HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE Cc- I S?' - 00 i
0 COUNCIL
1F1LANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. c ,/ ,") -
5 , 0576 CZ/ -:e4 le./2- e,/-260Z.
2. ' aLco i-/ /4/ /14kl/
/ . j„
Ti, ) Ts75 '
-czyo (A/,./-ty --ki Ayr /hulk 4 ,-<,i_ 1 y
/-,
3. (0V—U]eltP5 I SC,-3- s k S (3 00 (6 „L‘‘Mit, it-0 i -26,7 k,
4. 144;---- 60-6?--.)--Ki . c-6 kJ 1-3,r,tvar,/,,
5. (-R C 4 e,'P r 14:- 2_ owe, EL_m v v:i 3) Nkv-0 c 1 - z 67-76
I
6. I i-t-Iitr-)Z-lvjc.- _, T-G, Q---A.. luif tiiAs.„ tR.01., 1.) 1-26., ,S
7. ....„ -,..4— '"Dc--7 1Z 05" c*, lIce.,,..-/c., rZ.-
8. ir3. f) X- 4 bi-,-, --t. - 4/ -c 9-, ,, 1 R ci
• • 2-6- --90 Ai , I- SacrcLue40, °I— e474
10. .1111; 411 . 174;2: 7-4 -:.._, AP-- / <
. - - -• • • i1Z,2441/1 01- .076.7" .
--
11. 11; T V,.. -K- 4. .'I '-'''' 1 1
• • i1- ,
iiti, ti , vi,,,,
' --c_L7( - . L4.(__
1 It)('* "0(
4 - 7 izt 6/ RUY
13. (4,4_ I
14. M, e Lk) ‘, tAll-6 I.\ 17 gOS 1.4(1 1-*€ I ti i e D
15. gtsi) Ai -1-C keit
RAAPPS\WPW1N60\VVPDOCS\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATI
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
2. j (L /1 i/.3 i w; 5r'4--7`42-( 0 / k 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
T MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners William Stoddard,Dale Lindquist, Sandra Smith,
Janice Berg, Daniel Kluth, and Jeanne Mabusth. The following represented City Staff: Planning
Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young.
City Council Representative Bob Sansevere was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#1) #01-2682 TIMOTHY F.OLSON,2510 OLD BEACH ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,6:31 p.m.—6:37 p.m.
Timothy Olson,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an accessory storage building
20' by 24' behind their residence approximately 50 feet from the side property line. A
conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a"through" lot. By Zoning
Code definition, a"through" lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two
substantially parallel streets and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot,both street lines shall be
front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts Mapleridge Lane and Old Beach Road.
Bottenberg stated primary access to the residence is currently from Old Beach Road,with an
undeveloped access from Mapleridge Lane. The Applicants are not proposing a new driveway.
Bottenberg noted the property is sewered,with sewer location not being an issue in this application.
Structural coverage and hardcover are also not an issue with this proposal.
City Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct an accessory building on
the property as proposed,meeting all required setbacks.
Olson stated he has nothing to add in addition to Staffs report,noting he has brought pictures of the
property if the Planning Commission is interested in seeing them.]
Hawn inquired whether this should really be considered a through lot since it is located on a
cul-de-sac off of Old Beach Road and does not meet the typical definition of a through lot.
Gaffron stated this is not a typical through lot and that normally a through lot would have two parallel
roads with a lot in between them. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission so desires, City Staff
could amend this section of the Zoning Code to make lots similar to this property exempt from being
a through lot.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2682 Tim Olson,Continued)
Hawn stated it would be her recommendation that the Zoning Code be changed.
Kluth inquired how many lots in Orono would be affected by this change.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission probably sees a minimum of two to three similar
applications a year.
Mabusth inquired whether Staff has received any response from the adjoining property owners.
Bottenberg stated they have not.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2682,
Timothy F. Olson,2510 Old Beach Road,granting of a conditional use permit to construct an
accessory building on the property as proposed,meeting all required setbacks.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend the City Council consider changing the
Zoning Code regulating"through"lots. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#2) #01-2683 RICK BENSON,776 NORTH BROWN ROAD,VARIANCE,
6:37 p.m.—6:40 p.m.
Rick Benson,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to replace the existing decks on the lakeside of the
residence. The existing decks are old and in deteriorating condition. The new decks will be the same
size and in the same location as the existing decks.
The Applicants are not proposing an increase in structural coverage or hardcover. The structural
coverage on the lot will remain at 6.7 percent and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will remain
at 24.06 percent.
A variance to the average lakeshore setback is required to permit the deck to encroach 70 feet into the
average lakeshore setback.
City Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
Benson had nothing to add to Staff's report.
Hawn inquired whether the screen porch would also be replaced.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2683 Rick Benson,Continued)
Benson stated the screen porch would remain as is.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2683,Rick Benson,
776 North Brown Road,granting of a variance for average lakeshore setback to allow a 70 foot
encroachment to replace the existing decks on the lakeside of the residence.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#3) #01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH,B-4 AMENDMENT,PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS,6:41 p.m.—8:12 p.m.
George Wells, Helmer Heckal, Pastor, Greg Metz,Frank Svoboda,property owner, and Rodney
Beestrom appeared on behalf of the Baywind Christian Church.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated the City Council reviewed this application at their June 11 tit meeting absent a formal
Planning Commission recommendation. On June 11`h,the Council reconvened the public hearing
begun at the Planning Commission,took public comments,and closed the hearing. The Council
voted 5-0 to conceptually approve the addition of"Churches"as a Conditional Use in the B-4 Office
and Professional Business District, directing that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
regarding appropriate performance standards for that use.
Gaffron stated the conditional use permit review provides an opportunity to place conditions on the
use that will mitigate anticipated adverse impacts of the use,to protect the value of other property
within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Denial
of a conditional use permit for an allowed conditional use can only occur if it can be shown that the
proposed use does not comply with the standards required in the Zoning Code. A given conditional
use may be deemed appropriate within a given zoning district only under specific conditions and
when certain standards are met.
