would make a good neighbor, with the concept plan being more
positive than negative.
Gaffron indicated the City could incorporate a height restriction for this zoning district if they
should elect to do so.
Schommer commented the neighbors would like to be kept updated on the progress of this
project.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 20, 2000
(#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
Gaffron stated the City could give notice to the affected property owners. Gaffron noted the
City normally does not mail out individual notice of the upcoming meetings once the public
hearing has been held. Gaffron stated the City could send out individual notice of upcoming
meetings if the Planning Commission so desired.
Berg requested the president of the Sugarwood Homeowner's Association be given notice of
any upcoming meetings concerning this application.
Hawn commented she is unsure what action or recommendation the Planning Commission should
give at this time since the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the City. Hawn
stated in her opinion this appears to be a good plan, noting she would like to see a buffer along
the front of the building. Hawn requested the neighbors' concerns and comments be kept in
mind when revisions are being made to the plan.
Lindquist noted he is in agreement conceptually with the plan.
Berg commented she is glad the developer is working with the neighbors.
Smith inquired whether the building materials could be specified.
Gaffron stated the RPUD process will allow the Planning Commission to dictate what they would
like to see for this development.
Stoddard stated in his opinion more discussion is needed regarding the height of the building and
the parking.
Nygard inquired how many employees there would be.
Dunbar indicated 42 parking stalls would be available to staff, with the majority of the parking
area being utilized on the weekends.
Pat Brakeman, Sugarwood, stated his major concern is with the size of the project and
landscaping for the wintertime. Brakeman stated he would like some idea of the developer's
agenda for this project. Brakeman stated in his view the City does not need a city-wide
ordinance in place prior to dealing with this project.
Gaffron stated Orono's current ordinances do not allow this type of density beyond what's in
the current zoning districts, and that this ordinance is needed to permit this type of housing.
Dunbar stated he will need to meet with the City Council regarding the available financing before
being able to proceed much further. Dunbar stated he would like to get some direction from the
Planning Commission and City Council on which direction they would like this project to go.
Berg commented she is aware of other senior housing facilities consisting of two 30 unit
buildings rather than one large building. Berg suggested this application be tabled until the
ordinance amendment is adopted.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20,2000
(#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
Gaffron noted a work session is scheduled with the City Council for December 7h to discuss
this item. Gaffron stated a work session is also needed in order to discuss the proposed
ordinance. Gaffron stated if this application is tabled,the Planning Commission will not see it
again until January. Gaffron suggested that a formal meeting could be held in December to
discuss this project.
Nygard suggested meeting sometime after the City Council meeting.
Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps a joint meeting with the Planning Commission be held on
December 7h. Jabbour stated the City needs to look at providing higher density housing.
Hawn inquired whether this matter could be sent on to the City Council without a
recommendation.
Gaffron stated the City Council will probably send it back for review by the Planning
Commission at some point. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could give conceptual
approval to this plan.
Lindquist moved,Stoddard seconded,to give conceptual approval to Application
#2640/2641,P.U.D./Subdivision/Rezoning/Commercial Site Plan, and to send this
application forward to the City Council for their comment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Hawn noted there is not a consensus on the appropriate density.
Dunbar indicated he is not opposed to extending the 60 day time limit.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 23, 2000 AND NOVEMBER 13, 2000
This item was not discussed.
(#14) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR OCTOBER 16, 2000
Berg moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning
Commission meeting of October 16, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Nygard moved, Lindquist,to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning
Commission meeting of September 25, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday November 20,2000.
(#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Hawn encouraged the Planning Commission members to attend the City Council work session
scheduled for December 7, 2000.
(#15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
NOVEMBER 27,2000 AND DECEMBER 11,2000
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m.
Elizabeth Hawn, Chair
PAGE 30