Gaffron stated the general B-4 standards that are in place that apply to all B-4 uses include the
following:
- Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet
- Minimum lot width of 100 feet
- Minimum front yard of 20 feet
- Minimum rear yard of 30 feet
- Side driveway 12 feet minimum width for access to rear yard if no alley or side street access
- Building setbacks: 35 feet front, 35 feet rear, 15 feet side, 35 feet side street, 35 feet from any lot
line abutting an `R' District
- Fence or compact evergreen hedge at least six feet high and at least 50 percent opaque required
along side or rear lot lines that abut an `R' District
- Maximum building height two and one-half stories or 30 feet except as provided in Section 10.75
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
- Exterior wall finishes to be a)face brick,or b)natural stone, or c)specially designed precast units
if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or d)
factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction
- All subsequent additions and outbuildings must be architecturally comparable with the original
architecture
- No temporary buildings allowed except as needed during construction of permanent buildings
- Drainage plans must be in accordance with City and other agency requirements.
Gaffron stated the conditional use listing for churches in Residential `R' Districts includes merely a
definition that church use includes"those related structures located on the same site which are an
integral part of the church proper,convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the
same site,"and a specific condition related to location("provided that no building other than a
residence shall be located within 50 feet of any abutting lot line in an `R' district."). There are no
other specific standards for a church in an `R' District.
The Planning Commission should also consider whether adjacent commercially zoned property in the
B-4 District will be impacted as to value if a church is located on a B-4 site. Orono's B-4 District is
very small, comprising only 11 tax parcels and a total of about 17 acres. The Planning Commission
may also wish to consider whether expansion of the church should be limited.
Gaffron stated one of the issues raised by the Planning Commission at its prior meeting regarded
parking and pedestrian safety. Any use allowed in the B-4 District should be required to provide
adequate parking on site or an adjacent property. No B-4 use should be approved that inherently
requires pedestrian crossings of major roads at uncontrolled intersections.
Gaffron stated the Orono Zoning Code establishes parking requirements for all districts and uses,
with church parking requirements being based on the designed seating capacity of the main assembly
hall,requiring one parking space per four seats. The City of Minnetonka uses 2.5 seats per parking
space for churches. Gaffron noted according to the 2000 census, Orono households currently contain
an average of 2.7 persons.
Gaffron stated that while only one property in the existing B-4 District abuts a local residential street,
it may be appropriate to require that churches with potential access onto both local streets and
collector or arterial roadways must not access to the local street. Gaffron stated the City of Orono
currently has eight church properties in Orono,with three of the eight having access to local streets
and the remaining having access onto collectors or arterials.
Gaffron stated Orono Code also restricts B-4 parking to within 10 feet of a residential lot line
adjoining the B-4 rear yard. Church parking in the R Districts under current code could be as close as
10 feet to a side lot line and three feet from a rear lot line abutting a residential property. Gaffron
noted the City of Minnetonka requires a 25 foot setback from residential property for church parking
regardless of the zoning district. Staff recommends a 25 foot rear yard setback for parking for a
church when that parking abuts a residentially zoned property.
Gaffron stated an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan probably is not necessary since Orono has
never had an"Institutional District"zoning classification and since schools, libraries and museums
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
could all be considered institutional uses that have been allowed in the B-4 since its inception and
does not change the intent of the B-4 District.
Staff is recommending the following specific performance standards for the Church use in the B-4
District:
1. All buildings shall meet a setback of 50 feet from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned
property.
2. The Applicant shall demonstrate that parking requirements for the expected level of use will
be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare.
3. Churches shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the Orono
Comprehensive Plan or otherwise located so that access will be provided without conducting
significant traffic onto local residential streets. An alternative is to require that if a church
property abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial roadway,the access shall
be onto the collector or arterial.
4. Parking areas in side or rear yards shall be set back 25 feet from residentially zoned property.
5. One parking space shall be provided for each 2.5 seats of capacity in the main assembly hall
or sanctuary, with additional parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter for
other facilities such as classrooms, licensed day care facilities, or offices.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should also consider whether this entry should be listed as
"Religious Institutions and Facilities"rather than simply"Churches".
Stoddard inquired whether the applicant would be required to adhere to a hardcover limit.
Gaffron stated they would need to comply with a 35 percent hardcover limit for the portions of
property within 500-1,000' of the lakeshore.
Wells commented it was his understanding the Planning Commission is not dealing with Baywind's
individual situation at this time,but are dealing with zoning for churches in general.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission will be looking at both.
Wells stated he is a resident of Minnetonka and has noted over the years that the City of Minnetonka
does not enforce its parking ordinance relating to churches. Wells stated the City of Minnetonka and
the City of Orono also have different demographics,which would result in the Planning Commission
comparing apples to oranges. Wells noted Minnetonka has a number of multi-family housing while
Orono tends to have larger affluent families.
Hawn noted the average size for a household in Orono is 2.7.
PAGE 5
r I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Berg commented the church would be drawing parishioners from other areas outside of Orono as
well.
Heckal stated the congregation of the church at the present time consists of approximately 90 adults,
with the remaining being young children,and would result in approximately 50 cars on a Sunday.
Wells pointed out most people who travel to an office building tend to be by themselves. Wells stated
the heaviest amount of traffic to the church would also occur on a Sunday morning when the other
businesses are not open for business.
Greg Metz stated the parking setback for B-4 is ten feet off the property line to an adjacent residence,
with office parking lots typically being 75 percent full the majority of the time. Metz stated the
church's parking lot would remain fairly empty for the majority of the time. Metz stated he is unclear
why the parking standards for the church would be more stringent than the parking requirements for
other businesses within the B-4 District.
Hawn commented it was her understanding that Staff had a concern that the 10 foot setback was not
sufficient for office use as well as churches. Hawn stated regardless of whether cars are parking in
the lot or not,the adjoining property owner is forced to look at blacktop 100 percent of the time.
Metz noted there is a requirement for landscaping along the perimeter of the property. Metz inquired
whether the parking lot standard would be changed for all uses within the B-4 District.
Hawn stated they are just looking at churches at this time. Hawn stated church use within the B-4
District would be an exception,with the Planning Commission reviewing at this time what standards
would be appropriate.
Mabusth noted there are given standards for every use within the B-4, including institutional uses.
Mabusth stated the church would be required to follow those B-4 standards unless the Planning
Commission waives one of the standards.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn noted she was not present at the last Planning Commission meeting when this application was
discussed. Hawn inquired whether the church intends this to become a permanent location or is a
temporary location.
Wells stated the Baywind Church serves the community and has a substantial positive financial
impact to the local businesses in the area. Wells stated their pastor also works with the other churches
in the community.
Wells stated due to their present location,they have experienced a loss in membership. Wells stated
they are looking at relocating in this area in an effort to recoup those lost members,with this building
being an interim location until they are able to construct a new church. Wells stated in a few years
they would like to sell this property as commercial property and build a new church. Wells noted
finding a new location in Orono will not be easy since the majority of the residential property is not
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
currently sewered.
Stoddard inquired whether it is possible that this will become a permanent location for the church.
Heckal stated that is not their intent at this time.
Lindquist stated in his view the Planning Commission needs to look at the church as becoming a
permanent use within the B-4 District when establishing standards.
Stoddard noted some requirements for the B-4 District are not controlled by the City, such as the Fire
Code requirements.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission cannot do spot zoning and needs to look at standards that
would be required for any church that would come into this district. Kluth noted he was present at the
City Council meeting where this application was discussed,with the Council expressing some
bewilderment about why churches had been excluded from this district in the first place. Kluth stated
the Council is in favor of allowing churches within the B-4 District and establishing standards for this
use.
Kluth stated the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to set standards for this use within
the B-4 District regardless of the needs of this church. Kluth stated even if the Zoning Code is
changed and church use is allowed within the B-4 District,that does not guarantee the Baywind
Church will be able to meet all the conditions of the conditional use permit.
Bob Sansevere, City Council Representative, commented the Council is supportive of churches in the
B-4 District,with some concerns being expressed relating to parking and pedestrian traffic crossing
busy streets. Sansevere stated in his view the fact that churches were not originally included in the
B-4 District was an oversight.
Smith inquired whether the standards being recommended by Staff would apply to churches.
Gaffron stated the recommended standards would apply to church use and that Staff is not proposing
the Planning Commission change any of the general B-4 standards regulating the entire district.
Lindquist noted all the other B-4 standards would apply as well, and that the other standards being
recommended by Staff would apply only to church use.
Kluth inquired whether these standards would also apply in the `R' District.
Gaffron stated the `R' District has a different set of standards than the B-4 general standards. Gaffron
stated at the present time the `R' District only has one standard regulating churches at the present time
relating to setbacks. Gaffron stated one of the specific standards for church use would be that they
demonstrate sufficient parking to avoid the necessity to have pedestrians crossing a busy
thoroughfare.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Kluth stated he has a concern if the conditions are too restrictive or are specifically targeted towards
churches whether that stand up to scrutiny by a court of law. Kluth stated in order to attach specific
standards to a church that are not being required of other uses in the B-4 District requires a very good
reason in his opinion and needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Berg commented she has major concerns regarding the traffic in this area and the possibility that
pedestrians will be crossing a busy street.
Beestrom stated the fact that pedestrians may be crossing a street is not precedent setting and that for
almost 100 years the old Grace Church had people crossing County Road 19. Beestrom stated the
parking lot for the Fairview Covenant Church only accommodates 25 percent of their cars,with
approximately 75 percent of the parking being located across the street. Beestrom stated the existing
parking lot for this building will accommodate the majority of the cars that will travel to the
church,with the majority of the traffic being on Sunday, and in his opinion is not a major problem.
Berg stated she has lived in this area since 1979, and is aware of the traffic situation in the area. Berg
stated the traffic going north is not as bad as the traffic going south. Berg stated she has major
concerns about allowing pedestrian traffic across County Road 19.
Heckal stated in his opinion, based on his conversations with other pastors in the area, a ratio of one
to four persons per car is more reasonable for churches.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the performance standard requiring a
50 foot setback for all buildings from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned property.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this standard should be required.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission members were in favor of the performance
standard requiring that the Applicant demonstrate that the parking requirements for the expected level
of use will be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare. Hawn
stated it was her understanding from Council Member Sansevere's comments that the Council has
concerns that pedestrian traffic not cross County Road 19.
Beestrom stated the Freshwater Institute currently utilizes the parking lot that the church will also be
utilizing,with pedestrians crossing the road to get to activities being held at the Freshwater Institute.
Beestrom stated that situation has been occurring for years.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is merely a recommending body to the Council,with the
Council having indicated that they would prefer pedestrians not have to cross County Road 19 in
order to attend functions at the church. Hawn stated the Baywind Church will need to discuss this
issue with the Council.
Wells commented it is hard to set policies that will be violated out of necessity.
Hawn stated if that is the case,that is not an acceptable solution.
PAGE 8
,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Wells stated it appears the Planning Commission is attempting to require standards of the church that
are not being required of other places within the City.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission and City Council adopt standards in an effort to help preserve
the community and best serve the interests of the community. Kluth stated the Planning Commission
is not required to follow bad precedents and that the Planning Commission is unable to stop
pedestrian traffic at all other places. Kluth stated just because other churches may have been allowed
to have pedestrian traffic across busy streets,does not require the Planning Commission to allow that
to occur at this location.
Smith inquired why the City is considering setting these types of standards for this particular church
and other churches in the area when they are not requiring schools and other institutions like the
Freshwater Institute to do exactly what the Planning Commission is attempting to do in this particular
case.
Kluth stated if the City is going to require standards for this church that are not required of other
businesses, it will be subject to judicial review,and the City will need to defend why they are creating
these standards for this particular church when they are not being placed against other businesses.
Smith stated in her view these standards may need to be a B-4 standard rather than just standards that
apply to this particular church.
Mabusth stated a solution might be if sufficient parking is not provided on site,that the Council must
approve a parking plan. Mabusth stated the City in the past has approved parking lots across County
Road 19 for other places of businesses. Mabusth stated in her view the Council should approve a
parking arrangement if ample parking is not provided on site. Mabusth inquired how many parking
stalls are available at this site.
Kluth stated there is approximately 45 parking stalls.
Mabusth suggested that standard number two be made subject to approval by the Council of an off-
site parking plan if ample parking is not available on-site.
Kluth stated in his opinion the Planning Commission should not be coming up with new standards for
churches when they are not being applied to other businesses within the B-4 District. Kluth stated the
B-4 District already has standards that need to be complied with.
Hawn stated the B-4 District does have parking standards that will need to be followed.
Gaffron stated the City does have specific parking standards for various businesses.
Kluth commented he is okay with Mabusth's suggestion regarding approval by the Council of an off-
site parking plan.
PAGE 9
- 1.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Hawn suggested the Planning Commission skip standard number three and consider standard number
four which requires that parking areas in side or rear yards be set back 25 feet from residentially
zoned property.
Stoddard stated the B-4 standard is 30 feet.
Gaffron stated the B-4 standards allows parking within 10 feet of a rear yard and side yard setback.
Lindquist stated in his view the standard should be 10 feet to be in agreement with the B-4 standards.
Gaffron indicated the 10 feet setback is in the general parking standards for any B District and not
just specifically the B-4 District. Gaffron stated the language should perhaps read that parking is
allowed in a rear yard in a B District up to within 10 feet of the rear lot line and up to within three feet
in a residential district.
Kluth stated if other businesses in the B-4 District are allowed to park within 10 feet of a rear lot line,
then why should churches be any different.
Lindquist recommended the same B-4 standards apply.
Hawn commented it is her view that Staff feels the 10 feet is not enough for any business. Hawn
inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of making that a bigger setback for any
use.
Gaffron stated in his opinion changing the standards for other uses within the:B-4 District is outside
the scope of what is happening tonight. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission is looking at a
specific use and its impacts in determining whether the standards are appropriate.
Hawn stated the standards should be consistent.
Gaffron stated it was not the intent to change the standards for all uses within the B-4 District but to
come up with some standards specific for churches within the B-4 District.
Smith stated the Council could consider changing the standards for the entire 13-4 District.
Kluth reiterated his concern that if the City adopts standards specific to this church and does not apply
them to other uses within the B-4 District,that it may appear the City is attempting to zone this
particular use out of this district.
Hawn stated it is her sense that the Planning Commission would prefer to leave it at a 10 foot setback,
with a recommendation to the Council that if they would like more stringent conditions,they consider
applying them to the entire B-4 District.
Kluth stated the parking lots currently in this area would then be grandfathered in if new standards are
adopted.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Hawn inquired how the Planning Commission felt about standard number five requiring one parking
space be provided for each 2.5 seats of capacity in the main assembly hall or sanctuary,with
additional parking standards required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter for other facilities such
as classrooms, licensed day care facilities or offices. Hawn noted the church is proposing a ratio of
one to four persons per car.
Heckal stated in his conversations with other pastors in the area,they felt a ratio of one to four
persons per car was more reasonable for churches. Heckal stated he is unsure what the reasoning is to
change the standard to 2.5.
Stoddard inquired what the B-4 standard is.
Hawn stated it varies depending on the use.
Kluth inquired whether there is this standard for churches located in the `R' District.
Gaffron stated the standard is 4 to 1 for churches no matter what district they are located in. Gaffron
stated the City of Minnetonka utilizes a 2.5 ratio regardless of the district it is located in. Gaffron
stated the City does have specific parking standards for other uses.
Kluth stated if the Planning Commission does make this a condition of approval and the church is
unable to meet the condition,they would either need to apply for a variance or the conditional use
permit would be denied. Kluth stated the City Council has the discretion of making specific standards
under a conditional use permit regulating lighting, ingress and egress,off-street parking,berming,and
others. Kluth noted the current standard for other churches is 4 to 1. Kluth recommended the
standard be kept at 4 to 1, and to let the Council determine whether that is appropriate.
Hawn inquired whether this application was returned to the Planning Commission in order to give the
Council a recommendation on the parking issue.
Sansevere stated the Council wanted the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to review this
application fully. Sansevere stated he would like the Planning Commission tc look at churches in
general for the B-4 District and not just this specific church.
Hawn noted there currently is not a uniform standard regulating parking and that it depends on the use
being proposed.
Lindquist and Smith stated in their view they should stick with the current 4 to 1 standard.
Lindquist stated language could be added that the Council could change that requirement if it deems
appropriate.
Sansevere stated he will be looking at the requirements for the rest of the B-4 District.
Hawn stated currently there is not a parking standard for churches in the B-4 area and that the parking
standards vary depending on the use.
PAGE 11
r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
:(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had relating to standard number three
requiring that churches be located on a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the Orono
Comprehensive Plan or otherwise located so that access will be provided without conducting
significant traffic onto local residential streets.
Kluth inquired whether this condition also applies to churches in the `R' District.
Gaffron stated it does not. Gaffron stated this is new language.
Stoddard stated in his view for consistency it should be omitted since it is not being required of other
churches in other areas.
Kluth stated the Council can regulate ingress and egress.
Hawn stated the conditions the Planning Commission is reviewing are conditions that might be
involved with a conditional use permit. Hawn stated in her view a church within a B-4 District is
different from a church located in a residential district where it is less likely to be located on a
collector or county road.
Kluth commented each application is unique in one way or another, and that the Council would have
the option of putting certain restrictions on the use.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is considering performance standards for churches within the
B-4 District.
Hawn inquired if there is a problem with having the church have a separate ro ad ingress and egress
for what is typically a Sunday use.
Kluth stated it currently is not a standard in the `R' District.
Hawn stated this standard would apply to churches only located in the B-4 District.
Kluth stated he has concerns about placing conditions on churches within the 13-4 District where those
conditions are not being applied to churches located in residential districts.
Hawn stated for churches that are located in a residential district,they may only have residential
streets to access the church. Hawn stated in her opinion in general the people will be using the
collector street to access this particular site.
Kluth stated he does not want to be looking at standards for one specific location but rather at
standards that apply to the entire B-4 District. Kluth stated by placing a requirement relating to
arterial access may not work for all lots located within the B-4 District.
Gaffron stated all the lots in the B-4 District have arterial access.
PAGE 12
1 .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Hawn stated the standard allows residents who live in residential areas abutting a church to come
back to the Council and ask for some assistance in correcting the traffic and parking problems.
Hawn stated in this case the traffic would not be coming off of a residential street.
Lindquist commented he could live with that standard.
Hawn summed up the Planinng Commission's recommendations by saying that the Commission
appears to be in favor of a building setback of 50 feet. The Planning Commission is in favor of the
Applicant demonstrating that the parking requirements for the expected use will be met onsite or be
subject to approval of a parking plan by the City Council.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to go with the following language concerning
standard number three. If a church property abuts both a local residential street and a collector or
arterial roadway,the access shall be onto the collector or arterial.
Hawn noted the Planning Commission is in favor of a parking setback of 10 feet from residentially
zoned property and for leaving the parking space requirement at four seats.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of any additional requirements.
Stoddard stated he would like to see a height restriction.
Lindquist stated the B-4 District already has standards regulating height.
Stoddard stated he is talking about the height of the steeple.
Gaffron stated anything above two and a half stories or 30 feet would require a conditional use
permit.
Wells noted that a major issue for most communities is the placement of cellular towers. Wells noted
that steeples are one of the common ways to hide cellular towers.
Smith inquired about signing and lighting.
Gaffron stated the same standards for the B-4 District would apply.
Hawn inquired whether this building would meet the majority of the B-4 standards.
Gaffron stated the property meets the lot size, lot width, and setbacks. Gaffron stated there is
potentially a side driveway to the rear of the property for emergency accesses,which will meet the
requirement for a 12 foot side driveway for access to rear yard. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether
the fence or hedge which may exist next to the residential area would need to be improved. The
building meets the building standard and the exterior wall finish meets the standards. Gaffron stated
he does not believe there are any standards relating to outbuildings which would apply in this case
and that drainage does not appear to be a problem at this time. Gaffron stated in general this building
meets the standards for the B-4 District.
PAGE 13
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Baywind Christian Church,Continued)
Hawn stated it is her understanding a portion of the building will be rented or.t to Svoboda. Hawn
inquired whether there would be a doubling up of parking needs.
Svoboda stated his normal parking is a maximum of 12 cars and would occur during the week and not
on Sundays.
Heckal stated the church is planning to have some Wednesday night bible studies and possibly some
summer vacation bible study classes,which should not be a problem since the students would be
dropped off by the parents and not require much parking.
Mabusth commented she likes the language"Religious Institutions and Facilities"rather than simply
churches. Mabusth inquired whether it would be possible to change this district to institutional and
office district.
Gaffron stated that may make sense given the type of uses that are allowed in this district. Gaffron
noted Pastor Heckal suggested the term faith communities.
Heckal stated faith communities is the current term being used by a lot of the parishes,which
encompasses mosques, synagogues and churches.
Kluth recommended the Planning Commission stay with the term religious institutions and facilities
since they are acceptable terms within the zoning field.
Lindquist moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2676,Baywind
Christian Church,B-4 Amendment,subject to the following performance standards:
1. All buildings shall meet a setback of 50 feet from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned
property.
2. The Applicant shall demonstrate that parking requirements for the expected level of use
will be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare or
subject to City Council approval of an acceptable off-site parking plan.
3. If a church property abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial
roadway,the access shall be onto the collector or arterial.
4. Parking areas in side or rear yards shall be set back 10 feet from residentially zoned
property.
5. One parking space shall be provided for each 4 seats of capacity in the main assembly hall
or sanctuary,with additional parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter
for other facilities such as classrooms,licensed day care facilities or offices.
6. The entry should be listed as"Religious Institutions and Facilities".
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
Kluth recommended the applicant work with the City on the parking requirements.
(#4) #01-2680 RICK WINDENBURG& SHIRLEY HENDRICKSON,3200 NORTH SHORE
DRIVE,VARIANCE
This application has been withdrawn.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS—7:30 P.M.
(#9) #01-2688 KIRTLAND C.WOODHOUSE, 1780 SHORELINE DRIVE,
REARRANGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY LINES, 8:13 p.m.—8:38 p.m.
Bob Mitchell, Representative of Kirtland Woodhouse, and Mike Winton,property owner,were
present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement for properties located at
1780 Shoreline Drive. The property consists of three separate building lots which were created by
Registered Land Survey No. 245 in 1953. The three lots were separated from the remainder of the
land in RLS 245 with the plat of Foxhill in 1965.
The east parcel and middle parcel have residences existing on them. The west parcel is vacant and
has been since 1953. The lot line rearrangement is being requested to fulfill requirements outlined in
Resolution#1864 adopted at the time the guest house on the east parcel was granted a conditional use
permit in 1985. The intent of the rearrangement is to create a conforming side setback for the existing
home on the middle parcel and to make the west parcel slightly wider at the intended building site.
Bottenberg noted the City's onsite septic manager has reviewed the septic sites and has determined
both the primary and alternate drainfield sites meet all City and State standards and will not be
impacted by the lot line rearrangement.
Bottenberg stated all three lots currently have access by a private driveway off Shoreline Drive. This
access would remain the same. The driveway is located over Tracts E, H, and C of RLS 245. No
more than three homes will be served by this driveway. The City would not require upgrade of the
driveway to road status unless this was a replat.
The survey does not show any existing easements along interior lot lines which will be moved. Any
existing easements should be vacated along areas no longer serving as property lines. No new
drainage/utility easements are proposed or requested, except where such easements do exist along lot
lines being moved,they should be rededicated along the new lot lines.
Bottenberg stated the vacant west parcel is a buildable lot of record, assuming it meets the 200 feet
width standard. Width is measured at the front 50 foot setback line. The front:,rear and side yards
need to be established in order for setbacks to be applied to the lot and to confirm where the lot width
should be measured. The private curved drive surrounds the west lot on the north, south and west.
PAGE 15
u ;
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2688 Kirtland Woodhouse,Continued)
The east parcel and middle parcel have been developed with the residence oriented towards the lake,
with the lake side being considered the front yard and the north being considered the rear property
line. To be consistent with the yards of the other two properties,the yards for the vacant west parcel
could be defined as follows:
- Front—lake side along driveway, beginning at the southern point of the reconfigured west parcel
and extending northward along the curve to the point where the driveway straightens out.
- Rear—north as shown by surveyor.
- Side yard—west side along driveway and along east property line adjacent to the middle parcel.
- It is questionable whether the west side lot line adjacent to the driveway should be treated as a
side street. Staff recommends that it be simply a side lot line.
Bottenberg noted only the east parcel will have lake access.
Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement as proposed on the survey based on the
following conditions:
1. The City accepts yard setback demarcation as shown on the survey and neither lot width nor
setback variances will be needed to build on the west lot.
2. The applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements,to replace any such existing easements
which no longer follow lot lines.
Winton stated he does not have any additional comments to Staffs report.
Kurt Retzler, 1100 Heritage Lane, expressed concerns regarding headlights from the traffic on the
driveway coming into their residences.
Hawn stated the applicant will need to meet all the code requirements.
Gaffron stated there is a 30 foot required setback,with the closest the home could be constructed
being 50 feet from the lot line. Gaffron stated the lot line rearrangement does meet the City's
standards.
Lindquist stated as long as the construction of the house meets the standards of the City,they can
build accordingly.
Melanie Flessner, 1190 Heritage Lane, stated she has lived in this area for seven years and has some
concerns regarding increased traffic if another residence is built in this area. Flessner stated the
private driveway serves three homes and she would like to see some vegetation or screening along the
roadway to limit the impact of the headlights flashing into their residences. Flessner expressed
concerns that a much larger home than what currently exists in the neighborhood will be built.
Hawn stated the house must meet all code setbacks and other requirements, with the height being
restricted to 30 feet.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2688 Kirtland Woodhouse,Continued)
Gaffron stated the standard height requirement is 30 feet,with the City currently having no standards
for screening in residential areas.
Smith suggested that perhaps the resident talk with Staff if she has additional concerns regarding the
codes regulating the construction of a house in this area.
Kluth stated since it is private property,the owner is free to build on the property as long as it meets
City Codes.
Leo Bullock, 1160 Heritage Lane, inquired whether the new lot would have lake access.
Gaffron stated the two westerly lots would not have lake access. Gaffron stated only the east lot will
have access to the lake.
Bullock inquired whether both lots would need to pay a park dedication fee.
Gaffron stated the new lot would not be subject to a park dedication fee since it is a lot of record.
Tom Crosby,Attorney-at-Law, stated they are not creating a new buildable lot. Crosby stated the
west lot currently is a buildable lot and they are merely changing the lot lines at this time.
Gaffron stated the driveway would only serve three homes.
Bullock inquired whether the wetlands in the area would be impacted.
Kluth stated they would not be.
Smith moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2688,Kirtland C.
Woodhouse, 1780 Shoreline Drive,lot line rearrangement subject to the conditions outlined in
the June 14,2001 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:38 p.m.—8:44 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS,CONTINUED
(#5) #01-2681 ROGER A.DAY, 1205 SOUTH BROWN ROAD,VARIANCE
Roger Day, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit construction of a 16' by 6'
addition to the rear of the existing residence and a 12' by 6' porch to the front of the residence. The
existing residence was constructed in 1953, prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Required
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2681 Roger Day,Continued)
setbacks for the property are 50 feet from Lakeview Avenue and 50 feet from the rear lot line and 30
feet from the side lot line.
Variances are required to permit the kitchen addition to be located 20 feet from Lakeview Avenue
where 50 feet is required, and 22 feet from the side lot line where 30 feet is required, and to permit
the porch to be located 23.2 feet from Lakeview Avenue where 50 feet is required.
Bottenberg stated the property is located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood where most lots are similar
in size and dimension to the Applicant's property. A platted but undeveloped alley is located
immediately west of the property. The City of Orono has no intention to open the alley for
construction of a public right-of-way. The alley is used for utilities.
Bottenberg stated the residence was built 3.5 feet and 6.85 feet from Lakeview Avenue in 1953,
before the 50 foot setback for new construction was adopted. The residence was also constructed
8.5 feet and 9.2 feet from the side lot line before the 30 foot setback for new construction was
required. No addition could be placed on the house without requiring variances. Bottenberg noted
no variances are required for lot coverage or hardcover.
Staff recommends approval of the application for variances to permit construction of the kitchen
addition and porch.
Day stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith inquired whether the shed that is currently located on the property line lot could be relocated.
Day stated the shed has been relocated once,with a previous survey done back in 1985 showing the
shed being located towards the back of the property and over the property line. Day inquired where
the shed should be moved to.
Smith stated she would like to see the shed moved further onto the Applicant's property.
Day stated there currently is a dog kennel attached to the shed and it would be difficult to move.
Hawn requested if the Applicant decides to rebuild the structure,that the shed be relocated.
Lindquist moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2681,Roger
Day, 1205 South Brown Road,granting of variances to side yard adjacent to street setback,side
yard adjacent to street setback,and side yard setback to permit the construction of an addition
to the rear of the existing residence and a porch to the front of the residence.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 18
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#6) #01-2684 TERESA KOCH,2225 BAYVIEW PLACE,VARIANCE,8:51 p.m.—8:55 p.m.
Teresa Koch,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting lot width and lot area variances to permit the construction
of a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished. The
lot consists of.173 acre where .5 acre is the minimum lot area for the LR-1C zoning district for new
construction.
The majority of the lot is in the 500-1000' setback area. A small portion by the street is in the
250-500' setback area. The additional hardcover is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street
rather than tapered. The tapered driveway will meet hardcover requirements for the 250-500' setback
area. The hardcover would be 224 square feet or 29.99 percent where 224.1 square feet or 30 percent
is allowed.
Gaffron noted the property is serviced by sewer and water.
Gaffron indicated the lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements, with a residence currently
existing on the property in a non-conforming location too close to the side lot line and will be
removed. The new residence will meet all required setbacks. Gaffron noted there is no additional
land which could be combined with the property.
Staff is recommending approval of the requested variances.
Koch stated she has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Stoddard noted the Planning Commission has been very consistent on new construction with requests
for hardcover variances.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission has been a little more lenient on hardcover when it comes to
driveways. Hawn noted this area does not have off-street parking and that the new driveway will be a
reduction from what currently exists.
Mabusth noted the new residence will meet the required setbacks.
Mabusth moved,Stoddard seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2684,Teresa
Koch,2225 Bayview Place,granting of variances to lot area/lot width and a variance to
hardcover in the 250-500' setback area to permit construction of a new residence based on the
finding that the additional hardcover will result in an increased driveway to allow for off-street
parking in an area where on-street parking is very congested and off-street parking is needed.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#7) #Z01-2685 JOHN CULLITON, 1131 WILDHURST TRAIL,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,8:56 p.m.—9:04 p.m.
John Culliton, Applicant, and Steve Behnke, Brenshell Homes,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to approve land alteration on the
property in excess of 500 cubic yards to construct golf tees and greens. The tees and greens are
proposed to be located on the rear of the property behind the residence. The owner lives in the
residence and will use fill from road construction at Wildhurst Woods, an adjacent subdivision.
The Applicant has agreed to remove the fill if the land alteration is denied. The fill will not change
the hardcover coverage on the property.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has made certain recommendations which are
contained in his June 11, 2001 letter and are outlined in the June 11, 2001 Planner's Report. Gaffron
suggested the Applicant submit a drainage area map be submitted prior to this matter proceeding to
the City Council.
Gaffron noted Staff has determined that any obstruction to views to the north and east is not an issue
since City Codes do not protect views for the Brenshell Home properties. Staff has also reviewed
whether the property is located in or near to a bluff area and has determined that it does not meet the
necessary criteria to be considered as a bluff area. The Applicant is also required to have the plans
reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit provided the Applicant submits a plan that
addresses the concerns raised in the City Engineer's letter for review and approval prior to proceeding
to the City Council.
Behnke stated he has already directed his engineers to prepare a spliced map for the City Engineer's
review and to prepare the drainage calculations. Behnke stated he is not opposed to this project
impacting the views of the residences located in the Brenshell Home development. Behnke stated the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not act on any plan until they receive preliminary approval
from the City.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2685,
John Culliton, 1131 Wildhurst Trail,granting of a conditional use permit to approve land
alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards to construct golf tees and greens,subject to the
conditions outlined in the June 11,2001 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#8) #01-2686 SUZANNE AND TERRY JOHNSON,543 PARK LANE,VARIANCE,
9:05 p.m.—9:25 p.m.
Suzanne and Terry Johnson,Applicants,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of an attached garage
to the street side of the residence. The new garage will be 24' by 24'. A portion of the existing
garage will become the new master bedroom. The new garage will extend 16 feet closer to the street
than the existing garage. Variances are needed because the garage encroaches in the rear setback,
side yard setback, as well as increases the structural coverage on the lot over the allowed 15 percent
and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area over the allowed 25 percent.
The second part of the request is to permit including the steps into the existing entryway on the south
side of the residence. The entryway is already covered and the Applicants wish to include the side
steps as part of it. Variances are needed because the entryway encroaches into the side yard setback
and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is over the allowed 25 percent. The entryway will not
increase the structural lot coverage. The existing entryway and steps are already considered structure.
The third part of the request is to permit enclosing a ground level patio. The patio will be enclosed to
be a screen porch. A variance is required because it encroaches into the average lakeshore setback.
The screen porch will not increase the hardcover in the 75-250 setback area or structural lot coverage.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant has reduced the amount of hardcover and structural coverage from
their original plan. The Applicant has agreed to remove substantial amounts of hardcover to lower
the hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area. The structural coverage on the lot will increase
with the addition from 1,792 square feet to 2,195.55 square feet above the allowed 1,519.2 square
feet. Moving the wall eight feet into the residence reduces the existing house by 169 square feet, but
the 24' by 24' garage adds 576 square feet to the residence, resulting in a net increase of 407 square
feet.
Bottenberg noted the hardcover in the 0-75' setback is not changing,with the existing hardcover in
this setback being at 6.3 percent. Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is
decreasing from 63.1 percent to 53.1 percent.
Bottenberg stated the garage addition to the east side of the residence would be located five feet from
the side property line where ten feet is required. The existing garage does meet the side yard setback
requirements. The garage addition will be located 8.8 feet from the rear lot line where 3.5 feet is
required. The existing garage is located 22 feet and 28 feet from the rear lot line. The entryway
addition to the south side of the residence will be located 6.6 feet from the side lot line where 10 feet
is required. The existing entryway is 6.6 feet from the side lot line. The enclosure of the existing
patio to a screen porch will not increase hardcover or structural lot coverage on the lot. It will only
change the use of the area.
Bottenberg noted other properties located on Park Lane have applied for variances in the past which
have been approved.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
' (#01-2686 Suzanne and Terry Johnson,Continued)
Bottenberg stated the residence was built in 1960 in its present location prior to current zoning
ordinances but generally in compliance with all current codes. The adjacent lots are both 100 feet
wide, with this lot being 50 feet side and small for the LR-1B zoning district standards. Bottenberg
noted a permit was issued in 1964, for construction of the porch.
Bottenberg noted Staff did receive three letters from the adjoining property owners in support of the
proposed improvements.
Johnson had nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Stoddard inquired whether the amount of driveway could be reduced.
Johnson stated the main issue with the driveway is that parking is not allowed on Park Lane. Johnson
stated the road is narrow and the street is not quite centered, so there is more area from the garage to
the center of the street than what is depicted.
Hawn stated she has an issue with the amount of structural coverage on the lot and whether a hardship
exists for the garage. Hawn stated the hardship should be imposed by the land.
Johnson stated they are having a difficult time finding adequate space to park,with the closest
available parking being available on Tonkawa. Johnson stated there are also some foundation issues
with the house,which was built in 1962. Johnson stated their present garage floor is buckled and
needs to be replaced.
Mabusth inquired whether they considered going up with the expansion.
Johnson stated they did look at that option, but due to the concerns with the foundation,elected not to
go up.
Mabusth stated if the addition were to go up over what is currently existing,the amount of structural
coverage on the lot would not increase.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission in the past has been very stringent with allowing structural
coverage in excess of what is allowed.
Kluth noted this area in general is high in structural coverage.
Johnson stated they have removed as much hardcover as possible and have reduced the size of the
garage already. Johnson stated they have reduced the size of the addition as much as possible.
Hawn commented it is a small lot. Hawn inquired why parking is not allowed on Park Lane.
Kluth stated the road is quite narrow.
PAGE 22
fJ
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(#01-2686 Suzanne and Terry Johnson,Continued)
Smith stated she also would prefer they go up rather than out to help preserve the green space on the
lot and to keep the structural coverage down.
Johnson commented there may be some room to modify the driveway somewhat.
Hawn reiterated she still has a concern with the amount of structural coverage being proposed.
Stoddard stated he would be in favor of this application if the hardcover is reduced to 50 percent.
Kluth commented the limits on hardcover and structural coverage help with the filtration of water to
the lake. Kluth inquired whether there is a difference between structural coverage and hardcover.
Mabusth stated there is a concern with the massing of the building on the lot.
Kluth inquired whether this lot is different from the other lots in the area. Kluth stated he would like
to see what the rest of the neighborhood looks like and whether this is keeping with the character of
the area.
Johnson stated the other properties in the area also have hardcover in excess of 50 percent.
Mrs. Johnson noted they are adding green space on the east side of the garage.
Johnson stated it will also provide some storage for snow.
Stoddard moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2686,Suzanne
and Terry Johnson,543 Park Lane,granting of variances to side yard setback,side yard
setback,rear yard setback and average lakeshore setback,'variances to structural lot coverage
and hardcover in the 75-250-setback area,with the understanding the hardcover in the 75-250'
setback area will be limited to 50 percent prior to submittal to the City Council.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2,Smith and Hawn opposed.
Hawn and Smith indicated they are unable to support the increase in the amount of structural
coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 29,2001 AND JUNE 11,2001
Stoddard stated he attended the May 29th Council meeting where all the agenda items were approved.
Kluth stated he attended the June 11th meeting where he explained in detail what happened with the
Baywind Christian Church application. Kluth stated he requested the Council consider increasing the
size of the Planning Commission to insure that there is more than a quorum present.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
(Report of Planning Commission,Continued)
Gaffron stated they do have four alternates that can be called. Gaffron stated Staff will call the
Planning Commission members each month to determine whether a sufficient number will be able to
attend prior to calling the alternates. Gaffron noted the City Council would like seven members on
the Planning Commission at each meeting.
Stoddard requested consideration be given once again to a consent agenda for the Planning
Commission. Stoddard stated the public in attendance could be asked at the beginning of the meeting
whether they are here to comment on any particular application.
Sansevere stated this item could be discussed at the upcoming Council workshop.
(#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JUNE 25,2001 AND JULY 9,2001
June 25 —Smith
July 9-Mabutsh
(#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19,2001,
APRIL 16,2001,AND MAY 21,2001
Kluth moved,Stoddard seconded,to approve the minutes of the May 21,2001 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to rescind the above motion approving the May 21,2001
minutes. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Berg requested a change be made on Page 24 indicating that there is a significant amount of traffic on
15 and 19, with minimal traffic going north compared to what is going south.
Smith requested the minutes be reflected to show that representatives were chosen to attend the
May 29, 2001 and June 11,2001 City Council meetings.
Lindquist moved,Stoddard seconded,to approve the minutes of the May 21,2001 Planning
Commission meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn moved,Mabutsh seconded,to approve the minutes of the March 19,2001 and
April 16,2001 Planning Commission as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Berg and Smith
Abstained.
PAGE 24
"
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 18,2001
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved, Smith seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Elizabeth Ha e, Chair
PAGE 25